I didn’t realize AK wasn’t called… That one is weird.
Was that bombing motivated by the comments of a major elected official?
Did one of the major political parties label the bombing as ‘legitimate political discourse’?
If not, it’s not applicable at all.
1 Like
That why we need to limit the amount of money that can be spent on elections. However, conservative SCOTUS rules make that next to impossible.
1 Like
The post didn’t say “all”. Probably it would have gotten fewer likes had it said “all”. Good chance people were thinking about the most serious crimes on each occasion and agreed the objective of the Jan 6 riot was far more serious than the objective of what happened in 1983, and that what did happen on Jan 6 was far more serious than what did happen in 1983.
1 Like
They’re getting paid minimum wage or maybe very slightly over, but your point stands.
I’m not sure I agree with that, but it seems like a lot of money to spend.
What an embarrassment that 4 people liked this post.
I expect they liked the part about “commuting” a sentence does not mean Clinton supported the bombing. I see that you didn’t try to defend your earlier statement in this post.
Good, it looks like we can agree on something.
Some of the Jan 6 “rioters” were simply hanging around outside, not pushing anybody, just taking in the view. They had crossed the outside barriers and were giving moral support to the violent people. Probably charged with “in a restricted outdoor area”, which is converts to very little punishment for a first offense.
Those that were hitting police, breaking windows and doors, the first people inside, should get the 16 years. So far, the longest sentence is 10 years, the second longest 7 1/4.
Note that federal prisoners can currently get “time off for good behavior”, so the 10 year sentence could convert to a little less than 9 years actually served.
Clinton commuted Rosenberg’s sentence to 25 years, 8 months, and 11 days. I think the good behavior or other rules in place at that time converted that into the exact time she had actually served.
As far as I’m aware, the legal system agrees with me
No ex post facto laws in our system. Nobody thought to write a law about “fighting your way into the capitol building to prevent (through violence or violent intimidation) the Congress from certifying a presidential election”. Somehow, that possibility hasn’t been explicitly covered. So, they have to use the laws actually in effect.
4 Likes
I’m hearing rumors he may take the fall for the lack of a red wave, so he won’t be speaker even if GOP takes control.
There were numerous people on ballots that, if elected, will be in positions that would be more likely to help. Various people running for Secretary of State or congress who claim Trump won. If we find ourselves in a similar position in the future, there could be very different result.
Not sure if it has anything to do with it, but the AP took some heat when they called it for Biden too early in 2020.
How is “too early” defined? The call was not wrong, in retrospect, but perhaps the outcome was still in doubt. It should be possible to call a race even if the other candidate would win if 100% of the remaining votes went for the other candidate.
Wow there is 400k votes remaining in AZ to be counted (sounds like mostly mail in). Sounds like they are counting 50-100k a day.
There was just a news conference from AZ.
AK has rank choice voting.
Would only be called at this point if someone was over 50%
It is unusual for the US but is quite common in other parts of the world (it’s been used in Australia for more than 100 years). It allows people to vote for a third candidate if they don’t like the two main parties but their vote will still be counted to the eventual winner.
Say the top two parties are Party A and Party B. If a voter does not want the candidate from Party A to win but prefers Party C to Party B, they can vote for Party C and have Party B as their second preference. Their vote will eventually go to Party B if Party C is the lowest of the 3 after the first round - it ensures that Party A won’t benefit from their vote.
That way you keep the top two parties on their toes and if they both stink, Party C will get in (as has happened in Australia a few times).
I’m assume what you mean is that it would be called if we could be reasonably sure someone will end up with more than 50%.
One of the candidates (Mike Dunleavy, the Republican incumbent) is currently sitting at 52.1%. But with only 72% in he could certainly fall below 50% before all is said & done. He can’t fall out of first in the first round though, and it seems awfully dang unlikely that the second choices are going to line up against him.
It’s essentially three Republicans and one Democrat, so once the RCVs start coming in, one of the Republicans will win, and it will almost certainly be the incumbent. Outside chance it will be the “Independent” who is actually a former Governor and former Republican.
everything you said after this is irrelevant for calling the race.
1 Like
You new?
1 Like
Also, i thought i was responding to a comment about Senate, but it could have been Governor.
Regardless, twig’s comment was completely pedantic abd unnecessary.
actually 80-90% of AZ is mail-in
Really? Basic information about who the candidates are is irrelevant in calling a RCV race?