Current House of Representatives Balance 222 D to 209 R, 4 Races Still Not Called

Republicans lead in all four races, but by small margins, some tiny; so far, Republicans have gained 9 seats and Democrats have lost 9.

FiveThirtyEight.com has the latest. (Note that the 222 D to 208 R count in the right-hand margin excludes the Louisiana runoff, which will be between two Republicans.)

Comments

[bernard11]

Yet more convincing evidence of Democratic voter fraud.

Oh. Wait.

[Ben_]

You can cheat in 5 or 10 places. Harder to cheat in 435.

Those absentee ballots with no folds — that you'd see if they were ever in an envelope — were for Biden only. With no local races marked.

[santamonica811]

Yes Ben,
The obvious places to cheat would have been (1) President, (2) Texas senate, (3) Iowa senate, (4) N. Carolina senate, (5) Maine senate, (6) New Mexico senate, (7) S. Carolina senate.

There, Now Dems are guaranteed to have a huge Senate majority and can enact all their progressive legislation. And, since Dems were favored in several of those, in the margins in most others, and possibles in the remaining ones (ie, could win, but only in a Blue Wave), if Dems *HAD* cheated, it would have been unremarkable, as those results would have been in line with media polls, and . . . REPUBLICANS' OWN INTERNAL POLLS!!!!

It's pretty obvious that **Republicans** engaged in voter fraud, as the were the ones who overperformed in so many races. That is your logic, right?

But you really don't hear liberals or Democrats spewing those kinds of bat-shit-crazy, delusional, theories. They took their few victories, licked their collective wounds, and vowed to try and do better in 2 and 4 years. Gracious losers. It would be okay for you to try that at some point . . . just to see how it feels.

Or, join in with the insane clowns posse, and start blaming those bastards from Venezuela, et al. We haven't circled around to blaming the Jews yet for the landslide ass-kicking Trump suffered. Merely a matter of time, I'm assuming. (Using Trump's weird definition of "landslide," of course.)

[Armchair Lawyer]

"But you really don’t hear liberals or Democrats spewing those kinds of bat-shit-crazy, delusional, theories."

2016-2017 is calling:
"Trump colluded with Russia"
"Russia helped Trump steal the election"

[bernard11]

Oh STFU with that nonsense. It's tiresome and stupid.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Look at the bright side, bernard11.

The Conspirators are the best the right-wingers can muster in legal academia, and the conservative arguments found at this blog are the best the clingers can manage in public debates.

Ankle-nipping as they await replacement is most of what Republicans, conservatives, and 'often libertarians' have left in the great American sifting and culture war.

Well, that and Mississippi. And Oklahoma. And West Virginia. And Alabama. And . . .

Carry on, clingers.

[Hank Ferrous]

Zero signal to noise, Kirkland. Hihn was at least somewhat entertaining; you are not.

[dislucky person]

"Carry on clingers"

You forgot "but only so long as your betters permit". I demand my money back!

[Armchair Lawyer]

Looking in the mirror is tiresome and stupid?

[bernard11]

What's tiresome and stupid is:

1. Your claim that there was no basis for suspecting Russian collusion. Listen to Hannity all you want, A.L. He's as big a liar as Trump.

2. The argument that what's going on now bears the slightest resemblance to Democratic complaints about 2016. The Hugo Chavez algorithm? Some server in Germany? Get serious.

What Trump is doing now is destructive of American democracy, and anyone defending it, including you, is doing the country a massive disservice.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....

Re: Russian Collusion.

You had a single unverified "dossier" from an British Citizen, who was being paid by the Hillary Campaign, and used that money to pass on 3rd parties lies from Russians. Such infamous lies as "Trump had prostitutes pee all over him," which were so absurd it's unbelievable. Yet....you still believe, for some reason, "Trump colluded with Russia". Lies so bad, anyone could disprove many of them with some simple Google searches. And yet... it's "Proof" to you

Meanwhile you have multiple people, going on the record, with court affidavits, saying they personally witnessed fraudulent behavior going on at ballot counting centers. Multiple, direct, unpaid witnesses going on the record, saying they personally saw fraud. But that's not proof, and not believable

I don't know how you compare these two, and somehow still believe in the "Russian Collusion" myth, while ignoring the reports of fraud. I really don't.

[bevis the lumberjack]

“Bringing up when my side did it is tiresome and stupid.”

Yeah, pretending it didn’t happen is a sign of high intelligence.

You’re why it’s so damn easy for so many of us out here to simply say “a pox on both their houses”.

[De Oppresso Liber]

The fact that you boil this down to sides, and that you seem to think that it is therefor "your sides turn", is very damning.

Try a little self awareness.

And try reading the actual government reports on the matter. The bipartisan final senate intel report on the matter puts this all to bed. Collusion most certainly happened.

All you have to do is ask Roger Stone. Convenient that Trump only commuted his sentence, rather than pardon him and have him lose his 5th amendment protections.

[Hank Ferrous]

And ongoing. Along with your in-group's habit of ad hominem attacks, smearing those who hold different views as 'deniers,' 'conspiracy theorists,' or, most recently, 'QAnon cultists,' the Russia collusion theory pushed by legacy media is not going away. Rather than resort to the typical close-minded bias, why not admit that the cabal of left-leaning commenters here tend refuse to see any wrongdoing from their favored party, as evidenced by the ignorant statement from SM811?

[De Oppresso Liber]

It's not going away because it happened. Read the original sources instead of what you filter feed through the federalist or pjmedia.

[Krychek_2]

I don't think there's any question that Putin pulled out all the stops to do whatever he could to help elect Trump in 2016; whether or not that strictly speaking constitutes helping him steal the election, or collusion, is a different question.

But I also think it mostly misses the point. Putin hates America with the fury of a thousand suns. And the fact that he have the president he wants us to have is frightening. It's the equivalent of finding out that organized atheists are trying to determine who will be the next pope, or that Bill and Hillary Clinton are quietly working to elect a certain candidate as chairman of the Republican Party. The mere fact that your enemy wants a certain someone to be your leader is a pretty good indication all by itself that that person is probably not whom you should be wanting as your leader.

If you were Putin, whom would you want to be president of the United States? A totally incompetent, self-absorbed narcissist maybe?

[Krychek_2]

"the fact that WE have the president he wants us to have"

[Armchair Lawyer]

I'm pretty sure China wants Biden as President. Trump has been no friend to China. And Biden...has.

What does that say?

[Krychek_2]

China wants Biden to be president because they'll get better trade deals. Russia wants Trump to be president because they want someone who'll drive the country off a cliff. While I'm no fan of China, if those are my choices, I'll go with Biden.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh.... China is far more of a threat than Russia is. The last 9 months should make that apparent.

[Krychek_2]

You’re missing the point. Assume Russia to be a zero threat. They still wish us ill and anyone they want to be our president should be immediately suspect.

[Armchair Lawyer]

"Wish us ill"...
Interesting phrasing, giving China and the last 9 to 11 months...

[DaivdBehar]

The Russia theory is to make Democrats feel better about losing in 2016. I never saw a poorly worded Facebook ad. I just hated Clinton the elite of Washington. You Democrats could not accept the election result, and conducted an endless campaign of lawfare against the greatest President since Washington. Democrat constituencies all thrived from his policies.

Now, I will enjoy the suffering of the American people. These stupid suburban housewives that put Biden in office will be forced to accept homeless, addicted Democrats in their upstairs bedrooms.

[TheAmazingEmu]

If they're living in the upstairs bedroom aren't they, by definition, not homeless?

[SykesFive]

Their husbands? Help me out here.

[DaivdBehar]

No the people who put Biden in office. The homeless, the tent people will be forced on these suburban feminists.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Once again, Comey and McCabe are Republicans and the Trump appointee Rosenstein signed the final FISA application and appointed Mueller.

[DaivdBehar]

All are Harvard and Ivy indoctrinated deep state agents of the Democrat Party, the party of big government and of the tech billionaires.

[Brett Bellmore]

A large number of states, such as Pennsylvania, have abolished the straight party vote option, over the vehement objections of Democrats. One consequence of this is that the labor cost of manufacturing votes now scales with the number of offices you're manufacturing them for. Used to be you could just check off "straight Democrat" and move onto the next ballot. Now if you want to rig 5 different offices, you need five times the man hours of labor.

[bernard11]

I hear Hugo Chavez is masterminding the whole thing from the grave.

You're deranged, Brett, just like Giuliani and Sydney Powell. Seriously, where do you get these theories?

[Brett Bellmore]

If I'm deranged, what part of what I wrote is insane? PA DID abolish straight party vote last year, and this does imply that it is now more expensive and risky to rig down ballot elections in addition to the top of the ticket. Which does mean that, if fraudulent ballots were being manufactured, they would likely be blank except for the Presidential race.

Are there a lot more such ballots this year? If so, how are they spatially distributed? It would be interesting to know.

You may not like anybody applying logic to topics you feel should not be discussed, but that doesn't render doing so deranged.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Nobody is rigging elections, you disaffected, bigoted, obsolete autist.

But Prof. Volokh thanks you for your service.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Nobody is rigging elections, you disaffected, bigoted, obsolete autist."

Well, if Archie Bunker says it, it must be true.

[Hank Ferrous]

Bigoted. How you can use the term w/o realizing that it perfectly encapsulates your behavior baffles. And honestly, autist? Slurs against the disabled? I know you progressives are shitty, but do you need to prove it time and again?

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd point out that, now that the psychiatric community have declared Asperger's to no longer be a separate syndrome, but just a form of "autism", "autistic" no longer implies "disabled". Except maybe in a social sense.

But, yes, the "Rev" is possibly the most bigoted person posting here.

[DaivdBehar]

Arthur is not bigoted. He is frustrated by the facts. The left only has personal attacks as an argument.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Trump either has Asperger’s or narcissistic personality disorder.

[SykesFive]

So why not actually go find out?

Pennsylvania's attorney general, auditor general, and treasurer are elected on the same four-year cycle as the president. Here are the totals recorded for all candidates in the 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections (with the straight-ticket votes already awarded to candidates):

2012:
Pres: 5,742,040
AttyG: 5,567,203
AudG: 5,489,208
Treas: 5,468,404

2016:
Pres: 6,115,402
AttyG: 5,948,335
AudG: 5,916,931
Treas: 5,905,144

2020:
Pres: 6,906,319
AttyG: 6,787,401
AudG: 6,732,631
Treas: 6,742,773

So let's look at how many people voted for a Presidential candidate (including via ticket) but not a candidate for attorney general:

2012: 114,618
2016: 167,067
2020: 118,918

And now let's express that difference as a percentage of the ballots with votes for President:

2012: 2.0%
2016: 2.7%
2020: 1.7%

You were saying?

[De Oppresso Liber]

b-b-b-but "BinNiefOrd's TheoRem!"

[bevis the lumberjack]

Just a bunch of fuckin’ arm waving Brett. That’s all y’all have. Better watch out or you’ll blow the Senate

[Ben_]

Hundreds of witness affidavits.

Scott Adams has noticed that there are zero Democrat statisticians who have analyzed the vote and shown how the numbers look honest. Fraudulent vote patterns look different than real ones.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Trying looking for the truth, rather than reconfirming your warm blanket version of reality.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-benford/fact-check-deviation-from-benfords-law-does-not-prove-election-fraud-idUSKBN27Q3AI

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Some of us appreciate your effort, but believe me when I tell you it's a waste of time.

[Ben_]

Fact check: fact checkers are biased and carefully parse words to say whatever they want is true or false. They deceive people intentionally, and they use their positions as fact checkers to make the deception more effective.

I made no contention about Benford's law "proving" any very specific behavior. I didn’t mention it at all. If something is a very extreme statistical outlier, it doesn’t "prove" any conclusion. So fact checkers can say either True or False depending on their political agenda or cultural biases.

Statistical analysis may indicate something like vote fraud. It doesn't "prove".

Straw man defeated though.

[Brett Bellmore]

Simple logic is now "arm waving" if you don't like the conclusion.

I provided reasoning why, with straight ticket voting abolished, fraudulent ballots would only have the top of the ticket voted. It's easy to demonstrate this reasoning isn't right:

Show that there weren't an absurd number of ballots cast with only votes at the top of the ticket.

[SykesFive]

Done. See above. The percentage of ballots with a vote for President but not state row offices fell in 2020 compared to previous years.

[SykesFive]

Brett, the "vehement objections" of Pennsylvania Democrats were overcome as part of the bipartisan electoral reform enacted in 2019 (Act 77). It was part of the deal that got no-excuse mail-in voting.

[Ben_]

Republicans should be as gracious as Dems have been since 2016.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Okay, great! When does that start? Because that would be a massive improvement over what is going on now.

[Ben_]

Wait for the Rs to take over the house in 2022 and start impeachment.

[Tall Paul]

Why in the world would you suggest that the Democrats would cheat in the New Mexico Senate race? That was always expected to be won by the Democratic candidate. I think you meant to say Arizona Senate race, which was always expected to be close. I have learned to expect this kind of error from liberals from the Northeast, but it's hard to understand from someone who goes by the name of Santamonica.

[bernard11]

WTF are you talking about?

Is this some more Gateway Pundit crap?

[Armchair Lawyer]

That's actually the opposite.

-You see, the easiest place to cheat is where you have overwhelming numbers at the polls. Heavily Democratic districts, or places dominated by the Democratic machine.
-This way, when someone selectively "adds" a few votes, or bends the rules in counting, everyone else at the ballot counting station is of the same mindset and just minds their own business.

By contrast, these Congressional districts that are relatively close also have poll workers that aren't uniform in their politics. They don't have a deeply Democratic area counting the ballots. (If they did, it wouldn't be a contested district). So it's much harder for this type of "see no evil" fraud to occur there.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's complicated. The easiest place to cheat is where you have overwhelming numbers, the most valuable place to cheat is where you are at rough parity.

For state-wide elections, this works out well enough, you do your cheating in precincts where you have those overwhelming numbers, and it can swing the whole state. For local elections, it's kind of pointless.

But, as I remarked, since Republicans have successfully abolished the straight party vote option in many states, such as Pennsylvania, the labor cost of filling out fraudulent ballots now scales with the number of offices voted on them. Since each additional laborer represents an added risk of exposure, the incentive is now to just vote the top of the ticket on fraudulent ballots, and leave the rest blank.

Be interesting to see how many ballots like that were cast in key states.

[bernard11]

everyone else at the ballot counting station is of the same mindset and just minds their own business.

Sure, A.L.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Bernard,

You, let's put this politely, "dislike" Trump.

Assume for a second that you're a ballot counter at one of these heavily Democratic areas. And you see something slightly...odd... occur. Maybe a new batch of ballots that are overwhelmingly pro-Biden...like every single one. Do you raise a fuss? Investigate? Or do you quietly celebrate instead?

Or perhaps you see a bunch of ballots that aren't "completely" filled in with regards to the absentee information. A missing address here, or a missing witness signature there. But you're not doing the ballots. And your coworker says "every ballot should count, these little errors shouldn't disqualify them". Do you raise an official objection? Or do you just...not do anything.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Seriously, you should work as an election official for a few cycles, and get to know these people. I've been doing it for over 35 years, and the huge, vast majority of my coworkers were fanatical followers of the letter of the law. I am not kidding or exaggerating, it is almost a religion with us. If they saw something like that, they would raise a fuss, or at least question it. I'm sure there are a few bad actors in any group of people, but canvassing is accomplished by a lot of people, and most of them are dedicated to doing things correctly. Even at the cost of helping a candidate they dislike. This might be hard for you to imagine, but it's true.

[Ben_]

"Sure, A.L."

Quite the counter-argument.

[De Oppresso Liber]

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

-Christopher Hitchens.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

Actually it is. Someone the GOP won every toss up and have a red wave, but Biden won on the strength of votes in big Dem cities? Get out of here.

[AmosArch]

Good catch. The House should have flipped, but perhaps they had a few sacks of 'misplaced' ballots to spare from the Presidential campaign.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps the ballots were submitted by sirens from Titan. Or aliens from the planet Trafalmadore.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

AOC and the Squad are the best thing to happen to the GOP since the judge in Massachusetts recognized gay marriage in 2004.

[Union of Concerned Socks]

Mandate!

[Jimmy the Dane]

And the media is silent about liberals planning actual election fraud openly on the internet. Just the other day Yang said he was going to "move" to GA so he could vote in the Senate run-off. That is blatantly illegal voter fraud. He has no intent on becoming a resident of GA, plain and simple. And if you need more examples just do a hashtag search on twatter to find many other liberals planning on renting Air BnB's for a month then using that address to register to vote.

Yeah...voter fraud NEVER happens...

I hope the f-ers all go to jail for a long time.

[bernard11]

You're deranged.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yeah....OK....

https://wgxa.tv/news/local/not-something-to-sneeze-at-thinking-of-moving-to-georgia-just-to-vote-think-again

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

By that low bar of disagreeing with you, you are yourself deranged, because you will deny that disagreement is the source of your comment.

How much simpler it would have been to say that if the laws are followed, and the laws allow a short term move followed by a return to his previous residence, it is legal by definition, and by definition not voter fraud. Instead you went right with the derangement insult.

[Sarcastr0]

Read the scenario Jimmy spun as though it were truth, then try again.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Jimmy didn't spin this scenario... Liberals did.

"Temporarily" move to Georgia just to vote....

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-senate-election-runoffs-democrats-move-there

[Krayt]

Ethically, these people would be voting twice for senator, in two different states. Ethically, it's screwing with vote totals after the election. Logically, only those registered to vote in Georgia elections on the date of the November election should be allowed to vote. No new registries, from out of state or otherwise.

[bernard11]

Logically, only those registered to vote in Georgia elections on the date of the November election should be allowed to vote. No new registries, from out of state or otherwise.

What about those becoming old enough to vote between Nov. 3 and the runoff?

[Krayt]

How about those old enough to vote as of the end of the term?

[Rossami]

Since they are not 'becoming old enough to vote' merely to participate in the runoff and have not stated an intent to go back to being underage after the runoff, that analogy would be completely inapplicable to the allegations made above.

[bernard11]

There is no other response to the kinds of conspiracy theories JTD, Bellmore, and others are propounding.

Trump cultism has completely taken over their brains.

[Armchair Lawyer]

There's one other item to consider. And those are the intimidation tactics used against Trump's lawyers, persuading them to "withdraw" from cases or else "face consequences."

Those are...unnerving tactics.. They're lawyers, they are supposed to do the best job they can for their client. But if one political side is using intimidation tactics to take away the other side's lawyers...we have to ask a couple questions.
1. Is this right?
2. Why are they doing it?

You may disagree there is fraud, and that's fine. But when your side uses intimidation tactics against the lawyers from the other side...that's odd. And unsettling.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/intimidation-tactics-against-trump-lawyers-undermine-justice/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=second

[TwelveInchPianist]

"1. Is this right?
2. Why are they doing it?"

That's a good point, AL. It's a very costly strategy, in terms of the credibility of the justice system in general and these cases in particular.

I doubt folks would be using these tactics unless they were very confident that Trump would win if the cases were handled legitimately.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not so sure of that. Looking forward, they may just think that Republicans will generally have a much harder time if they simply can't hire anybody who doesn't have a death wish.

This seems to be the general aim of the doxing campaigns: Suppress the other side by making being on the other side generally scary and personally dangerous, so that only the small fraction of the population who are stubborn enough to not care are available to do all the heavy lifting.

[Jimmy the Dane]

So you didn't bother to you know read articles and see that there are actively liberals planning on and advocating for other to move to Georgia or the expressed stated purpose of voting in the run-off and just jumped right to "conspiracy theory"....Yeah OK....

[Ben_]

Suppose there was clear, incontrovertible evidence of cheating.

Does anyone think bernard11 or most other Dems would acknowledge it and say this has to be set right, even if it means Trump wins?

We don't think that. We think it would be more like here's how to get away with it this time and how to avoid getting caught next time.

How to get away with vote fraud:
Get Dems in a room.
One of them commits vote fraud.
The rest of the Dems in the room see it.
They look at each other.
They shrug.
Then they all smile.
The End.

[bernard11]

Neither JTD's link nor A.L.'s actually describes any sort of plan by "the Democrats" to move to GA for the purpose of voting. What they are is discussions of the legality of doing so, mostly explaining that it would be illegal.

But of course, in their Trump-fevered brains they no doubt envision caravans of illegal immigrants, equipped with forged documents, financed by Soros, heading to GA to vote in the runoff.

You know, Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf, when I say JTD is deranged, I mean it. Are you paying attention to the kind of theories being spun by the Republicans, with zero evidence?

Anybody buying what Giuliani is selling is irrational. Venezuelans shifting votes. Algorithms doing this or that. It's insanity. It doesn't deserve a measured response.

[Armchair Lawyer]

You've got the timeline there wrong Bernard.

First there are the calls by liberals to move to Georgia temporarily to vote.

Then you have the response by government officials that doing so is illegal.

[Ben_]

Plan: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/525115-andrew-yang-moving-to-georgia-to-help-democrats-win-senate-runoffs

[De Oppresso Liber]

"Entrepreneur and former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang announced Monday he will move to Georgia to work for two Senate candidates in runoffs that will determine control of the upper chamber."

You think that's illegal? Are you sure you are for liberty?

[Ben_]

Why can't Georgians decide their own representation?

[QuantumBoxCat]

Have all of the races been officially certified, with time allowed for any legal challenges? If not, then how do you know which candidates actually won (unless you're letting the media call the election)?

[Bored Lawyer]

First of all, because of gerrymandering, at least 80% of House seats are sure things one way or the other.

Second, unless the race is very close, usually one side concedes.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Apparently you are behind the times. In this country the media calls the election when it feels like it. Then you are expected to follow what the media says or you will be branded a "sore loser" or accused of trying to disenfranchise voters. But don't worry, this election is clean as can be. Holy water could be sprinkled on all those ballots they are so pristine.

The media says absolutely no fraud could have happened AND they would know because they knew BEFORE the election and started tell us then. No way in hell that any of those early morning voter dumps with 100% Biden votes were stuffing the ballot box. No way in heck they told us. People just love Biden that much in places like Detroit and Milwaukee. And those votes are all REAL because MSNBC, Facebook, and Twitter said so!

[DaivdBehar]

The media are owned by the tech billionaires. They want friendship with the Chinese Communist Party, to access itsmarket. That is why Trump had to go.

[Krayt]

More likely they want friendship with the party threatening to decimate their stock value by eviscerating section 230, or even outright breakup.

It's an ancient problem that's not supposed to exist, but it brought Rockefeller to heel.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's a which came first, the chicken or the egg thing: The GOP wouldn't be eager to decimate their stock value if they hadn't gotten into the political censorship game in the first place.

But I correctly predicted over a year ago that they'd double and triple down on the censorship as the election approached, on the basis that, if you strike at the king, you'd best kill him.

I expect they'll look at the down ticket races, and decide that they should have quadrupled down, instead. Which is why the right is migrating off of FB and Twitter right now, to platforms with less censorship: Everybody can see what's coming.

[Krayt]

America. Hooray!

[De Oppresso Liber]

Because "the media" has called every election for the last 150 years.

The outcome of this election is no secret. Reasonable people looking at vote tallies, and how electors are legally bound to vote in each state can tell who won the election.

As usual, right wingers without a firm argument try to devolve the conversation into semantics and pedantics.

[Ben_]

After the census adjustments and the redistricting it will be goodbye Nancy Pelosi in 2022.

Maybe even in 2020 if 6 or 8 Dems want someone else.

[DaivdBehar]

When the House majority becomes Republican in 2022, it should try to impeach Biden. Invoke the 25th Amendment. We learned so much about it from the Democrats.

[Commenter_XY]

What are the implications of a much more closely divided House? You need 218 to get any legislation passed. That task will now be significantly harder because Team D is not a monolith. Team D has a margin of 4. When the Green New Deal is proposed, I don't think it will even pass out of the House. Why? All it takes is 5 Team D congress-critters to vote 'present' and that will be the end of it.

That also means that the tax giveaway to the wealthy, the proposed SALT rollback, will not pass either. Nor should it (full disclosure: I live in the People's Republic of NJ and I do not want to do away with the SALT limitation).

Of course, when Team R takes the House in two years, I fully expect either or both Biden/Harris (assuming they are elected by the EC next month) to be impeached. That is a given. So get ready.

[Brett Bellmore]

Impeaching them would be pointless theatrics, barring some crime so gross and public that the media felt they had no choice but to report it. Maybe Biden getting irate at a press conference and gunning the press corps down.

Remember, it still takes a supermajority vote in the Senate to convict, and it's already established from Clinton that Democrats don't consider being impeached by Republicans to be shameful, even if genuine crimes are involved.

[Commenter_XY]

Brett, you miss the point. It doesn't matter if it is pointless theatrics. I personally could care less if the Senate removes them from office. Team D upped the ante significantly in the last four years. Every favor must be returned, in full measure. No more, and no less than that. Fair is fair.

[Bob from Ohio]

No personal objection to impeachment tit for tat but neither of the last two worked out politically for the House majority.

Modest 5 seat gain for the Democrats in 1998 and 12-15 gain for the GOP in 2020.

Not saying impeachment was the sole issue that decided House races either year but impeachment was clearly not a huge windfall for the party which passed it.

Just doesn't seem worth it.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

The argument of a person with no morals or principles.

[KenveeB]

Pointless theatrics like the last two impeachments?

[bernard11]

XY,

A republican complaining about a "tax giveaway to the wealthy" is laughable. You make yourself ridiculous by compaining. Tax giveaways to the wealthy are a perpetual part of Republican "thinking."

[Armchair Lawyer]

So, repealing the SALT deduction really is a give away to the wealthy. More than 50% of the benefit would flow to the top 1%. More than 80% would flow to the top 5%.

But as Democrats have become the party of the rich, repealing this deduction is really quite important to them.

[Aunt Teefah]

Democrats have long been *a* party of the rich, along with the Republicans. But weren't you guys just saying they were a bunch of Marxist class warriors right before the election? Seems like a pretty major unresolved contradiction.

[Artifex]

Yeah I know. Weird huh ? Almost like those guys spouting Marxist rhetoric aren't really serious and are instead using class hate to build personal power bases and line their pockets and the pockets of their cronies. Strange, we have never seen anything like that before right ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"A republican complaining about a “tax giveaway to the wealthy” is laughable."

Then way do you guys support this particular tax giveaway to the wealthy? Especially since this a particularly economically unsound tax giveaway to the wealthy.

[Commenter_XY]

bernard11....Take the time to look into the SALT deduction, and figure out who really benefits: People who itemize.

The poor and lower middle class do not itemize. It is not political; it is just tax law and math.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"bernard11….Take the time to look into the SALT deduction, and figure out who really benefits: "

I suspect that part of the issue is that bernard11 benefits.

[De Oppresso Liber]

Middle class homeowners who have most of their wealth in their homes and live in high tax areas are most affected.

Both sides soak the middle class. Enough resources that the government can steal some without them starving, but not enough to defend their resources with a team of lawyers and lobbyists.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Middle class homeowners"

These people are not "middle class". They are nearly all in the top 20% of taxpayers.

"Who would benefit from removing the cap on the SALT deduction?
The rich – especially the very rich. Almost all (96 percent) of the benefits of SALT cap repeal would go to the top quintile (giving an average tax cut of $2,640); 57 percent would benefit the top one percent (a cut of $33,100); and 25 percent would benefit the top 0.1 percent (for an average tax cut of nearly $145,000). The remaining four percent of the benefit of removing the cap would go the middle class (i.e. middle 60 percent), for an average annual tax cut of a little less than $27. "

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/04/the-salt-tax-deduction-is-a-handout-to-the-rich-it-should-be-eliminated-not-expanded/

[De Oppresso Liber]

Being in the top 20% still includes much of the middle class.

According to the Tax Foundation, making over $85k per year put your household in the upper 25%. I don't $85k per year, especially where I live, anything other than middle class.

[De Oppresso Liber]

*I don’t ((consider)) $85k per year, especially where I live, anything other than middle class.

[Bob from Ohio]

"57 percent would benefit the top one percent"

How about them?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Republican success these days is proportional to acceptance of right wing myths. None of which seem to be taking hold in other countries.

[DaivdBehar]

I agree. The conservative parties of Europe are to the left of the Democrat Party. That is why Europeans live like animals. They get paid half, and everything costs twice what it does in the US.

[apedad]

Having lived in Europe for 24 years, I can most assuredly assert that you're a blithering idiot.

That is all.

[De Oppresso Liber]

You can just tell us you've never left your county.

[Hank Ferrous]

This is an astoundingly ignorant comment, did you try to achieve this? There are certainly rightist governments and parties in other countries. There is only a GOP here in the States. Your assertion re acceptance of myths is ridiculous, can be extended to any sociopolitical or ethnic group, and might stand if you provided examples. I suspect you didn't because if there are any they won't hold up to scrutiny.

[M L]

In a sworn declaration, a respected mathematician says his analysis of election data and phone interviews with Pennsylvania voters raises questions about as many as 100,000 absentee ballots requested in the key battleground state where President Trump and Joe Biden are separated by just about 82,000 votes.

Williams College Professor Steven Miller, a Yale and Princeton trained math expert, said he analyzed Pennsylvania ballot data collected by former Trump campaign data chief Matt Braynard as well as 2,684 voter interviews conducted by a phone bank and found two concerning patterns. One involved possible votes that were not counted, the other ballots that appeared to be requested by someone other than a registered voter.

"I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801," Miller said in the sworn statement.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2020-11/Miller_DeclarationAndAnalyisPA_GOP_BallotRequestData_2020_Final.pdf

[SykesFive]

I have read that statement and I don't see where the math guy added value. The important part of it is the underlying data collected by Matt Braynard's organization. Then the professor just assumes that the sample was representative and does some very basic statistics.

Braynard was basically taking a phone poll and had the same problem pollsters always have: the overwhelming majority of people you call don't talk to you. Also, what were the scripts his team used? That's pretty important in assessing polls.

[M L]

Good points. The analysis singles out one specific form of potential fraud/wrongdoing, and one specific piece of evidence for it. Even if the sample is drastically, improbably off, you still have tens of thousands of question marks. Regardless of any election outcome, this and many other facts suggesting widespread malfeasance should be thoroughly investigated (but I predict they won't be).

[SykesFive]

It may not suggest anything if the calls were as pushy as some have reported.

[Alan Vanneman]

Shouldn't the Volokh Conspiracy change its name to the "Joke Conspiracy"? A blog devoted to legal issues has nothing to say about the efforts of Donald Trump's legal minions to overturn the results of an election that he lost nationally by well over five million votes and lost in the electoral college by more than 70? Is this because Josh Blackman, whom I often enjoy when he isn't, you know, osculating Donald Trump's rectum, might take his ball and go home? I guess we'll never know.

[QuantumBoxCat]

The headline that Eugene wrote for this post, which makes a factual assertion about the House election results, with a link to FiveThirtyEight, would indicate he takes the calls made by that site as accurate (the site is clearly the source he relies on for his assertion). Given that the same site, under the link provided, states Biden received 309 electoral college votes, then I can only infer that Eugene accepts that Biden won the presidency. Otherwise, there would need to be some caveat on why FiveThirtyEight's calculations for 431 House races are accurate, while its figures for the presidential election are not accurate. This is particularly true since the results for the House races are derived from the same ballots that include votes for the president.

However, given that his target audience on this blog is conservative, it is probably a better strategy for him and his fellow bloggers to just feign ignorance on the subject of the presidential election.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"However, given that his target audience on this blog is conservative, it is probably a better strategy for him and his fellow bloggers to just feign ignorance on the subject of the presidential election."

A better strategy for maintaining their relationship with the downscale right-wingers they enjoy lathering, but not for developing credibility in the reality-based world they propose to persuade toward movement conservatism.

[Jmaie]

"...the efforts of Donald Trump’s legal minions to overturn the results of an election that he lost nationally by well over five million votes and lost in the electoral college by more than 70?"

Logic much? If Trump is able to legally change enough states' ballot results he will have not lost the vote in the electoral college. Which I'm sure you're aware hasn't happened yet.

I am not opining on the probability nor the wisdom of the endeavor....

[Bob from Ohio]

Dem house leadership is 80, 81 and 80. The 81 majority leader was born before Hitler invaded Poland and is closer in age to Lincoln's election than Biden's!

Call me a concern troll if you want, but wouldn't they be better served with younger people, like Hakeem Jeffries or someone similar as speaker?

[Brett Bellmore]

The current crop of Democratic leadership fratricided the next generation of potential Democratic leaders, in order to render their own positions unassailable. The result, as you saw in the Presidential primaries, is a choice between geriatric cases and young upstarts with no seasoning. There's this gaping hole between the two of them were their should have been middle aged experienced pols.

So as the geriatric cases die off, the party is going to be taken over by young nutcases.