this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
341 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2560 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Oregon Democrat Janelle Bynum won a seat in the U.S. House, becoming the state’s first Black representative after defeating Republican incumbent Lori Chavez-DeRemer in a closely watched race for Oregon’s 5th Congressional District.

Bynum led by a strong margin in key counties, ensuring a Democratic victory. Her campaign emphasized combatting extremism, reproductive rights, and economic growth, and she received significant support and funding from national Democrats.

While Republicans retain a narrow lead in the overall House, Bynum’s win represents a major gain for Oregon Democrats amid a competitive election cycle.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 55 points 1 week ago (28 children)

That puts the house at 211 RNC and 201 DNC, then? Republicans need 7 more to claim majority.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 58 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (16 children)

Right, but every seat Democrats manage to siphon away is one less vote in support of fascism. And House Republicans do a lot of internal fighting. I will laugh out loud if they can't pick a speaker again, and it somehow affects the timeline for counting the EC votes.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

That would be intentional. They'd have to screw with the timeline for counting the EC votes if Trump kicks it between December 17th and January 6th. Otherwise, the House would be obligated to create a Harris/Vance administration.

Well, looks like I'm going to pray for something for the first time.

[–] morriscox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Having the President and the Vice-president be of different parties used to be a thing until a law passed banning that.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

There's no law "banning" that. You're talking about the 12th amendment revising the electoral process so that the VP is elected in a separate EC election, rather than being the runner up in the presidential election.

That same 12th amendment requires, when a presidential candidate does not have 270 votes, to select the president from the top three candidates based on number of EC votes. If Trump strokes out after they cast their votes on December 17th, no candidate will have received 270 votes. When they go to count the votes on January 6th, the only valid EC votes cast for president will have been cast for Harris, so we get a Harris/Vance ticket.

The Republicans could spend one vote on Vance for President, allowing the House to vote for him. But then a similar situation happens in the Senate with Walz, and the Senate only gets to choose between the top two VP candidates based on EC votes. We could theoretically end up with a Vance/Walz administration.

[–] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

Lmfao. Imagining a Walz and Vance admin is cracking me the fuck up right now holy shit.

[–] morriscox@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I appreciate the correction.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)