politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Took them long enough
The concession was the big surprise to me. I don’t know anything about her but I assumed she’d drag it into the courts, which was to my understanding, the only path to a ‘recount’ in Mississippi
Agreed; I was surprised to see it come so quickly. I think this is a combination of:
"Her not wanting to drag this out any longer, given she did just lose her Senate seat from Mississippi to a black, Democratic man." that she denied a promotion to a federal judgeship because she is MAGA trash.
Also, keeping the campaign staff in the office, paying lawyers to prepare legal challenges ... that all costs money, pretty significant money.
If you can see the writing on the wall, it may be better to cut your losses and focus on the next campaign instead.
100%. Even accounting for the fact she's among a sea of Republicans who lost big this election, this has got to be pretty humiliating. I would just want it to be over in her shoes – and apparently she agrees.
Probably not, given the title, but maybe they meant electing a black person.
Not quite. The faster they're done counting, the more people can start thinking about how they should engage with their new elected official. Mostly thinking of Senate leadership here, since the election for that is in 6 days. It's not the end of the world, but it's not like nothing is gained by counting the ballots faster.
That's a fair consideration I hadn't thought of. Still, I don't think that takes away from "As long as everything's counted when [they] need to submit it, they've done their job." That isn't "there's nothing to be gained by counting faster before the deadline" as much as it is "election workers shouldn't be pressured to count votes faster".
Like for example, when I mentioned ways to improve the counting process (noted in e.g. this video, see 4:55), I was mainly focused on alleviating the workload of election officials rather than speeding up the results for audiences. Things like more early voting (which Mississippi basically doesn't have) speed up the count, but the primary benefit is that they make it easier for people to vote, the secondary benefit is that it's easier for election workers, and ultimately speeding up the results to audiences is a tertiary benefit at best.
As long as the results get in on time, I don't think there's much compelling reason to make election results go brrrr if it doesn't improve voting accessibility or alleviate some burden on the people doing the counting.