Senate Is at stake in Georgia runoff

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HiBC

New member
This is a heads up. It relates to the 2A via stated policy intents.

Two Senate seats will soon be decided by a runoff in Georgia. I'd post names but then it would seem I'm campaigning. I'll leave this neutral and report facts.

You make your own choices.

IF Harris become VP,and if the two GOP Senators lose the runoff, the Senate will be a 50-50 split with Harris having the tie breaker vote.
That means the Senate is at stake.

I suspect some very wealthy people will be interested in steering the outcome.

There are about 100.000.000 gun owners in the USA.

A bunch of them have a little available cash to buy ammo,or components.

Only there is no ammo or components on the shelf to buy.

So that cash might be "fungible" ...or available to be diverted into another cause.

I'm not sure how the Mods would take it if I suggest exactly what you might do.
I suggest if you search "Georgia Senate Runoff" you might get some ideas.
 
This has been my one concern. I am not upset at Biden winning, but I did not want a Democrat sweep and I definitely wanted republicans to hold the senate.

I do have a question, however, since we are here and discussing senate majorities. Why is it that republicans will have 50 (assuming Alaska and N.C. pull through), and the Democrats would have 48 IF they won both runoffs, yet the two independents are added to the democrat caucus to give them 50 also (if they win both seats in GA)? That does not seem right or fair. Why do 2 independents get to be counted for democrats and make a tie, in essence making Kamala Harris the head of the senate?
 
This is a heads up. It relates to the 2A via stated policy intents.
Click to expand...

Very THIN ICE...particularly here in L&CR...
but lets see if it will hold the conversation without cracking

First point I'd consider is the Senate will be a 50-50 split with the VP having the tie breaker vote.

That is our system. Its been our system for some time. How often does it actually come to that? Not often.

On some things, like when their guy is being impeached, the parties get very tight lockstep party line vote but on other issues there are often those who "break rank" with the party line. ON both sides.

When it comes to gun control issues a lot of the matter will absolutely depend on specifically what is proposed, and to a degree, when. Right now other than general intent (Hell yes we're coming for your AR15!:rolleyes:) its all just hot air. The apparent administration elect won't be in office until next year. Until they are, and can propose something specific, they are promising people they well fix everything and giving only vague hints how.

Neither side is as monolithic as they try to appear, and after the heady days of "we won! we can do ANYTHING!" wear off reality will be a bit different than their boasts of today.

There is no landslide in this election, no overwhelming mandate from the majority of the voters. Its a SLIM margin election, and the future is far from set.
 
Its also still hypothetical,regardless of a certain amount of jumping the gun.
The election is not certified yet.
The news media does not have powers granted by Congress to declare an election.

It ain't over till its over. Time will tell.
 
44 AMP said:
Right now other than general intent (Hell yes we're coming for your AR15!) its all just hot air....giving only vague hints how
Click to expand...

So you place no stock in this:https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/

Maybe here is something to consider?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=836WNTHzdbI

I do find the "whistling past the graveyard" view here interesting. I do hope you're right in that it is all hot air but if the Senate does not remain in R hands then I think it will be a reality. Discussion here will then be moot.
 
the real difference at this point is that they haven't printed 100,000 copies of the paper saying "DEWEY WINS!".

So, we're saving paper, at least....:rolleyes:
 
5whiskey said:
This has been my one concern. I am not upset at Biden winning, but I did not want a Democrat sweep and I definitely wanted republicans to hold the senate.

I do have a question, however, since we are here and discussing senate majorities. Why is it that republicans will have 50 (assuming Alaska and N.C. pull through), and the Democrats would have 48 IF they won both runoffs, yet the two independents are added to the democrat caucus to give them 50 also (if they win both seats in GA)? That does not seem right or fair. Why do 2 independents get to be counted for democrats and make a tie, in essence making Kamala Harris the head of the senate?
Click to expand...
One of those "independents" is Bernie Sanders and the other, Angus King of Maine historically has voted with the Democrats.
 
One of those "independents" is Bernie Sanders and the other, Angus King of Maine historically has voted with the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I completely understand that. My point is republicans technically will still have a majority when it comes down to electing senate leadership. You want to run independent instead of democrat for political expediency that’s fine, but you shouldn’t count toward figuring majority when it comes to determining senate majority leadership. Along with committee majorities. If Mitch could keep his post we would be, theoretically, safe as he SHOULD refuse to bring any gun control measure to the floor for a vote. That’s my point. I understand angus and sanders are basically democrats, but why do dems get to count them in their numbers when they are technically independent? That does not seem right. That’s all I’m saying.
 
I really wanted to see the challenge related to party membership if Bernie won the democratic presidential nomination. I suspect it would have been a wonder to behold.

But the question would be "functional majority". I seem to remember one of the times the Republicans lost a senate majority was not due to an election but an "independent" declaring a change in which party he/she would caucus with. Senate rules are esoteric at best.
 
The math is straight forward, the Republicans have 48 solid and 2 virtually here for 50 seats based on the current tally’s (Alaska and NC). Here’s the breakout.
Alaska is very likely to go down as Republican if the R candidate even gets 15% of remaining votes, that gets Republicans up to 49.

North Carolina, not having a runoff requirement for the senate election gets down to basic math: 5.4 million votes have been cast in the senate race, that's 98% of the total vote, with 2% (108K) remaining to be counted. The republican is leading by 96K votes. That means that if the republican candidate get 12% of the remaining vote, he wins. It's likely he's get at least 30%, so North Carolina, short of Lyndon Johnson rising from the grave to steal another senate race 72 years after the first, that makes 50 republican senators.

Only Georgia (and Louisiana) require a majority win in general elections.
That leaves 2 in Georgia, both with 2% of the votes not counted. While republicans are ahead in both races, currently neither has a majority, so there's a runoff.
With the senate in the balance, expect 100's of Millions up to Billions (yes billions) of dollars to flow into Georgia to influence these runoffs of the 7.6M registered Georgia voters.
The democrats have to win both. The republicans only have to win 1.

But then again Michael Bloomberg has offered to spend up to a Billion, so he could afford to pay (indirectly of course :) ) $130 to each voter for their patronage. And others (on both sides) are likely (legally try :D ) to buy the senate.

But even with a 50-50 senate, one current US senator noted it is very difficult for the president to get things done as a single senator from the presidents party can screw the pooch. And don't forget there are at least 6 Democratic Senators who are from conservative states.

Bottom line: 1 republican senator from Georgia shuts the “wave” down, but if that doesn't happen, still don't bet heavy on the Green Deal, comprehensive gun control, repeal of Trump tax cuts and other key issues.

One last thought on the flip side of the aisle: At 50/50 a single democrat senator can literally get almost anything they want by threatening to vote against a presidentially supported bill, making leadership very nervous and more likely to water down harsh legislation to even have a hope of passing.
This isn’t the first 50/50 split and won’t be the last. What is assured is a president must move toward the opposition to pick up enough votes to pass *****ANYTHING*****.
 
Last edited:
You can be sure that gun control is pretty far down the list of Biden's priorities. Nothing happened under Obama, and I expect the same. And then there is the 6-3 USSC split. I would say guns are safe.

Not that folks won't use the issue on both sides for fund raising, etc., but the will just isn't there for advancing gun control.
 
Roscoe, a lot of the public is pliable to anti-guin claims. I wouldn't be so sure that there won't be some sort of push. It is something Biden actively campaigned on. The specifics are what remains to be seen. The broad agenda has been posted for months.
 
Raimus, I look forward to a report from you within a year. My post is not meant to offend you but I want to know how much gun control will be imposed on AZ as it turns from a Red to a Blue State. A high school buddy of mines lives in Tucson and I asked him how AZ could turn Blue. He said that too many Californians moved there.
 
Question:
If the Senate runoff does result in a 50-50 split
And if the Pres election goes Biden-Harris,with Harris the tie-breaker,
Does Chuck Schumer become Senate Majority leader?

Consider the implications.
 
5whiskey said:
but you shouldn’t count toward figuring majority when it comes to determining senate majority leadership.
Click to expand...

Both those independents caucus with the Democrats. For all intents and purposes they ARE Democrats for big votes.
 
roscoe said:
You can be sure that gun control is pretty far down the list of Biden's priorities....I would say guns are safe.
Click to expand...

https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/
I know he's a politician but I think it unwise not to take him at his word.

roscoe said:
Nothing happened under Obama, and I expect the same.
Click to expand...

The republicans controlled BOTH houses during all but two years of Obama's tenure. They stopped all efforts at gun control. If the Senate goes D then what I have shown you above WILL be proposed and likely pass. That is why the Georgia race is existential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top