# 2022 Midterm Elections - Results and Post Mortem

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
The takeaway is that there is a slight shift in power if republicans get the house, but we remain a pretty much 50/50 political split.

"Slight change"??

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.

If the House changes hands — putting some of those very traitors in a position of power — much of the J6 work will be undone. Instead expect the House to focus on trumped-up "scandals" and the impeachment of Joe Biden. There may even be more hearings on Benghazi.

And the Rs will use devices like the Debt Ceiling to hold the country hostage.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)
Nailed it.

#### Patooka

##### Contributor
The takeaway is that there is a slight shift in power if republicans get the house, but we remain a pretty much 50/50 political split.

"Slight change"??

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.

If the House changes hands — putting some of those very traitors in a position of power — much of the J6 work will be undone. Instead expect the House to focus on trumped-up "scandals" and the impeachment of Joe Biden. There may even be more hearings on Benghazi.

And the Rs will use devices like the Debt Ceiling to hold the country hostage.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)
Nailed it.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Over in CO-03, they're back counting today. Frisch has had an excellent ballot curing operation going,
As good as Selina Meyer's?

(first 30s of the clip)

Meanwhile, Pelosi announced that she won't be running for leader.
Long overdue. I wonder who will be the Minority Leader. After 20 years of San Francisco, I think maybe not another big coastal city.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
"Slight change"??
Biden is still president. SCOTUS is still 6-3. Senate will be either 50-50 or 51-49, and the House goes from a small Dem majority to a small GOP majority.
Yes, slight change.

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.
Did it involve gunpowder? Never mind, that was the N5 Committee.
There has been more than enough incessant talk about January 6th over the last almost two years. What I would like to see is an investigation into lenient treatment of the 2020 rioters/terrorists like Colinford Mattis, Urooj Rahman and Montez Lee.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)
It's 218-212 now. So five races still to be called. So it could go from 218-217 to 223-212. Under the coin toss model, there is a 62.5% chance that it will end up either 220-215 or 221-214.

Last edited:

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I'm undecided. If the Speaker vote is between Pelosi and Trump, should we hope a few Rs defect and make Nancy Speaker again?
It does not work like that. It's not like a runoff or a World Cup final where one of the two must win.
A candidate must win the majority of members of the House, and if he or she doesn't they vote and vote until a candidate gets the majority and there is white smoke rising from the rotunda dome. OK, I made that last part up.
But the point stands - it will not be between Trump and Pelosi or more realistically between McCarthy and Jeffries. It will be: can McCarthy get 218? (he may) Can Jeffries? (he can't) If McCarthy can't get the votes, Reps must find somebody who can.
Or would it be better for the Ds to throw all their support behind Trump, make him Speaker, and let the Orange Laughingstock be on full display for all the world to laugh at?
That would not only be incredibly petty, it could also backfire spectacularly since the Speaker is right after Veep in the line of succession.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Then they would elect Trump in a disasterously self-destructive move to own the libs.
Are there 10 moderate republicans left in the House who would switch sides, or at least become independent, to get rid of Trump?
They don't need to change parties. They just don't have to vote for Trump as Speaker. Since a vote for Speaker needs 218 votes (if all are present), he would need almost all Republicans to vote for him. Unless some Dems would like to play a very risky version of Operation Chaos.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
I've been following the New York Times on the vote counts, even though the NYT is paywalled.

Currently, the Republicans are at 218 House seats and the Democrats 212.

Frisch concedes race against Boebert as it goes to recount | AP News

Of the others, in CA-13, the R is ahead of the D with by 0.69% with 95% counted, in CA-22, 5% with 86% counted, and in CA-03, 4%, with 71% counted. The remaining undecided seat is AK-01, where Democrat Mary Peltola is at 49%, Sarah Palin at 26%, and Nick Begich at 23%. Unless almost all NB's voters want SP as their second choice, MP will win.

The likely final score: R 222, D 213. Meaning that the R's will be saddled with the problem that the D's had over the last two years with the Senate.

For the Senate in Alaska, the D has 10% of the votes, and the two R's are neck-and-neck, incumbent Lisa Murkowski and challenger Kelly Tshibaka. So one of the R's is likely to be elected. For that state, results will be announced later this month, since they want to collect all the ballots before going ahead with the next round of instant runoff. Alaska now uses a top-four system, where the top four candidates continue from the primaries to an instant-runoff general election. This is sometimes called ranked-choice voting, but strictly speaking, that's how the ballots work.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Election results, 2022: State government trifectas - Ballotpedia
As a result of the 2022 elections, there will be 21 Republican trifectas, 17 Democratic trifectas, and 10 divided governments where neither party had trifecta control. There were two states (Alaska and New Hampshire) where trifecta status remained unclear. Before the election, Alaska had a divided government and New Hampshire had a Republican trifecta.

Trifecta status changed in six states. In Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesota, divided governments became Democratic trifectas. In Nevada, the Democratic trifecta became a divided government. In Arizona, the Republican trifecta became a divided government.
• D trifecta - 17 - CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, NM, NJ, NY, OR, RI, WA
• R trifecta - 21 - AL, AR, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, MO, MS, MT, ND, NE, OH, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY
• D gov R leg - 6 - AZ, KS, KY, LA, NC, WI
• R gov D leg - 2 - NV, VT
• D gov, R SS, D SH - 1 - PA
• R gov, D SS, R SH - 1 - VA
• Undecided - 2 - AK, NH
In MA and MD, two Republican governors have Democratic successors. In MD, Larry Hogan was term-limited out, while in MA, Charlie Baker decided not to run.

#### crazyfingers

##### Supermagnon
Staff member
In MA and MD, two Republican governors have Democratic successors. In MD, Larry Hogan was term-limited out, while in MA, Charlie Baker decided not to run.

Charlie Baker could have won again if he had wanted to. He's possibly the most moderate Republican I can point to. In some ways he's a liberal. Frequently bashing heads with Trump and MAGAshits. The Republicans chose a hard core crazy MAGAshit election Liar in the primaries to run against the Democrat. A popular Attorney General going for Governor. Mass now has it's first Female and first openly lesbian Governor who won in a landslide.

I wonder what Baker will do. He probably wishes that there was a role for him bringing the Republicans back to something that is not far right crazy but anywhere outside of Massachusetts he'd be seen as a Democrat and I don't think any Republics outside of New England would give him a second of their time.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
For the Senate in Alaska, the D has 10% of the votes, and the two R's are neck-and-neck, incumbent Lisa Murkowski and challenger Kelly Tshibaka. So one of the R's is likely to be elected. For that state, results will be announced later this month, since they want to collect all the ballots before going ahead with the next round of instant runoff. Alaska now uses a top-four system, where the top four candidates continue from the primaries to an instant-runoff general election. This is sometimes called ranked-choice voting, but strictly speaking, that's how the ballots work.
I think this is a dumb way to count the ballots. They should instead tabulate all the combinations of the ranked-choice votes separately, and update the results in real-time. But I guess it's still such a new system that they want to keep it "simple" (which is actually more complex, but more familiar from previous elections).

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N2) intermediate-count values.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
To clarify, it would be nice if one can do partial sums, and then add those sums without having all the ballots on hand. What sort of summable aggregates of the ballots can one create?

For N candidates with N ballot entries all filled out, the summable-aggregate size for instant-runoff voting is N! since one needs every permutation of candidate. Its asymptotic limit is Stirling's formula, NN*e-N*sqrt(2*pi*N).

For filling out only to n entries, the SAS is N*(N-1)*...*(N-n+1) with asymptotic limit Nn for large N.

If one uses a partial ranking ballot, with n candidates out of N, then the asymptotic limit its summable aggregate size (SAS) for large N is O(Nn).

Adding up over partially filled in ballots does not change these asymptotic limits, count <= N for a full ballot and count <= n for a partial ballot with size n.

-

Many methods have smaller SAS's.

First-past-the-post or plurality voting - vote for one candidate and that's it - has a summable aggregate of the total for each candidate, giving size N.

Alternatives like approval voting - may vote for more than one candidate - and rated / range / score voting - like approval but one can make partial votes - have the same summable aggregate.

Turning to ranked ballots, one can turn them into rated ones with the Borda count: first preference is N, second is N-1, .... Or one can make this number relative to the number of candidates that one has voted for.

There is a big class of methods that turns the ballots into a virtual round-robin contest, taking the rankings or ratings, counting up how each candidate does against each other candidate, and adding them up in a "Condorcet matrix". This is a summable aggregate, and it has size N2. There are a variety of methods that use this matrix, and some of them get a bit complicated.[/sup]

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N2) intermediate-count values.
That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff. And to make sandwiches.

(Still working on the latter.)

In this case, there are four candidates. And possible write-ins, but I think according to the rules the write-ins are considered only in the first round of counting so they could be lumped together in one category rather than consider every possible write-in candidate separately.

So I think the number of combinations is manageable.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff.
Which is great, if the objective is to get an accurate answer.

But that's not the objective of an election. The objective in an election is to get an acceptable answer - to elevate to power an individual or group, in such a way as to avoid further attempts to seize power by the losers.

This implies that accuracy is less important than transparency. An electoral system can get away with occasionally picking a mathematically sub-optimal winner; It cannot get away with it being difficult for the voters to comprehend why and how the winner was chosen.

Electoral systems don't need to be fair; They need to be comprehensible and transparent. The rules can get away with producing arbitrary results that are clearly biased away from public opinion; But they cannot get away with producing results that a typical voter cannot confirm for themselves to be in accordance with those rules.

The point of elections is not to accurately reflect the aggregate opinions of the voters. It is to avoid civil war.

That's why it's so incredibly dangerous for anyone to claim that there's widespread election fraud. Picking a clear and unquestioned winner is more important than picking the right winner (despite the obvious fact that routinely picking the wrong winner could itself lead to questioning of that winner's legitimacy).

The rules need to be set in stone well in advance of the voting; And the counting of the votes needs to be not only in accordance with those rules, but obviously and demonstrably in accordance with them, in a way simple enough for the vast majority of people to confirm to their own satisfaction. The choice of an equitable set of rules to begin with, is very much a secondary consideration.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff.
Which is great, if the objective is to get an accurate answer.

But that's not the objective of an election. The objective in an election is to get an acceptable answer - to elevate to power an individual or group, in such a way as to avoid further attempts to seize power by the losers.

This implies that accuracy is less important than transparency. An electoral system can get away with occasionally picking a mathematically sub-optimal winner; It cannot get away with it being difficult for the voters to comprehend why and how the winner was chosen.

Electoral systems don't need to be fair; They need to be comprehensible and transparent. The rules can get away with producing arbitrary results that are clearly biased away from public opinion; But they cannot get away with producing results that a typical voter cannot confirm for themselves to be in accordance with those rules.

The point of elections is not to accurately reflect the aggregate opinions of the voters. It is to avoid civil war.

That's why it's so incredibly dangerous for anyone to claim that there's widespread election fraud. Picking a clear and unquestioned winner is more important than picking the right winner (despite the obvious fact that routinely picking the wrong winner could itself lead to questioning of that winner's legitimacy).

The rules need to be set in stone well in advance of the voting; And the counting of the votes needs to be not only in accordance with those rules, but obviously and demonstrably in accordance with them, in a way simple enough for the vast majority of people to confirm to their own satisfaction. The choice of an equitable set of rules to begin with, is very much a secondary consideration.
I'm not convinced that waiting for two weeks to count the votes is more transparent or convincing to the public that everything is going by the book. If anything, if I was skeptical of the instant runoff system, it would make me more suspicious. What are those election officers doing with the ballots for two whole weeks?

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N2) intermediate-count values.
That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff. And to make sandwiches.

(Still working on the latter.)

In this case, there are four candidates. And possible write-ins, but I think according to the rules the write-ins are considered only in the first round of counting so they could be lumped together in one category rather than consider every possible write-in candidate separately.

So I think the number of combinations is manageable.

Not only is it not a big deal to deal with a number of bins at this level, but it's actually the simplest way to do it.

To cross off names from the list you must either store that information or recalculate it (discard any name for a candidate that has been eliminated) for each ballot. Using the bin approach you have the table of possible combinations which almost always is far less than the number of ballots and thus far less data to manipulate.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
In Alaska, they are still waiting for all the ballots to be collected. I don't know if they do ballot aggregation, counting up by ranking. In the meantime, IRV results are in from Maine. In ME-01, Chellie Pingree D won a first-round majority, while in ME-02, the election went

CandidateFirst roundTransferSecond round
Jared Golden D48.2%+4.9%53.1%
Bruce Poliquin R44.9%+2.0%46.9%
Tiffany Bond I6.9%-6.9%

So TB's voters preferred JG to BQ 5 to 2.

#### senor boogie woogie

##### New member
"Slight change"??

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.

If the House changes hands — putting some of those very traitors in a position of power — much of the J6 work will be undone. Instead expect the House to focus on trumped-up "scandals" and the impeachment of Joe Biden. There may even be more hearings on Benghazi.

And the Rs will use devices like the Debt Ceiling to hold the country hostage.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)

Not disasterous. The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people, basically his idiocy is chained for two more years. How horrible this senile old man has ran the country since 2021. Think about him when you are paying $5 plus for a gallon of gasoline or people this winter have to choose from heating their homes and eating. Donald Trump never told anyone to invade the Capitol Building on January 6th. He called for peaceful protest outside the building. The crowd did what they did on their own volition. It is on Youtube, where did Trump ever tell this mob to do this? I will give you this, Trump has a big mouth and doesnt except defeat gracefully. But this never happened, despite all the biased Trump hating press who says otherwise. Benghazi is old news, but it is another of an Obama era failure of not getting the embassy workers the hell out of the building and safely out of Libya. Obama's intelligence (or the lack of his own arrogance) shouldhave gotten the people the hell out of there weeks before) Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and completely failed in her duties. Failed. Not to mention that it was the United States under Obama that caused with the military of the USA and NATO to cause the instability of that nation we still see to this day (plus the millions of illegals running from Africa into Europe). What was Hillary's response? Basically, who cares what happened there. Look at the Trey Dowdy (who I wish would run for President, instead of quitting to work for FOX. Cant blame him much, he probably thought he was too honorable to work in that vipers nest any longer and FOX paid much more money) grilling Hillary on that shit she caused. She again, doesnt care. You villify Republicans but ignore the corpses of the ineptness of the Democratic Party? Unfortunatly, Impeaching Biden for being an idiot wont work. If Biden could be removed, we are left with a cackling, ignorant flip flopper woman who slept her way to the top like a cocaine addicted starlet. What has Harris ever done at all? It is unfair that the conservative media have said that she has never been to the Southern Border. She doesnt need to go. She is the Vice President. Being the Vice President is the easiest job in Washington. The VP doesnt even have to show up for shit. The VP has one constitutional duty, to break ties in the Senate. Harris can sit at home, smoke weed all day, watch Dr Phil and have her nails done at the Vietnamese nail shop down the street. Biden as the Commander and Chief of our armed forces has the duty to go to the Southern border and make himself explain why millions of foreign invaders, many carrying drugs, gang members like MS-13 and probable terrorists from Muslim countries can come across like shit through a seeve. Maybe you dont care, until your child dies of Fentanyl or another narcotic. But you will still blame Trump. OK. #### Elixir ##### Made in America The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people Idiocy. Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet. Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor NY Dem Chair Jay Jacobs under fire for David Duke analogy - 2021 Oct 18 “Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category, but it just leads you to that question, is it a must? It's not a must. It’s something you choose to do. That's why it's an endorsement. Otherwise, they call it something else, like a requirement.” • Then State Senator Alessandra Biaggi tweeted - “Comparing the endorsement of India Walton to endorsing David Duke of the KKK is outrageously racist. You need to resign - today.” • Senator Chuck Schumer released statement - “The statement was totally unacceptable and the analogy used was outrageous and beyond absurd.” • State Attorney General Letitia James tweeted - “I fundamentally reject the likening of India Walton, an inspiring Black woman committed to public service, to David Duke, one of the most prolific racists of our time. There can be no place for such rhetoric in New York.” • Working Families Party head Sochie Nnaemeka - “The comparison was so perverse and it only speaks to the fact that for a working class, a woman of color, to be taken seriously, you have to engage in these grand hypotheticals rather than just engage in support.” JJ later apologized: “Using an extreme example of David Duke winning a primary, to make a logical point, even with stating twice the specific qualification that India Walton, was in a different category, was wrong. I should have used a different example, and for that, I apologize.” #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "NYS Dem party leadership ..." / Twitter NYS Dem party leadership, which was gutted under Cuomo, stuffed with lobbyists, works to boost GOP, and failed to pass a basic state ballot measure to protect NY redistricting, must be accountable. I called for Jay Jacob’s resignation a year ago and I still hold that position. After leading the party to a catastrophic ballot measure loss that would’ve saved Dem House seats, the party chair (Jacobs) compared a Black woman Dem nominee to the KKK. He was protected. Last night’s underperformance is a consequence of that decision. Last night’s NY underperformance is a testament to years of prioritizing calcified machine politics and favoring over performance, strategy, & organizing. To win from here, Jacobs must go and we must recenter the party to better value community leadership and small-d democracy. Noting what JJ said last year about India Walton. #### blastula ##### Contributor NY Dem Chair Jay Jacobs under fire for David Duke analogy - 2021 Oct 18 “Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category, but it just leads you to that question, is it a must? It's not a must. It’s something you choose to do. That's why it's an endorsement. Otherwise, they call it something else, like a requirement.” • Then State Senator Alessandra Biaggi tweeted - “Comparing the endorsement of India Walton to endorsing David Duke of the KKK is outrageously racist. You need to resign - today.” • Senator Chuck Schumer released statement - “The statement was totally unacceptable and the analogy used was outrageous and beyond absurd.” • State Attorney General Letitia James tweeted - “I fundamentally reject the likening of India Walton, an inspiring Black woman committed to public service, to David Duke, one of the most prolific racists of our time. There can be no place for such rhetoric in New York.” • Working Families Party head Sochie Nnaemeka - “The comparison was so perverse and it only speaks to the fact that for a working class, a woman of color, to be taken seriously, you have to engage in these grand hypotheticals rather than just engage in support.” JJ later apologized: “Using an extreme example of David Duke winning a primary, to make a logical point, even with stating twice the specific qualification that India Walton, was in a different category, was wrong. I should have used a different example, and for that, I apologize.” She lost by 20 points to a write-in, the endorsement was irrelevant. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor AOC: NY Democratic Party May Have Cost Democrats the House Ryan Grim: What did you make of Biden’s press conference? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Well, I mean, I was able to catch the beginning of it, I think most of it. But I think it was smart for him to come out right away and to really continue and formalize what was already emerging as the narrative, which is that this was, despite Republicans potentially taking back the House by a very slim margin, to really cement this as a Democratic victory and not a Republican one. I think it was smart to do that. And I think it was quite notable that he mentioned young people and the climate crisis and youth turnout. I think it was just a smart thing to do in order to frame, overall, some of what we saw. She says that she had a "front-row seat" and that "the way that those campaigns were run were different than the way a lot of winning campaigns across the country were run." After noting a lot of Democrats campaigning on anti-defund-police messages, she noted If we’re going to talk about public safety, you don’t talk about it in the frame of invoking defund or anti-defund, you really talk about it in the frame of what we’ve done on gun violence, what we’ve done to pass the first gun reform bill in 30 years. Our alternatives are actually effective, electorally, without having to lean into Republican narratives. So I think that was one prime mistake. After criticizing Andrew Cuomo for putting into place a lot of supporters who rely on "lobbyists and big money", she noted about Jay Jacobs and a redistricting measure last year that Republicans put millions of dollars into defeating the redistricting ballot measure last year that would have protected the map, that would have put us ahead. And so I really believe that we would have won Democratic seats, potentially gained Democratic seats in New York State, but Republicans put millions of dollars against this ballot measure, they organized against it, and the New York State Democratic Party didn’t drop$1 in making sure that we got this thing passed. And this was in an off-year election, this was in 2021. We could have done this. And the fact that that happened, and there still was no implication for the state [party], and for state party leadership. A lot of this was really about these calcified political machines being asleep at the wheel, and there being a complete lack of desire to hold any of it accountable.
Then describing the New York State Democratic Party as being very reliant on the governor, and wanting a more decentralized party.
You know, I can say: I’ve been in Congress for four years, I have never had a conversation with the New York State Democratic Party chair ever. In fact, he’s done nothing but attack progressive Democrats all across the state. What he has done is created an environment where the only, quote unquote, or the main, quote unquote, legitimate Democratic candidates worthy of support are those who fight both progressives and Republicans, which is clearly not a winning strategy, especially not in the state of New York. And so when he has invested so much energy into demoralizing the grassroots and making sure that a lot of this grassroots energy gets busted up all across the state, of course we’re going to see these margins swing towards Republicans.
So it's trying to do Clintonite centrism - "Third Way" and triangulation.

She then says "A lot of it is also driven by big money" and “There has been a multiyear strategy to try — it’s essentially been a campaign within the Democratic Party — to undermine progressive politics and try to mischaracterize it as toxic.”

She says "I personally do think that there should be a political cost to being heavily backed by big money." - I agree. Being dependent on others' money means owing them something. The Francis Bacon defense - "Sure I took their money, but I didn't let it influence me" - is very unconvincing.

"And we shouldn’t be shifting in a direction where the party or our party leadership becomes even more dependent on large donors and corporate backers, not less dependent, especially in a time when more Democrats are being elected independent of that and where the infrastructure for small-dollar fundraising has only grown and become more vibrant."
And I do hope that there is a reflection on being outwardly antagonistic towards a very enthused progressive base, especially one in which young people delivered these wins. If you look at the difference between Tim Ryan and John Fetterman, as races, some of the preliminary data is suggesting that they had the same turnout in almost every demographic except young people. And as we know, young people skew way progressive within the party. And so when you outwardly antagonize, and outwardly seek to belittle and distance oneself from progressive values, you demoralize your base.
If the Democrats win the House, they would win by a very narrow margin, and AOC recommended going all out on RvW, a $15 min wage, etc. If the Republicans win the House, they would also win by a very narrow margin, and she recommended I think we take advantage of the disorganization of the Republican caucus. I do not believe that Kevin McCarthy is a strong leader whatsoever. And I think we inflict a lot of pain on this. And either it becomes enough of a liability with them that they have to let something through because they’re just getting killed on this issue, or they lose in two years. Then, And I think we learned an economic lesson, which is that full employment is politically stronger than inflation, as opposed to when we were in the situation under Obama, where they tried the other tack and unemployment was punished much more severely. And so I think we learned that economic message on employment. I think we learned [the value of] a very strong message on abortion. And whether that means Biden leaning into his pen a little bit more on executive orders and other tools at his disposal, I think that that’s going to be very important, including the bully pulpit. Then she talked about using discharge petitions on RvW codifications and the like. "And so part of me doesn’t want to — I want to make sure that we’re navigating this carefully. Because, like, motions to recommit, once one party kind of messes with it, it could create a precedent." #### crazyfingers ##### Supermagnon Staff member The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people Idiocy. Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet. Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole. There are two possibilities: 1: This is all Biden's fault 2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control. #### Metaphor ##### Čarobnjak iz Oza The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people Idiocy. Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet. Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole. There are two possibilities: 1: This is all Biden's fault 2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control. Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Interviewer Ryan Grim: Speaking of discharge petitions, on the stock trading ban, you had pushed a discharge petition, and then withdrew it after Pelosi promised to bring that to the floor. I’m sure you saw [Virginia Rep.] Elaine Luria, looks like [Iowa Rep.] Cindy Axne is trailing; both of them were kind of like public defenders of congressional stock trading and just got hammered for it during their campaigns. Cindy Axne IA-03 lost 49.6% - 50.3% Elaine Luria VA-02 lost 47.9% - 52.0% Let's see if the Republicans do anything about that. AOC said about that discharge petition that it was good for getting the attention of the leadership. Then the Congressional progressives' petition about negotiating with Russia. Well, to be clear, both the decision to publish that letter at that time and withdraw that letter at that time were decisions that we were not made privy to. But in terms of the content of the letter — like timing aside, in terms of the content of the letter — I believe that a lot of it is quite consistent with what we’ve also been hearing from former Obama administration officials, the Biden administration, and now even recently, there have also been, I believe, some developments coming out of Ukraine, indicating an openness to negotiate under certain preconditions. And I believe that progressives have always advocated to leaning on diplomatic solutions, we should continue to lean on that. I think that the large asterisk is: Will Russia, is Russia, how can we bring Russia to the table without compromising Ukrainian sovereignty and just core principles of self determination? Seems like a difficult task. About abortion, she said that we should not be distracted into arguments about how far along in pregnancy abortion should be allowed, and instead focus on overall principles. About running for leadership, she didn't have much to say. #### ZiprHead ##### Loony Running The Asylum Staff member The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people Idiocy. Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet. Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole. There are two possibilities: 1: This is all Biden's fault 2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control. Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'. Sorry. Most any... #### crazyfingers ##### Supermagnon Staff member Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'. I didn't read what Zipr said. Though it's clear that the US is not an anomaly. Many developed countries have worse inflation than we do in the US. Some have lower. Without going though the math and deciding what is and is not to be counted as a developed or "modern" country, the US us pretty in the middle and it's clearly a global problem - not a problem that can be pinned on Biden. #### Metaphor ##### Čarobnjak iz Oza Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'. I didn't read what Zipr said. Though it's clear that the US is not an anomaly. Many developed countries have worse inflation than we do in the US. Some have lower. Without going though the math and deciding what is and is not to be counted as a developed or "modern" country, the US us pretty in the middle and it's clearly a global problem - not a problem that can be pinned on Biden. I agree. #### Elixir ##### Made in America There are two possibilities: 1: This is all Biden's fault 2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control. When you put it like that, sheesh - of COURSE it's all Biden's fault! He heads up the GLOBAL conspiracy committee that controls GLOBAL inflation. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor The interview continued in AOC on Political Mistakes and the Left’s Growing Pains - "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on political mistakes, the discourse, and the left’s growing pains." At the start of her career, Twitter was a place where Ocasio-Cortez could be seen to be leading an army of supporters, but often today it seems more like she’s fighting off an army of critics from the left. Others in the progressive ecosystem who still support Ocasio-Cortez complain that she isn’t invested heavily enough in building infrastructure or supporting candidates early enough for it to matter. Interviewer Ryan Grim then mentioned how big-money groups and their candidates seem well-coordinated, but that progressives are often less coordinated, like sometimes endorsing candidates late in their campaigns. Sometimes even endorsing different candidates in the same race, I must note. Sometimes producing devastating vote splitting, like in NY-10 earlier this year. Well, I think some of it just has to do with resources. I think the ability to do that with big money is very different than the ability to do that with not big money. But I also think that the left in this country, like we’ve just been in this — in a big way — for just a couple of years. And so I think that the left is really going through a lot of growth. And I do think that, and I hope that over time, this degree of collaboration gets even better and gets even stronger. After noting some successes by the Working Families Party, like electing 17 candidates to the New York City Council, and supporting Kathy Hochul for Governor, she concedes that one must learn from experience. I agree on that part, learning from what works and what doesn't work. But I do think that we’re growing, and I do think that the left is growing and maturing. I think that for a very long time, the left of the United States, until very, very recently, is not used to power, not used to being in power, not used to wielding power. And I think sometimes the immediate reaction to making gains is being suspicious of it, because then you can, after so long in the wilderness, eventually — I think sometimes people make the mistake of associating losing with virtue, and winning with a lack of virtue, like you must have done something wrong. And I think that we’re starting to shake that a little bit as a movement and learning to wield some of these wins, especially as we’ve made gains in the last two cycles. From her, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley in 2018, adding Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush in 2020, and now Greg Casar, Summer Lee, and Delia Ramirez. Pity that Marie Newman lost, though at least she lost to a middle-of-the-road Democrat and not a very conservative one like Dan Lipinski. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Then about wielding power, If someone makes a mistake, it’s not the same thing as someone selling out. There needs to be a differentiation between an individual decision and a record and a pattern. AOC seems very thoughtful. Then she was interviewed in the New York Times. Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Calcified’ Machine Politics Cost Democrats in New York - The New York Times Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats should not have adopted “Republican narratives on crime and safety,” and need to abandon “pure moderate” approaches. As to why Democrats did so poorly, It’s no secret that an enormous amount of party leadership in New York State is based on big money and old-school, calcified machine-style politics that creates a very anemic voting base that is disengaged and disenfranchised. Then she criticized Democrats for imitating the Republicans too much about crime and public safety. She praised Gov. Hochul for doing otherwise, like bringing up the proliferation of guns and gun safety, but she said that campaigning is a "team sport". Not once has the New York State Democratic chair ever called me. All he has done is antagonize myself and any progressive candidates. We need to get together as a team. This idea of pure moderate politics that seeks to defeat both a progressive grass roots and a Republican Party at the same time very often isolates itself and makes itself smaller. Clintonite "Third Way" centrism. But she says that the NY State Gov't can be different. We can be a state like California that puts things like public banking on the ballot. We have bills in the State Legislature right now like the Build Public Renewables Act that is profoundly motivating. "New York politics especially in New York City is going through a very strong generational upheaval." then "We should rebuild the New York State Democratic Party and if that is a structure that refuses to be reformed, we rebuild and replace." #### Shadowy Man ##### Veteran Member There are two possibilities: 1: This is all Biden's fault 2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control. When you put it like that, sheesh - of COURSE it's all Biden's fault! He heads up the GLOBAL conspiracy committee that controls GLOBAL inflation. Oh please. That’s ridiculous. Biden’s not Jewish. #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Alessandra Biaggi on Twitter: "If you are a Democrat anywhere in America who is frustrated that we’ll lose the House by so few seats: NY House losses were the reason & the man who theoretically could have averted this is named Jay Jacobs. And now we’re going to have him replaced, for proper accountability." / Twitter That's one reason. Also not going to bat for JMLS in OR-05. Sean Patrick Maloney on His Loss, the Media and A.O.C. - The New York Times - "Mr. Maloney said that he and other New York Democrats were unable to overcome suburban fears of crime. He also had some harsh words for Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." He was the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and he ought to have been an expert on campaigning. Though he defeated challenger Alessandra Biaggi 70.0% - 29.7% in the primary, he lost, 49.4% - 50.6% in the general election. Why so poorly? I don’t know the answer to that question. But look, voters in New York have been told by the News Corporation machine, principally The New York Post, that crime is the No. 1 issue. In the suburbs, it certainly had an effect. In my own race, of course,$10 million was spent echoing those themes. But it may not just be that. I don’t know.
Then on AOC:
The last time I ran into A.O.C., we were beating her endorsed candidate two to one in a primary, and I didn’t see her one minute of these midterms helping our House majority. So, I’m not sure what kind of advice she has, but I’m sure she’ll be generous with it.
But if she stumps for other candidates, she neglects her district, right? That aside, she did go to California and stump for Katie Porter. Who, happy to say, squeaked through.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Sean Patrick Maloney: how the DCCC chair bungled his own New York race.
In many states, House Democratic candidates are doing much better than expected—a turn of events that Maloney can share credit for as DCCC chair.

But in his home state of New York, four House seats were ceded to Republicans, including Maloney’s. He lost to Republican Mike Lawler in a district that in 2020 Biden carried by more than 10 points. Of the races that have been called, only Long Island Democrat Laura Gillen managed to lose in a more Biden-friendly district; she, unlike Maloney, is not a sitting member of Congress.
SBF was the first DCCC head to lose an election in over 40 years.

His idea of campaigning:
In the weeks before Election Day, Maloney set off on a Europe trip, where he hung out on a balcony overlooking the Seine, and turned up in London, Paris, and Geneva, often alongside congressman Adam Schiff, for gatherings billed as DCCC fundraising events. (The DCCC said in a statement that its total efforts in Europe, of which Maloney’s trip was part, raised $1 million.) Prior to that October sojourn, Maloney’s 7,000-square-foot Cold Spring estate, the residence that was just barely drawn into the 17th Congressional District earlier this year, was listed as a vacation rental on Expedia with the disclaimer “Minimum 2 month rental from July 1–August 31.” (The Maloney campaign said the house was not rented and that the listing was a “ghost post” left over from a previous time.) The Republicans were pumping$10 million into his opponent Mike Lawler's campaign, and SPM ended up taking money from others' campaigns for his campaign, like for OR-05.
Snubbing the Grassroots

In a midterm election where a major enthusiasm gap (and low approval ratings for the president) looked likely to benefit Republicans, the support of grassroots groups was important for Democrats to gin up voter turnout.

This would have been especially true for Maloney, given the demands of his DCCC post.

But according to conversations with many local grassroots organizations, Maloney made no effort to secure their support.
The Working Families Party helped Kathy Hochul win, and also endorsed SPM, but SPM's campaign did not coordinate with the WFP. He also did not coordinate with another such group, Indivisible.

What a flub.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Then about SPM moving from NY-18 to NY-17 after redistricting, and Mondaire Jones fleeing to NY-10 and placing 3rd there.

"Then, Maloney had a bruising primary against a well-liked state senator, Alessandra Biaggi. He won by a comfortable margin, but the race proved surprisingly bitter and, for some, made the bad taste from the Jones saga linger."

Snubbing His New District

Maloney’s primary was a harbinger of his coming troubles. To beat Biaggi, a progressive, he accepted nearly half a million dollars in support from the Police Benevolent Association, the New York City police union, which put that money toward vicious attack ads that denounced the state senator as “a radical anti-police extremist” who “voted to release criminals without bail.” In the general, Lawler attacked Maloney using a similar tactic, portraying him as soft on crime.

But Maloney should have been worried about a larger hurdle to winning over his new district. Campaign strategists repeatedly mentioned that Maloney’s treatment of Jones—who grew up in the district that Maloney pushed him out of—was a serious issue for potential voters they talked to. “I was surprised at just how much people brought that up canvassing in the general,” said Wisner, of the Rockland County WFP. “Lower voter information folks, average voters, even they were kind of disgusted.”

She said that when activists were door-knocking, “people would say, ‘Isn’t he the guy that pushed Mondaire out of this district?’ Folks had a really tough time getting past that. And he didn’t do much work past saying, ‘Well, I live here.’ ”
Some local environmentalists didn't like SPM. They were at loggerheads with him about a natural-gas powerplant expansion; he supported it and they opposed it.
Next door, in the neighboring 18th District that Maloney vacated, the Democrat ran successfully on environmental issues, one of the few congressional victory stories for New York Democrats in the midterms. “The district Maloney was scared to run in was won by Rep. Pat Ryan, who has a sterling environmental record,” Beauchamp said. “It’s remarkable that that was a winning campaign right issue next door, in mostly his old district.”

...
But the fact remains that the DCCC chair didn’t cultivate support in his own district and was forced, at the end of his campaign, to absorb millions of dollars of limited Democratic campaign money that could have gone elsewhere. His loss not only cost Democrats the eminently winnable 17th District—it almost cost them the district he vacated as well. Will it now cost them the House?
It did.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
A Controversial Decision in Oregon Could Cost Democrats the House - "Progressive Jamie McLeod-Skinner trails by 2 points in a race the national Democratic super PACs preemptively deemed unwinnable. She’s not the only one."
She ran in OR-05, and she lost that race by that margin.

Describing the Democratic leadership's unwillingness to support her candidacy in OR-05, especially after she defeated Blue Dog Kurt Schrader, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House.
Schrader had been a member of the so-called Unbreakable Nine who organized against President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better agenda, and said in a private call with the dark-money sponsors of their operation, No Labels, that he hoped to kill it. National progressive groups as well as most of the local Democratic Party operations rallied behind McLeod-Skinner to knock out Schrader in May.

...
“While they pumped last-minute money into the DCCC chair’s losing race in New York,” Indivisible national political director Dani Negrete told The Intercept, “Jamie has been holding on entirely based on her strength as a candidate and her grassroots support.”
It wasn't enough to win the general election, even though she won the primary by 14%.
The party’s underinvestment in McLeod-Skinner is reminiscent of Democrats’ decision to abandon progressive nominee Kara Eastman during her 2018 run against Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon. After Eastman won a stunning upset against the national party’s handpicked nominee, former representative Brad Ashford, Democrats’ national committees declined to spend significant money to help her in the general election, which she lost by just under 5,000 votes.
She ran again in 2020, and the party supported her, but that wasn't enough.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Elected Democrats have heaped praise on outgoing DCCC Chair Maloney for the unexpectedly strong performance despite the steep losses the party suffered in Maloney’s own backyard. In a twist, the loss of Maloney’s own seat, in the suburban 17th District in New York, is being heralded as an act of self-sacrifice rather than evidence of a severe lapse in judgment.
Sarah Ferris on Twitter: "Pelosi speaking on DCCC call to members now, minutes after chair Sean Patrick Maloney concedes his own race.
"Our chairman took an arrow for us," Pelosi told members, per source. She called it as "a Pyrrhic victory." / Twitter

and
Seth Moulton on Twitter: "Our DCCC Chairman put himself at risk to support other congressional Democrats. Service before self— that’s leadership. Mark me first on the list of @spmaloney fans.
Thank you, Sean, for a decade of service and two years in the political trenches." / Twitter

Several of the Democratic seats that Republicans managed to pick up — including the Long Island-based 3rd and 4th districts, which Biden won by 8 and 15 points respectively — saw less than $3 million in investments by the DCCC and House Majority PAC. Those figures greatly lag the over$4 million in spending Maloney was able to marshal from new outside PACs in his ill-fated quest to hold a seat Biden won by over 10 points, according to a DailyKos calculation. In Long Island, Democrats were also hurt by the retirement of Rep. Tom Suozzi, and the redistricting process ordered by the Court of Appeals, which pushed the primary back to September, giving Democrats only two months to campaign for the general election.

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Some races in California, where key elections hang in the balance, also saw Democrats outspent. In two particularly glaring examples, the party’s national committees invested a measly $23,000 in Christy Smith and an underwhelming$204,000 in Jay Chen: two Democratic nominees who challenged Republican incumbents in Democratic-leaning districts.

Smith said she has a “very narrow” path remaining, as ballots continued to be counted, but had no kind words for Washington Democrats. “They did more than give up on me,” she said, noting that the DCCC recruited a candidate to run against her in the primary, despite her having lost in 2020 by fewer than 350 votes. With the party machinery behind John Quaye Quartey, Smith’s fundraising capacity was suppressed, and she blew through her million dollars to win the primary, entering the general broke. The national party’s preferred candidate won just 4,037 votes in the primary. “That was also a waste of the $1 million in donor money he raised to get a single digit result. Two million dollars in Dem donor money wasted on a primary that they created,” Smith said. After that, the party walked away from the race. Christy Smith - Ballotpedia • Primary: Mike Garcia (R) 49.6%, Christy Smith (D) 35.4%, John Quaye Quartey (D) 5.9%, Ruth Luevanos (D) 5.3%, two others (both R) 2.5%, 1.3% • General: Mike Garcia (R) 54.2%, Christy Smith (D) 45.8% Seems like the Democratic leadership was irked at CS winning there also. Julia Rosen (mastadon: union.place/@juliarosen) on Twitter: "You should read this whole thread from @ChristySmithCA. She talks about how badly we got outspent in a tight race. This is how bad. (pic link)" / Twitter then Christy Smith on Twitter: "I’m going to start this very long by saying how absolutely thrilled I am that we’ve held the Senate and a House hold is still likely. Grateful to every American voter who leaned into the responsibility to protect our democracy and freedom! 1/" / Twitter stating in the long Twitter thread that "I’ve been massively outspent here for a few cycles now." And in neighboring Arizona, Democrat Kirsten Engel is defying expectations in her bid for the Tucson-based 6th Congressional District after receiving just over$70,000 in support from Democrats’ national committees — a paltry sum against an opponent who received nearly $5 million in support from equivalent Republican groups. What happened there? Was it the Democratic leadership being irked yet again? Or simple neglect? #### lpetrich ##### Contributor Edward-Isaac Dovere on Twitter: ".@RepSeanMaloney on soon to be former colleague @AOC: “The last time I ran into A.O.C., we were beating her endorsed candidate two to one in a primary, and I didn’t see her one minute of these midterms helping our House majority.” (link)" / Twitter noting Sean Patrick Maloney on His Loss, the Media and A.O.C. - The New York Times AOC had a lot to say about that. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Let’s make something crystal clear: ..." / Twitter Let’s make something crystal clear: - SPM courted me for donations to swing races & it was the 1st thing I did this term. Over a quarter million for Dems this cycle, DCCC facilitated some & now he denies it. - If he isn’t aware of my visit to CA & efforts we put in, that’s on him - Because of Dem party abandonment in key areas, statewide victories depended HEAVILY on driving up numbers in progressive areas like mine & @nywfp - To our knowledge, I was the only NYC House Dem in a safe seat to run a full-throated heavy field operation for GOTV What I love about his claim that we gave frontline members “donations they didn’t want”: a) the VAST majority were good w/ early financial support to position themselves early b) for the few who didn’t want our help + got it, where do you think we got the$ info to give? DCCC!

As for him “not seeing me” - perhaps it’s because he as a party leader chose not to see nor value prominent members of his party for years.

Either way, we will continue to organize & turn out undervalued + unseen communities in this country - whether the powerful like it or not.

Lastly, many moderate dems + leaders made it very clear that our help was not welcome nor wanted. Despite our many, many offers. Yet found ways to try to help from afar. So for them to blame us for respecting their approach in their districts is laughable.

Take some ownership.

Yet we*
I remember when AOC donated some money to D's in vulnerable seats, and many of them returning that money. Almost as if her contributions were bribes that they didn't want to take.

Jen Perelman on Twitter: "@AOC They want your money, not your policy. Don’t hold back Alex, corporate Dems need to go into the dustbin of history. @AOC" / Twitter
But AOC wanted them in Congress because they are better than Republicans.

Blue Bee on Twitter: "@AOC Is this really the thing on the top of mind for Sean Patrick Maloney right now? Some inconsequential petty insults to hurt colleagues, while he went down in ignominy that everyone recognizes was due to his own hubris. Oh, I need to go on the record to attack AOC? Good riddance." / Twitter

Judy Mahoney Mastodon: Momster_of_2@home.social on Twitter: "@AOC I’m in NY 17. …" / Twitter
’m in NY 17. When Mondaire ran, I bumped into him 3 times during the campaign season at every day events. He spent some time greeting and chatting with me. I never saw SPM in our district, never spoke with him, never heard of any events he attended. He got my vote but hard to get excited about him as a candidate if he isn’t getting to know his constituents. Also he was not my primary choice but he sure spent a lot of money bashing my choice in the primary. Again hard to get excited about that candidate
Yet another corporate Democrat who neglected his district. Just like Joe Crowley and Eliot Engel.

Anthony on Twitter: "@Momster_of_2 @AOC I saw him once and he looked wiped, almost bored or exhausted. He just seemed over it." / Twitter

#### lpetrich

##### Contributor
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "According to our digital team: ..." / Twitter
According to our digital team:

This cycle alone, @TeamAOC raised online:
Candidates: $553,644.81 Grassroots organizations:$839,989.50
Charity + mutual aid: $6,363,615.20 All time, raised online: Candidates:$2,201,483.48
Organizations: $3,049,161.41 Charities:$6,363,615.20

And this is largely our email campaign figures. Doesn’t include other potential streams as well.
Brett "Solidarity 2022" Banditelli on Twitter: "@AOC @TeamAOC And Sean Patrick Maloney raised the white flag. Same thing, right?" / Twitter

Deconstructed Podcast: AOC and Mo Mitchell on the Midterms
"On Tuesday, Democrats miraculously avoided the sort of major rout at the polls normally associated with a new president’s first midterms."
Has transcripts of their interviews.

#### blastula

##### Contributor
Peltola won the AK seat, 55% to 45% for Palin after final round. The House is now 220 R to 213 D with 2 races left to call, but Rs are ahead and should win those.

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Peltola won the AK seat, 55% to 45% for Palin after final round.
Interestingly, it wasn't even that close. Previously it was speculated that republicans could've won if they had switched to Begich instead of Palin, but even with their combined vote it would've been 50-50 (and in reality a sizeable number of Palin voters would not have put Begich as their second choice).

Is this a victory for IRV? Or are Alaska republicans going to blame the voting system for their loss and try to dismantle it?

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
Peltola won the AK seat, 55% to 45% for Palin after final round.
Interestingly, it wasn't even that close. Previously it was speculated that republicans could've won if they had switched to Begich instead of Palin, but even with their combined vote it would've been 50-50 (and in reality a sizeable number of Palin voters would not have put Begich as their second choice).

Is this a victory for IRV? Or are Alaska republicans going to blame the voting system for their loss and try to dismantle it?
Porque no los dos?

#### Jayjay

##### Contributor
Peltola won the AK seat, 55% to 45% for Palin after final round.
Interestingly, it wasn't even that close. Previously it was speculated that republicans could've won if they had switched to Begich instead of Palin, but even with their combined vote it would've been 50-50 (and in reality a sizeable number of Palin voters would not have put Begich as their second choice).

Is this a victory for IRV? Or are Alaska republicans going to blame the voting system for their loss and try to dismantle it?
Porque no los dos?
I think a victory for the system is something that keeps it going. A democrat winning might be seen as a political victory for dems and proof that this is a conspiracy to disenfranchise the voters. From that point of view maybe Begich winning might have been better for the longevity of IRV in Alaska and hopefully its proliferation elsewhere.

Peltola would've won even if it weren't for IRV.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Then about SPM moving from NY-18 to NY-17 after redistricting, and Mondaire Jones fleeing to NY-10 and placing 3rd there.
Not this shit again! SPM did not "move". The district boundaries did, as they do every decade due to redistricting. The old 18th district is no more. Nobody should have to run in a district just because it shares a number with the previous one.
Mondaire Jones should have ran in his home district, which is NY-16, against Jamaal "Defund the Police" Bowman.
"Then, Maloney had a bruising primary against a well-liked state senator, Alessandra Biaggi. He won by a comfortable margin, but the race proved surprisingly bitter and, for some, made the bad taste from the Jones saga linger."
Lawler should send Biaggi a nice box of chocolates as a thank you.

denounced the state senator [Alessandra Biaggi] as “a radical anti-police extremist” who “voted to release criminals without bail.”
Well, she is and she did.

But Maloney should have been worried about a larger hurdle to winning over his new district. Campaign strategists repeatedly mentioned that Maloney’s treatment of Jones—who grew up in the district that Maloney pushed him out of—was a serious issue for potential voters they talked to.
What was that bad about SPM's treatment of Jones? Why should SPM retreat to a district he has no ties with (except sharing the number with a previous district) merely to have Jones run without opposition?
She said that when activists were door-knocking, “people would say, ‘Isn’t he the guy that pushed Mondaire out of this district?’ Folks had a really tough time getting past that. And he didn’t do much work past saying, ‘Well, I live here.’ ”
Low information voters do not understand how redistricting works. It wasn't SPM who pushed MJ out of the district. MJ had the chance to run in the district he lived in (NY-16) which I think would have been ideal. He even could have ran against SPM in the 17th. Nobody forced him into the 10th, least of all SPM.

Some local environmentalists didn't like SPM. They were at loggerheads with him about a natural-gas powerplant expansion; he supported it and they opposed it.
People need energy. Natural gas is relatively clean and plentiful in the US.
Ecomentalists can be stupid.

Next door, in the neighboring 18th District that Maloney vacated,
No, he did not. He vacated old 18th. Old 18th wasn't a factor in the 2022 elections. 2022 elections were in the new 18th, with very different territory and people. A lot of the old 18th is in the new 17th.

the Democrat ran successfully on environmental issues, one of the few congressional victory stories for New York Democrats in the midterms. “The district Maloney was scared to run in was won by Rep. Pat Ryan, who has a sterling environmental record,” Beauchamp said. “It’s remarkable that that was a winning campaign right issue next door, in mostly his old district.”
Is he against powerplants?

it almost cost them the district he vacated as well.
Some political writers do not understand how redistricting works either.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Clintonite "Third Way" centrism. But she says that the NY State Gov't can be different.
Third Way centrism was very successful in its day.
NY Dems would be well advised to adopt some of its planks. For example, Hochul would be well advised to undo the idiotic bail deform law.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
I didn't read what Zipr said. Though it's clear that the US is not an anomaly. Many developed countries have worse inflation than we do in the US. Some have lower. Without going though the math and deciding what is and is not to be counted as a developed or "modern" country, the US us pretty in the middle and it's clearly a global problem - not a problem that can be pinned on Biden.
Your conclusion does not follow. Just because US might have a middling inflation rate among developed countries does not mean that some of Biden's policies (such as continuing Pandemic largess long after the Pandemic-induced disruptions to the economy were over) did not contribute to the inflation in the US. Without these policies, inflation would have been lower.
Note that Biden wanted to spend \$3,500,000,000,000.00 more money than he was already spending, which would have added to the inflationary pressure. That this did not happen is not thanks to Biden, but thanks to Manchin and Sinema.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
There are two possibilities:

1: This is all Biden's fault
2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control.

I never claimed it was ALL Biden's fault. Not even in the US, much less globally.
But fiscal policy (and other countries have their own fiscal policies that they can screw up) definitely contributes to inflation.
The only reason lefties do not want to admit that is that it would curb their spending.