Congressional Special Election (last call! unstickied after NY-27 final results)

[NewYorkExpress]

I still think seating Pittenger would be the proper thing to do here, even if isn't legal.

That's absurd.  You can't say with certainty that he would have won a general election in which he wasn't a candidate.  Anything could have happened there.

No, I can't say with certainty, but if Pittenger could win an primary where he was facing a personal scandal (against Harris) in 2016, then he probably could beat a Democrat in 2018.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I still think seating Pittenger would be the proper thing to do here, even if isn't legal.

That is insane.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There is no acceptable solution here but a Pittenger vs. McCready special election.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I still think seating Pittenger would be the proper thing to do here, even if isn't legal.

lol k

[GeorgiaModerate]

I still think seating Pittenger would be the proper thing to do here, even if isn't legal.

That's absurd.  You can't say with certainty that he would have won a general election in which he wasn't a candidate.  Anything could have happened there.

No, I can't say with certainty, but if Pittenger could win an primary where he was facing a personal scandal (against Harris) in 2016, then he probably could beat a Democrat in 2018.

He probably could.  But you can't seat someone based on "probably".  Probable winners lose elections all the time.

[Badger]

Predicting it now. Will the new Congress reconvenes in a week, they refused to seat Mark Harris as the winner. Fox News acknowledges indications of possible reported fraud, maybe, but their main angle is on how the new democratic majority is already over reaching their power Etc by refusing to seat a Republican, completely not even trying to explain why not seating Harris despite the evidence of fraud is somehow overreach.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Predicting it now. Will the new Congress reconvenes in a week, they refused to seat Mark Harris as the winner. Fox News acknowledges indications of possible reported fraud, maybe, but their main angle is on how the new democratic majority is already over reaching their power Etc by refusing to seat a Republican, completely not even trying to explain why not seating Harris despite the evidence of fraud is somehow overreach.

Seems likely. They would be much better off by going "This scam artist stole the seat of an elected Republican, then stole the general election against a Democrat". But I doubt they're smart enough.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

This sh!tshow is not ending anytime soon is it?

[henster]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

[brucejoel99]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

Funnily enough, the best response to this statement of yours is another response to another statement of yours (pasted below) for which you haven't yet been able to "grow a pair" & respond back to (maybe b/c you realize that it's wrong of you to only oppose a new primary, however tainted the previous one was, for solely partisan reasons but you're too scared to admit you're wrong so you've instead doubled down on your wrongness, perhaps?).

The Dems on the NCSBE need to grow a pair and order a new election before the GOP passes their new bill forcing a new primary. The evidence is overwhelming there is no reason to drag this out further.

Why would you want that, other than partisan reasons?  Since the primary looks to have been equally tainted by absentee fraud, starting over with a new primary would be the fairest thing to the voters of the district.

Look, I get it; I'm a liberal Democrat, & I want this to be our 41st pickup just as much as the next Democrat. But Harris stole the primary just as surely as he stole the general. He had no right to the nomination. If you'd allow one fraud to stand but not the other, then not only would that be ridiculous, but it'd be just plain wrong too.

Harris belongs in jail & democracy demands a full, clean re-vote. If that would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, but hey, that's what the legislative system is there for, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off for having that law in place.

[NewYorkExpress]

Predicting it now. Will the new Congress reconvenes in a week, they refused to seat Mark Harris as the winner. Fox News acknowledges indications of possible reported fraud, maybe, but their main angle is on how the new democratic majority is already over reaching their power Etc by refusing to seat a Republican, completely not even trying to explain why not seating Harris despite the evidence of fraud is somehow overreach.

That's a good argument for why we should have more limited free speech, if we have media organizations (FOX News, MSNBC) acting as propaganda mouthpieces for a political party.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Predicting it now. Will the new Congress reconvenes in a week, they refused to seat Mark Harris as the winner. Fox News acknowledges indications of possible reported fraud, maybe, but their main angle is on how the new democratic majority is already over reaching their power Etc by refusing to seat a Republican, completely not even trying to explain why not seating Harris despite the evidence of fraud is somehow overreach.

That's a good argument for why we should have more limited free speech, if we have media organizations (FOX News, MSNBC) acting as propaganda mouthpieces for a political party.

Once again, you're spewing insanity.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Predicting it now. Will the new Congress reconvenes in a week, they refused to seat Mark Harris as the winner. Fox News acknowledges indications of possible reported fraud, maybe, but their main angle is on how the new democratic majority is already over reaching their power Etc by refusing to seat a Republican, completely not even trying to explain why not seating Harris despite the evidence of fraud is somehow overreach.

That's a good argument for why we should have more limited free speech, if we have media organizations (FOX News, MSNBC) acting as propaganda mouthpieces for a political party.

Once again, you're spewing insanity.

What he's proposing is certainly a cure that's worse than the disease.

[Badger]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

Funnily enough, the best response to this statement of yours is another response to another statement of yours (pasted below) for which you haven't yet been able to "grow a pair" & respond back to (maybe b/c you realize that it's wrong of you to only oppose a new primary, however tainted the previous one was, for solely partisan reasons but you're too scared to admit you're wrong so you've instead doubled down on your wrongness, perhaps?).

The Dems on the NCSBE need to grow a pair and order a new election before the GOP passes their new bill forcing a new primary. The evidence is overwhelming there is no reason to drag this out further.

Why would you want that, other than partisan reasons?  Since the primary looks to have been equally tainted by absentee fraud, starting over with a new primary would be the fairest thing to the voters of the district.

Look, I get it; I'm a liberal Democrat, & I want this to be our 41st pickup just as much as the next Democrat. But Harris stole the primary just as surely as he stole the general. He had no right to the nomination. If you'd allow one fraud to stand but not the other, then not only would that be ridiculous, but it'd be just plain wrong too.

Harris belongs in jail & democracy demands a full, clean re-vote. If that would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, but hey, that's what the legislative system is there for, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off for having that law in place.

My computer is being worked on all day today, and I can't effectively cut and paste on my phone. However, please look at my post several above yours as to why I seriously seriously question whether or not Pittinger has any legitimate basis to challenge the primary.

 In a nutshell, there have been indications somewhere in this megathread that he knew damn well what was going on in Bladen County, and surely he and his campaign noticed the Absurd absentee ballot numbers in Harris's favor. And yet, he chose to waive any challenge. The reasons for him not doing so in the face of blatant fraud are unknown, but I can't come up with any other reasonable hypothesis other than he was given a combination of carrot and stick to shut up about it if you wanted help with his post Congressional employment prospects. Or in any rate he played the loyal party man for whatever reason. Regardless, it's irrelevant because this was known to him and he waved it six some months ago when an investigation could have been conducted while said evidence was still fresh.

I'm sorry. Yes, I have little doubt that Harris stole the primary election the same way he attempted to steal the general election. But this seems entirely like the NC GOP modus operandi of twisting every rule and amending every regulation and statute to maintain political power at all costs. Sorry Congressman. You snooze, you lose. Just because McCready effectively challenged fraudulent election returns when you chose, repeat chose not to do so six months ago doesn't give you or the GOP another bite at the Apple.

So how am I wrong here? I think my argument completely comports with the letter and the spirit of the law and doesn't rely on partisan politics for its conclusion. Genuinely interested in your take.

[brucejoel99]

After all of this the GOP is still trying to rig, changing the law to force a new primary after all of this. I have no idea why Dems on the NCSBE are sitting by and allowing them a chance to win this seat after trying to steal it. Order new elections before the GOP overrides Cooper's veto.

Funnily enough, the best response to this statement of yours is another response to another statement of yours (pasted below) for which you haven't yet been able to "grow a pair" & respond back to (maybe b/c you realize that it's wrong of you to only oppose a new primary, however tainted the previous one was, for solely partisan reasons but you're too scared to admit you're wrong so you've instead doubled down on your wrongness, perhaps?).

The Dems on the NCSBE need to grow a pair and order a new election before the GOP passes their new bill forcing a new primary. The evidence is overwhelming there is no reason to drag this out further.

Why would you want that, other than partisan reasons?  Since the primary looks to have been equally tainted by absentee fraud, starting over with a new primary would be the fairest thing to the voters of the district.

Look, I get it; I'm a liberal Democrat, & I want this to be our 41st pickup just as much as the next Democrat. But Harris stole the primary just as surely as he stole the general. He had no right to the nomination. If you'd allow one fraud to stand but not the other, then not only would that be ridiculous, but it'd be just plain wrong too.

Harris belongs in jail & democracy demands a full, clean re-vote. If that would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, but hey, that's what the legislative system is there for, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off for having that law in place.

My computer is being worked on all day today, and I can't effectively cut and paste on my phone. However, please look at my post several above yours as to why I seriously seriously question whether or not Pittinger has any legitimate basis to challenge the primary.

 In a nutshell, there have been indications somewhere in this megathread that he knew damn well what was going on in Bladen County, and surely he and his campaign noticed the Absurd absentee ballot numbers in Harris's favor. And yet, he chose to waive any challenge. The reasons for him not doing so in the face of blatant fraud are unknown, but I can't come up with any other reasonable hypothesis other than he was given a combination of carrot and stick to shut up about it if you wanted help with his post Congressional employment prospects. Or in any rate he played the loyal party man for whatever reason. Regardless, it's irrelevant because this was known to him and he waved it six some months ago when an investigation could have been conducted while said evidence was still fresh.

I'm sorry. Yes, I have little doubt that Harris stole the primary election the same way he attempted to steal the general election. But this seems entirely like the NC GOP modus operandi of twisting every rule and amending every regulation and statute to maintain political power at all costs. Sorry Congressman. You snooze, you lose. Just because McCready effectively challenged fraudulent election returns when you chose, repeat chose not to do so six months ago doesn't give you or the GOP another bite at the Apple.

So how am I wrong here? I think my argument completely comports with the letter and the spirit of the law and doesn't rely on partisan politics for its conclusion. Genuinely interested in your take.

B/c the letter & spirit of the law as it exists in the status quo is wrong if it would allow the primary election fraud to stand but not the general election fraud. I'm sorry you probably expected a longer answer but it's just that simple. Election fraud is election fraud is election fraud, & election fraud (& the perpetuation & further enabling of it by allowing it to stand even when it's plainly clear that it took place) is wrong, regardless of whether the electoral victim refused to challenge such fraud, b/c it's not about Pittenger, it's about the people of NC-09 & their democracy.

If we care about their democracy, our democracy, then we should support a full, clean re-vote, regardless of its partisan implications for whichever side & even if Pittenger (for whatever unsubstantiated & speculative reason) chose not to. As I said earlier, if such a full, clean re-vote would necessitate that the current law be changed, then so be it, b/c that's what the legislative system is there for, among other things, to fix broken laws, & both the government & our democracy as a whole will be better off if they did so.

[Ebsy]

Only on Atlas would you find someone advocating that the candidate no one voted for in the general election actually be the one seated.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Only on Atlas would you find someone advocating that the candidate no one voted for in the general election actually be the one seated.

You could probably find it somewhere else, but only on Atlas would be it be normal behavior.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NC BoE dissolved by Wake County court: https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/politics/wake-county-superior-court-rules-that-nc-board-of-elections-to-dissolve-amid-district-9-investigation/275-07a600fc-2ced-404e-8d6e-2c86770a8286

[NewYorkExpress]

NC BoE dissolved by Wake County court: https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/politics/wake-county-superior-court-rules-that-nc-board-of-elections-to-dissolve-amid-district-9-investigation/275-07a600fc-2ced-404e-8d6e-2c86770a8286

They are right.

Couldn't the board of elections have presented it's case before Christmas?

[Antonio the Sixth]

NC BoE dissolved by Wake County court: https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/politics/wake-county-superior-court-rules-that-nc-board-of-elections-to-dissolve-amid-district-9-investigation/275-07a600fc-2ced-404e-8d6e-2c86770a8286

wait WHAT?

I can't access the link from Europe, can someone tell me what's going on?

[Woody]

NC BoE dissolved by Wake County court: https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/politics/wake-county-superior-court-rules-that-nc-board-of-elections-to-dissolve-amid-district-9-investigation/275-07a600fc-2ced-404e-8d6e-2c86770a8286

Good.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

NC BoE dissolved by Wake County court: https://www.wcnc.com/mobile/article/news/politics/wake-county-superior-court-rules-that-nc-board-of-elections-to-dissolve-amid-district-9-investigation/275-07a600fc-2ced-404e-8d6e-2c86770a8286

wait WHAT?

I can't access the link from Europe, can someone tell me what's going on?

Basically there was a suit on this dating back to October, do before this, but it kept getting stayed. The court says they can't stay it further. Cooper intends to appeal though.

Without the BoE there's kind of a limbo over who'd investigate or even certify the results. I read somewhere that Cooper or the Attorney General (also a Democrat) could order an investigation but that would only be in regards to the criminsl charges involved. Actually resolving the race is tricky.

Assuming Cooper's appeal fails, here's the twist: he can still appoint a new board...but under that bill the legislature just passed over his veto it wouldn't be seated until January 31. Thus leaving this in total limbo and the seat vacant until then.

[RogueBeaver]

https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1078660678045569024

https://twitter.com/NickOchsnerWBTV/status/1078672449271746560

[ProudModerate2]

What a mess!

[Tender Branson]

What do you think will happen earlier ?

Beto O'Rourke announcing his campaign for President or NC-09 getting a new congressman/woman ?