Democrats Win Senate

[Yuuri 21,636]

Both Dems, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, have won their races meaning the Senate is now tied 50-50. VP Kamala Harris will be the tie breaking vote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/06/us/georgia-election-results

 

 

 

[LateToCult 41,990]

It’s “Democrats” btw. Easy mistake 

[Yuuri 21,636]

 

[Economy 52,910]

50-50 woa. So if I understand American politics well enough this is the kind of Senate where senators on both parties that are more centrist can make or break votes since they occasionally may vote against their own party and in favour of the other

[Yuuri 21,636]

1 minute ago, LateToCult said:

It’s “Democrats” btw. Easy mistake 

Gotta make sure no one beats me

[BUtterfield 8 41,819]

Good

[Yuuri 21,636]

Just now, Economy said:

50-50 woa. So if I understand American politics well enough this is the kind of Senate where senators on both parties that are more centrist can make or break votes since they occasionally may vote against their own party and in favour of the other

Over the years the parties have stopped crossing the line to vote for each other. VP-elect Kamala Harris will be the tie breaking vote for Dems making it 51-50

[stevana229 1,916]

WOOOO HOOOO!!!!!!!

[Economy 52,910]

42 minutes ago, Yuuri said:

Over the years the parties have stopped crossing the line to vote for each other. VP-elect Kamala Harris will be the tie breaking vote for Dems making it 51-50

Haven't there always been a few that either abstain or vote sometimes in a way that isn't usually what most of their party goes for?

[WhiteWitch 720]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Haven't there always been a few that either abstain or vote sometimes in a way that isn't usually what most of their party goes for?

Seldom in recent days but yes it can and does happen

[Yuuri 21,636]

1 minute ago, Economy said:

Haven't there always been a few that either abstain or vote sometimes in a way that isn't usually what most of their party goes for?

Nope, here is a quick video that'll explain it better than I will ever explain it

 

[FATCAT 60,896]

24 minutes ago, Economy said:

Haven't there always been a few that either abstain or vote sometimes in a way that isn't usually what most of their party goes for?

I think you're thinking of when the majority is above 50/50, like for instance if there were 58 Republicans Mitch Mcconnell could give up to 7 "You can vote however" cards to his party, since there vote isn't needed to pass a simple majority vote. If it's 50/50 neither side can lose votes if they need a simple majority.

[Economy 52,910]

38 minutes ago, Yuuri said:

Nope, here is a quick video that'll explain it better than I will ever explain it

 

I cant whatch ATM but I'm gonna try to remember. Thanks

[Economy 52,910]

15 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I think you're thinking of when the majority is above 50/50, like for instance if there were 58 Republicans Mitch Mcconnell could give up to 7 "You can vote however" cards to his party, since there vote isn't needed to pass a simple majority vote. If it's 50/50 neither side can lose votes if they need a simple majority.

So what is the point of votes if the party is gonna tell it's members how they have to vote?

[FATCAT 60,896]

7 minutes ago, Economy said:

So what is the point of votes if the party is gonna tell it's members how they have to vote?

I should be more clear, they aren't telling them how to vote, but allowing them to vote without any consequences. So, for instance, other Republicans won't attack/come after them for voting against something if it helps them get re-elected.