The midterm Congress doesn't matter; it would be the Congress elected in 2024 that takes office on 3 January 2025

But yes, both chambers of Congress acting together have always had the power to install a President. See Hayes-Tilden 1876

Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?

It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results https://t.co/uK2VTXOYRm
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it

But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes

Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere https://t.co/dD9xQJSeVY
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not https://t.co/SDgRF5G6CV
Elect better Congresscritters

There is no other solution until you're in a world where amending the Constitution to remove it is plausible https://t.co/o30AU7zAd3
Since the modern two-party Dem-Rep system began in 1860, a new President of one party has taken office with both Congressional chambers controlled by the other party in:

➡️ 1969 (Nixon)
➡️ 1973 (Ford)

That's it. 2x in 160 years.

1/ https://t.co/jkN41XhTLx
And in those 2x-in-160-years occurrences, there weren't majorities in both chambers to overturn the results

(Just like there aren't now even in a Republican-controlled Senate)

2/
@dotcommodity
That's as close to "functionally impossible" as you can get for a thing that can theoretically happen

3/3
@dotcommodity
https://t.co/Sr93YMv54o

More from T. Greg Doucette

We all have a merry chuckle as they're voted down and we watch preparations for Biden's inauguration continue

Trumpists don't have enough votes in either chamber


Sort of

You'd only get Acting President Nancy Pelosi if the vote counting wasn't done by January 20th when Trump's term ends

1/


Basically, if e.g. Arizona's Biden votes were thrown out, Dems would object to Arkansas or some other state soon after Arizona

When the chambers separate to consider the objection, the House would refer the question to committee first

2/
@philski68

And the committee would intentionally never meet, unless / until there was some deal worked out to let the vote-counting continue without issue

So definitely possible, a point of leverage for Dems, but still exceptionally unlikely

3/3
@philski68

Congress can do whatever it wants – if both chambers agree to it
Strongly desirable, but 0% likelihood IMO

I'd love for the President's pardon powers to be restricted to before the election


Very low

I won't put them at zero because you never know what could theoretically happen, but the last amendment was largely accidental and still 28 years ago

The last intentional amendment was ratified 49 years ago


No

People shouldn't end up with fewer rights by banding together, that's just


Don't know the precise verbiage, but it would require the Wyoming Rule for House seats and expand the Senate to 3 Senators per


Yes: that's the purpose of the House, and the # of electoral votes for President being rooted in the
**********
6TH ANNUAL
BULL CITY FOODRAISER
FINAL METRICS THREAD
**********


Going to fill this thread with the updated final numbers

Prior threads are here –

➡️ Foodraiser history thread:
https://t.co/Hz0jxFrswF

➡️ Initial 6th Annual data thread: https://t.co/XkK4oWE9iT

➡️ 6th Annual results photos + video thread:


You'll recall that we had to buy a sh*tload of grocery bags that were not included in our initial data thread

And then had to buy another sh*tload the next day 🤦‍♂️

Those paper bag runs added $386.94 to the expenditures ($193.47 x 2)

That put the grand total spent at $55,426.68:
➡️ $10 for cashier's check
➡️ $55,029.74 for food
➡️ $386.94 for bags

The Bag Fund donations exceeded what we needed though, so we capped 2020's #'s at actual expenditures and will hold the rest for 2021 (more on that down-thread)


Counting the new donors who contributed to The Bag Fund, and de-duplicating the folks who'd already donated to the main fundraiser, we ended up with 825 total donors
Maximum of 2 hours of floor debate per objection

No requirement to use the whole 2 hours


Doubt it. I think you'll get maybe an hour with Arizona so Congresscritters can get their viral C-SPAN clips, then they'll get bored with it and move on


Correct


The Speaker and the Vice President preside over their respective chambers like normal, then decide who talks


I'd need to go through whatever rules the House adopts tomorrow, they're not my forte

More from Politics

We’ve been getting calls and outreach from Queens residents all day about this.

The community’s response? Outrage.


Amazon is a billion-dollar company. The idea that it will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks at a time when our subway is crumbling and our communities need MORE investment, not less, is extremely concerning to residents here.

When we talk about bringing jobs to the community, we need to dig deep:
- Has the company promised to hire in the existing community?
- What’s the quality of jobs + how many are promised? Are these jobs low-wage or high wage? Are there benefits? Can people collectively bargain?

Displacement is not community development. Investing in luxury condos is not the same thing as investing in people and families.

Shuffling working class people out of a community does not improve their quality of life.

We need to focus on good healthcare, living wages, affordable rent. Corporations that offer none of those things should be met w/ skepticism.

It’s possible to establish economic partnerships w/ real opportunities for working families, instead of a race-to-the-bottom competition.

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.