A Fact-Checker’s Guide to Thanksgiving Politics

A Fact-Checker’s Guide to Thanksgiving Politics

With the holiday on the heels of the contentious midterm elections, it might be inevitable that your angry uncle or radical niece will turn to speak to the campaigns, the migrant caravan or George Soros.

The turkey has been carved, the potatoes mashed, your wine poured. And anyone who has had one way too many drinks, perhaps undoubtedly, utter two words.

“So – Trump?”

Maybe you, similar to Americans, dread talking about politics at Thanksgiving supper. Maybe your food, like celebrations following the 2016 election, will be shorter consequently of contention. Or possibly you relish in interesting with this crazy comparative you disagree with on almost everything.

With the vacation on the heels of the midterm elections, sitting out a political food battle may be unavoidable. Nonetheless, it doesn’t need to be inaccurate. Arm yourself with the reality.

Election results
Yes, there is a “blue influx” inside your home, but be skeptical of statements exaggerating its size.
By the figures, House Democrats have a net gain of at least 38 chairs and may still put in a few more to the tally. That’s better than typical; the party that will not control the White House has gained typically 33 House seats through the midterms since 1862. Nonetheless, it is less than the 63 chairs that House Republicans received this year 2010. Total, most districts shifted left, despite structural drawbacks Democrats experienced, like partisan gerrymandering.

Similarly, features about Republican accomplishments in the Senate should be studied with a grain of salt.
All except one Senate competition has been decided: a runoff election in Mississippi. Presuming Republicans earn that race, the party will have gained two seats using their current razor-thin most 51 senators, coordinating their showing during the 1970 and 2002 elections. But prior to the 2016 elections, Republicans experienced almost all with 54 chairs; now they have 52.

Claims of widespread voter scams in the chaotic Florida races for governor and senator are baseless.
The Florida Section of Condition, which oversees the elections, has said it has seen no proof criminal activity, and the Florida Department of POLICE has said they have received no complaints of fraud. Additionally, a federal government judge has said he has seen no evidence of wrongdoing in vote tallying in Broward Region, where Chief executive Trump and Gov. Rick Scott, the Republican applicant in the Senate competition, have raised promises of fraud. The region is a populous Democratic stronghold and has a brief history of poorly controlling elections. But that doesn’t prove fraud.

Florida officials did not mysteriously “find” votes limited to Democrats after Election Day. Statements about “lacking” and “forged” ballots may appear to be nefarious activity, but likely have simple explanations.
Protracted vote tallying, where election officials continue steadily to count provisional and mail-in ballots after the polls close, is regular. In Florida, the Republican applicants for governor and the Senate also gained votes through the process; though their leads narrowed, both gained their races following the recount.

The most recent data from the state implies that about 851,000 mail-in ballots were requested – however, not submitted – by voters. Up to yet another 5,000 ballots were disqualified by election officials who discovered that voters’ signatures didn’t match state information. Those mismatches, however, could be because of signatures changing as time passes or because of health problems like a heart stroke.

Worries of voter impersonation or of undocumented immigrants voting were also wildly exaggerated.
These instances do happen but are more uncommon than being struck by lightning, based on the Brennan Center for Justice. Mr. Trump warned of individuals who “put on a different headwear, placed on a different t-shirt, come in and vote again.” But also for this type of scams to impact an election, an military of voters would have to memorize the addresses and titles of people they may be impersonating and also to produce artificial recognition or forge signatures; if captured, they might face a legal penalty as high as a $10,000 fine or five years in jail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *