Nearly every House race has been decided, and the new class of Democratic House members is more diverse and representative of the American public than ever before. |
Nearly every House race has been decided, and the new class of Democratic House members is more diverse and representative of the American public than ever before. |
These fall home-buying advantages combine to provide compelling reasons to buy a home this fall.
Buyers are often impressed by a property’s features such as solar panels or a large porch. The house or building may also have beautiful light fixtures, commercial appliances or an outdoor kitchen with a grill. Which items the Seller is intending to sell and which items the Buyer is intending to purchase with the property is often a source of dispute and has led to litigation post-closing between Buyers and Sellers. Component parts of a house or building are transferred with the property. But what are the component parts of a house or building?
Component parts are defined in Article 466 of the Civil Code which provides: Things that are attached to a building and that, according to prevailing usages, serve to complete a building of the same general type, without regard to its specific use, are its component parts. Component parts of this kind may include doors, shutters, gutters, and cabinetry, as well as plumbing, heating, cooling, electrical, and similar systems.
Compliments of Danette ONeal Realtors- 504.365.7325
On Tuesday night in Florida, Democratic senator Bill Nelson conceded a Senate race to Republican Rick Scott, because he was trailing the Florida governor by more than 57,000 voters. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, meanwhile, conceded Florida’s governor race to Republican Ron DeSantis, because he was trailing the congressman by an even larger margin.
And then, Nelson and Gillum discovered that there were more outstanding votes from heavily Democratic counties than they had realized. By Thursday afternoon, Nelson’s deficit had fallen to just 17,000, or 0.22 percent. State law requires a manual recount of any election with an initial margin under 0.25 percent. Gillum’s deficit, meanwhile, fell to 38,000, or 0.47 percent, which is under the 0.5 percent threshold that triggers an automatic machinerecount, under state law.
More significantly (and alarmingly), irregularities began to emerge in Nelson’s pattern of support. Specifically, an aberrant percentage of voters in Broward County marked their ballots for gubernatorial candidates — but left the Senate ballot-line blank.
It’s possible that this was a product of bad ballot design (similar to the infamous “butterfly ballot” that led some Broward County voters to accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore in 2000). Specifically, many voters in Broward County reported having had difficulty finding the Senate race on the ballot, as it was tucked beneath a long block of voting instructions on the ballot’s left-hand column.
This theory is buttressed by the fact that undervoting in the Senate race was especially pronounced in Florida’s 24th Congressional District, where no House race was listed (as the incumbent ran unopposed), and thus the Senate race box was even lower down on the ballot’s left-hand side.
If ballot design produced the undercount, then nothing can be done to rectify the error. But it is also possible that vote-processing machines in Broward suffered a technical glitch that caused them not to read Senate votes that were properly marked on paper ballots — and if that is the case, then a recount would very likely tip the Senate race to Nelson.
For this and other reasons, lawyers for Nelson and Gillum decided to call on the state of Florida to honor its statutory obligation to perform a recount.
In response, Florida senator Marco Rubio decided to accuse the Democratic Party of conspiring with Broward County election officials to illicitly overturn the will of the electorate, and illegitimately install Bill Nelson into the U.S. Senate.
Rubio offered no evidence to support the claim that Democratic lawyers have been very clear that they don’t want every vote to count, and are merely seeking to win the election by any means necessary (even if that involves not counting all the votes), nor did he specify what “ongoing” violations of the law Broward County election officials were engaged in (notably, the “elections supervisor with a history of incompetence” was appointed by former Republican governor (and Rubio ally) Jeb Bush).
The Florida senator also neglected to mention the fact that more than 20 percent of voting-age African-Americans in Florida were prohibited from casting ballots in Tuesday’s election — largely because Rick Scott made disenfranchising them a top policy priority.
To be sure, it is perfectly reasonable for Republicans — or anyone else, for that matter — to demand an explanation for why it is taking Broward County so long to finish its initial vote count (as opposed to the impending recount that will likely follow its completion). But as of this writing, there is simply no reason to believe that the delay is the product of anything worse than incompetence. Even after Nelson conceded Tuesday night, the New York Times’s forecasting algorithm was only giving Rick Scott a 53 percent chance of winning the election — because, based on the vote totals in other parts of the state, the model assumed that there had to be a lot of missing votes in (heavily Democratic) Broward County. Which is to say: One doesn’t need to invoke a vast left-wing conspiracy to explain why Nelson gained votes between election night and Thursday afternoon. And yet, Rick Scottand Donald Trump have now joined Rubio in doing so.
Many #NeverTrump conservatives like to fantasize about a world in which Marco Rubio won the 2016 GOP nomination — and, as a result, the Republican Party retained its commitment to civility over demagoguery, and democratic ideals over the raw pursuit of power. There are many problemswith this fantasy. But two conspicuous ones are that Rubio spent much of his 2016 campaign baselessly accusing America’s first black president of deliberately sabotaging the country (“he knows exactly what he’s doing”); and that he is now telling his supporters, without evidence, that if Bill Nelson wins a recount they should regard the outcome of the 2018 Florida Senate race as illegitimate. Which suggests that reckless demagoguery would still have a place in Republican politics – even in a universe where Donald Trump didn’t.
This year, the incoming House of Representatives is poised to pass the most sweeping democracy reform legislation since at least the post-Watergate reforms of the 1970s. On November 6, Democratic candidates won a wave election to retake control of the House, in part by running on a platform of curbing Washington’s culture of corruption. Democratic leaders in the House, including House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD), the head of the House Democracy Reform Task Force, have made clear that one of their first legislative priorities will be to pass changes to campaign finance, ethics, and voting rules.
They will do so with the overwhelming backing of the House Democratic caucus, including a substantial number of new members who campaigned on the need to reject special interests and restore public faith in American democracy. As the chart below shows, close to half of the members in the entering House have already committed, on the record, to following through on that message by passing a series of major reforms. (see Table 1)
Democrat Stacey Abrams is refusing to concede to Republican Brian Kemp in what has turned out to be a highly contested gubernatorial race in Georgia. With 99% of the votes reported, Kemp currently leads Abrams by a margin of 63,000 votes. Abrams is fighting for that last 1%. She’s pursuing every available option to ensure that every single vote is counted, and won’t back down until that has happened.
What business lessons can be learned from Abrams?
Persistence is critical. You must stand your ground even when you’re facing major opposition. Nearly all of the votes are in, but until that number reaches 100%, Abrams refuses to concede. The lesson learned is that you must exhaust all possibilities before you call it quits, and don’t give up until it’s officially over and you have lost.
Is there a chance that Stacey Abrams will lose the race? Yes, but until she’s absolutely certain of the results, one way or another, she isn’t going to quit. This tactic is called staying power. In business, sometimes it’s a game of who can stay in it the longest. In an election, there is a clear winner and loser, but in business it’s not always that black and white.
What if you’re on the verge of landing a deal, but it’s 51% likely that it won’t happen? What if you quit because of that 1% difference? You’ll never know for sure what the outcome would have been if you quit when the margins get close. Imagine what could happen if you stick it out and see it through until the very end, where all uncertainty has been removed. If you end up losing, you’ll know for sure the loss was unavoidable.
How do you know when to give up?
You have to consider all of the factors. Look beyond the temptation to give on a project just because the payout is small, or to chase every project with a large budget. There’s more at stake than simply getting paid. You have to consider all of the factors, most notably opportunities for repeat business and future growth. In Abrams’ case, the implications are far greater than simply getting elected. She’s fighting for the chance to make history and change the party in power.
You have to determine the scope and potential outcome of the project to know how far to pursue things. A small project could lead to referrals that lead to bigger clients. A large project could pay fairly well, but is almost uncertainly a one-off project with no room for growth. A big ticket project that can set you up for financial freedom is definitely worth pursuing. Take the time to evaluate the opportunity, then decide it’s worth pursuing until there are absolutely no options left, as Abrams is doing in her refusal to back down.
How far is too far?
After all measures have been exhausted, it’s time to accept the loss. Abrams is still fighting, with talks of a runoff election and measures to ensure that there are absolutely no uncounted ballots. However, these are last ditch efforts, as a runoff is only possible when neither candidate has 50% of the votes. At the time of writing, opponent Brian Kemp had 50.3% of the vote compared to Abrams’ 48.7%, with the remaining 0.9% going to Ted Metz. The margin is close, but Kemp has crossed the legally defined threshold. Some say that she’s taking it too far, while others praise her for her tenacity.
The danger in going too far is that it can end up damaging your reputation. You don’t want to be known as the person who doesn’t know when to quit. A person who never backs down, even in the case of absolute defeat, is the very definition of difficult to work with. Having this reputation will be extremely detrimental to your business. Once you’ve been labeled as difficult, it’s nearly impossible to get rid of that label.
Will Abrams come out ahead if she ends up conceding? Only time will tell. In politics, unlike business, refusal to back down at all costs is a positive trait. If she does win the race, her tenacity will pay off in dividends. It remains to be seen what the outcome will be, and what that means for Abrams’ future.
The moral of the story and the lesson we can learn from Abrams is to be persistent regardless of the challenges you may face. Go after what you want and give it your full effort, and you can rest assured that no matter what the outcome is, you’ve done everything.
Ashira Prossack, Forbes 11/9/18
But Democrats appear to be on track to pick up in the neighborhood of 35 to 38 House seats — more than the 23 they needed for a majority — and well in line with our pre-election outlook of a gain between 30 and 40 seats. (The Cook Political Report, 11/9/18). We still need to be praying.
OK —-it’s time to turn our attention back to gun violence. I’m so tired of waking up or receiving a notification electronically while in a meeting of a mass shooting! They have been three mass shootings in the last two weeks. These places were so-called “soft targets”. This guy didn’t have a semi automatic rifle- he had a hand gun. 15 dead, 15 injured, gunman dead…
Let’s turn the conversation back to gun violence and discussions of meaningful policy to come up with some type of solution(s). Send a clear message to this president that we don’t care about who he fires or his Twitter account -we want he and Congress to sit down and begin discussions NOW. Act like an Executive Branch!
PAD500- I’m making this a discussion question for extra credit next week; Facebook help my students by weighing in here: