So now McCarthy lies about easily checkable facts

Was it a close win as the subject of the op said?

Doesn’t matter. As I said, it could have been a 50 vote margin, and if she didn’t reach the magic number she wouldn’t have been elected.

It was not a close win. It was a 28 vote stomping of the competition.

A 50 vote margin would have been an even bigger vote stomping of course. But that hardly denies that a 28 vote whooping did not occur. It was not a close election for Speaker. McCarthy is a liar.

it was not a 28 vote stompig. It was a 4 vote win. Don’t know how many more ways I can explain it to you. Doesn’t really matter the other votes. She HAD to have 218 to win. 217 and it would have humiliated her because her party has 235 members. She should have won comfortably with 17 votes to spare instead of 3

But she didn’t get 217. She met the necessary threshold of majority of votes cast. Check.

After that, to determine if it was close or not, you have to then look to see who had the next highest amount of votes. Mr. McCarthy received a lousy 192. Not enough to garner a simple majority. Fail. And 28 votes less than the winner of the Speaker’s gavel. That is a vote stomping.

I don’t know how else to explain this to you.


Had she received 4 votes less, this would be irrelevant correct?

Yeah and the 13th amendment passed with 2 votes to spare.

Clearly she got the majority of House to vote for her.

Why did McCarthy only get 192 when there are 199 rs.

Clearly some are dissatisfied with his leadership as there are some ds with Nancy.

You always have a few hard cases on both sides.


1 Like

Soo…are you saying McCarthy lied, or is he just bad at math?

Do you call 3 votes to spare a close race?

Yeah it was close. But she had it in the bag. She knows how to count votes.


I see your point, and it has merit. I would not characterize McCarthy as having lied.

Review your posts. Your math and your representation of the actual vote are in conflict in more than one place. They’re nits, granted, but you’re the one trying to hammer home how obvious it all is.


Good lord man. Okay, let’s try your scenario.

She got 216 votes. McCarthy got 192, and the other 2 votes she needed went to Barack Obama. Okay. No one is now Speaker, and a new vote is required to be hold.

On the next vote, she gets the 2 Obama-for-Speaker votes to vote for her, and she now hits 218. Guess what? She has now met the threshold to be Speaker.

Now, how do we figure out if this last vote was close or not? Hmmmm…I have an idea! Let’s see how many votes everyone else received. Pelosi got the necessary 218. Check. Next closest, McCarthy got 192. Wow! Pelosi beat the next closest person running by a whopping 26 votes! That is not even close! Wouldn’t you agree?

The original vote that failed to see anyone attain the necessary threshold of a simple majority of votes cast is still irrelevant to the new vote, where that threshold was met. That in no way whatsoever has any bearing in even the slightest on the closeness of the race.

Now do you get it?

1 Like

You unknowingly made my point for me with this:

With that, say it was still a 28 vote difference between her and the next contestant. Do those 28 votes mean anything is she lost?
Did the light bulb go on?

Now on a different tangent . . . I want a re-vote! I want a re-vote. have Bamma one of the contestants, have enough D’s and all the R’s vote for him. For a year he would have to be called Mr. Speaker (instead of Mr. President). He would (technically) be in charge of the house agenda as speaker – yet he wouldn’t get to vote on a damn thing!

I want a re-vote I want a re-vote!!!

It would still be irrelevant in the evaluation of whether the race was close or not. Which this decidedly was not. Again, focusing on only one of the two necessary thresholds, while completely ignoring the other does not strengthen your point. It is just viewing the issue with a hand over one eye.

1 Like

I would consider three votes close.

However, the lie came when he suggested people needed to abstain to lower the majority threshold. That’s easily disproven.

From the OP:

The definition of a “close” vote would be one where someone else almost won.


That part is inncorrect as all but a vacant seat did vote. Majority threashold between 434 and 435 is the same 218 votes needed.

Yeah. to say the vote was “close” is really disingenuous. What was “close,” was the margin needed to prevent a reelection. Pelosi was never “close” to losing.

Abstentions are not considered votes so a total of 430 votes were cast and I suppose she needs 50% plus one so 216.

It was close in that the vote was close. It wasn’t close in the respect that there was any doubt whatsoever.

1 Like

So in other words…McCarthy ______:

A) lied
B) lied
C) is making things up
D) lied.


E was correct in part, was incorrect in part.