[ClearCase_guy]

She might not even be Speaker of the House by the time Congress would enter the fray.

I'm not sure I understand this thinking at all.

I guess the idea is that we will collect ballots in November, count them up and (potentially) see that Republicans take control of the House. Based on that ballot count, Nancy won't be Speaker of the House.

Then the next idea seems to be that the ballots we collect in November will be contested, and the results so obscure that no one will know who the President is. In which case, you know, maybe the Speaker of the House might end up being the president. But that might not be Nancy.

I'm seeing an inherent contradiction in these two lines of thought. Either the election outcome is known or it is not known.

[discostu]

There’s a very significant reason the electoral college vote happens AFTER the new congress is sworn in. That’s when the election actually happens, and things get handled by the new congress.

[JustaCowgirl]

To put it simply, either all elections are contested or none of them. I don’t know if that’s true or not.

[scrabblehack]

It makes sense to me. It’s the new Congress that certifies the electoral college vote.

The speaker has to be elected by the new Congress.

[RainMan]

I think (THINK, NOT KNOW) that the premise is that if a couple of battleground states are in contest, that can impact the Presidental election determination, but the likelihood of all 435 House seats being contested is infinitesimally small. In other words, even if the House seats in the contested states are contested as well, the House will still have a very large number of representatives that can be seated, and the Speaker would have to be chosen from the party in THAT majority.