posted
Polls opened about an hour ago (when I voted ), and even though we're probably a half dozen hours away from any kind of exit polling data, or anything that'll really update us, I thought we could have this thread primed and ready to go.
Dems need 15 seats to take the House, and a net gain of six seats to take the Senate.
Polls show Democrats heavily ahead in Ohio, and Pennsylvania, for 2 pickups, and ahead in NJ, which was a heavily contested state Dems were worried about losing.
If the Dems can hold onto Maryland, then the race for control of the senate (not including other states, where the elections really aren't that close at all according to recent polls) comes down to neck and neck races in: Montana, Tennessee, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Missouri. Assuming everything else works out, Dems need four of those five to take the Senate.
Chances are Democrats will "lose" Connecticut, as Ned Lamont is polling 10 points down from Lieberman. We might just end up with a 49/49 senate with two independents. But so much depends on what happens in those hotly contested races. Keep an eye on those. If no one else does, I'll be updating this thread later on in the day with exit polls and what not to keep people appraised of the situation.
Two independents are polling well ahead of their competitors. Bernie Sanders (I) in Vermont will likely take retiring Jim Jeffords' (I) place, and likely Lieberman (I) will take his own place too, only no longer of Democratic affiliation. Both of them would likely vote with the Democrats.
Maybe someone can answer this for me, if there IS a 49/49 split, and both Independents caucus with the Democrats, does that give Democrats control of the Chairmanships?
Lyrhawn's prediction:
Senate: Dems pick up 5 seats (OH, PA, MT, VA, RI) and lose Liberman. Result: 50 Republican Senators, 48 Democratic, with 2 Independents who vote Democratic. You can bet Dick Cheney will be spending a lot more time on the Hill. MO is up in the air, a Democratic win would result in a 49/49 split, and a win in TN by Ford (he's down 3 points in the polling, a statistical tie), would give them a 50/48 advantage plus 2 with the Independents, giving Democrats a clear advantage. The role Sanders and Lieberman play will depend on where the numbers end. If Democrats end up with 51 (assume Lieberman loses), then Sanders doesn't matter so much, but if it's 49 or 50, the independents will command a lot of power, and will be able to go back and forth between parties much more easily, and will be courted openly by both sides.
House: Democrats pick up 20-25 seats for what amounts to a flip flop of control there. Democrats will likely end up with around 225 seats, dropping Republicans to around 210. Keep in mind there are I think three seats open from Reps that quit before the election. I'm betting two of them break Democrat, and one Republican.
posted
Here is some potentially-useful information and advice about electronic voting machines and some steps you can take when you vote to help mitigate the possibility of screw-ups or fraud.
(I say "mitigate" because the systems are generally so woefullyinsecure that the possibility of undetectable wholesale fraud can't be eliminated.)
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If the Dems can hold onto Maryland
Huh. I'd not realized that race was so close - must be because there's no incumbent. I still fully expect Cardin to win because he's a much better known name and, I think, is more respected than Steele, in addition to the fact that Cardin's a democrat in a state that is overwhelmingly democratic. I'm actually much more interested in seeing what happens in the election for Governor.
I'm also very interested in seeing what happens in Virginia - having lived in there before, I'd be happy to see Allen out of politics but I don't know that I really like Webb all that much better. If I were voting in that election, my choice would probably boil down to voting for the party I want to see in power, since I don't like either candidate.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Is this going to be the "I think I voted" thread?)
Electoral-vote.com is interesting. It shows a map of the predicted Senate seats but I couldn't find a similar map of the House votes anywhere on the site :shrug:
-j_k, who is 33 days to young to vote
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted with the touch screen this morning. In Cook County you had a choice between touch screen and paper ballots.
Touch screen was easy and clear - very obvious if you touch the wrong name and lots of chances to correcct mistakes. I was reassurred that it printed a paper ballot that I could check to make sure it matched.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "People seem to be very confused about how to use the new system," said Bryan Blank, a 33-year-old librarian from Oak Park, Ill. "There was some early morning disarray."
I'm not sure I understand the confusion. When I was voting, there was quite a large group of people, there, and NO ONE seemed to be having any problems whatsoever -- it was so very simple. The only question I heard at all was one person didn't realize you HAD to go through the "review" -- you couldn't just "submit" without having reviewed.
quote:I was reassurred that it printed a paper ballot that I could check to make sure it matched.
You realize this means nothing, right? A paper ballot which is not counted is not actually a form of verification, as what was stored in the database is not necessarily what was printed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My prediction:just slightly more optimistic for Democrats than Lyrhawn. House:Democrats pick up 27-30 seats. Senate:Democrats pick up 5 seats, counting the likely loss of Leibermann's.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Touch screens? Heh, heh... OK then. For a nominal fee, who do you want to win?
I'm in Florida, so I'll be voting for my third time in a half hour or so. I have to; it's my tiebreaker!
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sanders is a socialist. He's an independent because he's further to the left than the Democratic party. The man has a portrait of Eugene V. Debs hanging on the wall in his office.
So you can put him in the Dem column.
Lieberman has said he will stick with the Democrats if he's reelected. He's slated to become chairman of the Homeland Security committee, and the Dems will give him that chairmanship.
MO SEN is going to come down to the wire, but McCaskill was pulling ahead in the polls even before the Michael J. Fox ad, and in my opinion that was a dealbreaker, whatever the polls may say.
TN SEN, I think, will stay red.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My predictions: Republicans keep the house by a slim margin.
Republicans keep control of the Senate, counting all independents as Democrats for bookkeeping purposes.
In 2000, prior to Jefford's defection, there was a 50-50 split. Even though the Republicans, with Cheney's vote, could have taken control of the chamber, they chose to agree to a power sharing plan.
My prediction: if a 50-50 vote happens, don't look for such a compromise again.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted touch screen with a paper printout.
I showed up 30 min after the polls opened in the Palace of Edumacation. (They have an indoor pond-fountain with trees all around it. It's really nice and so much better than paying teachers.)
I was #7.
Looks like a low turn out in this particular People's Republic.
They didn't have barf bags though, so I had to gag it down as I voted.
The Park Hills voting may be different than what you faced.
In heavilly minority/democratic polling places expect a rash of voting problems to be reported. There are 3 possible reasons.
1) The Republicans have a plan to disrupt voting in areas that are heavilly Democratic, and do so with confusion and challenges designed to lengthen voting lines and deter Democrats from voting. Since black voters most often vote Democratic, race is used as a way of figuring out who to deter.
2) The Democrats want to make a lot of noise about these mythical vote detering Republicans in order to anger minorities into voting and voting against those who are trying to stop them and their racial profiling.
3) My vote: A mixture of both, neither sanctioned by the parties, but doing so on their own, believing they are doing what is best for their cause.
Here is a question for you. Assume you are surfing the web and accidently discovered the secret back-door to rigging the entire election so that your party and candidates win.
Would you?
Is victory, or the Liberal/Conservative/Christian/Secular beliefs your people represent more important than maintaining a true Democracy?
Would you be a Senator if you knew you were not elected, but appointed by whoever gamed the system?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My prediction: hotly contested counts in many districts, lawsuits, recounts, blocks of recounts, misplaced ballots in close races, arguments over absentee ballots, early voting, and military votes, disfunctional Diebold machines, and at least two major accusations of criminal tampering.
I have absolutely no faith in our electoral process any more.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was reassurred that it printed a paper ballot that I could check to make sure it matched.
You realize this means nothing, right? A paper ballot which is not counted is not actually a form of verification, as what was stored in the database is not necessarily what was printed.
But it could be counted in a close race. As there isn't a whole lot we can do about electronic voting, I figured I would check it out to the extent I can. Especially since I am in a very, very safe district.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've gotten a bunch of robocalls, and all on behalf of the governor who's running for re-election. Nothing as bad as what the Post article desribes but still. If I hadn't already decided to support his opponent, the calls would definitely have pushed me that way.
On the plus side, it is somehow amusing to hang up on Rudy Giuliani, even if it is only a recording.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At a little after 8, I was #161 in my neighborhood. There was a small line out the fire station (maybe 5-10 people waiting for the 10 or so booths to free up).
I've been getting a bunch of robocalls here in MA, mostly for the governor's race, and a few for ballot initiatives. There's a nasty battle of adds for one of the ballot questions, that would expand what businesses could sell wine, as well as increasing the number of available licenses to do so.
posted
not to mention the little old lady in florida who will inevitably be so confused and soo pathetic looking the news will zoom in on her as she states "i think i voted for hitler" and it will move the rest of the united stated to revolt against the current system.
in which case i would like to say i am starting my campaigne for the new world-leader after these revolutions occur
Posts: 467 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
This quote, possibly from a Daily Kos diary, cracks me up. Fight the Power! An Ear for an Ear!
quote: The culprit in this race is the National Republican Congressional Committee, an organization that's used such scurrilous campaign tactics this season that it has been disavowed in some instances by the candidates it is supporting….
You can complain to the FCC if you think the calls are illegal, as some Murphy supporters have done. (202-418-1440, phone; 202-418-0232, fax.)
Or you can do what I briefly considered yesterday: Send the NRCC your own robocalls telling it to STOP IT!
Try www.voiceshot.com - 12 cents a call, no minimum. The NRCC's number is 202-479-7000.
posted
Ooh ooh! Chris, I'd lay money that the absentee ballot argument may crop up in our 26th district (the one with embattled Tom Reynolds against equally distasteful Jack Davis).
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to stress that every election has some scurrilous activity, and neither side gets any moral high ground. Many of the tactics used have been used by both sides, with and without "official" authorization from the national committees, and that's not even touching on micro-gerrymandering to ensure that the politicans can pick the voters they want, instead of the other way around.
Sigh. Every election makes me feel less represented.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Could it? Does it have your name on it? Is it printed on special paper? Did you get to take it home, or were you required to deposit it into a special box?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It stays in the machine. You can look at it through a window, but not touch it. Of course, it could go straight to a shredder - but so could the old paper ballots. Chicago legend has precincts full of ballot boxes at the bottom of the lake.
Don't mistake me. I very concerned about about electronic voting. I figured the safest way to actually see what was going on was to try it in my nice, safe district with nice, safe democrat-leaning election judges.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, my friend got a robocall in class today. Because she didn't answer, it even left a message telling her to vote - in Florida. We're in Ithaca, NY. She was highly amused.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nighthawk, because it's political and not commercial speech. But legal opinions vary. edit: I should have said, legal opinions vary on whether political calls have to honor the 9pm cut-off, or if that only applies to commercial calls. AFAIK, political calls are completely exempt from DNC federal regulation, though some states have their own DNC laws.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Derrell: In Arizona, there's an initiative on the ballot that would create a lottery for voters. Anyone who votes would be entered into the lottery.
Is that legal?
Well, not yet.
There should be an initiative to move WHEN we vote. A Tuesday? Whose idea was that? Make it "Election Weekend" and so many more people would vote, and they'd have more time to count properly.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My prediction: Democrats take the House easily, albeit with a far narrower margin than most pundits were predicting two weeks ago- probably a net gain of around 20 seats.
Republicans retain the Senate, by a slim majority. There will be no 50-50. My list of Dem pickups is the same as Lyr's, except that I think Allen will hang on to VA, and I'm not certain McCaskill will win either. I'd be surprised but not shocked if Steele manages to beat Cardin.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My prediction is along with Dagonee. The House and Senate will remain Republican controlled, but only by one or two.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious, are those of you making predictions (for whatever outcome) working under the assumption that the election results will accurately reflect the actual votes in each jurisdiction? That is, are you assuming that there will be no successful, undetectable, large-scale vote fraud?
If so, are you sure that's a reasonable assumption?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, there is always some--static, shall we say--in the system. All we can do is keep it down to a manageable fraction of the total vote, so that it does not actually determine any elections. Sad to say, sometimes it does. But then you just hope that one such occurrence is offset by another that goes the other way.
Occasional, I would like to see both House and Senate remain Republican, but there seems to be a large voter turnout shaping up, and that usually favors the Democrats. The assumption is that people who vote Democrat don't care as much as people who vote Republican, so a little rain can make the former stay home. It is also therefore my partisan view that democracy works better, with wiser decisions being made, when the self-indulgent liberal majority do not vote.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious, are those of you making predictions (for whatever outcome) working under the assumption that the election results will accurately reflect the actual votes in each jurisdiction? That is, are you assuming that there will be no successful, undetectable, large-scale vote fraud?
Yes.
quote:If so, are you sure that's a reasonable assumption?
posted
R.L, I would agree with that in the past. However, over the past 10 years the opposite has been true.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is also therefore my partisan view that democracy works better, with wiser decisions being made, when the self-indulgent liberal majority do not vote.
At what point in that logical process does a system cease to be a democracy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD, I think what he means is that the unwashed masses don't have enough brains to make intelligent decisions for upholding democracy. Not exactly a new thought here on Hatrack, although unusual coming from a Conservative poster.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I favor a split House and Senate, and it seems that trend in that opinion is building. I don't want either party, any party, to have that much power.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Twinky, there is always some--static, shall we say--in the system.
Of course. Paper ballot systems can still fall victim to localized fraud -- ballot stuffing, "misplaced" ballot boxes, et cetera.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: All we can do is keep it down to a manageable fraction of the total vote, so that it does not actually determine any elections.
That's a good goal, but current electronic voting systems (not just Diebold's) in the U.S. being what they are, I don't think there's any way to be sure that it won't. I provided a couple of links earlier in the thread.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Sad to say, sometimes it does. But then you just hope that one such occurrence is offset by another that goes the other way.
Rather than hoping everyone perpetrates enough fraud that the various frauds offset one another, why not work on modifying the system so that it's more secure?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If so, are you sure that's a reasonable assumption?
Yes.
Why?
A sketch of your reasoning will do -- I'm just curious. Concerns and all, at the end of the day, I don't live in your country, so whenever I post about this I always feel like I'm sticking my nose into someone else's business. :/
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My second time voting. I hit the gym at 6:50 and then the polling place (it's the common room for the large apt complex I live in) about 7:20. Didn't really have to wait. CA bingo style pen voting not computerized.
Split ticket on candidates and bond issues. God I hope the transportation ones pass.
Can I just say that Prop 87 is one of the best ideas that is the worst written/conceived ideas I've come across. I support all the intentions but can't support nonsense new beaurocracys and no accountability. What a collosal waste of a truly important proposition. Instead they should be demanding what Barack Obama has been suggesting. converting engines to run on the corn mixture fuel and increasing the fuel economy standards 3% a year.
As a former Missourian I'm rooting hard for Claire McCaskill, I voted for her for governer in 2004 because outside of Barack Obama she's the politician that most completely matches my beliefs and positions.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Twinky, of course we should continue to "work on modifying the system so that it's more secure." I notice you said more secure, not perfectly secure. So the question really is, what percentage of insecurity are we willing to live with? Because unless you specify perfectly secure, and it can actually be attained, then we will have to live with some percentage of insecurity in the voting system.
TomD, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said something like a literate and informed electorate is essential for democracy to work. Others who write on the subject seem to echo the same sentiment. Technically I suppose that a literacy requirement would result in a system more like oligarchy than democracy. Confusing matters is the fact that literacy requirements were judged unconstitutional when they were used in southern states to depress the number of blacks voting. So democracy cannot work without a literate, informed electorate, and yet we cannot require literacy. (Of course people do have to be able to read the ballot--so I guess there is an incidental literacy requirement.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), and even though we're probably a half dozen hours away from any kind of exit polling data, or anything that'll really update us, I thought we could have this thread primed and ready to go. 
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
