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.
[ November 07, 2006, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
OMG! Speaker of teh house Pelosi! Teh end of teh world!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nice analysis, btw.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just wake me when the terrorists have won kthanx
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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.)
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
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.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Electoral Votes is a good site for tracking all the recent pollilng data up to this point. Kinda moot today, I know, but still interesting.
--Enigmatic
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
(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
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I voted this AM and decided to use the paper ballot.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I used the touch screen (two weeks ago -- when the 'advanced voting' opened at the county courthouse)
FG
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
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.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
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!
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Anybody getting any robocalls?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Pix
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Chris: Robocalls... between 6 and 8 a day. I just pickup the phone and hang up immediately now.
(word that violates the TOS) them and the horse they rode in on for exempting themselves from the Do Not Call list.
They have rendered my phone useless with their phone spam.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
FG:
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?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
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.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Chris, all that goes without saying. At least among the cynical nihilist crowd.
I have got to find some cheerful friends. Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
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
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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 by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
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).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it could be counted in a close race.
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?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
How can robocalls be exempt the DNC list?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
All political and non-profit solicitations are exempt from the DNC list.
-Bok
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
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.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
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?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
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.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
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.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My prediction is along with Dagonee. The House and Senate will remain Republican controlled, but only by one or two.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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?
Yes.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
R.L, I would agree with that in the past. However, over the past 10 years the opposite has been true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
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.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
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.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
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. :/
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
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.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
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.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Adam_S: My second time voting.
Today?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: 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.
That's true. However, as insecure electronic voting machines have spread throughout the U.S., the system has become progressively less secure. In other words, I think you've been moving in the wrong direction.
So far, I haven't seen an electronic system in widespread deployment in the U.S. that isn't more vulnerable to fraud -- and fraud on a larger scale -- than paper systems are, which I think is a reasonable argument in favour of sticking with paper (as my own country [is doing, at least so far]).
The other side of the coin, though, is that with so much on each ballot, electronic voting is probably a lot simpler in American elections, which makes it an attractive option to streamline the voting process. Here in Canada there's usually only one thing on the ballot in a given election (municipal elections being the exception), which means paper voting is still comparatively easy.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
My predictions on interesting/close Senate races: Sadly, Leibermann will beat Lamont. Lamont ran a good campaign, but independents + republicans + some democrats supporting Joe will just be too much to overcome. hmmm, I just saw a report about record turnout in CT, like 70%. That might be good for Lamont, but I'm sticking with my Joe win prediction.
Webb beats Allen by 3-5% in Virginia. Allen made too many missteps to win.
In TN, Corker bests Harold Ford by 1-3%. Ford had a good campaign, but not good enough I think.
In MT, Burns will go down in flames to Tester, by 5%+ Burns came across as clueless in several statements, like when he criticized firefighters during a brush fire. Or when he said there was a "secret plan to win in Iraq."
MO is too close to call.
In MD, I hope the Democrat Cardin can pull it off. I'll give him the nod, but it's the prediction I have the least confidence in.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I forgot: Ohio--Dems could run the board in all major races here, due to many recent Republican scandals. They will certainly do very, very well here even if it's not a clean sweep. (hardly a dramatic prediction.)
and PA--bye, Ricky! Santorum to lose by 6%+.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Two hours until the polls close in the East, where almost all of the really important races are. Most analysts say that everything east of the Mississippi is what will decide the election, though there are a lot of important gains to be had for Democrats in Colorado, the senate seat in Montana, and a sprinkling of House seats elsewhere.
No one has really done a real look at the House, which is understandable, it's a lot of information to sift through:
Republicans stand to pickup only two seats, both are in Georgia, and both will be the result of gerrymandering, which worked so well in Texas for them two years ago. I have to imagine there will be a similar court battle as there was in Texas. But this isn't a give away, they are still toss-ups by most anaylst's current thoughts.
Democrats are heavily involved in 50 hotly contested, down to the wire races. And almost all of those are Republican held districts. I won't go through them all, there's just too many. But most Republicans are considering a miracle day to be only losing 14 seats, and holding onto the House. I'd be curious to hear the thought process that Dag and Occ. used in projecting a Republicans hold on the House. It's not out of the question, low voter turnout (from rain or apathy), election fraud, polls being wrong (in who they poll, what questions that ask) and Republican tendencies to surge just before an election all play a role. But polls aren't usually wrong on that large a scale.
Also not discussed were the gubanatorial races, where Democrats are expected to pick up at least a half dozen new states, and a few state legislatures are expected to change over as well.
The thing about Maryland, is while it is the bluest of blue states, the Republicans running a black senate candidate is going to be a coup for them. They'll steal away 20% of the black vote at least. A bad day for the Democrats is if they get 35% or more of the black vote, which could be a death knell for Cardin. State black leaders have endorsed Cardin, while many secretly protest his politics. From the outside, it looks like black voters simply want a black man representing them, regardless of his political views, but judging from the minority of black voters he's likely to get, I'd call that a false assumption. Black voters will decide that election.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm not used to living in Nebraska. Ben Nelson is about as much a Democrat as OSC is, but the guy he is running against is considerably farther to the right than Nelson.
Where N is Nelson and R is Ricketts. I almost feel like I have to vote against Ricketts, having one of his campaign planks the promise to push for a gay marriage ammendment , but voting for Nelson may make me pinch my nose as I vote.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'd post all the data I have collected on the matter but here is my projection.
Dems take a majority in the house
Reps keep their majority in the senate.
It will be interesting to see if GWB is a lame duck president his last year in office.
Every news outlet I have been reading keeps saying, "Dems all the way baby!" I really don't think that's going to be the case.
Polls close in 1.5 hours on the east coast I believe. Get out and vote.
As a side note, I really think its interesting the direction Arizona is heading. Its pretty much a republican stronghold for the senate but there are districts that might actually go to democrats either now or in the near future. In the next 8 years I can see it being a battleground state.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Santorum, I think, is out.
Maryland will probably go to Cardin and O'Malley [for governor]. Duncan would've been good -- he was a great exec for MoCo -- but he pulled out of the race earlier this year.
I have a gut feeling that says Allen will pull through OK. Close and probably not well enough to be a viable candidate for President, but OK.
I don't think Ford will win in TN, though it'll be close.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like Ben Nelson. Not necessarily his politics, but he seems like a nice enough guy.
Mostly because his nickname is "Benator" which I think is funny. He seemed like an honestly likeable, nice, engaging guy when he was on the Daily Show.
His politics don't bother me too much. He's to the right of maybe five or six Republican senators, the more liberal ones. But really, what the nation needs is more bi-partisan, centrist senators, not less, so he's fine by me.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Maybe the problem is that all his commercials in Nebraska are trying to sway the conservative masses here, because even his own commercials point out how far to the right he is on issues, especially immigration.
Ricketts: "I'm far right on this issue"
Nelson: "I'm even farther to the right on this issue"
Me: *groan*
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Y'know, for some odd reason I just typed election.google.com into my browser and expected it to work. Would've been neat.
Current projected winners @ 7:00 PM :
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Richard Lugar (R-IN)
--j_k
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: I agree we need more Bi Partisans.
..........
*grin*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Newest projections:
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass.
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 5 Dem +1 5 Repub 0 Indpen -1
Senate Winners: Bernie Sanders (I) Lugar (R-IN) Byrd (D-WV)
Gubanatorial Winners: Strickland (D-OH)*
*denotes change in party
(I've edited this post like a half dozen times already, trying to keep it current, I'll continue to do so until it falls too far down).
With 10% of the precincts reporting:
Virginia: Allen (R) 55% Webb (D) 44% Parker (O) 1%
[ November 07, 2006, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
If the Marriage Amendment has passed, I'm fairly certain that Allen will win in Virginia.
It's also worth noting that according to the exit polls, Independents made the difference in VT-01 , where there was no incumbant canidate.
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, Lyr, I really appreciate the updates. Would you mind copying and pasting to a new post each time instead of editing? I think it'd be cool to have a record of what we knew when. You could use the quote button and it'd be just as many clicks for you.
If you're changing it ridiculously often, maybe a new post every half hour so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No prob Dag. The only reason I was editing and not posting was that I didn't want this to become a giant thread of Lyrhawn posts full of numbers, I thought it would turn people off. But I'd be more than happy to. I don't mind updating every ten minutes, I have the night off work, and all I'm doing is staring at CNN/CBS and watching NCIS. So with that in mind:
Newest projections:
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass.
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 30 Dem +2 16 Repub -1 0 Indpen -1
Senate Winners: Bernie Sanders (I) Lugar (R-IN) Byrd (D-WV) Snowe (R-ME) Kennedy (D-MA) Nelson (D-FL) Casey (D-PA)*
Gubanatorial Winners: Strickland (D-OH)* Patrick (D-MA)*
*denotes change in party
(I've edited this post like a half dozen times already, trying to keep it current, I'll continue to do so until it falls too far down).
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (39% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 49% Webb (D) 50% Parker (O) 1%
Ohio (1% precincts reporting): Dewine (R) 43% Brown (D) 57%
Tennessee (2% precincts reporting): Corker (R) 55% Ford (D) 45%
[ November 07, 2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Amazing that so many races are neck and neck.
Except for Florida, where Nelson pretty much walked right over Katherine Harris to the surprise of absolutely no one except possibly Ms. Harris.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
MA is going to deval patrick, D* for governor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll do another full update at 8:50, but I wanted to throw these two House races in the mix.
Both races have Democratic incumbents, both are the leftovers of districts gerrymandered by the Republicans. These are pretty much the ONLY two seats Republicans are expected to pick up, but they will both be very competitive.
Keep in mind, that with all these races, WHICH districts have their precincts reporting is key, but as the number gets past the 50% mark or so, don't expect to see numbers fluctuate too wildly. For example, if all of southern VA were to report, and Allen was ahead by 10%, that could easily change for Webb once heavily Democratic northern VA voted. Take everything with a grain of salt.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Rick Santorum just got shown the door in a rather enthusiastic manner THUS MAKING THE ENTIRE ELECTION WORTHWHILE
No, I'm serious. He'll be sitting on an icepack for months after this election.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The election must be over. Gas prices were 20cents higher this evening than they were this morning.
OK It couldn't be that obvious of a conspiracy, but the timing made me laugh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Newest projections:
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass.
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 48 Dem +2 34 Repub -1 0 Indpen -1
Senate Winners: Dewine(D-OH)* Casey (D-PA)*
Gubanatorial Winners: Strickland (D-OH)* Patrick (D-MA)* Spitzer (D-NY)*
*denotes change in party
(I've edited this post like a half dozen times already, trying to keep it current, I'll continue to do so until it falls too far down).
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (62% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 50% Webb (D) 49% (down by 16,000 votes) Parker (O) 1%
Tennessee (7% precincts reporting): Corker (R) 55% Ford (D) 45%
I've decided, to keep this a shorter post, to remove some of the more obvious winners, and to only report some winners when it's a changeover. If anyone has any requests for me to update on, post them.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think Lieberman is going to hold on to CT, for now.
Independents in VA are leaning toward Webb, slightly, but the Republican GOTV seems to be making a difference. As of right now, Webb's leading by less than 100 votes.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Two things to consider, with those James:
1. The higher the vote Schlesinger gets in CT, the lower Lieberman's vote will be. His victory hingest on Republicans voting for him, in the hopes of a moderate Democrat winning, rather than voting for a Republican they know will lose. So, if you start to see Schlesinger's numbers go above 10-15%, look out for a Lamont comeback.
2. Democrats, in VA anyway, created this year a GOTV effort that mirrors what the Republicans did. They have phone banks, volunteers canvasing neighborhoods, and offering to drive little old ladies to their precincts. Democrats realize that this is an equalizer, and they are venturing into Republican territory too. It still isn't as well set up or funded as the Republicans' is, but this is a set up for 2008. Look for Republican gains from this to be LESS than they have been in past years.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass. AZ English as official language will pass. MO Raise the minimum wage will pass OH Raise the minimum wage will pass SC Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass TN Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 106 Dem +4 (2IN/1KY/1VT) 87 Repub -3 0 Indpen -1
Gubanatorial Winners: Strickland (D-OH)* Patrick (D-MA)* Spitzer (D-NY)* O'Malley (D-MD)*
*denotes change in party
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (82% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 50% Webb (D) 49% (down by 28,000 votes)(reports that the Democratic north hasn't been counted yet) Parker (O) 1%
Tennessee (38% precincts reporting): Corker (R) 51% Ford (D) 48% (39,000 down) Five Independents - 1%
Georgia 12 (39% precincts) Burns (R) 56% Barrow(D) 44%
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I feel my rights slowly getting sucked away from me.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Santorum conceded. My world is complete.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Graciously too. But then, he had to.
Everyone is still talking about a possible run by Santorum for the White House in 2 years, and it isn't that crazy. Giuliani and McCain are the two names most popular with Republicans nationwide right now for Presidential candidates. But they aren't social conservatives. Running them will steal away a few democratic votes, but the number of social conservative Republicans that it forces to stay home is much, much larger.
Santorum has a real chance of jumping ahead to be a Republican, very conservative favorite.
Ned Lamont is conceding - 10:15pm being down 10% with 21% of the vote counted. CT
[ November 07, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
If Santorum runs for president in 2 years, I'm going to cry.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Oy, Maryland is taking its time...
--j_k
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lamont just conceded.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Aside from Harris, whom everybody expected to lose, it looks like the Republicans haven't lost any ground in Florida. In particular, the local news outlets are already calling the gubernatorial race for Charlie Crist.
I've been following Crist's career since he ran for and won education commissioner. He's a careerist, and has made an art out of promising stuff he has no intention of delivering. He also ran a dirty campaign full of smear ads. Not that Jim Davis looked like a great choice to me either, but I believe he was definitely the lesser of two evils.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My 14-year-old son is particularly dismayed that Crist seems to be winning, as he was hoping to see the FCAT go away. We tried to explain to him that Davis wasn't planning on removing it, just its status as sole arbiter of school and teacher worth, but I don't think he got it. Or our explanation of what a "single issue voter" is...
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I encourage you all to read the BBCNews election blog. They're written from an outsider's perspective so some of the postings are rather amusing.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass. AZ English as official language will pass. MO Raise the minimum wage will pass OH Raise the minimum wage will pass SC Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass TN Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass MT Raise the Minimim Wage will pass NV Raise the Minimum Wage will pass WI Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 129 Dem +6 (2IN/1KY/1VT/1NH/1OH) 118 Repub -5 0 Indpen -1
Gubanatorial Winners: Strickland (D-OH)* Patrick (D-MA)* Spitzer (D-NY)* O'Malley (D-MD)*
*denotes change in party
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (94% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 50% Webb (D) 49% (down by 30,000 votes)(at least one heavily democratic, well populated county not yet counted) Parker (O) 1%
Tennessee (64% precincts reporting): Corker (R) 52% Ford (D) 47% (62,000 down) Five Independents - 1%
Georgia 12 (66% precincts) Burns (R) 51% Barrow(D) 49%
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
How do you stand up the president and then win a governor's race?
I don't even like the president, and that makes me angry.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By standing up a president that wasn't bringing you any votes anyway. By being the Republican candidate following a reasonably popular Republican candidate. By being more widely known than your opponent. By mercilessly hammering your opponent on your opponent's attendance record.
Really, Davis is a political nobody and he pulled nearly half the vote. He did good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: WI Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass
*sad sigh* We tried. I'm sorry.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, and it looks like every single ammendment is passing again (EDIT: in Florida, land of comfortable pigs). Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
I'm actually more concerned with issues 4 and 5 in Ohio than the election results. At the moment, both are passing, but 4 is a constitutional amendment, whereas 5 is a law. 4 will trump 5, which in my opinion, is a bad thing.
note: issue 4 is smoke-LESS ohio, which would allow businesses to choose whether or not to be smoke free, but lifts all city-wide bans on public smoking and prevents anymore from being passed. issue 5 is smoke-FREE ohio, which would ban smoking in all public places in ohio.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Worse than the attendance thing was the out of context ads on how Jim Davis wanted to tax everything in sight, liked to kick dogs, and hated your grandma.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Louisiana is apparently smoke-free starting at the beginning of next year.
They've run all these annoying ads with stupid children going, "THANK YOU LOUISIANA FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS...AND LUNGS!"
It's all I can do not to throw something.
-pH
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I like being able to breathe in a restaurant.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well I don't! Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Everyone can breathe just fine in the restaurants now. Eliminating smoking everywhere is stupid.
-pH
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I find it interesting that the backlash against Republicans most significantly affects the moderate Republicans in the northeast. I wish that the northeast could keep their Republicans, while the South would lose some of theirs.
I mean, a Republican in Massachusetts or New Jersey is almost a Democrat anywhere else - for example, Kean (R-NJ) was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and pro-Iraq pullout.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
My BBC News feed says that the Dems have taken over the House; I'm wondering if that's a bit premature.
FC, I'm noticing the same thing. It's a shame, because this country needs more moderates.
I'm hoping this election isn't just driving the red and blue states farther apart.
--j_k
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
Smoke less ohio failed, smoke free ohio passed! My asthma will improve now!
*does happy dance*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think so.
Ic - I saw the commercial that threatened in horror-movie-tones that Davis would eliminate Florida's tax exemptions. That was when I decided to vote for him.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Everyone can breathe just fine in the restaurants now. Eliminating smoking everywhere is stupid.
-pH
Actually, there have been plenty of times I've had to leave a restaurant because of someone smoking irritating my asthma. And I was sitting in the non-smoking section.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm so sad that I missed the Florida campaign ads.
Louisiana's weren't exciting at all.
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Everyone can breathe just fine in the restaurants now. Eliminating smoking everywhere is stupid."
Can't help you there. As a person who had to leave restaurants years back when his asthmatic son started gasping thanks to nearby cigars, I got no problem at all banning smoking in public places. I support your right to poison yourself, but you'll need to develop some sort of helmet to keep the smoke to yourself...
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lincoln Chafee was one of my favorite Senators. He was one of three Senators who have said they supported Gay Marriage.
Mike DeWine was also a great Senator who got voted out. It makes me sad.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Finally saw Santorum's speech. To be honest, I think it was pretty classy.
--j_k
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Crist's ads were a big factor in my decision to vote for Davis. Too bad the scare ads worked anyway.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Chris, I don't think that should be a matter for LAW. My little brother had terrible, horrible asthma until his mid-teens, and I have breathing troubles now and again, thanks to smoke, mold, pollen, and such. I still think it's ridiculous to create laws like this.
-pH
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
And I don't think that marriage laws should exist, but hey guess what, a ton of constitutional amendments just got passed (or will most likely pass).
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
We have laws to make sure people don't murder me. We have laws to make sure people don't rape me, beat me, or harm me in any way. Why should laws making sure people don't give me cancer be any different? Why should I endure painful attacks for their pleasure?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Why should I have to live in a world where pregnant women are allowed to walk free in public? After all, being in their presence gives me terrible anxiety attacks. Should I go about campaigning for that to be law, as well?
-pH
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
they're not harmful to ALL people. Smoking has proven to be dangerous, period- whereas seeing pregnant people has negative effect on very few people.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By my rough guess, Webb would have to take about 65% of the last 4% of the precincts to tie Allen.
I don't think he's going to do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, that number just jumped down to 56.7% with 3% left.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I agree with you, Dag. Webb just gave a speech about leading in absentee ballots and such; I think it's a bad sign when a candidate relies to those.
(On the bbc feed I'm streaming, they seem to really like Harold Ford. I wonder why?)
--j_k
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The last four precincts are almost all richmond city, so... its possible. Either way, though, its gonna end up in automatic recount zone for virginia.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I just heard on the news that Democrats have control of the House. On the flip side, it makes me sad so many anti-gay marriage measures have passed.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: I just heard on the news that Democrats have control of the House. On the flip side, it makes me sad so many anti-gay marriage measures have passed.
*nods*
I'd like to be able to marry whomever I choose. Even if they don't CALL it marriage, at least give us the same rights. If they think you can choose your sexuality, I'd like to see them try to choose to be gay. When they can do that, I'll believe them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass. AZ English as official language will pass. MO Raise the minimum wage will pass OH Raise the minimum wage will pass SC Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass TN Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass MT Raise the Minimim Wage will pass NV Raise the Minimum Wage will pass WI Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 168 Dem +17 137 Repub -16 0 Indpen -1
Georgia 12 (77% precincts) Burns (R) 50% Barrow(D) 50% (winning by 600)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
The Allen - Webb margin is now at 7000 votes. Tester looks like he's going to win in Montana vs. Burns.
--j_k
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The last precincts to report in virginia are in richmond city, a couple in arlington, and one in virginia beach. The richmond city and arlington precincts are likely to be heavy webb, while the beach precinct is likely to be allen.
Final count before the recount will have webb up by a few votes.
Prepare for florida 2000, since the most likely scenario is dems take montana, republicans take arizona and nevada, and we have two independents, so prior to the va, missouri, tennesee, jumble, republicans will have 48 seats, democrats 47, and independents 2 caucusing with the democrats. Dems take one of the three and its a 50/50 split in caucus, so both parties are going to fight heavy over any one of those three states if its close.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
2,500 votes, with 1% of the precincts left to be counted for the VA Senator race.
Edit to change, that's 2,500 votes with WEBB in the lead.
Also - The remaining precincts are in Arlington and Charlottesville, where Webb had an overwhelming majority.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I called this one correctly at 8:08 EST! Hurray me!
Anyrate, looks like montana and VA go to the dems, MO and TN go to GOP, though a lot of votes left to be counted there, so the caucus ends up 50/50 with a 50/48/2 split for the GOP meaning they retain control of the committee chairs meaning nothing changes in the senate. Sigh.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Paul -
Don't count McCaskill out yet. It looks like the senate is going to come down to Missouri.
It's being reported in many places that the districts not yet counted are far more heavily Democratic than Republican. So much like Webb's come from behind in the last minutes, the same thing could happen in MO.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Everyone can breathe just fine in the restaurants now. Eliminating smoking everywhere is stupid.
-pH
Actually, there have been plenty of times I've had to leave a restaurant because of someone smoking irritating my asthma. And I was sitting in the non-smoking section.
Nobody forced you to enter a restaurant that allowed smoking. You have now forced the proprietor of every restaurant in the state to bow to your demands.
Whatever happened to property rights?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Don't count McCaskill out yet. It looks like the senate is going to come down to Missouri.
It's being reported in many places that the districts not yet counted are far more heavily Democratic than Republican. So much like Webb's come from behind in the last minutes, the same thing could happen in MO."
I hope so, but I don't see it in my numbers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Adam_S: 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.
Totally!
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Smoke less ohio failed, smoke free ohio passed! My asthma will improve now!
*does happy dance*
*welcomes into the fold* Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Okay, so we may not have successfully defended marriage from attack in Wisconsin, but at least we managed to kick out the guy who orchestrated the attack. Let us all pause for a moment to remember the odious slimeball that was John Gard....
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: My BBC News feed says that the Dems have taken over the House; I'm wondering if that's a bit premature.
FC, I'm noticing the same thing. It's a shame, because this country needs more moderates.
I'm hoping this election isn't just driving the red and blue states farther apart.
--j_k
Well, most of the Democratic pickups in the House tonight are conservatives or centrists, so I'm not entirely sure why you're disappointed...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Four more years of Ah-nold.
>_<
Shoot me now.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
CNN IS TOYING WITH ME! TOYING I SAY!
They reported 5% more of missouri and huge gains for mckaskill, and then removed it all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ballot Proposals: VA Marriage amendment will pass. AZ English as official language will pass. MO Raise the minimum wage will pass OH Raise the minimum wage will pass SC Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass TN Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass MT Raise the Minimim Wage will pass NV Raise the Minimum Wage will pass WI Ban on Same Sex Marriage will pass AZ Raise the Minimum Wage will pass AZ $1 million voter reward will fail MI Ban on Affirmative Action will pass SD Ban on ALL Abortions will fail
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 206 Dem +23 168 Repub -22 0 Indpen -1
I gave Corker TN, so it remains Republican, and I gave Maryland to Democrats. No change on either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oy. 83 passed.
But at least 87 didn't! Nor 88 or 89.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Well I'm extremely disappointed in my fellow Tennesseans. Over 80% voted for the marriage amendment. I had gotten hopeful when around a week ago a bunch of religious leaders came out in opposition to it. I had no idea it was going to pass by that much.
At least now there won't be anymore campaign ads. I was getting really tired of Corker saying he couldn't afford all those "fancy" ads Ford could in an ad that was just as "fancy" as any of the Ford ads. Not to mention that racist ad from the Republican Party whose slogan was "he's just not right".
edit: But I suppose pretty much anything's better than the guy who experiments on stray cats (i.e. Frist).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: At least now there won't be anymore campaign ads.
AMEN!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Oh, great. I realize I made a grammatical error after you quote it.
CNN has switched from the headline "Dems need 3 seats to take Senate" to "GOP needs 1 seat to retain Senate." Wonder if that means they think it's more likely the GOP will keep control.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 212 Dem +24 -1 176 Repub -23 +1 0 Indpen -1
Dems take a majority of the governerships. On a personal note, Dems retain Jennifer Granholm in Michigan, and Debbie Stabenow in Michigan for the Senate!
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (99% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 49% Webb (D) 50% (up by 2,700) Parker (O) 1%
I project the Dems lose GA-08, which the Republicans gerrymandered away. That'll reduce by one the gain of the Democratic seats when it's called eventually by the big shots.
On Virginia: There are reports that 31,000 absentee and provisional ballots in Fairfax County have NOT been counted. Fairfax is 2 to 1 for Webb so far, which might give him a considerable lead. Allen supporters are nervous about that, but regardless, it looks like MT and MO might just go Democratic, which brings the control of the senate down to a close VA race.
VA commonwealth law says that if the winner wins by less than a half percent, the loser may request a full recount, which the commonwealth will foot the bill for. We probably won't get final numbers on this until the morning, though I'll continue to report on it until 2am or so probably. But likely, we aren't going to get any answers until the lawyers decide it for us .
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
No, what they need is Virginia.
McCaskill is surging in MO. Tester will win MT. That right there gives Dems 50 Senators.
So if VA goes to Webb, Dems have 51. If VA goes to Allen, it's a 50-50 split.
VA will go to a recount, so we won't know the Senate tonight.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Wow, Santorum is down by 18-20% ? I knew he was going down, but I didn't anticipate that much of a margin.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Oh, and it looks like every single ammendment is passing again (EDIT: in Florida, land of comfortable pigs).
Yes, and now it will be harder to pass constitutional amendments.
And a bloody good thing, too!
That's one of only two ammendments I voted in favor of. It's an embarrassment how we in Florida use ammendments as a substitute for the legislative process. Constitutions should have more staying power than to up and change the whole thing every time you think some group should get an extra homestead exemption, or pigs should be protected from discomfort, or last year's ammendment was maybe not such a good idea and be repealed. 80% of the things we've done through ammendments should have been done through laws, and I for one am glad it will be a little bit harder to ammend our constitution now.
[/soapbox]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ah. So y'all have the same problem we do.
I wonder if this is a warm-weather phenomenon?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the Dems win the three left up for grabs, that gives us a 49/49 split with two Democratic caucusing Independents.
What does that do for the chairmanships in the Senate? I don't know how that works. But I do know that controlling a chairman seat in the Senate is far, far less important in the Senate than in the House.
This gives effective control of the senate to the Democrats, but it's still a tie, assuming Dems win all three toss ups. Montana looks like a lock, and I'd say that MO and VA LOOK good for Democrats.
But we'll see. Either way, Bush's legislative agenda is dead.
Also, if Dems lose MO and VA, it will be because of Independents voting for ultra liberals. Not that they "Stole" the election. But it's fair to say that if they hadn't run, neither race would be as close.
BTW, Lampson-D picked up the TX-22, which WAS Tom Delay's district.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 221 Dem +24 -1 182 Repub -23 +1
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (99% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 49% Webb (D) 50% (up by 2,700) Parker (O) 1%
Montana (60% precincts) Tester (D) 51% (up by 9,000) Burns (R) 47%
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
MSNBC has Dems picking up 33 seats in the House, with only 4 races not projected.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I find it interesting that Webb has already declared victory. Seems a bit premature. McCaskill has also, but her lead seems a bit safer.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well, Webb does have 99% of precincts reporting and a 6000 vote lead.
EDIT: And using CNN's percentages to estimate the number of remaining votes I would guess there are between 5000 and 8000 votes yet to be counted. The precincts not yet finished have mostly been coming down on Webb's side. If they continue with their current vote ratios I wouldn't say his victory declaration is too premature. Maybe a little.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It does seem premature for Webb. Here's hoping he wins.
MSNBC has projected all House races, projects Dems will pick up 39 seats!!
So Speaker Pelosi will become the most powerful woman in American history.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Thanks for all the #s, Lyr!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
MSNBC just projected McCaskill to unseat Talent in MO. CNN concurs.
So that makes a 49-49 split, with MT and VA still up in the air.
I wonder if Liebermann might switch and caucus with Republicans?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
House Winners - Numbers to the right indicate gain/loss from other party: 226 Dem +27 185 Repub -26
Key Senate Races:
Virginia (99% precincts reporting): Allen (R) 49% Webb (D) 50% (up by 11,500) Parker (O) 1%
Probably the last report before I head to bed. And I might have miscalled that Georgia district. It looks like the Democratic contender has pulled back ahead by 600 votes, so, it may be that the Dems lose nothing.
I would highly doubt that Lieberman switches to the Republican side. First of all, the man IS a democrat. He's a centrist, very much so, and even though the Republicans might have more to offer him (chair of a powerful committee for instance), ultimately he has to know he'll lose his seat in six years. It's short term gains that guarantee long term losses. I don't think he'd run for president as a Democrat, be a democratic senator, run for the senate as a democrat, promise his constituents that he'll vote with the democrats, and then say he's a Republican.
[ November 08, 2006, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Where are your numbers from Lyrhawn?
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Thanks so much for keeping track of all this, Lyrhawn Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Where are your numbers from Lyrhawn?
Both the Washington Post and CNN are reporting new numbers for VA, so it looks like they're opening up the counting there again. Absentee ballots, or those Fairfax County votes, maybe?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Morbo -
Almost everything is from CNN.
Anyone else -
You're welcome! I didn't mind doing it at all. It was an interesting night.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
That's weird. Webb seems to have randomly lost 4000 votes. Wonder what's up with that?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The manufacturor's representatives phoning in their instructions to the tabulating machines.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's 4 counties yet to be fully counted in VA.
2 are pretty much split 50/50 1 is breaking hard for Webb 1 is breaking hard for Allen
I think the numbers we have now will pretty much bear out a 6000 to 10000 vote lead for Webb going into tomorrow.
If he has anything above a 5,000 vote lead, I think a recount can't take him down. I'd venture to say even a 1,000 vote lead would secure that, maybe less.
Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
Red State Blue State is dying. There's a map up on CNN that shows a much healthier mix of red and blue imo. dunno if it'll still be there in a few hours but here goes:
I can live with Arnold so long as he's playing bipartisan governer and not republican arnold. angelides should have never won the primary, Westly could probably have made it a five point race, rather than the embarassing landslide support Arnold got...
But 87 is failing and most of the bond measures are passing. unsurprising that 83 passed, but it just creeps me out to tag anyone for life, not a precedent I want to start. 90 looks like it will pass as well. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Alcon,
One county in Virginia screwed up its counting and had to fix it.
And CNN's numbers are really AP's numbers, but they show up on the CNN site. AP is the only outfit in the country that counts all the votes, and the networks pay us big bucks for the right to use them.
Also, if you saw votes drop off in Montana it's because Yellowstone miscounted, zeroed them out and is now recounting. Expect a call on Montana in 2.5-3 hours.
Edited for spelling. Sheesh, caffeine makes your fingers schizophrenic (for example, I almost spelled 'fingers' as 'phingers'...)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Morning after, it's quite clear that the Dems have the House, and it's possible (perhaps even probable) that they could get the Senate pending two recounts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say a recount in both states is NOT guranteed. Montana state law says the loser has to of lost by less than 1/2 a percent. Now I know that only 90% of the polls are in for Montana, which puts it at:
Tester (D) 173,259 Burns (R) 171,207 Jones (L) 9,061
Tester has a 2,000 vote lead. When you add up all the votes cast there, and whittle it down to a half percent, it's 1,767. If Tester remains above a half percent margin of victory, I don't think Burns can legally get a recount, unless he can prove election fraud anyway.
But Montana election law confuses me:
quote:13-16-201. Conditions under which recount to be conducted. (1) A recount must be conducted if: (b) a candidate for a congressional office, a state or district office voted on in more than one county, the legislature, or judge of the district court is defeated by a margin not exceeding 1/4 of 1% of the total votes cast for all candidates for the same position, and the defeated candidate, within 5 days after the official canvass, files a petition with the secretary of state as set forth in subsection (1)(a). The secretary of state shall immediately notify by certified mail each election administrator whose county includes any precincts that voted for the office, and a recount must be conducted in those precincts.
But this says:
quote: 13-16-211. Recounts allowed if bond posted to cover all costs. (1) If a candidate for a public office is defeated by a margin exceeding 1/4 of 1% but not exceeding 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast for all candidates for the same position, he may, within 5 days after the official canvass, file with the officer with whom his declaration or petition for nomination was filed a petition stating that he believes a recount will change the result of the election. (2) The unsuccessful candidate shall post a bond with the clerk and recorder of the county in which he resides. The bond must be in an amount set by the clerk and recorder sufficient to cover all costs of the recount incurred by each county in which a recount is sought, including loss of time of regular employees caused by absence from their regular duties. (3) Upon the filing of a petition and posting of a bond under this section, the board of county canvassers in each county affected shall meet and recount the ballots specified in the petition.
The first one suggests you have to have a margin of less than a QUARTER of a percent, whereas the second one implies it is a half percent. I don't know which is which, but even with a half percent, Tester could still come out on top.
B. When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article. In an election of electors for the President and Vice President of the United States, the presidential candidate shall represent the vice-presidential candidate and slate of electors and be the party to the recount for purposes of this article.
That seems to suggest that the 26,000 votes for the Independent in the race don't matter, as the percentage is defined as that between the winner and the challenger, not ALL votes cast. That's important, as it lowers the total number Webb needs to rule out a challenge from Allen.
Webb (D) 1,170,564 Allen (R) 1,162,717 Parker (I) 26,046
Parker doesn't matter, but when you crunch the numbers as they stand, Webb would need 23,332 votes to rule out a recount. He doesn't have them, and he likely isn't going to get them. But Allen has to wonder if it is worth the political hassle to recount the entire state to try and make up an almost eight THOUSAND vote deficit. Barring electronic error, which there has been no report of, that would be unprecedented on a monumental scale. I think Allen will heavily consider NOT asking for a recount, even if they end up losing Montana, simply because of the negative press, and the fact that it's probably hopeless, unless his margin of loss is dramatically reduced by the time every vote is counted.
And just for the heck of it:
House: Dems 233 +31 GOP 202 -30 -CNN/Lyrhawn
CT-02 (97%)(GOP Incumbent) Courtney (D) 117,434 Simmons (R) 117,211
Now THAT is a tight race. As is the NC-08 where incumbent Hayes won by 468 votes out of 120,000 cast.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well...we're still waiting to see who won VA...and a good number of us are cursing the marriage amendment that was passed. Anyone want to take bets on how long it exists?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Five of the six states that had marriage amendments passed them.
It's an interesting situation that even though VA passed its marriage amendment, we'll probably elect a Democrat for senator. (Of course, it's not like Webb's a flaming liberal-- he's going to be the most Republican Democrat on the floor, by some accounts)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Someone just told me who is in Virginia that the absentee ballots haven't been counted yet.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And I agree with the sentiment that has been expressed in this thread and that Scott just brushed on that it looks like some decent politicians may have been lost not because of their positions on the issues, but because they quite simply belonged to the wrong party. Sad.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
To be fair, they haven't.
I'm prognosticating.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Five of the six states that had marriage amendments passed them.
It's an interesting situation that even though VA passed its marriage amendment, we'll probably elect a Democrat for senator. (Of course, it's not like Webb's a flaming liberal-- he's going to be the most Republican Democrat on the floor, by some accounts)
Yeah, him or Casey. The moderates are the real winners in this election- not only has the far right been soundly kicked in the behind, but most of the Dem pickups have gone to conservative Democrats like Webb and Casey, who I can guarantee will be making their voice heard. Not great news for a solid lefty like myself, but hey, I'm all in favor of compromise in government.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Hopefully this election will convince Republicans that they can't just cater to their base and expect to win elections.
More importantly, I hope it will convince Republicans that they should go back to being a reasonable party, built on solid values and fiscal responsibility. They have let their leaders transform them into a party that supports massive deficits, preemptive invasions, torture, civil rights incursions, religious fundamentalism - and into a party that thinks the ends of getting reelected justifies any means, including hiding things from the people they represent. They need to stop being the stereotype that Stephen Colbert personifies.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote: (Of course, it's not like Webb's a flaming liberal-- he's going to be the most Republican Democrat on the floor, by some accounts)
Personally, I like having conservative democrats and liberal Republicans in Washington. If we flip-flopped the entire country, electing democrats in all the red states and republicans in all the blue states, we'd have the most moderate Congress ever.
As an aside, Lieberman's victory shows just how terrible the primary system is. I wonder what would happen if the primaries were open for everyone, not just voters registered with that party. I'd like to think we'd start seeing more moderate, compromise-minded candidates.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
WEBB v ALLEN
Precincts Reporting: 2439 of 2443 (99.84%) Registered Voters: 4,555,672 Total Voting: 2,365,081 Voter Turnout: 51.92 %
Candidates Party Vote Totals Percentage J H Webb Jr Democratic 1,171,813 49.55% G F Allen Republican 1,164,767 49.25%
3 of the remaining 4 precincts are pretty heavily skewed towards Webb.
Missouri Senate: McCaskill (D) d. Talent (R) - race conceded
If they call it for Tester in Montana, the Democrats have just swept Congress. Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
what's interesting is that a socially conservative issue (marraige amendments) was passing in so many states at the same time that a fiscally liberal issue (raise min. wage) was passing in many states. I hope thats a trend.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Is raising the minimum wage considered fiscally liberal? Hrm. I guess I'm going to have to start calling myself fiscally moderate instead of fiscally conservative. I don't care for the socially conservative trend much, myself, but it looks like that's the way things are swinging everywhere.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:I can live with Arnold so long as he's playing bipartisan governer and not republican arnold.
I'm happy for you.
quote: angelides should have never won the primary, Westly could probably have made it a five point race, rather than the embarassing landslide support Arnold got...
Westly? Ew! I have really liked Angelides from the beginning. I just wish more Californians had agreed with me.
quote:But 87 is failing and most of the bond measures are passing.
87 is going down in flames, and it looks like 1A-1E all passed.
quote: unsurprising that 83 passed, but it just creeps me out to tag anyone for life, not a precedent I want to start.
Agreed. I'm not too happy about the predicted real estate consequences either.
quote:90 looks like it will pass as well.
Nope. Which makes me happy.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:what's interesting is that a socially conservative issue (marraige amendments) was passing in so many states at the same time that a fiscally liberal issue (raise min. wage) was passing in many states. I hope thats a trend.
I hope that's not a trend. I would much, much, much prefer fiscal conservatives and social liberals Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:what's interesting is that a socially conservative issue (marraige amendments) was passing in so many states at the same time that a fiscally liberal issue (raise min. wage) was passing in many states. I hope thats a trend.
Me too.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
quote:Originally posted by pH: Everyone can breathe just fine in the restaurants now. Eliminating smoking everywhere is stupid.
-pH
Actually, there have been plenty of times I've had to leave a restaurant because of someone smoking irritating my asthma. And I was sitting in the non-smoking section.
Nobody forced you to enter a restaurant that allowed smoking. You have now forced the proprietor of every restaurant in the state to bow to your demands.
Whatever happened to property rights?
I am not allowed to walk down the street? Smoking hurts EVERYONE, especially those exposed to it secondhand. I'd really rather not die a slow death by cancer just because I excercised my right to walk down the street.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If they call it for Tester in Montana, the Democrats have just swept Congress.
Didn't the Dems lose TN?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wait a second, Tinros. I absolutely support laws that ban smoking in indoor places open to the public (such as restaurants). But are you suggesting banning smoking outdoors? Because I would not support that -- despite the problems it sometimes causes me.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Isn't that a bit dramatic? Has anyone really died a slow death by cancer because they walked down the street past someone who was smoking? Or even 100 someones? Conceivably, you are walking by them, not standing there inhaling all of the smoke. And conceivably you can walk away.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Wow, Webb's ahead? He ran a good race, but I was almost certain he'd lose.
--j_k, who hopes against another Florida 2000 situation
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Me neither. Outdoors is fine.
I'm glad the Dems took the House, I don't think I want them to take the Senate for the exact same reasons that I didn't like the Reps having both. A balance of power is good. Too much power and you don't have to be accountable to the half of the country that disagrees with you.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I knew the Dems were going to do good last week, when President Bush confidently predicted that the Republicans would hold onto both houses.
He used the exact same tone of voice he used in 2004 when he said the Insurgency in Iraq was on its last leg.
and in 2005.
and in 2006.
and when he said, "Mission Accomplished."
and when he said his tax breaks would benefit the middle and lower classes.
quote:After months of aggressive campaigning and with nearly 99 percent of ballots counted, politicians were the big winners in Tuesday's midterm election, taking all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, retaining a majority with 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate, and pushing political candidates to victory in each of the 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs.
quote:"Over the years, I grew disappointed with the job the politicians were doing, yet I kept on voting for them out of loyalty," Bunter said. "This time around, I swore I'd go with someone else, but frankly, looking at the ballot, I didn't see any other choice."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm pleased that in a conservative state like AZ, The anti-gay marriage amendment failed.
And that's about all I have to be pleased about.
I'm not heartbroken the dems took the house, though. After years of gay bashing by republicans I'm sufficently pissed off at them to experience shadenfruede at their expense.
However, with all the authoritarianism that passed... that seems to pass every election... I've definately got that "There's no where left to run" feeling.
Pix
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
He never said "mission accomplished," of course. He did give a speech on an aircraft carrier, on which the soldiers had the audacity to put up that banner and suggest they'd accomplished a mission. The speech said "Our mission continues" and "We have difficult work to do in Iraq." Full transcript is here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
It would be nice if we could have discussions without the same falsehoods being stated as fact again and again.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Let's not forget second-secondhand smoke, which is the invisible toxins you breathe in if you're in a room with some who smokes, but isn't smoking at the moment. (Connie Willis, Bellwether.) It's why we can never tolerate smoking, even in private places, outside, with nobody else around. Think of the children! Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Second-secondhand smoke? I thought that was just called bad breath. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You jest, but I actually find being in a small room (or a car) with a heavy smoker physically distressing. And it's not breath. Heavy smokers ooze smoke/nicotine/something from their very pores.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: He never said "mission accomplished," of course. He did give a speech on an aircraft carrier, on which the soldiers had the audacity to put up that banner and suggest they'd accomplished a mission. The speech said "Our mission continues" and "We have difficult work to do in Iraq." Full transcript is here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/
It would be nice if we could have discussions without the same falsehoods being stated as fact again and again.
A banner that the White house had made. I think he has to own that one.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The thing is, the banner stated the truth. The mission was accomplished. There were at the time, are now, and always will be more missions to accomplish.
There's lots of things to criticize Bush for. "Mission Accomplished" four years later isn't one of them. It wasn't even worthy of criticism then.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lyrhawn, apparently in MT and VA the vote margins determine if the state will pay for recounts, if a recount in requested by the putative loser. But the trailing candidate can still pay for a recount, if the vote is within certain ranges.
quote:MT---- If the margin is within 0.25% — Tester's current lead is higher than this, at 0.43% — the losing candidate can request a state-paid recount. If the gap is above 0.25% and less than 0.50%, as with Burns's current gap, the Burns campaign could post a bond to pay the full cost of a recount, which would be refunded if they won and forfeited if they lost.
According to the Washington Post , the recount law in Virginia is similar, but the threshholds are different — a state-paid recount is provided for a margin of less than 0.5%, while a candidate can post a bond and request a recount if the margin is less than 1%.
quote:However, with all the authoritarianism that passed... that seems to pass every election... I've definately got that "There's no where left to run" feeling.
Cheers. I definately have that too. Only... huh, I see the dems as being far less authoritarian than the republicans. So I'm extremely happy about this election, cause I'm hoping the dems will turn things around a little.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes, he has to own the banner.
The thing is, the banner stated the truth. The mission was accomplished. There were at the time, are now, and always will be more missions to accomplish.
There's lots of things to criticize Bush for. "Mission Accomplished" four years later isn't one of them. It wasn't even worthy of criticism then.
I don't disagree with you, though I think the celebratory nature of the event was misleading. I do object to "he never said that".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ˇEl sorprender!
Rumsfeld stepping down!
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: You jest, but I actually find being in a small room (or a car) with a heavy smoker physically distressing. And it's not breath. Heavy smokers ooze smoke/nicotine/something from their very pores.
Simply being in the car with my uncle on a trip to Gettysburg gave me an asthma attack. So I understand your perspective.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
OK. I knew "Mission Accomplished" was a cheap shot. Sorry.
Still the main point, that the President sold the Republican Victory of last night with the same energy and enthusiasm he has sold the American Victory in Iraq for the past 4 year.
I am waiting to see how he spins the Democratic wins the way he spun his narrow victory in 2000, and his victory in 2004 as great "referendums for the overwhelming popularity of Conservative America"
I can hear it now. "Last night American's did not storm upon the White House, drag us out by our heels, and lynch us from a tree. That clearly proves that the majority of Americans firmly wish us to continue, not-stay the course--but keep doing exactly what we have been doing. If you don't lynch, your approval's a synch."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:I am waiting to see how he spins the Democratic wins the way he spun his narrow victory in 2000, and his victory in 2004 as great "referendums for the overwhelming popularity of Conservative America"
I can hear it now. "Last night American's did not storm upon the White House, drag us out by our heels, and lynch us from a tree. That clearly proves that the majority of Americans firmly wish us to continue, not-stay the course--but keep doing exactly what we have been doing. If you don't lynch, your approval's a synch."
It will not be as bad as your spin is on what you think he will say
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do object to "he never said that".
It depends on what the referent of "that" is. If the referent is the phrase "Mission Accomplished," then yes, it's dishonest to say he never said that.
When the referent of "that" is what it has come to mean by many people who harp over and over and over again about the use of the phrase - that is, that Bush somehow said we were done in Iraq - then people need to object, loudly and strenuously.
quote:I can hear it now. "Last night American's did not storm upon the White House, drag us out by our heels, and lynch us from a tree. That clearly proves that the majority of Americans firmly wish us to continue, not-stay the course--but keep doing exactly what we have been doing. If you don't lynch, your approval's a synch."
You seem to find enough that he actually says to be offended without taking anticipatory offense to something he hasn't said yet.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know if this has been commented on, but Maryland uses computers now. I don't know if they are Diebold or not, but it did not seem to help the Republicans here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My comment was in response to Will, who, I believe was correcting what he considered falsehoods with falsehoods of his own. One being that the "soldiers" were entirely responsible for the sign.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
CNN has called Montana for Tester, the Democratic candidate. If they're right, that just leaves Virginia.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes! We get to decide the fate of the nation! Go Virginia!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It will be interesting to see if the Republicans in a lame duck session of the Senate will bring to vote all the judicial nominees who have passed committee but not yet been confirmed or denied.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes! We get to decide the fate of the nation! Go Virginia!
Well technically every single state decides the fate of the nation. Montana came as a shock to me, I really don't understand how it went Dem, I always figured Arizona would turn blue before Montana.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
An interesting article from NYtimes.com warns that a Virginia recount (and therefore a definitive result) may not happen until late-November to mid-December.
*sight*
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
With Republicans in control of the executive branch (Bush has veto power on all bills and Cheney has veto power if the Senate is divided 50-50), it is important that Democrats have control of both houses of the legislative to push their agenda forward. After 12 years in the majority, it's about time for a power switch.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes! We get to decide the fate of the nation! Go Virginia!
Well technically every single state decides the fate of the nation. Montana came as a shock to me, I really don't understand how it went Dem, I always figured Arizona would turn blue before Montana.
You don't know Montana very well. Historically, Montana has been a democratic state and has only swung republican during the past decade. Montanan's on both sides of the political fence have been expecting Burns would loose this election since spring. His connections with Abramov were the last straw for people who have been putting up with his racist corruption for too long. Three months ago, people weren't thinking this race would even be close but Burns, with the aid of the RNC, made a major push at the end and narrowed the margin.
Luckily, it wasn't enough to put him over the top. Burns is really nightmare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I want Both houses to be controlled by Democrats. For the last 40 years or so, the same amount of major legislation gets passed with an opposition Congress as a same party Congress, so I'm not worried about gridlock, unless Bush decides to be a child about it.
I don't know what the figures are with a SPLIT Congress, but I'd rather one party have both sides.
Morbo -
Yeah that makes sense about the differing figures in the percentages, thanks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] Yes! We get to decide the fate of the nation! Go Virginia!
Well technically every single state decides the fate of the nation. Montana came as a shock to me, I really don't understand how it went Dem, I always figured Arizona would turn blue before Montana.
You don't know Montana very well.
Apparently you are the one American who does.
I live in Utah, I'm being purely facetious.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Even in losing control of the House (the Senate is not yet decided--Virginia is still too close to call, and in a Senate tied 50-50, the Vice-President is the tie-breaker), Republicans maintain more seats than they had when Democrats last controlled Congress. So they have not gone all the way back to square one, so to speak.
It will be interesting to see what new ideas the Democrats can bring to the prosecution of the Iraq war. If it is just cut-and-run, which the majority in America do not favor, then they will be arbiters of a disaster for which they will be blamed in 2008, as all over the world, former allies and peoples seeking democracy and moderate governments decide they cannot depend upon America to back up its promises and help defend them against the thuggery of those who desire dictatorship and oppression.
This debate is about America's role in the world from now on. If we do not live up to our own ideals and promises, then we will come to find ourselves in a world a hundred times more violent and hostile than it is now, and our military strength and our economic strength will fail to avail us any more.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro: An interesting article from NYtimes.com warns that a Virginia recount (and therefore a definitive result) may not happen until late-November to mid-December.
*sight*
Virginia law allows a recount but unless something very dramatic went wrong, there is little reason to suspect it will change the outcome.
With 99.8% of the district reporting, Webb is in the lead by 6708 votes our of 2,331,862. Standard counting error for the election (which is equal to the square root of the number of votes cast) is 1527 votes. To change the outcome, the recount would have to differ by nearly 4 1/2 times the standard counting error which is very improbable (less than 0.003 percent).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
ok Dag and Dk, you caught me.
I was being Mean to the President.
I guess it was today's total lack of attack ads, now unwarranted accusations, no semi-lies coached in unproven innuendo, that I felt withdrawal. I had to dump in some of my own.
I listened to the Presidents press conference this afternoon. It went better than I was hoping, and best of all, showed signs that the President may be willing to work with, not command, the next Congress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I remember reading at CNN that Virginia law states the loser can demand a recount anytime the margin of victory is 1% or less.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
One wonders if they'll even bother with it.
There was a statewide recount for the VA Attorney General...what, a couple years ago? Anyway, the recount took until December 22nd, and the difference made was only 27 votes, and those 27 votes actually went to the winner, not the challenger.
With the remaining three precincts well skewed towards Webb, and canvassing going on right now that many predict will also give Webb additional votes, (who knows how the provisional ballots will fall), the man will probably come out in the very end with a seven to eight thousand vote lead.
I don't know how many outstanding absentee ballots there are, last I heard, there were a few thousand left to be counted in overwhelmingly Democratic Fairfax County.
But even if the lead is narrowed to a thousand votes, which looks unlikely at this point, does Allen really expect to make up a thousand vote margin with a recount, when the last one done worked against the challenger by 27 votes?
He has to weigh the astronomical odds of winning in a recount against the heavy political price his party will pay for the recount. I think a recount that he loses will be another nail in the coffin of a potential presidential run by him as well.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think a recount that he [Allen] loses will be another nail in the coffin of a potential presidential run by him as well.
I don't think Allen has a potential 2008 presidential run anymore, even before yesterday's vote,not realistically. He ran a sloppy, unimpressive campaign. I assume he won't run, unless by some miracle he upsets Webb in a recount. Frist's odd of winning the Republican primary seem pretty bad too, IMO. I guess he'll run though.
Which leaves--Rudy, McCain, possibly Condi?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Miro: An interesting article from NYtimes.com warns that a Virginia recount (and therefore a definitive result) may not happen until late-November to mid-December.
*sight*
Virginia law allows a recount but unless something very dramatic went wrong, there is little reason to suspect it will change the outcome.
With 99.8% of the district reporting, Webb is in the lead by 6708 votes our of 2,331,862. Standard counting error for the election (which is equal to the square root of the number of votes cast) is 1527 votes. To change the outcome, the recount would have to differ by nearly 4 1/2 times the standard counting error which is very improbable (less than 0.003 percent).
But that doesn't include absentee ballots. In order to be counted, they just have to be postmarked by election day. So more ballots could still be coming in, possibly narrowing the margin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I still don't understand where the numbers are coming from on those three.
Those three strike me as the three most unelectable Republicans. Rudy Giuliani is a social liberal, most glaringly on the subject of gay marriage, and the fact that he's on his what, third marriage, after cheating on his second wife? He'll be canon fodder. He'll force a ton of Republicans to stay home, and his pre-9/11 record will rexplode onto the scene. Remember this guy was NOT popular before 9/11, and I think when ads start to come out with the reasons why no one liked the guy, the fact that he stood on some rubble and made a couple good speeches will NOT carry him to a win, especially with all the energized liberals and a large number of women who would vote for Hillary Clinton.
McCain has a better chance, especially lately with him jogging to the right, but he faces some of the same social conservative problems as Rudy.
And Condi, dear god Condi. She has no experience as an elected official in a leadership position. Her only government jobs, SecState and NSA have been HEAVILY criticized by all around. She was the NSA when 9/11 happened, and every national security mistake that Bush has made will weigh her down like a 2 ton anchor. I don't think she can win either, to say nothing of the fact that I think a black women loses a lot of votes in the south.
I think the Republican Primary is going to look something like the Democratic primary did 2 years ago. It's going to be a free for all, and there's going to be a lot of names being thrown around. Be afraid of the more conservative voters, those are the ones who'll do the best at getting out the vote, and will vote for the most socially conservative candidate they can get. Tom Delay is out, George Allen is probably dead in the water at this point. Bill frist has a chance, if he can get a solid message out, so does Jeb Bush (though I think he loses a primary in the end). Rick Santorum is probably dead in the water after being destroyed in PA, but look out for a comeback. This election was an aberration, and there's no guarantee that in 2 years everyone won't shake off whatever funk* we were all in this year.
*By which I mean, if this entire election was about corruption and Iraq, those might not be issues in two years, and then we're back to voting as usual, and we might find ourselves with a lot of Democrats in trouble, if their reason for being elected evaporates. So much depends on what the Dems do while they are in charge.
Miro -
VA absentee ballots have to be RECEIVED by 7pm on election day, not postmarked.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Another perspective on the race, from Brad Delong's blog : 32,100,000 vs. 24,524,000 56.7 vs 43.3 Dems vs GOP in Senate races.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd be more interested in seeing the numbers on Dems vs. GOP in House races, where all states were up for grabs.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I agree with most of your analysis on the possible Republican contenders for '08, Lyrhawn, except one thing- what "social conservative" problems are you referring to, regarding McCain? He's pretty much as socially conservative as they come.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think the Republican Primary is going to look something like the Democratic primary did 2 years ago.
I sure hope it doesn't come to this. Kerry was such a weak candidate, I'm not sure that this model is one that the republicans should really be looking to.
Edit:
By the way, is it just me, or is the front page cnn count incorrect? They list 0 independents, but the Vermont page lists the projected winner, Sanders, as an independent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tresopax: [qb] Yes! We get to decide the fate of the nation! Go Virginia!
Well technically every single state decides the fate of the nation. Montana came as a shock to me, I really don't understand how it went Dem, I always figured Arizona would turn blue before Montana.
You don't know Montana very well.
Apparently you are the one American who does.
I live in Utah, I'm being purely facetious.
BB, Perhaps you don't realize that I lived in Bozeman MT for nearly a decade. I own property in Montana. I have numerous friends in Montana and read the Montana local newspapers regularly so I have a pretty good idea what a lot of Montanan's are thinking (although certainly not all). Burns being ousted wasn't a sure thing but Montanan's have known that it was a good possibility for months now. Up until the last 6 week, even the RNC had written off this race but following the Foley scandal they decided to put up more of a fight in Montana to try to off set losses in other places.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
CNN.com has three bars, one for Republicans, one for Democrats, and one for Independents. That last bar has a total of "0" listed.
Of course, at the bottom they put an asterisk that states: "Total for Senate Democrats includes two independents."
I sure am glad to see they're unbiased. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Miro: An interesting article from NYtimes.com warns that a Virginia recount (and therefore a definitive result) may not happen until late-November to mid-December.
*sight*
Virginia law allows a recount but unless something very dramatic went wrong, there is little reason to suspect it will change the outcome.
With 99.8% of the district reporting, Webb is in the lead by 6708 votes our of 2,331,862. Standard counting error for the election (which is equal to the square root of the number of votes cast) is 1527 votes. To change the outcome, the recount would have to differ by nearly 4 1/2 times the standard counting error which is very improbable (less than 0.003 percent).
But that doesn't include absentee ballots. In order to be counted, they just have to be postmarked by election day. So more ballots could still be coming in, possibly narrowing the margin.
Unless there is some reason to assume that absentee voters are significantly different than other voters, its very unlikely to make a difference. The more people who have voted absentee, the more likely it is that the absentee ballots will look very similar to the rest of the votes. I still say that the chances that this election will go to the republicans are very, very low.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Thanks, I missed that statement. In Lieberman's case, it makes a bit of sense. I believe that he has stated that he will return to the Democratic party upon winning the election. It seems that the other guy should have been listed as an independent, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hasn't the other Independent previously caucused with the Democrats?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I wouldn't be surprised if they included the independents with the democrats because people were getting confused.
-Bok
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
A guy runs as an Independent, wins as an Independent, then gets listed as a Democrat? Not exactly the best journalism, imho.
I think it said a lot that Lieberman was able to win as an Independent, gaining bipartisan support (much of which came from the Republican side of the fence). His primary opponent was a Democrat, who he defeated... yet he gets listed as a Democrat? Put another way, the Democratic Party's candidate lost that election, yet it's listed as a victory for them.
If we're ever going to get a third party started in this country, we need more stories like Lieberman's... candidates not afraid to go against the party machines to gain bipartisan support. Reporting that there were no Independents elected does not help.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
They're listed as Democrats because they will caucus with the Democrats. Lieberman has stated as much, and Sanders is succeeding Jeffords, and is much further to the left than his predecessor to boot.
This isn't a case of news bias. CNN is reporting for control of the Senate, and since both independents are essentially Democrats in all but name, then it makes sense that they be placed in that category. You'll notice that the Republicans aren't outraged about this- they understand quite well that Lieberman and Sanders winning in their respective states equates to two more Dem seats in the chamber.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Still, they are not Democrats. When there is a given space to put independents, it seems dishonest to say that there are none when that is not the case. Especially for Sanders.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Other guy, Bernie Sanders, has pledged to caucus with the Democrats. It makes sense really to include them both under the Democratic side, as it's the two of them that will give control to the Democrats when Webb wins the VA seat.
But I asked this before, and I have to ask again, to see if anyone knows senate law for sure:
Webb's victory will give the Senate a 49/49 split with two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. Does the fact that those Independent senators are pledging to caucus with the Democrats give them control of the committees, or since there is no actual democratic majority, do they remain in republican hands?
Tarrsk -
I misspoke about McCain with regards to social coservatism. Other than his having some extramarital affair issues, and breaking ranks pretty hard with the religious right during the 2000 campaign, he's fairly in line with him. Other issues, such as his health, and age, and his departure from hardline Republican positions weakens him as well, along with the changes in his positions between 2000 and now. He has a better chance than Condi or Rudy I think though.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Lyrhawn,
Dems will get the committee chairs if Webb wins, because it doesn't depend on the number of people who list a "D" next to their name on the ballot, it depends on how many lawmakers vote with a certain caucus.
If Webb wins, there will be 51 members of the Democratic caucus, giving them the right to choose committee chairmanships.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
The entire Senate votes on committee memberships and chairmanships. In practice, this means the majority party decides on chairmanships, assuming they vote en bloc. In this case, if the 2 independents caucus with Democrats, then the Democrats pick the committee chairs.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
No, you can smoke outside, where wind and whatnot can blow it away. But I don't want to be prevented from joining my friends at restaurants or bowling alleys because it endagers my health. My mom smokes- I get enough of it everyday as it is. Why make it worse?
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Then why even put the Independent bar on the website? Again, the Democratic candidate in Connecticut lost. The person the Democrats wanted to have that seat lost. The reason they lost is because a candidate decided to run without his party's help, garnering bipartisan support in his state and outgaining the Democrat and Republican put together.
Regardless of who he caucuses with, that's a big victory for those of us who wish to see more Independents on the ticket. It's a big victory for those of us who don't believe that voting for an Independent is throwing your vote away.
I don't care who they're voting with, the truth is that two candidates listed as Independent won in their respective elections, defeating both the major party candidates.
It would be nice if that was reflected, rather than lumping them in with one party or the other.
Why not have the asterisk say "The two Independents have chosen to caucus with the Democratic party" instead of just listing "0" for the number of Independents elected?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I still go for Romney as the most likely Repub canidate for 08 Pres. Unless someone else goes in the ring, Allen's inabilities have now opened him up as a better prospect.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It'll be interesting to see how Bush works with a Democratic House considering how he is used to a friendly Congress pushing through bills he is in favor of.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You mean like his immigration plan or social security reform? Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Just reported Jim Webb has taken VA.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also reported in the same breath that aides close to Allen say he doesn't want to drag this out.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
See, Virginia wouldn't let America down... (Or, at least not northern Virginia )
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I rallied some of us Southwest Virginians, too :-)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
America thanks you, and absolves you of your guilt for giving your electoral votes to Bush, twice.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Now that the results are all in, it's fun to go back and look at the predictions on pages one and two of this thread.
(I didn't even try to have a prediction myself -- I didn't follow the election very closely -- and last time I thought Kerry would win, so much for my own predictive abilities )
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was only slightly off. My high end guess was 25 pickups, plus two of the vacant seats from retirements. So in the end, I'll be off on my House prediction by something like 10, which sucks, because I originally had 25-30, and then I lowballed it. Shows how much faith I have in my own party.
I was closer with the Senate. I was a bit wishy washy with it, but I guessed everything right except a firm stance on MO, though I explored a 49/49 split well, so I think I get points there Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Just out of interest, if the Senate had been divided 50-50, how would that have worked? The rusted civics portion of my brain weakly suggests that the vice president would have had the tie-breaking vote?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Yep.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And Republicans would have remained in control of the chairmanship positions.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
At least I can go back to hating the United States again and wishing its enemies well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
sp whats the update?
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: At least I can go back to hating the United States again and wishing its enemies well.
That attitude is the root of what's wrong with America today.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
your whats wrong with America! :-p
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
From the New York Times 27 minutes ago:
quote:Senator George Allen is expected to concede his re-election campaign against his Democratic challenger, Jim Webb, later this afternoon, according to two Republicans connected to the Allen campaign.
Mr. Allen is scheduled to make a statement at 3 p.m. in Alexandria.
Full article here (with a subscription).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I haven't read this thread and ain't gonna, it's so long now...just thought I'd remark that I think it's hysterical that one of the first things I saw at cnn.com just now was a link to a story headlined something like, "President Bush: I'm open to new ideas on Iraq"
Amazing how quickly someone can pick up some humility when the wind is blowing the wrong way.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
I'll what's wrong with america you!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Rakeesh, I don't believe he really is. And, I don't believe the Democrats will actually work with him or the Republicans. At least the good news as a conservative Repub is nothing will get done for two years.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Assuming what you said is true, it will be different from the last few years how?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
How is it at all a good thing that nothing gets done? That just means we'll be stuck in the same crummy place voters wanted to get away from with this election. I want change for the better.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It is a good thing because all the Democrats want is what I don't want. I voted Republican. I didn't vote for change. If anything, I voted for a more Conservative group than ever before. Sadi Arabia is looking better and better all the time. Just wish I was a Muslim.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
occasional I hope that part about saudi arabia was hyperbole.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
So do I.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Re: The Independent vs. Democrat thing from earlier. I saw on C-Span today that Lieberman was asked whether he wanted to be put down as a Democrat of an Independent. It took him all afternoon to get back to them* because he had to go strong arm Harry Reid into giving him his committee chairmanship, but then he told them he wanted to be listed as a Democrat.
*I don't remember if this was the people from C-Span or the people from Congressional Quarterly speaking.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I want better access to education and health care, better living conditions through higher wages, an exit strategy for Iraq so our troops can return to their families, a government with less corruption and unwillingness to hear the opinions of others, and a healthier economy. Things that Republicans are not delivering - that's why they were voted out on their butts.
It's interesting that you're happy with the way things are. If you want to move to Saudi Arabia, feel free to.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I was happy in the direction things were going. And I am not free to move to Sadi Arabia, as I am not Muslim. Now, if there was a Christian equivalant that would be great.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
You were happy that we were spending billions of dollars a year in Iraq with no strategy on how to leave with increasing US and Iraqi civilian casualties, corrupt government officials, limiting civil liberties, and big business running roughshod over everything. That's where we were going.
To each his or her own I guess. I find it ironic that Republicans stand for small government and responsible fiscal spending and they did the complete opposite with the creation of Homeland Security and record deficit levels.
You are free to leave the United States. I was sure considering it with the way things were going in this country.
[ November 09, 2006, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: jh ]
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Frankly, I didn't think those "problems" were more than the usual liberal bias. I am not a small government Republican (unless the Democrats are in charge), I am a strong social Conservative.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It speaks for itself that Republicans were so disenchanted with the way things were going they themselves voted for Democratic candidates, whether they were liberal or moderate. Exit polls show that Democrats were elected based on Iraq, corruption, and the economy, so I guess conservative Republicans considered them problems that needed fixing. It wasn't just a "liberal bias." As well, a higher percentage of independents than ever before voted Democratic as well.
If things were going spendidly under Republican leadership and people were happy, Republicans would've retained majority power in Congress. But they performed horribly and that's why Democrats were elected into office. Now it's time to see what they do with that power.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
That is because the media went on a lying bias spree. People bought it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I just wish there was a place to run to get away from you people's votes. Everywhere else in the world is an "Even Worse"
Why can't people just mind their own freaking business?
No, I don't want to have my money taken away from me by force of law to fund your pet project.
No, We shouldn't give special rights to heterosexuals. Equal rights are for all. It's none of anyone elses business who marries whom.
You're all a bunch of Busy Bodies.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
LOL. I doubt it; people were sick of waiting for their families to come back from a senseless war with no idea of when that would happen and corrupt government officials who disrespected the offices they were elected to and the people who elected them to those offices. But if you favor corruption, maybe you should consider moving to the Phillippines. It's rampant there. And, you don't even have to be Muslim.
On social issues, I equate opposition to gay marriage to the same prejudice that led to laws prohibiting whites and blacks from marrying so many years ago. At the time people thought they had great reasons for it but finally realized that it was a violation of civil rights and really, extremely foolish. It takes time for society to accept that just because it's unusual doesn't make it bad.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Sadi Arabia is looking better and better all the time. Just wish I was a Muslim.
I don't see anything stopping you. I'm sure Islam would love another convert, and Saudi Arabia would love another person to oppress.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Re: The Independent vs. Democrat thing from earlier. I saw on C-Span today that Lieberman was asked whether he wanted to be put down as a Democrat of an Independent. It took him all afternoon to get back to them* because he had to go strong arm Harry Reid into giving him his committee chairmanship, but then he told them he wanted to be listed as a Democrat.
*I don't remember if this was the people from C-Span or the people from Congressional Quarterly speaking.
Well I think we ALL saw that coming. Quite frankly, since Lieberman is the one handing the Senate to the Democrats, DESPITE the fact that they tried to more or less run him out of it, I think he'd be a fool not to bilk everything he could get out of Harry Reid.
At the very least, it was the price Reid and the Dmeocratic leadership paid for trying to shoehorn him out the door. I'll bet you anything Republicans would have given him almost ANYTHING he wanted had he gone to them looking for a real. Bernie Sanders is stuck, because he's further to the left than pretty much everyone else, so he can't really try to play the sides off each other, everyone knows he isn't voting with the Republicans, regardless of the fact that he calls himself an Independent.
Lieberman, and Reid, got what they deserved.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you meant even a little bit of, "Saudi Arabia is looking better all the time," Occassional...you aren't a Rebulican or an American conservative, not by any definition I or any of the many conservative Republicans I know would use. Conservative Republicans should be among the government of Saudi Arabia's most devoted enemies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I like it how when the United States gets more conservative, liberals can be all like "That's it, I'm moving to Canada. Or Europe."
And if it gets more liberal, the conservatives can be all like "That's it, I'm moving to ..
.. um, ..
ummm .."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, Occasional's shtick isn't a joke?
AAH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I like it how when the United States gets more conservative, liberals can be all like "That's it, I'm moving to Canada. Or Europe."
And if it gets more liberal, the conservatives can be all like "That's it, I'm moving to ..
.. um, ..
ummm .."
Well, if they want to move to a really religious conservative state....the Middle East would certainly look attractive.
Other than that, looks like they have to suck it up and tough it out with the mean, mean liberals.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[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)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)