posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember reading at CNN that Virginia law states the loser can demand a recount anytime the margin of victory is 1% or less.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be more interested in seeing the numbers on Dems vs. GOP in House races, where all states were up for grabs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also reported in the same breath that aides close to Allen say he doesn't want to drag this out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
America thanks you, and absolves you of your guilt for giving your electoral votes to Bush, twice.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 )
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
