posted
It's that time again. Normally I have a big fancy to do where I go through all the races and blah blah blah. But there are still some things going on that I'll throw out there.
Republicans need 39 seats in the House to take over. If they do, it's a virtual guarantee that John Boehner will take over as the Speaker of the House. It is thought that if the GOP takes over, Pelosi will likely resign rather than stay on as Minority Leader. She'll probably take half a dozen senior ranking Democrats with her who are her political allies in the House from California who won't much want to stick around with her there. Who fills the power vacuum is up in the air, but look for Steny Hoyer to play a role.
In the Senate, with a 57/41/2 split between D/R/I, the Republicans need a net pickup of ten seats to take over. Most think that with Tea Party candidates beating out GOP people who would have had a better chance, like O'Donnell in Delaware, the Senate will stay in Democratic hands. Personally, I'm hoping the GOP takes both houses, but it seems unlikely.
There are also a number of interesting ballot issues up this year. California is voting to legalize Marijuana, and they are also voting to loosen some of the strictest budget requirements in the nation by allowing budgets to pass with a simple majority rather than requiring a 2/3, which has been a major structural problem in the CA Assembly's ability to get their budget crisis under control. Frankly I think the governor's race between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman there to replace the Governator is also interesting. Whitman spent more money trying to buy the Governor's mansion than Gore spent in 2000 on his entire presidential election. Crazy. And for all that, she's still not ahead in the polls.
Some individual senate races interest me, mostly Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, and the Alaska election, where Lisa Murkowski, next in a long line of Alaska Republicans, is attempting to win a write-in ballot campaign against the Tea Party candidate Joe Miller who ousted her in the primary. There's also an off chance that the Democratic candidate could beat both of them if they split the vote between each other enough. Angle and Reid interest me, mostly because I think Sharron Angle is a weirdo, but at the same time I think Reid is an incompetent buffoon, and those set to replace him have a far better reputation among Republicans for getting work done. There's also a close race in Wisconsin for Russ Feingold, who is highly regarded as a non-party hack who works well with both sides, but has been tarred as a beltway liberal by his opponent.
Results to come as they are available.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul projected as Kentucky winner. Dan Coats projected as Republicans first pick up in the Senate.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul and Tea Party hero) has won the Senate seat in Kentucky.
Dan Coats (R) has taken Evan Bayh's (D) former seat in Indiana, making it the first pickup for the GOP in the Senate.
More on Ballot Initiatives:
Also, I hadn't seen this before, but one of the ballot issues being decided nationally this year is an official state name change in Rhode Island, from "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations" to just "Rhode Island."
Also, Colorado and Oklahoma have state constitutional measures to: "Amend the state constitution so that the people of Colorado/Oklahoma cannot be penalized for refusing to buy health insurance. It would also allow physicians to continue taking payments directly from patients." Arizona has a similar measure.
Additionally, Colorado is changing the definition of personhood to: "This constitutional amendment would apply personhood — and all of its rights — from "the beginning of the biological development" of a human being." This could have interesting developments for abortion rights, but I have a feeling this would zoom right to the Supreme Court and get slapped down.
Arizona also has measure to ban affirmative action and legalize medical marijuana (SD, AZ and CA are all voting on this), and is one of a half dozen states putting forward a state constitutional right to hunt and harvest wildlife.
Finally, Illinois is voting on a Governor recall measure.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul should be winning Kentucky by over five percentage points, and O'Donnell should be losing by somewhere in the range of three million percentage points.
Colorado's personhood amendment is a sideshow compared to "The Bad Three," another fun fun happy time attempted manipulation of colorado's easy constitutional amendment process that would leave this place a brackish backwater.
I will also be making like a billion dollars off this election.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Coons is projected to beat O'Donnell. I think Coons is excellent compared to her, so, for the sake of government I'm happy, but, I'm going to be robbed of a lot of good comedy with her not in the public spotlight. Maybe Fox will give her a TV show. Lately Fox News is like a refugee camp for failed Conservative politicians.
Mark Rubio will beat out Meeks and Crist as well. This only saddens me because Crist seemed like a genuine centrist that I would have liked to see in Congress. If Meeks had dropped out, he would have won. Oh well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Current live tally in the 538 model puts Republican odds for Senate takeover down to 6, House takeover to 89 with dems at 200 seats.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of the races you listed above Sam, I'd say that PA, WI and NV aren't guaranteed. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sestak beat Toomey in PA, or to have Reid pull out a win against Angle.
I'm pulling for Feingold, but, I don't know.
Here's a fun bit: Right now the Republican candidate for governor in Colorado only has 9% of the vote. If they don't hit 10%, they won't be registered as a major party for the 2012 election.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, but the rate of votes that comes in has to increase as the night goes on. The more votes that come in, the more votes he needs to sustain 9%, and the rate has to increase for him to get up to 10%.
The race in Pennsylvania is basically a dead heat. Last time I looked, Toomey was ahead of Sestak by less than a thousand votes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kansas has a pretty neat web page for their results. Not that any of the results are surprising. Another election year in Kansas, another argument for me to take up drinking...
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Sure, but the rate of votes that comes in has to increase as the night goes on. The more votes that come in, the more votes he needs to sustain 9%, and the rate has to increase for him to get up to 10%.
Only relevant if vote counts are relatively steady across the state, which is uncommon. As each district/area gets counted, there is likely a spurt in one direction or the other.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Funny that Clinton wanted the black Dem to drop out so the once Republican, Crist could have a chance over the first generation Tea Bagging Latino.
Why would a Democrat ask a black democtrat to drop out in a three way race so that the "independent", once Republican white politician could defeat the latino conservative? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44337.html
Marco Rubio for president..... Maybe our next president will be the first latino president. I hope so. Obama proved that experience doesn't matter. The Rubio's and Allen West's are a great danger to the democratic party. Tea-bagger minority candidates that believe in the American Dream.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
6 of those seats need to go GOP for them to take over the Senate.
Pennsylvania - remains neck and neck. (R - 30K lead) Illinois - is close at 48/46. (R - 50K lead) Colorado - 50/45 (D - 50K lead) Nevada - Reid has 12 point lead. (D - 34K lead) Alaska - ? Washington - R ahead by 50K California - D ahead by 12K Hawaii - ?
Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
I have to admit that I would be surprised if they turned out to be that stupid. That sort of grandstanding plays well to the rubes, but I can't imagine that they want to start trying to seize control of government that transparently at this stage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the establishment is that stupid. I do believe a lot of newbies might not be so hesitant though. Especially not the more...colorful...candidates.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said this: “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
Rubio and West endanger the 90+ percent black democrat vote. Funny....what if >90% of whites voted for one party? I bet that would raise some red flags. Can't have successful minority conservatives rise to political power.
What is the longest war in American history? The war on poverty. Blacks are no better off than they were when the dems switched sides from the KKK to the party of welfare. Welfare is the new form of slavery and government provided housing is the new plantation. A millionaire only has one vote. A ghetto is full of votes.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
As opposed to the blacks who have been living in a sealed bunker for the last 50 years who you're polling?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kansas is set to pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to bear arms.
What are you guys planning?
We're going to invade Nebraska.
Seriously. That's the penalty for abandoning the Big 12.
I don't know what the NRA is planning, but I'm reasonably sure it's not important. The language change is merely to eliminate any doubt that gun ownership is an individual right. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Kansas, of all the states, isn't going to pass stricter gun laws. Actually, it was only a few years ago that the state legalized concealed carry. Hunting and gun ownership aren't in any danger in this state.
The language of the ballot question itself (not the amendment language) struck me as purely a political ploy. I wonder why that party felt like they needed this measure. There was never any doubt in my mind that they were going to win everything in the state.
In other news...we also amended the constitution to eliminate mental illness as a voting disqualification. Americans with disabilities will surely rejoice as we use our impressive political weight to lead this incredibly important progressive issue to the national spotlight.
And, my sarcasm is going off again. Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
Spending bills originate in the House. Dems did lose a fillibuster proof senate and all bills start in the house. Even if the R's won control of both, the presiden't still needs to sign the bill. We're going to hear a lot of talk about "bipartisanship" tomorrow. The D's locked out the R's for the last two years. Obama only met with the Republican majority leader once,....after 18 months in office. Gridlock was the intention of our founders. Gridlock isn't a bad thing.... If it "aint" broke, don't fix it. Problem is, "progressives" operate on the assumption that it is broke.
"The fundamental transformation of America"....Obama. Most Americans like our fundamentals. The American people are rejecting a speaker of the house from San Fransisco and the most liberal senator, now president. Progressives are showing their colors too soon. The American people do not want a "fundamental transformation". For the last two years, we've endured the most liberal speaker and the most liberal senator...now president. We aren't a liberal nation.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sestak was heartbreaking here in PA. I just left a house of crying volunteers. It was especially painful having been with him since before the primary.
I agree with Lyrhawn though. I actually would've preferred to see the Republicans take the senate.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, I'm pretty sure, from the looks of the data, that in Washington State the Democrats kept the Senate seat.
The Congressman I voted for lost, though. He lost bad. I knew he would, but I voted for him anyway. I've actually met the guy. The only thing against him I can think of is being a Democrat in a fairly conservative area.
Heck, on pretty much every measure, initiative, and person I voted on the majority of people in my state voted the other way. Go figure. It's like they don't care about paying for the things they want the state to actually do.
Whatever. My part is done. Nobody in Washington State can blame me if we have more cuts to essential services. Not my fault.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Damn. CNN just called the Senate for the Democrats.
Just when I was hoping the GOP would actually be forced to at least pretend to govern.
Spending bills originate in the House. Dems did lose a fillibuster proof senate and all bills start in the house. Even if the R's won control of both, the presiden't still needs to sign the bill. We're going to hear a lot of talk about "bipartisanship" tomorrow. The D's locked out the R's for the last two years. Obama only met with the Republican majority leader once,....after 18 months in office. Gridlock was the intention of our founders. Gridlock isn't a bad thing.... If it "aint" broke, don't fix it. Problem is, "progressives" operate on the assumption that it is broke.
"The fundamental transformation of America"....Obama. Most Americans like our fundamentals. The American people are rejecting a speaker of the house from San Fransisco and the most liberal senator, now president. Progressives are showing their colors too soon. The American people do not want a "fundamental transformation". For the last two years, we've endured the most liberal speaker and the most liberal senator...now president. We aren't a liberal nation.
Spending bills originating in the House are more of a formality than anything. The Senate can pass a spending measure, all they have to do is allow it to be re-introduced in the House by someone. It doesn't put the ball in the House's court. I wish it did.
Also, where have you been? Democrats haven't had a filibuster proof majority since...well, ever really, but in real numbers they haven't had one since Scott Brown.
And the D's locked out the R's? I'm sorry, who was the one filibustering every bill under the sun? And yes, the President DOES need to sign legislation, which is why Republicans won't get a fraction of what they say they want. But that doesn't matter. Structurally, neither party was going to be able to pass much legislation after this election. Had Democrats retained control, Republicans would have filibustered. With Republicans in control, Obama will just veto. But the magic would have happened if the GOP had controlled both houses. The onus of government would have been on them, to pass bills and compromise with the President, to say nothing of Democrats, without being able to just say no and stomp their feet. Now they can do what they've always done and just blame Senate Democrats. It's just a different version of what we've always had, and there will be no need to compromise, not when they can play the party of no game all over again. It will be fun to see what bills they pass that Democrats will shoot down though. Furthermore, it will be fun to see how Senate Republicans vote. A rift is forming between fiscal and social conservatives in the Republican caucus, and voting patterns are going to be fun to look for.
And gridlock works just fine for some instances. It worked great back when the government was only responsible for a couple things here and there, like national defense with no standing army, and a national government smaller than a modern PTA meeting. But with a trillion dollar deficit, a ten trillion dollar debt, and a nation piled high with problems? Gridlock is a killer. We need to solve problems right now. You really think that these things will just go away if we do nothing? That's not just naive, or ignorant, or stupid, it's dangerous.
My great hope for this election would be that Republicans would take over both houses, and they would be forced to govern. Forced to actually show us the specifics, and not more of the same mealy mouthed crap that Christine O'Donnell handed out the other day when she ended a radio interview because the interviewer was trying to force specific spending cuts out of her. I think that taking over the House will force them to put forth something. But I think they're likely to shun compromise in return for just blaming their failures on Democrats. Perception will be key here. With huge Republican gains, will the country perceive Congress as being controlled by Democrats or Republicans? If they view it as a Republican Congress, then they'll get all the blame from not having any solutions passed. If somehow it is still viewed as Democratically controlled, then Republicans can pass any bill they want in the House and gleefully watch it die in the Senate. In Congressional politics, perception has never mattered more than it will for the next two years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GOP leaders have been saying that it might take two election cycles to take over the Senate. They made significant gains tonight, but odds will definitely be in their favor in 2012 to complete their takeover of the Senate. Twice as many Democrat Senators as Republican will be up for re-election in 2012.
Fox News is saying they predict that the GOP will win 60 seats in the House--which is a real blowout, for which the "Tea Party" movement is getting much of the credit. Republicans only needed to pick up 39 seat from Democrats to gain control of the House. So--Nancy Pelosi will no longer be majority leader.
After the new House is sworn in, Republican John A. Boehner will be second in the line of presidential sucession, after the Vice President--assuming of course that Republicans vote to have him continue as their party leader in the House.
Fox News has projected that Harry Reid will hold onto his seat in Nevada. There have been complaints from the Las Vegas area that many voters were presented with ballots on which Reid's name was already checked. Las Vegas is a union town.
Also, so far seven formerly Democratic state governorships have passed over to the Republicans. This is important heading into the 2012 elections, because governors preside over redistricting, which is due to take place before the next election, and of course the party that control the statehouse controls where voter district lines are drawn (in a time-honored practice called "Gerrymandering").
The GOP may not be able to repeal Obamacare, but they can defund it's key provisions so it cannot be implemented.
Now, if Dems have any sense at all, they will negotiate seriously with Republicans to come up with a Health Care Plan that is truly bipartisan. They can't just be high-handed and ignore Republicans any more. And everyone will have to listen to the people this time, since ignoring them and trying to cram Obamacare down their throats is what made so many voters so angry with the Democrats, and cost so many Democrats their jobs.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The speaker of the house represents San Fransisco.
Does San Fransisco represent the United States? San Fransisco is the extreme left, but their representative initiates all spending bills. The representative of San Fransisco is as powerful as the president. She dictates what hits the floor in the House of Representatives. Pelosi doesn't have to fear her seat...she'll be reelected in perpetuity despite the fact that the majority of America is against her.
Why did the house give the speakership power to the extreme left wing? Do you believe in democracy and the voice of the people? Will you tolerate what Pelosi will try to cram through during the lame duck session, before the inaguration. This is going to be a busy lame duck session....pass the law before the inauguration of conservatives.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ron Lambert says: The GOP may not be able to repeal Obamacare, but they can defund it's key provisions so it cannot be implemented.
Now, if Dems have any sense at all, they will negotiate seriously with Republicans to come up with a Health Care Plan that is truly bipartisan. They can't just be high-handed and ignore Republicans any more. And everyone will have to listen to the people this time, since ignoring them and trying to cram Obamacare down their throats is what made so many voters so angry with the Democrats, and cost so many Democrats their jobs.
They won't be able to repeal, or defund. But I do hope that they amend, and they will have to work together or it won't happen. I do highly enjoy your revisionist history however. In your version of the last two years, Democrats never tried to work in a bi-partisan fashion with Republicans? Too much Fox News buddy. And the health care bill wasn't why Democrats lost. It is still, as it ever was, the economy, stupid.
quote:Mal says: This is going to be a busy lame duck session....pass the law before the inauguration of conservatives.
I wish. No, the lame duck Congress will pass a few odds and ends that need to be taken care of before the term ends, but nothing highly controversial. It would be awesome if they tried to do something with the budget commission report that is set to come out in December, which I have to say I'm on pins and needles waiting to read. Senate Democrats aren't going to try and run anything through during the lame duck session.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:GOP Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell's projected loss to Democrat Chris Coons means that she will not get her chance to chat about foreign policy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
quote:Lots of people are talking about possibly investigations of Obama with the GOP in charge of the House.
I have to admit that I would be surprised if they turned out to be that stupid. That sort of grandstanding plays well to the rubes, but I can't imagine that they want to start trying to seize control of government that transparently at this stage.
"Playing to the rubes" seems to be an effective strategy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:GOP Delaware candidate Christine O'Donnell's projected loss to Democrat Chris Coons means that she will not get her chance to chat about foreign policy with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Craptacular, I would have paid good money for years of that
I'd have paid good money to see Christine O'Donnell in the Senate period if entertainment is the only qualifying measurement. Ignoring the fact that she's a whackadoodle, she would have been a lot of fun to watch. I'm looking forward to Rand Paul, and a few others, but most of the really good gaffe-factories were beaten.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama talked about gerrymandering in his interview with Jon Stewart last week and it was a little interesting. He listed gerrymandering and the filibuster as the two biggest structural problems in American democracy. The filibuster has a pretty easy fix. I'm not sure how you undo centuries of partisan electoral cartography.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Later update: GOP has picked up six Senate seats formerly held by Dems. They needed 10 to take over control of the Senate. So they only need four more in 2012. One of those losses was the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama. Dems poured alot of money and effort into that race to try to prevent this from happening.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
AZ bans affirmative action for public jobs. AZ makes it illegal for mandatory health care plans to be enforced in the state. AZ is 50/50 split on medical marijuana.
CA says no on legalizing marijuana. 56/44 right now. CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
CO votes not to define a person as beginning at conception. CO votes no on making it illegal to mandate health care coverage. Interesting.
IL votes to recall governor.
OK amends state constitution to make it illegal to penalize citizens for not purchasing mandatory insurance.
Rhode Island will not change their name.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Later update: GOP has picked up six Senate seats formerly held by Dems. They needed 10 to take over control of the Senate. So they only need four more in 2012. One of those losses was the Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama. Dems poured alot of money and effort into that race to try to prevent this from happening.
Situational. If the economy rebounds enough to change the public perception, and if Republicans utterly fail to deliver on any of their promises, there is no guarantee that "only four more" won't turn right back into needing another ten. A lot more Democratic seats are up, but a lot of them are in fairly safe states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, the British are the ones who invented "Gerrymandering."
I'm not sure thats true
quote:The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette newspaper on March 26, 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then governor Elbridge Gerry (pronounced /ˈɡɛri/; 1744–1814). In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party.
Anyways, whoever invented it isn't the main point, the main point is that its an easy fix
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA says no on legalizing marijuana. 56/44 right now
This was actually kinda funny. There was a company interviewed on CBC based in BC that was complaining that the industry would be wiped out if marijuana was legalised in California. (I was for the prop regardless, but I guess thats moot now)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: CA is still split on changing budget voting requirements. 54/46 in favor of changing.
That's Proposition 25. But 26, which also looks likely to get a similar majority, would make adding certain taxes require a 2/3 majority instead of the simple majority now required. An interesting combination, if both pass.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
