PeterDavid.net

I can't wait. I hope us Lefties have cause to celebrate tomorrow.

-Wes

Damn. Allen up again by only 1000 or so votes.

Webb's people are saying that this is good for them as the remaining votes to come in are from areas that they claim are his "safe" areas.

If this keeps up, I'm not gonna know who my guy is for a week.

Well, even if the Dems take control of both houses, I'm going to try and reign in any jubilation - they've still got to accomplish something to show they deserved it.

But making Bush a lame duck wouldn't be a bad start.

Craig,

Yeah, more or less ditto.

Colbert in a sweep: I'd lay good odds that there will be denial, then anger, then bargaining, then depression, and then a hint of acceptance, but really just more depression or anger.

I think there's an outside chance that they've been readying a shot of Colbert's head exploding.

It'll be interesting to see Colbert's reaction if it's a Democratic sweep.
Inner joy at having a writes itself few weeks of material, and a year or two of raging against the Dems? ;)

MSNBC has Allen ahead by 25,000 votes. have the absentee ballots already been counted? that sounds like a big lead but out of 2 million votes counted so far it's pretty close.

At least Allen's presidential chances are gone gone gone.

As for the rest...can't win 'em all :)

Tonight, I went to my local polling place to cast my ballot. The turnout had been relatively good (out of approximately 480 registered voters I was 225 with several hours still to go).

The ladies are the same elderly women I have grown accustomed to seeing each and every election day year after year. While waiting to cast my ballot, engaging in idle chit-chat, I asked them if they thought that the whole campaign process had become more acrimonious and adversarial.

One of the women opinined, “Oh, you mean instead of telling us what they’re going to do, candidates just tell us how they’re different than their opponent?”

Suffice to say they noticed the trend as well.

I didn’t flip all the switches along one row. I wonder if that makes me unique among my fellow voters? I figure it’s more about the person than the party affiliation.

Since, I’m registered Republican and my state is in the midst of what has been referred to as a Democratic sweep does this mean the people who are elected to office will not do their level best to represent me and the fellow citizens of my state?

I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.

If I don’t like the job they do, they’ll be another election in a little bit and the opportunity to elect someone else. Sometimes, I feel people forget that simple fact while trying to talk louder than one and other. Democrats or Republicans I would like to believe they are all still Americans and motivated by doing their best by their fellow citizens.

Well, Ohio's ditched some of it's Republicans (my mother, a former government worker, is cheering in the background), but some of the districts are still, depressingly, either in the red or too close to call.

Note, I am an independant voter, but this year felt compelled to vote straight democrat, simply because the current state of things needs a massive 180 if there's gonna be any hope of light at the end of the tunnel.

Looks like Talent will win in MO...he was said to have a great get out the vote operation and it looks like that wasn't just talk.

It'll be interesting to see Colbert's reaction if it's a Democratic sweep.

He'll be thrilled. That would mean he can finally go off on how bad it actually is in Iraq but be able to blame it on the Dems.

In fact, any pre-2006 midterm policy that goes to shit can be then blamed on the Dems instead of the people who actually created it.

Wow, latest estimate puts the Dems at 231 seats, a gain of 29.

I figured the House would flip, but not by that much.

We're hearing local numbers around here as well as what's managed to go national. Allen VS Webb is staying tight. If there is a win by more then 20,000 votes, for either guy.... I'll be amazed.

And we'll be putting up with a recount no matter which guy wins.

Oh..... The pain.... The paaaiiinnn.....

29 is just a bit more than I expected...that should be enough to prevent anyone from jumping to one party or another to cause a flip.

Hey! What happened to those diebold machines that Karl Rove was going to use to ensure a Republican victory???

What amazes me is that on some of the far left sites what should be a day of celebration is instead full of bitterness over Lamont losing. Jeeze...sore losers I can understand but sore winners?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 7, 2006 10:13 PM
MSNBC has Allen ahead by 25,000 votes.
---------------------------------------

And one hour ten minutes later, by MSNBC's count, it's Allen by 12,430. Like I said, we're hearing the numbers before them. As of now, Allens still ahead. But the numbers we're hearing puts his lead at about half that and dropping.

NOVA is voting Webb it seems.

Even thuogh I live in the Chicago area, I'm fascinated about how the vote is going across the entire USA. Right now, I cannot believe how close the VA Senatorial race is.... As of this typing, there's atill about 4% of the vote, or about 115,000, to be counted. And that 4% apparently represents a heavily Democratic portion of the state! The next few hours are going to interesting.

Like Jerry C said, they'll be putting up with a recount no matter which guy wins.

Santorum's out! Santorum's out!

Happy dance!

Woo hoo!!!!

Hey! What happened to those diebold machines that Karl Rove was going to use to ensure a Republican victory???

Maybe they realized that they couldn't pull the same trick twice? :)

Keith's going to be so sad about that (not). He can't shout Rick "MAN ON DOG" Santorum every other night on Countdown now.

We may have to put him on the same suicide watch that they'll have on Rush, Hannity and Savage on.

God, can you imagine what Bush is going to say in his next speach?

:p .........

My, God...

Even we weren't getting these numbers around the Capitol area. 99% o the vote in and Webb is AHEAD o Allen by 2000 plus votes.

Wow.

Ugh, four more years of the Governator. Not that it's a surprise. I mean, when you send someone who looks like Bill Gates's wimpier older brother up against Conan the Barbarian, what do you think is going to happen? Nobody actually thinks Schwarzenegger is doing a good job, but apparently it doesn't matter (I voted Green Party, incidentally... or, as everyone I know puts it, I "threw away my vote," which is a mentality that makes no sense to me).

So, anybody put out an APB on Mr. Bradley yet?

Clear Democratic majority in the House. Looks like it could more or less be a deadlocked Senate...

I'm sure the White House can already hear the chants of "Lame Duck".

Chris Chicola is OUT in IN!! Party time!

The blank check is gone! Accountability and oversight has returned and the great Uniter is a lame duck.

Now how many years will it take for the Dems to repeat the self destruct. It took them 40 years originally and the Repubs only 13 this time.

No matter how the Senate goes, the only real bummer tonight is Liberman didn't get the boot.

Ended up unable to vote.

Original plan: Go after work.

Then, my wife woke up with a killer migraine and asked to to stay home from work, in the event she needed me to take her to the doctor for it and/or drive her to a completely different doctor's appointment in the afternoon.

Plan B: Go during or after her afternoon doctor's appointment, as that would be even earlier than going after work.

Then, we ended up taking her to the doctor for her migraine. Who, because of some of the other symptoms she was having, sent us to the ER. Ended up missing the other appointment, and sat in the ER until well after the polls closed and they finally admitted her and got her to a room.

Regret that I didn't get to go, but the results as they stand are so lopsided with or against the votes I would have cast, I don't see my being there providing a different outcome, and...well...the family's gotta take priority for me.

He'll be thrilled. That would mean he can finally go off on how bad it actually is in Iraq but be able to blame it on the Dems.

My god! You are a prophet, sir! :)

OK, someone on CNN (nobody I know, just some blogger) made an interesting comment. He said that the Republicans that lose their seats are going to be the moderate ones, leaving the most conservative Republicans still in office.

I wonder if that's actually true. It makes sense on the surface. Where are the Dems most likely to succeed? In the states that were borderline already. And those states are the ones that are most likely to have moderates get into office.

If so, the amount of Republicans might go down, but the number of Republicans who are unwilling to work with the other side might stay the same.

I'm just happy now Pennsylvania has someone in Washington whose name isn't "Sanitarium" spelled sideways. Honestly, not surprised there, nor by Rendell beating Swann. I'm sure the Philadelphia Daily News is going to talk about Swann taking a Dive. Just saw one of the analysts on CNN saying something I've been thinking for a week now. Now that the Democrats are (mostly) the majority, it's time to DO something, not just talk. I have to think they will. Also thinking with a laser pointer glued to his head, James Carville would make a decently frightening Borg.

Can't speak for the rest of the state, but in PA, we have Santorum, Sherwood, and Weldon. Those aren't the moderates. Yeah, some moderates like Chafee are also going down, but I think it's a wash. Most of the Dems winning in PA are moderates, not far leftists (not that it will stop Fox "News" from portraying them as such), so maybe we'll be seeing a return to the center.

I wouldn't say Talent in MO is a sure thing right now. He's only winning 49%-46%, and I think I read that a good number of remaining precincts are from Kansas City/St. Louis City/and St. Louis County. All generally leaning Blue. So we shall see.

The Stem-Cell initiative in Missouri is also a nail-biter. I expected it to fail due to the rural vote, but it might just pass. That would be great, as it would make Michael J Fox happy, and Rush Limbaugh unhappy. (no other reason)

Robert Fuller:(I voted Green Party, incidentally... or, as everyone I know puts it, I "threw away my vote," which is a mentality that makes no sense to me).

I live in Canada, where we had an election not that long ago because of corruption in the Liberal party, to which the Prime Minister belonged. The alternative to that Prime Minister, Paul Martin, was a guy who somebody else on this site in another thread referred to as our version of the Shrub: a guy named Stephen Harper.

Now just months before I had become upset with a relative of mine who lives in Connecticut and who had "reluctantly voted for Bush." (My parents grew up in the U.S. but I was born in Canada, giving me dual citizenship, which is the reason that I often refer to the U.S. as "we" out of habit) She didn't like what Bush was doing, she wasn't in favor of Iraq, she cared very much about the environment, but because of the Swift Boat Vets she believed that Kerry was far worse. I know, I know--I can't believe she bought that BS either.

So I said to her "Dammit, when somebody screws up as bad as Bush does you FIRE him! When somebody does the kind of stuff he does, it's time for a change!"

So my own words had come back to bite me in the ass. The Liberal PM was corrupt, and by my own logic he had to go. BUT. I knew that Stephen Harper was very similar to Bush and I could not bring myself to vote for him. There are two other political parties in Canada, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, but voting for them isn't much more useful than voting for the Green Party.

At the end of the day I just didn't vote. I was not going to be a hypocrite by voting for Martin to stay in office despite his wrongdoing, but I was not going to give my vote to somebody as undeserving as Harper, either.

My point is this: if you hate the idea of either candidate being in office, don't hesitate to "throw away your vote" by giving it to a more deserving third party. That way, no matter who wins and what they do, you can truthfully say you are not the least bit responsible for it.

Santorum is out - thank goodness.

I'm not trying to distract this thread from discussing election results, but I thought most everybody would enjoy this, if you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.nationalnightmare.com/

McCaskill has just passed up Talent with 3009/3746 precincts reporting. (48.7/48.0)

Nytwyng, take care of your wife. Some things are WAY more important than politics. Migraines are nasty.

Something ELSE to blame Bush for. I cracked up for 5 minutes when I saw this.
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=3&id=38860&type=0

"My point is this: if you hate the idea of either candidate being in office, don't hesitate to "throw away your vote" by giving it to a more deserving third party. That way, no matter who wins and what they do, you can truthfully say you are not the least bit responsible for it."

I think if more people weren't afraid of "throwing away their vote," then election results would be considerably different, and it would no longer be considered "throwing away your vote" (which I think is just as bad as the "Why should I vote? My vote isn't going to make a difference" mentality).

Incidentally, I feel a need to express my pleasure over the fact that the Republican candidate for Senator in California is named Dick Mountjoy. Now that he's lost, he should have no trouble finding employment in the gay porn industry.

My thoughts on third party candidates in the US system:

If you do have a preference of one over the other between Dem/Rep, voting third party is worse than throwing a vote away. It is half a vote for the candidate you like less. (You know how if two teams are tied in the won-loss column in a baseball season...if one loses, the other goes up half-a-game. Your favored of the two candidates has just lost a vote.)

If you have no preference RvsD...you *should* vote third party. It sends a signal of dissatisfaction.

But in a winner-take-all system like we have, the argument is weak for voting for your favorite candidate if your favorite candidate isn't in one of the two major parties. It makes more sense to vote for your second favorite.

I sometimes wish I lived in Nevada.

There, you can quite literally vote for "None of the Above".

Well, I'm off to bed. It looks like the Dems stand a good chance of gaining the Senate as well as the House.

Maybe now we can have some checks and balances against Bush.

About a month in a half ago, I posted that the D's were tripping up and tripping over themselves so bad in so many areas that I didn't think that they would win as many seats as they claiming. Hell, there was one point that I thought they might drop a few seats in the Senate.

I'm glad I don't have to make a living by making calls like that. :)

Barring a major change in the last few votes, Tester, McCaskill and Webb will have it. The Senate flips Dem 49, Rep 46 and Indy 2. If the most iffy race at this point, Tester, fails them, they still go 47 - 47 - 2.

Can I be snotty? Good.

Anybody know someone in the major media outlets? How much money would it take to get them to ask Rove to explain to us again that the news outlets had their polls, but he had "THE math" and what that meant for clear victories across the board for the Rs?

:)

The Republicans deserved what they got this election, even if the people may not. Forget about 12 years in the majority in the House and most of that period in the Senate AND a Republican president for the past six years. For the past TWO YEARS, despite their biggest margin in the House in over four decades and a TEN seat margin in the Senate, they repeatedly failed to do what those who elected them wanted them to do. The President and key members of the legislative branch pushed Social security reform for months but in the end didn't have enough guts to pass it. If it had passed, and seniors didn't see a difference in their checks, it could have been a positive, historic accomplishment. The average person is concerned with the immigration issue, yet House members refused to go along with a more moderate Senate - and a President who had a moderate, humane policy on this issue - in the hopes it would help them come election time. Incidents like Foley happened because they were more concerned about losing a seat rather than losing their principles. One thing I agree with McCain on - elimination of earmarks and similar measures to curb wasteful spending - was killed by those eager to serve pork to their constituents to keep power. Even slam dunks like Supreme Court nominations had some checking polls rather than their principles. Speaking of principles, my Congressman, Don Sherwood, just lost a seat that was in republican hands for over 30 years because of his personal conduct. I do hate John Kerry anymore, especially his "joke", but George Allen's "macaca" comment was "cause celebre" he never recovered from. Hopefully, the Democrats that were elected tonight are going to Washington for the right reasons and we can all work together to solve our problems. Then, in two years, when the Republican party has found its way again, they will have a recent past to be proud of and an optimistic vision of the future. As for my state, santorum is gone and I know that is cause for great rejoicing for many on this board, but I for one will always be proud he stood by his principles - including funding for autistic children in Pennsylvania - and he will be missed. Also, keep an eye on Ed Rendell, who thrashed Lynn Swann tonight. I have never seen a politician like him in this state, who could appeal to "elites" and eagles fans, from all parts of the state and he may have Presidential aspirations someday.
The people have spoken tonight. That is the strength and beauty of our country. Congratulations. Now let's do some heavy lifting.

This is the election system, and this is our democracy. weather i agree or not, as the saying goes, the people have spoken.

Democrats, cogratulations. For 6 years you've been bitching and complaining and telling us you can do it better, well, here you go. This is what you wanted. This is what you wished for. You have both houses and i'm quite sure the Presidency will be your also. So show us what you can do.

But a warning, if you guys all pull to the left you will loose in 08. Most of you centered and by golly a few of you are even conservative. believe it or not, most in this country are neither far right or far left. Keep yourselves in the middle and you'll do fine. try to turn the US into San Francisco and it will spell your doom.

i will, as always hope for the best. i love this country. you will never hear me say i'm moving to mexico or canada. this was the will of the people.i hope you can offer a solution. this is your moment to shine.

we had our moment and we FUCKED it up. i make no bones about that. now don't you FUCK it up.

congratulations. celebrate tonight, but tommorow there is work to do. a lot of it.

Joe V.

one last thing to add. Please don't raise my taxes. Historically, this is what democrats do. i love to have low taxes. don't raise them. did you know that was my biggest fear of democrats winning. not abortion, not gay marriage. taxes. i worried about taxes.

congratulations again.

Joe V.

ps

please don't raise my taxes :-)

Jerry C...those numbers are a bit off. They need to total 100. Right now CNN is projecting 49 Republicans 49 Democrats and 2 undecided races.

(2 of the Democrats are Independent - Lieberman and Sanders - but both have said they will caucus with the Democrats. I can already see some idiot analyst tomorrow claiming that the GOP and Democrats tied 49-each -- ignoring the 2 "independents".)

Congratulations (to most of you)... I guess.

:-)

Ive been telling everyone here that most americans are not like Bush, Rove or Grover Norquist... just dont let me down now.

Alright... waiting for a couple of final results for issues so I can make my political/academic roundup elsewhere, and Colbert mentioned how no one who was up for election and appeared on Better Know a District lost. Being curious and needing to kill time, I did a bit of research...

...not only did none of them lose, none of them lost with a wide margin for their challenger to dream of closing. We're talking the lowest collected votes got 66%, and the highest got almost 90% of their votes. Twenty-six people in total.

However, not so cheerful news for Better Know a Challenger - of the six, only one was elected. The rest lost - by wide, wide margins.

So while Colbert is entertaining, he doesn't appear to directly affect politics as much as some people might hope (or fear).

And as for what Colbert did when he said, sotto voce, that "Democrats win," i'll leave it to you to see on TiVo, Mr. D. I will only say that, although he is only a pretend right-wing media whore, he showed more integrity and honesty than any of us would get from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the "genuine" versions."

And as for what Colbert did when he said, sotto voce, that "Democrats win," i'll leave it to you to see on TiVo, Mr. D. I will only say that, although he is only a pretend right-wing media whore, he showed more integrity and honesty than any of us would get from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity or any of the "genuine" versions."

Joe V.
"one last thing to add. Please don't raise my taxes."

Hey Joe. I think that the taxes are going to have to be raised. The way I see it, Republicans (by escalating the amount of debt) are like the irresponsible person who has borrowed your credit card. They spent money you didn't have, and gave you some of it.

However, those bills won't go away. And traditionally, the Democrats are forced the play the role of the bad guy, by raising taxes, paying off the debt that the Republicans made.

"I voted Green Party, incidentally... or, as everyone I know puts it, I "threw away my vote," which is a mentality that makes no sense to me"

Elections on not like a beauty pagent, they are like a chess match, you don't pick the most beautiful candidate, you pick the piece on the board that is the most useful for your purposes at a given moment.

If you believe that between the two candidates that have a chance of winning, it doesn't matter who wins, or that the slightly better candidate is going to win anyway, and you believe that by voting for a third party, or by not voting you may strengthen a certain cause you want to promote, than it may be the right choice to do so.

Bush may no longer be The Decider (especially if the Dems wins the Senate) but can finally be The Uniter.

-- Ken from Chicago (who wonders if he gets a cape and tights)

P.S. Kevin, did you see the video on channel 7 of David Orr--again--talking about how they had a "few" problems with the ballot machines, but that everything's under control? WGN had Dick Kay on the Steve and Johnni show overnight discussing all the assurance Orr had made about the machines after the fiasco in the primary last Spring.

>Ugh, four more years of the Governator. Not that it's a surprise. I mean, when you send someone who looks like Bill Gates's wimpier older brother up against Conan the Barbarian, what do you think is going to happen? Nobody actually thinks Schwarzenegger is doing a good job, but apparently it doesn't matter

I wouldn't have thought it possible, but there you are. Depressing, ain't it? Though not quite as depressing as the fact that, with all that's wrong out there, the Democrats still couldn't take the Senate away from the Republicans.

> I sometimes wish I lived in Nevada. There, you can quite literally vote for "None of the Above".

But is it binding? If that option won would it mean running the election over in that riding, with a new slate of candidates on the ballot? Now THAT would be useful.

Nytwyng, hope your wife is feeling better. Has she tried injectable Imitrix? The stuff works like a miracle on those occasions when I get a really bad migrane. (Injectable or inhalent only--the pills don't do jack).

I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords!

>i love to have low taxes. don't raise them.

Joe, I suspect most people love low taxes. Unfortunately, this is partly why the American Society of Civil Engineers put out such a scathing report on the U.S. infrastructure last year, pointing out that there would need to be a $1.6 TRILLION investment in things such as ... oh bridges, dams, water purification palnts, electrical grids ... you know, the little things ... as a MINIMUM over the next few years if they were to be maintained in a safe condition. The U.S. is falling apart with 27.1% of bridges considered unsafe as one example. But Shrub's tax cuts - resulting in funding cuts in many of these areas - only worked to make things worse.

"I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords!"

Don't blame me! I voted for Kodos!

Those who think the Democrats are now in 'control' aren't exactly correct. With a possibly 1 vote lead in the Senate, and 2/3 majority needed to pass most bills, a lot most Democrats would want to get done won't be able to be done. They have more power now than the Republicans do in both the House and Senate. But there's going to be an awful lot of gridlock.

Here's a depressing, but probably accurate sum-up of what will happen vis-a-vis Iraq.

Vis-a-vis where most of America is on the political spectrum (left-center-right). Much of America doesn't vote. This is likely due to disenchantment with the candidates. Now, why would they be disenchanted? We all know about the religious right who have sometimes stayed home in elections because they didn't like either candidate, but may have tilted the balance for Bush. I believe there is a Left-leaning parallel that stays home too. Probably several groups on the Left and Right. (Or Up and Down) I would proffer that the majority of those who stay home are not in favor of the 'political center' where both parties have headed, Democrats more so...and the reason Republicans have shown greater success over the past 12 years is they have headed to the center less than the Democrats.

He'll be thrilled. That would mean he can finally go off on how bad it actually is in Iraq but be able to blame it on the Dems.

My god! You are a prophet, sir! :)

You know what this means . . .

I CALLED IT!!!!

WHOOOO! WHOOOO! WHOOOO!

;)

But there's going to be an awful lot of gridlock.

This is true, but the Dems do gain control in areas where it could hurt Bush most: in the committees, where sopoena power can reveal some ugly truths that the White House doesn't want the rest of us knowing. And with this Administration, that means just about everything.

As for the issue of taxes, I've had to laugh many times over the last several weeks/months at the robotic Republican response that a Democrat-controlled Congress would automatically mean raising of taxes.

Yes, repealing Bush's tax cuts seem inevitably.

And of course it'll be called 'raising taxes', when it's simply turning back something that is not yet permanent, something that should not have been done in the first place.

That probably wouldn't be the case if Bush hadn't dumped into Iraq. So, one can only hope that when the time comes, the blame is placed where it belongs: on Bush and the Republicans for trying to pass off a tax cut that this country couldn't afford in the first place, thanks to their ugly spending habits.

But beyond that? There's no proof that taxes will be raised. Dems are talking things like balanced budget again, which means maybe, just maybe, Repubs will realize that the neocons took things way too far on the right, and that Dems really are now the conservatives of old.

Actually, I missed this comment earlier:

In fact, any pre-2006 midterm policy that goes to shit can be then blamed on the Dems instead of the people who actually created it.

And this changes things from the current status quo how, exactly? :)

The Dems already were being blamed for just about every mistake and misstep the Bush Administration and GOP-controlled Congress had made.

So, I only expect the rhetoric to get worse.

"Repubs will realize that the neocons took things way too far on the right, and that Dems really are now the conservatives of old."

Jesus! Can we at least learn what "neocons" means? It does not describe "far right wing"!

Really, the Dems in power are neocons. The repubs in power are just plain conservatives (and extreme right wing conservative).

Please, please, please, read up on what a neocon is, and the history. It's a description of conservative liberals, not ultra conservatives.

Nytwyng-
I am sorry you didn't get to vote but family does outweigh the vote. I really hope your wife feels better soon. My best to you both.
Kath

"Jerry C...those numbers are a bit off."

Yeah, I know. I know the numbers, but I was typing while watching them talk numbers and crossed my wires. I blame the need for sleep. That was the last post I made before falling into bed.

:o

It's a description of conservative liberals, not ultra conservatives.

Political pundits seem to disagree with you, otherwise I doubt they'd refer to the Bush Administration as neocons. :)

Favorite Lines from the Midtacular:

"The Democratic strategy of backing out of the room slowly while his brother is being yelled at for burning down the garage"

"She ran off with the election like a hobo with a sweet potato pie."

"The hard way! The hard way! Please do it the hard way!"

"The Democrats have only had a majority for six minutes, and they've already ruined things in Iraq."

It's a description of conservative liberals, not ultra conservatives.

Political pundits seem to disagree with you, otherwise I doubt they'd refer to the Bush Administration as neocons. :)

Any facetiousness aside, I think it's perfectly understandable why folks (pundits or otherwise) may refer to the Bush Administration as neocons inasmuch as the administration's policies of more active engagement in international affairs--one of the distinguishing elements of neoconservatism--fall into a neocon worldview more so that, say, the isolationist or protectionist philosophies of other sorts of conservatives.

Still, the point that "neocon" is not synonymous with "ultra conservative" remains a worthwhile one.

I'm not sure WHAT you could call this administration...their actions certainly don't fall into any conservative ideology.

Well, aside from crooks, liars and incompetents...

Political labels mean whatever the people applying them want them to. So, if the majority of the Bush cabel identify themselves as "neocons", then that's what they are.

Rumsfeld resigns! It's like Christmas came early.

Coming in a bit late here, but it's been a nightmarishly busy few weeks.

I don't intend to gloat over last night, in part because the memories of other people here gloating in '04 are still fairly strong and I'd like to not cause those memories in others. I also don't plan on gloating because frankly, this is only the beginning of a fix and not the end of it. The country has a very long road ahead of it before we're back to the republic we ought to be, and my feeling this morning was more one of relief than anything else -- at least we've stopped digging ourselves into a deeper hole.

(That said, I do have one and only one gloat: the phrase "EX-senator Santorum" is deeeeeeeee-licious to say.)

More general statements:

-- I'm not bitter that Joe Lieberman (I-Sanctimonious Hypocrisy) has won, but I'm certainly disappointed.

-- Assuming the couple of close results hold and the Democrats retake the Senate, I agree with a lot of people here from both parties: we need to make sure we actually DO something and not simply dig in as not doing anything. (The first order of business: undo that stupid, stupid, unthinkingly blitheringly stupid habeas corpus vote.)

-- A lot of words are sounding very pleasant today. "Oversight" is one of them, as is "subpoena power."

-- a Machiavellian scenario that my dad mentioned a few minutes ago (but I've no doubt has appeared elsewhere also): now that Rumsfeld has resigned, Bush names Lieberman to replace him. Lieberman leaves the Senate, and Gov. Rell names a Republican to his seat, flipping the Senate BACK to 50-50 and letting Cheney be the deciding vote. It's an interesting thought, anyway.

-- No matter which party people favor, I think most people would have to agree that last night was a VERY interesting night for politics-watchers. The House not only flipped, but based on the numbers appears to have flipped almost EXACTLY.

-- Quick question, since I haven't had time to pore over all the results: was there any Democratic incumbent in Congress who lost? I know there weren't in the Senate, but I don't know about the House. If so ... wouldn't you hate to be that one guy? You're a trivia question for the rest of your life. :-)

TWL

Local news update for you non-local people not blessed to be Virginians:

As of 2:00 PM, Webb is up by about 7000 votes. I think that race WILL go D. Now we just have to wait for the Allen requested recount that will come to be over (around Nov. 22 I think) and we'll be on our way.

:)

-- No matter which party people favor, I think most people would have to agree that last night was a VERY interesting night for politics-watchers. The House not only flipped, but based on the numbers appears to have flipped almost EXACTLY.

And I suspect it would have been more if not for recent gerrymandering.

-- Quick question, since I haven't had time to pore over all the results: was there any Democratic incumbent in Congress who lost? I know there weren't in the Senate, but I don't know about the House. If so ... wouldn't you hate to be that one guy? You're a trivia question for the rest of your life. :-)

IIRC, not a single incumbent Democrat Governor, Senetor, or Representative was unseated.

Time for the Democrats to show some guts now. The Christian Right gained so much influence during the Bush Administration that they effectively managed to shift the whole spectrum of political discussion in the US to the right. When anything short of Bible-mandated legislation is seen as "leftist", what is the political "center"? Is there even a political center anymore?

I know it's probably naive to expect the Democrats to be bold, but c'mon. If people still wanted the Republicans, they'd vote for them. People are getting sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the Foleys and Haggards of the world.

The radical Christians are a minority. Yes, they're loud, energetic, and very determined, so sometimes they appear larger than they are, but they're still a minority, and this has been proved again and again since the Schiavo case.

The Democratics shouldn't live in fear of offending these guys. They'll be probably feel offended anyway by anything that not conforms to their (IMO) narrow views, so what is the point?

was there any Democratic incumbent in Congress who lost?

I don't believe so, no.

Also, not only did the House flip almost exactly, governorships flipped exactly, going from 28-22 Republican favor, to 28-22 Democrat favor.

And I suspect it would have been more if not for recent gerrymandering.

Could be. I'm also reminded of what Paul Begala said last night on CNN in a rare good point: the reason the Democrats weren't making the gains in the Senate that they were in the House is because only a third of the Senate was up for reelection. Had all the Republican senators been up for reelection it might have been far more of a (metaphorical) bloodbath.

TWL

House and Senate seats where party control changed. This entire list consists of former GOP seats. No Democratic seat was lost.

Correction: The first entry on the list *could* be described as a Senate Democrat losing control of a seat to an Independent. But it's the incumbent "losing" to himself, and he's agreed to caucus as a Democrat.

Thanks for the well wishes, everyone.

Bill--
Nytwyng, hope your wife is feeling better. Has she tried injectable Imitrix? The stuff works like a miracle on those occasions when I get a really bad migrane. (Injectable or inhalent only--the pills don't do jack).

At various points she's had the injectable, the pill form and the nasal form of Imitrix. As of when I headed home for a bit about an hour ago, they were finally going to give her a shot of Imitrix. (Don't know what happened...one of her doctors was in while I was there, and seemed to think that she'd already been given some, but she hadn't.) We're at about 36 hours from when it started, and the migraine's still hanging in there. (But, given that they still hadn't given her anything specifically for the migraine.) They're keeping her overnight at least one more night. A mystery spot showed up on a CAT scan last night, and they're trying to determine what it is and if it's (hopefully) benign. According to the neurologist, it looks like a small calcified area, which means they'll probably never know what it was to begin with. Fingers crossed that everything is good.

Meanwhile, I'm at home for a few hours, because I needed to grab her a few things from here, and the Imitrix will have her unconcious for a few hours.

> People are getting sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the Foleys and Haggards of the world.

One wishes this sort of thing were confined to Republicans and their ilk, but in fairness, it ain't so. At least not up here where the then ['93 - '06] reigning Liberal Party of Canada [our equivalent to the Democrats] had as Finance Minister a man who also happened to own the biggest shipping fleet in the country, not one vessel of which was registered here. Instead, they all flew flags of convenience to avoid paying Canadian taxes. And I remind you: that was our Minister of Finance. Top that for hypocrisy.

No single party or group of people has the monopoly on hypocrisy, sure, but still there is something particularly unsettling about this sort of strident conservative leadership who are not so conservative in their personal lives.

After all, all politicians should, in a perfect world, be totally honest in their finantial deals. Your disappointing Minister of Finance could be a conservative as well as a liberal. Now, only social conservatives run on platforms based on so-called family values.

But perhaps guys like Foley and Haggard and the myriad of pedophiliac Catholic clergy are salutary in at least one respect: they're excellent living examples of how repression only makes things worse, deformed.

Today, with somewhat more relaxed societal mores, we have many gays living in stable relationships. Now, when you look into the lives of people that DO feature all that sexual repression conservatives always tout as so good, what do you get? Guys abusing minors, hiring male prostitutes...

Nytwyng,

Lots of crossed fingers over in this neck of the woods -- unexplained stuff on CAT scans can be pretty scary, and it's tough when you're sitting there wondering how to help. Here's hoping it's benign and no big deal whatsoever.

TWL

Tim, it's good to see you back here.

If you don't mind my asking, have things been ok with your (if I am recalling correctly) mom's illness?

I hate to hear about all these family crisis'. Here's hoping the worst thing we have to worry about is what some jerk in Washingtton does.

But there's going to be an awful lot of gridlock.

If there's a God in heaven...

Nytwyng, I pray all turns out well for you and your wife.

Tim Lynch, I too would like to know how your mother is faring if you're inclined to share. I hope and pray the news is good.

Bill Mulligan, I don't think gridlock is the thing to wish for during wartime. What we need is for cooler heads to come together and figure out a way to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't think that's going to happen, mind you, but it's what we need.

Thanks, Bill -- good to be back. Mostly I've been gone lately because it's been major crunch time at school, fortunately.

My mom is doing ... as well as one might expect, I guess. The cancer's now been more fully diagnosed (stage IIb or IIIa), and she starts radiation and chemo on Monday for five weeks, with surgery to follow about a month after that. It's not going to be a fun time ahead -- but she's also a little bit younger and a LOT healthier than the typical patient with this particular illness, so we're very hopeful that she can come through this pretty well. Time will tell.

And no, I certainly don't mind you asking -- any concern or support is always appreciated. (Well, maybe not from Joe Lieberman. :-)

TWL

Thanks, Bill -- good to be back.

Make that "Bills" at this point, now that Mr. Myers has posted as well!

TWL

Glad to here it was "just" work that kept you away. Well, Christmas is coming soon enough...

Bill, I'm hoping that gridlock will end when it counts. I'm mostly just hoping they'll have a harder time spending money.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at November 8, 2006 09:29 PM

Bill, I'm hoping that gridlock will end when it counts.

These days, that's probably a vain hope.

As a Democrat, I guess I should be dancing in the streets. But until I hear anyone -- Democrat or Republican -- coming up with a real coherent plan for moving this country forward, my dancing shoes will remain mothballed.

Tim Lynch, I am sorry to hear your mother has cancer. I don't know what the types mean, but I hope her relative youth and other factors allow her to beat this if it is beatable. Take care of yourself as well. I'm sure this is taking a toll on you, also.

Hey, I'm at work so I don't know what the cable news is saying. Local news just butted into the radio with a news flash.

Final count is Webb by just over 7000 votes. Early word is that Allen HAS said that he WILL NOT ask for a recount or fight this outcome.

VA has just gone blue in this race and thrown the Senate to the D's.

Posted by: Jerry C at November 8, 2006 10:12 PM

Hey, I'm at work so I don't know what the cable news is saying. Local news just butted into the radio with a news flash.

Final count is Webb by just over 7000 votes. Early word is that Allen HAS said that he WILL NOT ask for a recount or fight this outcome.

VA has just gone blue in this race and thrown the Senate to the D's.

Huh. I wonder how all those people who predicted the death of liberalism and the demise of the Democratic party for the last 20 years will explain this.

VA has just gone blue in this race and thrown the Senate to the D's.

Unless Lieberman decides not to caucus with the Democrats -- a decision I would well understand considering that it was mostly Republican support that won him the election.

I'm not doing the happy dance yet (though it did make a brief appearance when Rumsfeld resigned). I'll wait and see what happens in January when the new Congress takes office. 2001 had Jim Jeffords; 2007 could certainly have his equivalent.

TWL
feeling cautionary

Huh. I wonder how all those people who predicted the death of liberalism and the demise of the Democratic party for the last 20 years will explain this.

I was thinking about that a little awhile ago, how after '04 some were declaring the Democratic Party dead.

Obviously, that was quite exaggerated. :)

"I was thinking about that a little awhile ago, how after '04 some were declaring the Democratic Party dead."

Mmm the demicratic party craves brains...brrraaaaiinnssss. (Shuffles away from the white house)

"Huh. I wonder how all those people who predicted the death of liberalism and the demise of the Democratic party for the last 20 years will explain this."

By pointing out that this was not a vote for the Dems, but rather a vote against the Reps. This was just a slap across the back of Bush's hands by the voters.

Unless the Dems play the game very well, they could be right come '08. The Dems promised a lot and can afford even fewer mis-steps then the Reps. There will also be no Bush or Cheney to be the monsters under the bed in '08. The Dems have to get the voters to the point where they will come out in droves to vote for them rather then against the Reps in the next 18 months or they're screwed and we get '94 all over again.

"Mmm the demicratic party craves brains...brrraaaaiinnssss. (Shuffles away from the white house)"

:) :) :) :) :) :p ;p

I'm a sucker for zombie humor and Bush bashing jokes.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at November 8, 2006 01:31 AM

I sometimes wish I lived in Nevada.

There, you can quite literally vote for "None of the Above".

I want to go one step further - put a "For" and an "Against" box by each candidate's name. You get to check one of the boxes, either voting for or against one candidate.

When the votes are counted, a candidate's "Against" votes are subtracted from his "For" votes.

If no-one is net positive by at least one vote, we get to have a new election with new candidates.

Yes, repealing Bush's tax cuts seem inevitably.

Actually, they're self-repealing; they have an expiration date built in.

Posted by Joe V.

one last thing to add. Please don't raise my taxes. Historically, this is what democrats do. i love to have low taxes. don't raise them. did you know that was my biggest fear of democrats winning.

Well, i look at the thing and i see that Democrats may raise my taxes - Republicans increase the deficit, and thus shift the bill for their wars and their tax cuts to my step-daughter Helen and my granddaughter Maggie and my great-grandchildren of as-yet-undetermined gender and name.

I'm hoping that gridlock will end when it counts. I'm mostly just hoping they'll have a harder time spending money.

A harder time than the 'don't tax but spend money like water anyway' current Republican breed?

Personally, I'll just be happy to see some small sigh of fiscal responsability in our beloved elected officials. I shall not hold my breath, though....

I want to go one step further - put a "For" and an "Against" box by each candidate's name. You get to check one of the boxes, either voting for or against one candidate.

When the votes are counted, a candidate's "Against" votes are subtracted from his "For" votes.

If no-one is net positive by at least one vote, we get to have a new election with new candidates.

Jeeze man, I don't know.If we think negative campaigning is bad now, imagine how it would be if you could actually convince people to vote against someone...

>imagine how it would be if you could actually convince people to vote against someone...

I thought that was what we had now?

In the past 18 years, I can recall only ONE instance of voting FOR someone instead of against.

I think the "For" and "Against" bit is a wonderful idea. You not only have to convince someone to vote against the other guy, but FOR you. It separates those two actions into two distinct ones, which means you've got to appeal to both.

Where do I sign up?

TWL

I think the "For" and "Against" bit is a wonderful idea. You not only have to convince someone to vote against the other guy, but FOR you. It separates those two actions into two distinct ones, which means you've got to appeal to both.
I've been arguing for that system myself, for years. I wanna be convinced to vote for someone, not just against the lesser of evils.

Kelly, I think you meant "against the greater of two evils". Unless of course, you want the lesser evil to lose.

You are not evil enough. You are only quasi-evil. You are the Diet Coke of evil.

Actually, I like Kelly's post the way she wrote it. Why vote for the lesser evil? They'll just do a half-assed job.

Y'know,a logical extension would be reasons WHY you were voting against someone, but there are two problems (at LEAST!) that I can see. First off, if polling locations are overcrowded now, imagine the logjam as everyone writes a message! And second, less people would vote, because everyone knows that except for freaks like me, everyone HATES essay questions.

Bill Myers, you did it again. You made me think.

A half-assed job. With the symbol of the Democratic Party being a donkey, why hasn't someone used "My open will do a half-assed job" as a campaign slogan? It would work for either party. Republicans could say that Democrats are ALL half-assed, not even working up to their potential, and Democrats could say that the GOP wouldn't do half-the work they would.

What a great couple of days this has been! :):):) [I couldn't see any of these new threads on my computer yesterday. I could only access the page from Nov. 7th circa mid-afternoon; I could read new comments on the threads I could view, though there weren't any listed on the front page. Guess it was probably some issue with my computer or net service, since I don't see any other reference to it here. Anyway, that's why I'm running a little behind here.] I was satisfied when it looked like the Democrats had won the House and were close in the Senate; I really didn't expect Virginia.

Now, it is on the Democrats to prove that they are a worthy change, and that includes a return to some sort of bipartisanship. Don't block the minority party out of committee meestings, run important votes in the middle of the night, sneak things into bills after they've been approved - hide the location of meetings from the minority members of your committees. Take this opportuninty to show how things should be
done - how most of the American people would like them to be done - not to play "let's see how YOU like it" with the Republicans. Set an example that future Congresses, no matter their composition, will hopefully be intelligent, conscientious, and responsible enough to follow.

If nothing else, I feel much more optimistic that this country isn't truly moving to the far right than I've been in recent years.

And I can't get over that NO Democratic incumbent lost. How often has that happened, for either party? That seems like quite a statement. For all our sakes, don't waste it, 110th Congress!

Colbert on Nov 15: "This past election has been really hard on us pundits. Personally I have been through the five stages of grief."

I called it, America! Wooo!