POL: Midterm Results Thread

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

one thing I agree with the GOP about is that this gives them an opportunity to get back to their stated roots of less spending, less religious fire, more accountability, etc. all admittedly forgotten over the past 6 years, even by Ken Mellman (sp?)

I hope so. If you want to classify me, I'm a left-wing republican/liberation, but I'm very happy to see the Democrats win for this reason.

[Butter]

Anybody know why they're declaring MT for Tester, but not VA for Webb? According to CBSNews, there are only 4 precincts left to report in VA out of 2411, and Webb has a 6700-ish vote lead. Meanwhile, Tester leads by 3,000 votes with 1 precinct left, but apparently that's enough to declare him the winner.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Anybody know why they're declaring MT for Tester, but not VA for Webb? According to CBSNews, there are only 4 precincts left to report in VA out of 2411, and Webb has a 6700-ish vote lead. Meanwhile, Tester leads by 3,000 votes with 1 precinct left, but apparently that's enough to declare him the winner.

that 1 precint in MT is prolly less than 3k votes (or at least few enough that with the split statistically they can call it), where in VA the 4 precincts may be enough to statistically hold off on calling that...I dunno. Plus VA being so close all along and knowing there will be a recount there (although 6700 votes is wayyy too many for a recount to change)

[Bee]

I believe Virginia usually has a high absentee ballot count that trends Republican. That might be a factor as well, but I don't know.

[DaddyTorgo]

CNN calls MT for Tester with >3k vote lead and only 1500 votes left to count (500 from one precinct and 1000 absentee)

[st.cronin]

I agree 100% with Arles and Flasch.

[st.cronin]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/51849.html

They keep finding votes to count - at one point last night there were less than 3000, now there's over 8,000 left to count.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

They keep finding votes to count - at one point last night there were less than 3000, now there's over 8,000 left to count.

Is this like the first election they've had or something?

[larrymcg421]

Jon and I were right. Hunstein (let rapists walk) beat Wiggins (stole from his dead mom) in the GA Supreme Court race.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Is this like the first election they've had or something?

It's not incompetence, it's quite obviously funny business.

[Butter]

Same thing happened to Gore in 2000. If Gore had won NM, he would've won without Florida... they kept finding votes to count... and more votes... and counting them differently. I think there's just something fundamentally wrong with their election process.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Jon and I were right. Hunstein (let rapists walk) beat Wiggins (stole from his dead mom) in the GA Supreme Court race.

Not only did she beat him, but she pretty much beat him like a rented mule (63-37). Only the incumbent Insurance Commissioner won a statewide race by a wider margin.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Same thing happened to Gore in 2000. If Gore had won NM, he would've won without Florida... they kept finding votes to count... and more votes... and counting them differently. I think there's just something fundamentally wrong with their election process.

Gore ended up winning New Mexico.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Gore ended up winning New Mexico.

Well I remembered that wrong then. Oops.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Same thing happened to Gore in 2000. If Gore had won NM, he would've won without Florida... they kept finding votes to count... and more votes... and counting them differently. I think there's just something fundamentally wrong with their election process.

Actually, Gore did win New Mexico. Did it when they uncovered a tabulating error (or something like that) in a Democrat county that gave him something like 500 extra votes and the state with it.

Bush carried NM in 2004.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not only did she beat him, but she pretty much beat him like a rented mule (63-37). Only the incumbent Insurance Commissioner won a statewide race by a wider margin.

Seems like the non-partisan (cough) people who supported and financed Wiggins might want to do a little background research next time.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Same thing happened to Gore in 2000. If Gore had won NM, he would've won without Florida... they kept finding votes to count... and more votes... and counting them differently. I think there's just something fundamentally wrong with their election process.

Politics definitely seems more crooked here than anyplace else I've ever lived. I really doubt that Bill Richardson can mount any kind of campaign for president - it's just too unlikely that there isn't some horrific corruption scandal lurking in his closet.

It's also not confined to one party or the other, afaict.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Seems like the non-partisan (cough) people who supported and financed Wiggins might want to do a little background research next time.

I seriously doubt that there was more than 2-3 percent impact from all the mud.
It's just nigh on impossible to unseat an incumbent jurist in Georgia (and it's a helluva task to remove an incumbent of any sort at the state level).

[Butter]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Politics definitely seems more crooked here than anyplace else I've ever lived. I really doubt that Bill Richardson can mount any kind of campaign for president - it's just too unlikely that there isn't some horrific corruption scandal lurking in his closet.

You're probably right.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Another random tidibt of mild trival interest (perhaps).

Not a single incumbent state legislator lost a re-election bid in Georgia yesterday. That's 56 state senators and 180 state reps and every incumbent who sought re-election to their own seat won, regardless of party.

Heck, even when the seats were open they hardly changed. The open seats in the senate kept the same parties while there were a few party switches on open seats in the state house, resulting in a GOP gain of 2.

[larrymcg421]

Perhaps the most important thing about Dems getting Senate control is they can now cause problems for McCain's presidential run. They can bring forward bills that will force him to make unpopular votes. With a GOP Senate, they could have protected him from that.

[Young Drachma]

Supposedly, there were computer problems in two counties in Wyoming...I smell a rat. A statewide recount is the only way the DEM has a chance, but it seems like that's not going to happen.

[kcchief19]

There are ironies everywhere in this election. The Republicans lost DeLay's district in Texas and could very well lose the 23rd district in a runoff, which is the district that was the subject of the lawsuit that overturned the DeLay-engineered redistricting. Without the gerrymandering, the Republicans would likely have held on to the 23rd.

In Kansas, Republicans redrew the districts to take away a few Democrats from Dennis Moore. Unfortunately for them, Moore's strength scared off any notable Republicans, the guy the party was backing was upset in the primary by an unknown and Moore won reelection in a walk. In the district that gained the Democrats and lost some Republicans, Democrat Nancy Boyda upset Jim "Four Minute Mile" Ryun.

And in another fitting irony, it's mostly been Democrats who have been griping about electronic voting machines and the lack of a paper trail, but it's the Republicans and Allen in Virginia who will likely get bit in the ass by this. You can recount in Virginia all you want, but with electronic voting machines without a paper trail, all Allen will get is a fresh printout of the results and those ain't going to change.

[ISiddiqui]

Some counties in Virginia do have paper ballots though, so those can be recounted manually. I don't think there are all that many though.

[Arles]

If things go as it now appears, the republicans may very well learn from this election and come back as a better party in 08. If they can avoid what the democrats did in 00-04 by blaming fraud/missed votes/disinfranchised voters and instead admit the mistakes they made and adjust, 08 could really be a good season. It took the democrats 6 years to learn from their loss, here's hoping it doesn't take that long for republicans.

[cartman]

Evidently AP is now calling Virginia for Webb, based on the vote count after canvassing. Someone inside of Allen's camp said that if after canvassing the margin was similar to last night, they won't ask for a recount.

[Peregrine]

Looks like it's official, most of the major news services are calling it for Webb.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes. Nice to see. For the most part, it appears American's rights can escape any furthe erosion -- but that's for another thread.

The interesting part is that two top end Republicans both tabbed as presidential hopefuls went down -- Allen and Santorum.

I think that leaves McCain, Guliani and Romney left standing. I could actually find myself voting for either of the first 2 if the Dems end up picking somebody dumb.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I could actually find myself voting for either of the first 2 if the Dems end up picking somebody dumb.

Unfortunately, I don't have any faith in the Dems not picking somebody dumb. I really don't see anyone out there now that excites me.

[JPhillips]

I still don't think Giuliani can win the primary. He's too far left and having a mistress live with him while he was mayor won't win him points.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

I think that leaves McCain, Guliani and Romney left standing.

I'll go ahead now & throw another "still standing" in there: Gingrich

He becomes perhaps an even more intriguing possiblity in light of last night.

[larrymcg421]

I doubt Gingrich. Even at the height of the Republican revolution, he had high negatives, even moreso than Hillary.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I just can't agree on Newt. He's been out of it for awhile and was forced out by his own party, no? I agree that conservatives may like him, but I think Romney is more their man. I also doubt he could win the general election. I think the Dems would be very pleased with Gingrich as the GOP nominee.

[JPhillips]

Its pretty obvious the kingmakers in the party are aligning behind McCain. The question will be if they can convince far right conservatives to vote for him.

[ISiddiqui]

It'll be hard after demonizing him in 2000 as being too liberal to convince the right that he's conservative enough.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't think so. The public has a very short memory. If the pundits keep repeating that McCain is conservative enough, it'll stick.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I don't think so. The public has a very short memory. If the pundits keep repeating that McCain is conservative enough, it'll stick.

So you think if the pundits keep repeating Hillary Clinton is a moderate, the conservatives in this country will believe them?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Where are the pundits to do this? Who do the Dems have to get this message across? The Repubs have Rush (and his ilk) and Fox News to give the impression that McCain is conservative.

[ISiddiqui]

There are these channels that show news all the time, perhaps you have heard them? And they bring on people called pundits a good deal of the time as well. Really, I don't see CNN calling Hillary a radical anytime soon.

[larrymcg421]

I think it'd be hard to objectively call her a hardcore liberal. She has a fairly moderate record in the Senate, tilted a bit to the left.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

I don't watch CNN so I have no idea what they say about Hillary, but they don't have to call her a radical. All they have to do is say "liberal." To a good portion of this country that equals radical.

Most conservatives get their news from Fox News. A good portion of them listen to talk radio. It's much easier to get their message across to their voters (i.e. McCain is conservative). How would the Dems do that for Hillary? Constantly appear on CNN, CBS, ABC, and the various NBC networks? How's that going to work, especially when those networks give equal time to conservatives? I could go on CNN and talk all day about how Hillary is a moderate, but they're going to also have someone on air refuting everything I say. You don't get that on talk radio. And a lot of the time, you don't get that on Fox News.

[ISiddiqui]

CNN won't be calling Hillary a liberal anytime soon as well (at least not their news shows), btw.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Since I don't watch CNN, why do you say this?

[ISiddiqui]

Because they have been playing up her moderate credentials for a couple years now. Though that hasn't swayed the conservatives, even though the CNN pundits have been saying so. So pardon me if I don't think that pundits will be able to convince most conservative Republicans that John McCain is one of them after they were so aligned against him in 2000.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

You're basing that on conservatives not buying Hillary as a moderate? Of course they won't see her as a moderate. Hillary is the devil, don't you know? And CNN really stands for the Clinton News Network, so of course they're going to push her as a moderate. Any respectable conservative can see through that. But if Rush says that McCain is a conservative, then it must be true.

[ISiddiqui]

And McCain is a RINO as any respectable conservative knows, no matter what anyone tells them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And McCain is a RINO as any respectable conservative knows, no matter what anyone tells them.

Ding, ding, ding.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Not being a conservative, I'll have to take your word for it. I guess we'll see what happens over the next couple of years.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

JE, there are also these channels called ABC, NBC, and CBS. Also newspapers and magazines. Believe it or not, most people watch the major networks and read the major newspapers and only get their news from these. Also believe it or not, only a minority of Americans watch cable news or listen to talk radio. She doesn't need to convince conservatives she's a moderate - she never will. All she needs to do is convince independents she's moderate - which is possible.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want Hillary and may not vote for her is she is the dem nominee if there is somebody like McCain or Guliani. But let's get real here.

Edit: I think I misread your post. So forget some of that. Basically, I would say given 2 years, basically an unlimited fortune, and the bullypulpit of a senate majority, Hillary could (and I only say could) convince independents she's a moderate.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'll go ahead now & throw another "still standing" in there: Gingrich

He becomes perhaps an even more intriguing possiblity in light of last night.

Please run him. PLEASE. I beg you. Do whatever it takes in your power to make sure he runs and wins the nomination in '08. I'll pay you money. Not much, but I'll save up.