What Happens: The Sequel!
258 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Ok...
Sorry Jesse James (if you are still here) but the Bush Haters won both houses.
Virginia may have a recount. But it will be fun.
CNN meanwhile is still confused. "We really don't know what has happened in the Senate. It could be anyone's race." - Rick Sanchez CNN Anchor....
And now he is explaining that Jim Webb is really a republican!!!!
A network of geniuses for certain.
-
VA Margin is now 11,000 Votes +
-
TPM made the good point that its actually risky for the Allen campaign to ask for a recount. The FBI is already invesigating alleged voter fraud on their part, and stretching out the electoral process for another week or two will draw further attention to it.
-
Virginia:
99.71% counted...
Democrats 1 169 809
Grand Old Party 1 162 089Montana still holding stead with ~2%lead for the Dems, so I think it's time for a beer...
-
Holy crap, you go off and do other things for a few hours and everything changes. Horay for the Democrats!
-
TPM made the good point that its actually risky for the Allen campaign to ask for a recount. The FBI is already invesigating alleged voter fraud on their part, and stretching out the electoral process for another week or two will draw further attention to it.
They're not going to get the option to refuse though, are they? I thought if it was within 0.5% it's an automatic recount.
-
Depends on the state, apaprently. In Virginia, they'll have to request it.
-
Couple of "unsual" reactions from freeperland....
So can we say it now? That Bush is the most incompetent Republican ever?
...admittedly these opinions are not being welcomed.
-
There is one small proviso...
The biggest county in Montana Yellowstone had a problem with its votes - absentee votes were mixed in with todays - and has called for a complete recount.
At present the Montana Dem lead has fallen to 4000 votes. So all eyes are now on Yellowstone County...
-
Alastair
So the Dems won the House (expected) and look to have won the Senate (unexpected). You don't win 'em all, that is democracy (although how I wish the US would tidy up its voting systems to prevent voting fraud and get rid of gerrymandering etc.)When you look at how many races in both the House and the Senate were decided by very close margins it is clear that this result is not a "tsunami" that was predicted by so many, so if they can clean their act up and get back to their 1994 style conservative roots, the Repubs will be in a position to be very competitive at all levels in 2 years time.
Now the Dems have to govern and we will get to see if they can be constructive and useful and move the country forward, and not just shriek and scream and whine without offering hardly a useful idea or policy like they have for the last so many years. In 2008 the Dems, and to some extent the Dem Presidential nominee will be running on a track record, not just against the Repubs and the Bush administration, that is a much harder task.
Iran will now feel even more certain that with a divided govt., the US will be even less able to confront them on their nuke program. I saw just the other day a bunch of Arab countries, Saudi, Egypt, some Gulf states have all of a sudden gotten very interested in nuclear "energy" programs. A nuke arms race in the Middle East, does that make you feel more or less comfortable about our world? Doesn't help me sleep at night.
If you were an Iraqi insurgent or Al Qaeda head hacker, would the thought that the now increased chances of a precipitous US withdrawal from Iraq, leaving the field wide open for you, make you feel your chances of success have just increased or not?
These are not trivial questions or the raving of right wing nut. If you think they are, then you are not a serious or perceptive observer of world events.
For all our sakes I really, really hope the Dems rise to the occasion, but based on their previous statements and years of over heated rhetoric, I am not confident that this is possible. I would be delighted to be proven wrong. We shall all see!! Such is the democratic process!!
-
James Bremner wrote:
Now the Dems have to govern and we will get to see if they can be constructive and useful and move the country forward, and not just shriek and scream and whine without offering hardly a useful idea or policyWell. indeed. It's one thing for Nany Perlosi to sa the mid-terms were a, "rejection of the President's failed policy on Iraq." The problem for the Democrats is that they actually have to propose - and pass - a policy of their own, and do so with pretty broad bipartisan support. It should be interesting to watch. I think it would be very generous to say the Democrats were *ahem* strategically ambiguous in the campaign about what their vision of a 'new direction in Iraq' actually was and, to be fair,it's not as if anyone was asking. The problem is that with slim control of one, possibly both, houses of Congress they'll have to take a position the minute a bill regarding appropriations for the miltary hit the floor.
-
hmmm.....
MONTANA 99% REPORTING
Tester
198,032
Burns
(Incumbent)
194,904Thats 4000 votes that say the Democrats have won the senate.
Phew!
-
I doubt the Democrats need a plausible new policy for Iraq - I think the President will veto every bill they try and pass, so all their legislation needs to do is SOUND good.
I also doubt the various insurgents in Iraq are even aware there were mid-terms in the United States. They're a little preoccupied kidnapping their Shia neighbours and torturing hem with electric drills while avoiding US airstrikes. I can't imagine the prospect of Pelosi replacing Hastert is going to make any difference to their current policy of abduct-torture-murder-repeat.
I love James' argument that the Republicans were doing such a GREAT job over in Iraq and the Democrats are going to mess all that up and embolden the terrorists. If you had a tribe of Madagascar apes throwing their dung at a huge map of the Middle East they'd formulate a more sophisticated strategy for victory than the current plan (or absence of one).
If I were an informed insurgent - or a member of Irans Council of Guardians - I'd be slightly concerned that a few of the astoundingly stupid people deciding US foreign policy had been replaced with unknowns who might not be so crippled by hubris and ignorance. I would, however, be profoundly reassured by the continuing presence of the President, the Vice President, Sec of Defense ect.
-
Andrew Sullivan has an interesting perspective on the results.
The obvious result of last night's returns is the complete historical and geographical inversion of what was once the Republican Party. Nixon's cynical Southern strategy has now been played out to the nth degree - and, after a good period of opportunistic success, it has failed. All the states Lincoln fought against are now the bastions of his own party. And most of the rest of the country - especially the sane, common sense conservatives of the MidWest whence Lincoln himself hailed - have been forced into the Democratic camp. Formerly solid, freedom-loving Republican states, like California, are now overwhelmingly Democratic.
The GOP is now very much the party of Dixie; and the consequence of this election is that the Congressional leadership is even more Southern than it was before. The irony is that it was the moderate Republicans who were disproportionately punished electorally by the extremists in their midst. And so the party that lost because of its extremists now sees itself more dominated by the extremists. Nixon's cynical ploy - played beyond the extreme by Rove - has, in other words, come back to haunt and defeat his party in the end. Because it over-reached.
-
Well, a victory for the pollsters I reckon.
Based on the final suite of polls, Electoral Vote predicted a 51-49 win for the Dems in the Senate - which is the probable exact final result (CNN has just called Montana for the Dems; and it's hard to see the Republicans over-turning a 7,000-vote deficit in a Virginia recount).
It also predicted a 239-196 win for the Dems in Congress, or a net gain of 39 seats. The actual net gain will be 30-35, pending a few remaining recounts.
-
Gary
There aint no votes to count in VA anyway. They are computer votes. VA Voting Machine Map
And yes the polls were very good. Including the exit polls with 2 minor exceptions. Not off by much in the five solid win states:
Exit poll Actual
PA 57 - 42 58 - 41
RI 53 - 46 53 - 46
OH 57 - 43 56 (55.9) - 44
NJ 52 - 45 53 - 44
MO 50 - 48 49 - 47Not quite so good in MT and VA but still pretty good.
VA 52 - 47 49 - 49
MT 53 - 46 49 - 48 -
i just read that Rummy quit as well!!
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10409895
could today been any sweeter...
so much for 'no cut and run' aeh?
-
Do we know how absentee ballots are outstanding in VA? My recollection is that half the troops in Iraq are based from there. They had over 175,000 in 2004, but perhaps most arrived early and have been counted? I was unable to find any precise numbers last night, not even on the 2004 count.
-
There will almost definitely be a recount in VA, meaning the final Senate numbers may not be known until December. It's a very exciting time to be in the US, and especially NYC where Hillary flattened the Republican opposition. It is however, raining like we're on the West Coast of the South Island.
-
So Rumsfelds gone. I guess any change is good there. I personally hope it doesnt mean the US bails on Iraq though, they have to sort something out.
I agree with Bush in this respect, the troops should get out but only after something resembling a functioning state is established. But their strategy needs a rethink.
Also, will this be good for the Democrats come 2008?
I mean, if they proove themselves to be as impotent as they have been in the past 6 years, then come 2008 it could be good news for the Republicans.
-
My understanmding (and I could be totally wrong American electoral law being what it is) is that the margin in Virginia is so narrow there will be an automatic recount, and I'm sure both sides are goosing the dogs of law and cranking up the conspiracy nuts as we speak. Whoever wins, it's inevitable they 'stole' the election right?
-
Two views of the sec def nominee, from slashdot that bastion of insightful discussion ^^
Robert M. Gates was the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director for intelligence (DDI) from 1982 to 1986. He was confirmed as the CIA's deputy director of central intelligence (DDCI) in April of 1986 and became acting director of central intelligence in December of that same year. Owing to his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran/contra affair and was in a position to have known of their activities.
I'm a student at Texas A&M (where Dr. Gates is currently university president,) and I'd have to say I disagree with this assesment of the man. He has done a great job here of seeing problems, finding a solution, and forcing it through even with strong opposition on some things. He has improved our faculty, decreased class sizes, and worked to change our image, all without ruining what many of us like about the university.
Could be interesting.
-
If the margin is within 1% then a candidate can ask for a re-count, otherwise evidence has to be submitted to a judge who has to be convinced there is a good reason for it.
-
Although as someone mentioned in this thread on, like, page 2, a recount might not be in the Republicans interest considering the FBI has taken an interest in some of the election day happenings.
-
Well. indeed. It's one thing for Nany Pelosi to sa the mid-terms were a, "rejection of the President's failed policy on Iraq." The problem for the Democrats is that they actually have to propose - and pass - a policy of their own, and do so with pretty broad bipartisan support. It should be interesting to watch. I think it would be very generous to say the Democrats were *ahem* strategically ambiguous in the campaign about what their vision of a 'new direction in Iraq' actually was and, to be fair,it's not as if anyone was asking.
Yes, the Democratic message for "change" in Iraq was deliberately vague and, politically, all the better for it. It put the emphasis on the White House to actually say what its plan is, and the vote made Rumsfeld's position untenable.
The Dems' action-point list is fairly canny too. No.1 promise: fully implement the domestic security recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. It'd be a brave president who would veto that puppy, and the Dem majority will rightly claim credit for it.
James was fretting yesterday about the focus on security shifting to "law enforcement". Well, why not? The horrifying multi-plane terror plot revealed earlier this year was tracked from a very early stage by British police - and it was they that foiled it, not some poor southern kids serving in Iraq. Indeed, what nearly screwed it was White House grandstanding.
I can see little advantage for al Qaeda in a more realistic policy in Iraq. Iraq just isn't a happy home for the Sunni jihadists - they're hiding in Pakistan. The Baker commission looks set to recommend an accommodation with Iran and Syria to help stabilise Iraq, which isn't exactly ideal, but there aren't many other options at this point. It's that badly screwed up.
Pelosi also promised to make her Congress the least corrupt in history. Easier said than done, but it's hard to see how the new Houses could be any less arrogant and dishonest than those that are passing.
Every measure of sound, accountable government (and, indeed, traditional conservative values) has gone south in the last five years. This has been a terrible Congress and, as Rolling Stone proposed a couple of weeks ago, quite possibly the worst ever.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.