Democrats win in the U.S elections -Bush Trashed! (opinions thread)

magick

Will the democrats will back control of the house tonight ?
all the polls seem to show that they will or will the Republicans get their "values voters" to come out in large number again ?


THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL HAS ISSUED A WARNING ABOUT A NEW VIRUENT STRAIN OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE.
THE DISEASE IS CONSTRACTED THROUGH DANGEROUS AND HIGH-RISK BEHAVIOR.

THE DISEASE IS CALLED GONORRHEA LECTIM AND PRONOUNCE "GONNA RE-ELECT HIM". MANY CONTRACTED IT IN 2004 , AFTER BEEN SCR-WD FOR THE PREVIOUS YEARS.

COGNITIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUALS INFECTED INCLUDE;
ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDERS,DELUTIONS OF GRANDEUR WITH MESSIANIC OVERTONES ,EXTREME COGNITIVE DISSONANCE,INABILITY TO INCORPORATE NEW INFORMATION,PRONOUNCED XENOPHOBIA AND PARANOIA,INABILITY TO ACCEPTRESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS ,COWARDICE MASKED BY MISPLACE BRAVADO,UNCONTROL FACIAL SMIRKING,IGNORANCE OF GEOGRAPHY AND HISTORY,TENDENCIES TOWARDS EVANGELICAL THEOCRACY,CATEGORICAL ALL-OR-NOTHING BEHAVIOR, AND PRONOUNCIATION DIFFICULTIES.

NATURALISTS AND EPIDEMIOLOGISTS ARE AMAZED AT HOW THIS DESTRUCTIVE DISEASE ORIGINATED ONLY A FEW YEARS AGO FROM A BUSH IN TEXAS.

Manic Moran

It's certainly going to be close.

Vegas odds are showing the Republicans with a very minor lead to hold the House, though most of the punters are putting their money on the Democrats. Both bookies and punters are putting their money on the Republicans for the Senate. Personally, I'm going with the bookies, but I wouldn't be putting money on the House race either way.

NTM

Akrasia

well, according to uber journalist Greg palast, The republicans will be starting with about a 4.5 million vote head start.

http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election#more-1528

I suppose vote rigging is addictive once you get into it

Manic Moran

Speaking of.. I wonder what the Vegas odds are of how many lawsuits will result after all the close races?

Perhaps somewhat ironically, the Nevada Gambling Board was used to certify all the electronic voting machines in that state: They have the best electronic machine investigators, to look for any rigging, so it makes a fair bit of sense.

NTM

Firewalkwithme

My own feeling is that the Democrats will the the house but not the senate. That's just down to what I've read in past few days and my own fear of having my hopes dashed yet again after the past two presidential elections.

ballooba

Is that baby saying C U Next Tuesday?

Hobbes

Vote rigging aside, remember the Repubs passed a law that allowed for unlimited gerrymandering. I take it that this will be factored in as well.

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Vote rigging aside, remember the Repubs passed a law that allowed for unlimited gerrymandering. I take it that this will be factored in as well.

If it's a consolation, the Democrats have been gerrymandering California. I don't know about the other states, but it seems logical to me that whatever party is dominant in a state is going to gerrymander the districts in their favour.

NTM

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

If it's a consolation, the Democrats have been gerrymandering California.

They'd hardly need to.
The entire United States is one giant gerrymandered place to give rural populations more influence than their numbers merit.
http://www.localparty.org/CalSenators.html

lostexpectation

another thing that is coming up is robocalls, automated calls, god I hate for this sort of thing to happen in Ireland, It seems both sides are doing it but the repubs to far greater degree and bending the rules as much as pos, ignoring do not call lists etc, repeat calls... not identifying themselves, of course the might be bit of furore and then the elections over so who cares.

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

If it's a consolation, the Democrats have been gerrymandering California. I don't know about the other states, but it seems logical to me that whatever party is dominant in a state is going to gerrymander the districts in their favour.

Well prior to the Bush administration you had laws in place that stopped blantant gerrymandering to hold seats.

flogen

lostexpectation wrote:

another thing that is coming up is robocalls, automated calls, god I hate for this sort of thing to happen in Ireland, It seems both sides are doing it but the repubs to far greater degree and bending the rules as much as pos, ignoring do not call lists etc, repeat calls... not identifying themselves, of course the might be bit of furore and then the elections over so who cares.

Yeah, ZeFrank was talking about this yesterday; push-polling is what it's called.

bonkey

My prediction:

- Republicans to retain control of both houses.

- Republican supporters to subsequently crow even more smugly than after the 2004 elections about how they once more managed to fool the Democrats into thinking they had it sown up only to fail to capitalise on voting day.

- Republican supporters will further attempt to revise history and suggest that the election is proof that smear-campaigns don't work and that the Democrats should be ashamed of using such tactics which no Republican would ever stoop to.

- Democrats and anti-Republicans to make large noises about electoral inconsistencies.

- Republican-held government refuses to investigate said discrepancies, most likely on the grounds that it would be a divisive move, and what America needs is to be brought back together, not torn further apart.

- TomF will post about how delighted he is to see that the Democratic smear campaigns failed, and how the right result has kept the more honourable party where it belongs.

lostexpectation

bonkey wrote:

My prediction:

- Republicans to retain control of both houses.

both of yesterdays polls from fox and cnn had distinct leads for democrats

bonkey

Yes, I know.

Both the pre-election and exit-polls in 2004 said we'd be complaining about President Kerry today.

In case it needs further clarification : I'm predicting that in 2006, as in 2004, the end result will not coincide with the pre-election polls.

Frederico

I don't care what the polls say, I will believe it when I see it.

The Republicans are always up to their dirty tricks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/6/1717/68014

robocalls

sovtek

Honestly the Democrats don't deserve to win. They barely criticize Bush as it is and they usually rubber stamp his sadism anyway. Nothing much will change.

Manic Moran

bonkey wrote:

My prediction:

I think you're likely right on the money.

There are two things that I strongly dislike about the Democratic campaign: One is the fact that they think it's all sewn up in the bag, and I hate arrogance like that, the other is the fact that I honestly cannot recall any of them providing a manifesto to run on other than "We're not the Republicans." Exception, I think, of Pelosi, who made some pretty general statements, but it's better than nothing. For example, it's why the California newspapers are supporting Arnold: After interviews, they realised that Angelides (the Dem gubernatorial candidate) had nothing new and didn't give examples of anything different that he would do.

I loved the report on the BBC. "One thing that is worrying many people, except for the laywers, is the chance of litigation to solve all the close races"
Sadly accurate.

My vote is pretty much irrelevant here for the politicians, but there's a number of interesting, and close, state propositions worth voting on. Only problem is I have a 'mail-in-ballot', which I need to hand-deliver now. I live in the center of the Bay Area's largest city, and there are fewer than 250 registered voters in my precinct: We don't rate a polling station.

Anyway, I guess we'll find out in 48 hours or so.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

One is the fact that they think it's all sewn up in the bag

Actually from what I have seen of democrats that isn't the case. They have said the race is too close in certain areas to call and not to celebrate because they got burned from exit polls back in 2004.

If anything its the pro-repub sites I see Democrats set to win (due to Iraq/Iran/solar flares/etc).

I honestly cannot recall any of them providing a manifesto to run on

I can't honestly recall any election in the US that revolved around someone putting forward a manifesto and it more being about who you could slander the easiest.

So I take it your voting for a third party then?

bonkey

I don't think either side has much of a manifesto, to be honest.

The Republicans have somewhat of an advantage in this respect in that what they're saying (from what I can see) is mostly "we'll keep doing what we've been doing, only better". Given that people know what they've been doing, its clear what they'll keep doing.

The Dems, on the other hand, seem to take a position more of "What the Republicans are doing is wrong. We'll do something else." Only they're not too clear or decided on what the something else is.

OK...no-one's clear on what the "but better" the Reps are promising is either, but at least you know the majority of what they'll do.

All of the stats I've seen suggest that the vast majority of campaigning in the US is negative in nature. Its not about why the voter should choose the candidate, but rather why they should reject the other guy.

I'm going from memory here, but I think its something like 95% of Dem ads and 97% of Rep ads are negative.

Dems say "GOP has led us stray. You can't let this continue".
GOP say "Dems will make it worse"

To be honest...neither is a manifesto. Its just an effective working of a two-party system where you gain votes by making the other side out to be the greater of two evils.

Why do they do this? Because it works. It also means you've fewer election promises to break. When >95% of your campaign is about why people shouldn't vote for the other guy, then less than 5% is about stuff you can be expected to live up to in the future.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

I can't honestly recall any election in the US that revolved around someone putting forward a manifesto

Republicans in 2000.

They ran on a platform of changing the tone of politics in the US.

At the time, this was mistakenly interpreted to mean that they wanted to improve the tone.

flogen

bonkey wrote:

Republicans in 2000.

They ran on a platform of changing the tone of politics in the US.

At the time, this was mistakenly interpreted to mean that they wanted to improve the tone.

You can hardly call that a manifesto, can you?
I mean, aren't manifesto's a collection of actual policy rather than a single aspiration?

lostexpectation

sovtek wrote:

Honestly the Democrats don't deserve to win. They barely criticize Bush as it is and they usually rubber stamp his sadism anyway. Nothing much will change.

no the party doesn't deserve it but the american people do.

Gandhi

Voted at about 7:15 this morning. The poll workers were saying they had never seen such big turnout at that point (only 15 minutes after the polls opened). That was including presidential elections. This is in Northwest Philadelphia (middle class, heavily Democratic).

However, in Pennsylvania one incumbent Senator (Rick Santorum) is in big danger of losing his seat, and the Governor (Ed Rendell) is up for re-election, though he has a comfortable lead, so that would contribute to a large turnout.

Also, it's a gorgeous day in Philly today (and presumably also in most of the Northeast) which is usually bad for the Republicans. Every pollster knows that Democrats melt in the rain.

lostexpectation

Hobbes wrote:

Actually from what I have seen of democrats that isn't the case. They have said the race is too close in certain areas to call and not to celebrate because they got burned from exit polls back in 2004.

If anything its the pro-repub sites I see Democrats set to win (due to Iraq/Iran/solar flares/etc).

I can't honestly recall any election in the US that revolved around someone putting forward a manifesto and it more being about who you could slander the easiest.

So I take it your voting for a third party then?

there's a socialist going to be elected...

berine sanders

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

So I take it your voting for a third party then?

In some cases, yes. I'm not a party-line voter, indeed, I'm registered independent. I'm voting third-party for my House of Representatives seat, at least.

NTM

flogen

Slightly off topic, but what time will the results start to come in at? I think the Presidential election results in '04 started coming in at 1AM or so, with the final results in by the afternoon... will this be any different?

bobbyjoe

From the Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/midterms2006/story/0,,1941217,00.html

Following the results

On television

· Jon Sopel and Katty Kay will present the results for News 24/BBC1
· Newsnight on BBC2 has coverage from Gavin Esler in Washington
· Sky News will cover events from midnight until 4am. Martin Stanford anchors coverage from London with James Rubin in Washington

On the web

· Live results from 11pm
· Oliver Burkeman blogs a blow-by-blow account of election night. Send him your comments
· The Newsdesk podcast: our team of US correspondents and commentators report from the campaign trail and the parties' headquarters
· Instant commentary through the night from our unrivalled bloggers


Timing

Midnight Virginia Senate exit poll - the first significant pointer
1am Indiana and Kentucky House results possible; Senate exit polls for Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Missouri
2am Rhode Island Senate exit poll. In a close race this state could be critical
3am Montana Senate exit poll. Potentially the decisive state
4am Washington state Senate exit poll. By then, it could all be over

Hobbes

I see the NRCC (republican group) have been robocall spamming peoples phones with multiple adverts to vote for democrats. They don't mention who they are until the end of the call to give the impression the democrats are being **** which according to the FCC is illegal.

lostexpectation

Hobbes wrote:

I see the NRCC (republican group) have been robocall spamming peoples phones with multiple adverts to vote for democrats. They don't mention who they are until the end of the call to give the impression the democrats are being **** which according to the FCC is illegal.

check this one put defo illegal..

Tim Daly from Clarendon got a call saying that if he votes Tuesday, he will be arrested.

A recording of his voicemail can be found online at:
http://www.webbforsenate.com/media/phone_message.wav

The transcript from his voicemail reads:

"This message is for Timothy Daly. This is the Virginia Elections Commission. We've determined you are registered in New York to vote. Therefore, you will not be allowed to cast your vote on Tuesday. If you do show up, you will be charged criminally."

Daly has been registered to vote in Virginia since 1998, and he has voted for the last several cycles with no problem. He has filed a criminal complaint with the Commonwealth's attorney in Arlington.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2598620#2600971

The FBI is looking into allegations from Jim Webb's campaign that Virginia Democrats are getting suspicious telephone calls from so-called volunteers threatening voters with arrest if they go to the polls.
http://www.nbc4.com/politics/10262649/detail.html

RedPlanet

Another manipulation here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110700740.html
Something about sample ballots inaccurately describing the incombent as a Democrat and that he has the backing of the NAACP.
Which have been handed out to loads of poor black folk.

GW Bush has so divided America that i can't imagine right now, the country uniting over anything in the next few decades. Bar another 911 :rolleyes:

Democracy in America has always been dodgy. I recall reading about mass buying votes around the turn of the last century.
I wonder is it really any worse today?
I suppose these voting irregularities are just getting more media attention.
But does it really matter?
A 2 party system to represent 300 million people? That is crazy in itself.

Manic Moran

Although that is quite obviously wrong, anyone who votes along party lines without knowing even the name of their candidate, let alone their policies, is an idiot anyway.

NTM

cooker3

RedPlanet wrote:

They'd hardly need to.
The entire United States is one giant gerrymandered place to give rural populations more influence than their numbers merit.
http://www.localparty.org/CalSenators.html

Not really, the whole point of the senate is that each state has equal power irrespective of how big or small it is, states don't get gerrymandered, they are same size since their existance.
This is where the house of representives comes in, that is decided by population of state so guess which state gets most people in house of represenatives, that's right California which that site doesn't mention oddly enough.

As for elections, I think democrats will take house but will not get senate.

bottlerocket

The reason each state has two senators is so the large population centres on each coast don't impose their will on the rest of the country.

Watching the results on tv, some interesting ones - looks like Santorum is gone and Allen is in trouble. One things for sure, we are seeing the end of Bush Republicanism. Even the Republicans in previously safe or close seats that hold on have gotten a warning - the people don't like the corruption, they don't like the war and they don't like the rich getting the money while the middle and working classes struggle with college fees and prescriptions. No sane Republican will position themselves too close to a President who is to all intents and purposes discredited.

The Democrats are pretty far from ideal but they are easily the better option than this corrupt, incompetent bunch of ideologues who live in a bubble. At the moment it looks like they will get their comeuppance - in the house if not the senate. It's a tall order but Sky News (no lover of democrats) is currently giving them 4 out of 6 gains, most US ones are going with 2 confirmed. It's gonna be tight.

YeatsCounty

The Democrats are projected to win the House, with a possible majority of 30+.

In the Senate race, it's currently Rep 49, Dem 46 and Independant 2. There are three seats left to fight for (Missouri, Montana and Virginia), the Democrats are currently leading in all three. If the Dems win these three, they will gain control of the Senate as well. Virginia will not be decided tonight. If the Republicans win any of these seats, they will retain control of the Senate.

Manic Moran

Seems that way (Remember that one independent has declared for the Democrats, so they're one above the reported score.) 50-49.

California seems to have gone whacko, with results all over the shop. The Governator-R has demolished Angelides-D, and somehow McClintock-R is sneaking into the LT Governor's slot. (McClintock is a Republican's dream, as opposed to Arnie who's considered something of a RINO). On the other hand, Moonbeam (Jerry Brown -D) has pretty much whacked Poochigian-R for the Top Cop job, which really disappoints me. (Not on the R/D divide, just on my perception of their relative abilities to do the job)

The various ballot initiatives are also all over the kip, I'll talk about them in the 'in my ballot' thread tomorrow.

NTM

Dalfiatach

McCaskill (D) has won Missouri, the Republican has conceded defeat.

The Democrats are ahead in Montana and Virginia as of now, but Virginia will probably go to a recount automatically and only about 2/3 of the votes have been counted in Montana so that could still switch back to the Republican incumbant.

Both "Independents" in the Senate are really Democrats.

So at the moment, it's advantage Democrats to take the House and the Senate.

Manic Moran

Well, I'm going to bed. All four potential Senators are rated A or A+ by the NRA, so either result is good with me. Both Webb and Testor are pretty moderate Ds. I like Moderates, of either party. They seem so much more reasonable, and are suitably unpredictable in that they're less likely to vote party-line.

NTM

poor fox news....

bonkey

That reminds me....

while browsing around yesterday, I came across a still taken from Fox where the "headline" banner read something like "polls show one party has a lead heading into elections".

I dunno...maybe they couldn't bring themselves to actually name which party it was.

In other news...looks like I was flat-out wrong with my predictions. Go me.

free2fly

With the Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, do you think that the American people have finally spoken out against George W. Bush and the war in Iraq?

petes

free2fly wrote:

By taking control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, do you think that the American people have finally spoken out again George W. Bush and the war in Iraq?

No*


*No, and by that I mean I have no idea what you are talking about

Diogenes

bonkey wrote:

That reminds me....

while browsing around yesterday, I came across a still taken from Fox where the "headline" banner read something like "polls show one party has a lead heading into elections".

I dunno...maybe they couldn't bring themselves to actually name which party it was.

In other news...looks like I was flat-out wrong with my predictions. Go me.

Pessimisim means that you get to tell the world "I told you so" when you're right, and be pleasantly surprised when you're wrong.

Here's a story about a voter who got turned away from her polling station...

The former first daughter Chelsea Clinton ran into polling trouble. Senator Clinton told reporters Chelsea had been turned away at a Manhattan polling site because her name did not appear in a book of registered voters. Investigators determined that her name had been sent to the wrong polling location, so she was unable to vote in the polling booth. She was offered an affidavit vote, which is similar to the provisional ballots used in other states.

User45701

So they won? the radio uin my office isent that lowed so i havent found out who won the mid term ellection i assumed that bush would simply won after he said that if they pull out amercia will have little or no oil inthe future

Rb

free2fly wrote:

By taking control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate, do you think that the American people have finally spoken out again George W. Bush and the war in Iraq?

I'd certainly see that aspect to it yes i.e the rejection of the war in Iraq and the Bush administrations handling of it.

Beruthiel

Too little, too late.
But perhaps this is the end of the Republicans for a while, that would be nice.

Rb

Beruthiel wrote:

But perhaps this is the end of the Republicans for a while, that would be nice.

Indeed it would, though the Democrats will create their own problems I'd imagine they'll be nothing near the scale of what the republicans have caused. A positive change anyway.

Which means chelsea's vote counts-not that her Mum needed it.

Now that the democrats have control of the lower house, they have control of the purse strings and can and probably will say No to Bush-ha ha!

Also this is an example of the difference between unelected terrorists and democratically elected war mongerers.
The latter can get turfed out of power.

sovtek

Tristrame wrote:

Which means chelsea's vote counts-not that her Mum needed it.

Now that the democrats have control of the lower house, they have control of the purse strings and can and probably will say No to Bush-ha ha!

Also this is an example of the difference between unelected terrorists and democratically elected war mongerers.
The latter can get turfed out of power.

I'm at a loss to find a Democrat that says they are going to end the war anytime soon.

Ruu_Old

Moved from AH, throw it back in my direction if its in the wrong spot mods. Thanks.

daithimac

I dont think its on par with when joe McCarthy was asked if he had no decency but it is a sign that a catagoral majority now disapprove of the war or how it is being handled. its only however with the perspective of thme that this victory for the democrats can judged in such a manner