Dems may take Senate [Archive]

addabox

11-08-2006, 12:48 AM

CNN has currently call 5 Senate races for the Dems: RI, PA, OH, MN and MD.

Another, Montana, has Tester leading Burns 54% to 44% with 30% reporting. I have no idea if there are Burns strongholds yet to be counted, but that seems like a pretty commanding lead.

And yet another, the bItter Virginia race, shows Webb clinging to a tiny 2,500 vote lead with 99% reporting. (Just went to 2,700 in the last few minutes).

There seems to be a pretty good chance that the Dems will pick up the six seats they needed, with possible seventh no doubt tied up in recounts for a while.

addabox

11-08-2006, 12:53 AM

Good lord, can we deleat this thread? I've been staring beady eyed at results for so long my head has caved in and I'm starting to confuse my races.

Have mercy on me.

addabox

11-08-2006, 12:56 AM

Ah I get it.

MD and MN were not a pickups-- they were holds.

So our three were RI, PA, and OH...

Yes, of course. Once, when I was younger, I knew that. Now, I just move down rows of figures like a compulsive gambler perusing the ponies.

Really, delete this.

BRussell

11-08-2006, 12:57 AM

There are no Burns strongholds. :lol:

hardeeharhar

11-08-2006, 12:58 AM

damn tennessee...

shetline

11-08-2006, 01:04 AM

Webb is ahead by over 2000, with about 30,000 absentee ballots, projected to lean strongly for web, left to count. We'll still probably have to wait for an automatic recount before it's official, but after looking bleak much of the evening, I'd say Webb has pulled this one off.

MT looks good for Tester right now, and MO is tightening up, with big urban areas as much of what's left to count, favoring McCaskill.

Damn, Dems might just pull this off. But damn, it'll be a squeaker.

addabox

11-08-2006, 01:06 AM

So, anyway, three senate seats called for the Dems, MT is looking pretty strong, McCaskill has now overtaken Talent in MO with 80% in and Virginia hangs by a thread.

Holy shit, is this going to be another important national result coming down to one state with razor thin margins and some shady goings-on?

addabox

11-08-2006, 01:08 AM

Wow, the McCaskill swing, according to the CNN numbers, was pretty dramatic.

shetline

11-08-2006, 01:19 AM

There's probably still a recount fight to go through before it's official, but Webb just declared victory in VA. :)

MO has McCaskill in the lead, now that St. Louis results are coming in.

Tester is still ahead in MT, with 47% of the vote counted.

OMFG, we might just pull this off!

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 01:25 AM

Ok, if it happens...which it might...it will be quite an amazing night for dare I say the whole world? I was following the Webb-Macaca results with my good friend Johnnie Walker while refreshing 200 times per minute, so forgive me for being so romantically positive. ;)

addabox

11-08-2006, 01:25 AM

I'm wearing out the tabs in my Safari windows....

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 01:29 AM

I crashed Safari for the first time ever just now. Seems like it can't handle the Air America stream, DK refreshing and downloading porn mpgs at the same time. ;)

addabox

11-08-2006, 01:47 AM

McCaskill is sitting on a 20,000 vote lead with 85% counted. What little movement there is is trending her way.

Tester holds about a 10,000 vote lead with 60% in, but his margin is slightly eroding.

Virginia has entered spooky stasis status. Behind closed doors people are being torn limb from limb, and terrible, dark deities are being evoked.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 01:53 AM

Slightly eroding? How slightly is slightly????

addabox

11-08-2006, 01:57 AM

Slightly eroding? How slightly is slightly????

Extremely slightly. My pupils are pinpricks and I react to to 10 vote swings. The internet + election= crack.

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:06 AM

I think Webb's going to pull it off. He's edged up to a 6,000 vote lead and they must be into the last quarter of a percentage point of the tally.

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:10 AM

McCaskill's pulling away. This one is in the bag.

I'm gonna say it: if the Virginia results survive the inevitable recount, Dems take the Senate.

I really didn't think they could do it. House results in the upper end of estimates, as well, +28 so far.

Looks like the wave was really there, for once.

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:14 AM

CNN calls it for McCaskill. Two more.

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:15 AM

Democratic incumbents didn't lose a SINGLE house or senate race. Not ONE.

Wow.

That seems like it might be unprecedented. Anybody know?

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 02:15 AM

Congratulations Senator McCaskill. :D

franksargent

11-08-2006, 02:17 AM

:smokey:

Look's like the D's have a tie, Montana is the only holdout, 65% counted so far. Keep you're fingers crossed!

Webb is up by ~12,000 votes, lookin' good!

:smokey:

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:20 AM

I wonder what the cutoff for an automatic recount in Virginia is? Webb has taken that 2,700 vote margin and turned it into a 12,000 lead.

See ya, Macaca.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 02:20 AM

Man....another close one with Tester....guess I'll just have down a couple more johnnie's to "kill time".

franksargent

11-08-2006, 02:23 AM

I wonder what the cutoff for an automatic recount in Virginia is? Webb has taken that 2,700 vote margin and turned it into a 12,000 lead.

See ya, Macaca.

:smokey:

It's 1% of total votes cast, to be able to file for a recount, if it's between 0.5% and 1%, the party filing for the recount has to pay all recount costs, otherwise the state pays for the recount, as far as I know from what they've said on the telly. Automatic recount kicks in if less than 0.5%, about 3 million votes have been cast, so that's 30,000 ~ 1%, 15,000 ~ 0.5%.

:smokey:

shetline

11-08-2006, 02:24 AM

MO has been called for McCaskill. Talent has conceded.

Webb now up by 11,000 votes, a lead pretty much gauranteed to survive a recount.

Tester ahead by 4% with 66% of precincts counted.

Yes, ShawnJ, I think we've got it! Without "Senator Cheney" breaking ties! :D

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 02:26 AM

Shetline....we don't have it until we have it. I don't like the "closeness" of MT vote. I just bloody don't.

Hassan i Sabbah

11-08-2006, 02:30 AM

The People Have Spoken.™

Good morning everyone.

tonton

11-08-2006, 02:33 AM

The People Have Spoken.™

Good morning everyone.

I have a feeling "The People" (AKA Southside Grabasski) won't be posting here for a while, unless it's to claim election fraud...

addabox

11-08-2006, 02:33 AM

Gah...

Tester's lead has shrunk from 11,000 to 7,500 in the last 20 minutes. Hopefully this is some "Burns territory" coming in and we'll get past it.

While Virginia seems to be removing itself from razor land Montana takes its place.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 02:35 AM

Gah...

Tester's lead has shrunk from 11,000 to 7,500 in the last 20 minutes. Hopefully this is some "Burns territory" coming in.

While Virginia seems to be removing itself from razor land Montana takes its place.
:grumble: :grumble: :grumble:

addabox

11-08-2006, 03:03 AM

So WTF is going on in Virginia, anyway?

They've been counting the last 3 votes for like the last hour. Gives me the willies.

addabox

11-08-2006, 03:10 AM

OK, this is freaking me out. CNN abruptly moved the vote total in Montana from 75% to 70% to 74%, all in the space of a few minutes.

At the same time they changed Tester's total from 150,000 to 138,000 and cut his lead from 7,000 to 5,000.

My head is going to explode.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 03:13 AM

Crap.

tonton

11-08-2006, 03:13 AM

It looks like the two counties left to report in Montana are Yellowstone and Meagher. Anyone know about these counties? Both are bordered by both Democratic and Republican supporting counties. However, they don't seem to be heavily weighted in either direction...

This is nail-biting, especially since the latest results show a difference of only 5500 (up from 4000 something just 10 minutes ago).

BRussell

11-08-2006, 03:18 AM

Yellowstone is the most populous county I believe (includes Billings, the largest city), and unfortunately slightly favors Burns. Meagher is small and probably favors Tester. It looks like it will get closer. It's interesting that Jones, the Libertarian, is pulling in about 2-3%. I'm not sure who he's taking from, because Libertarians here would generally be Republicans, but on the other hand, Tester has run on opposition to the Patriot act.

tonton

11-08-2006, 03:18 AM

Oh... now I see... those are the two counties that haven't reported any results. There are other counties that have posted partial results.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 03:18 AM

Ok. I just read Tester's lead is up to 8k.

addabox

11-08-2006, 03:18 AM

Honestly, up until about 10 minutes ago the CNN tally board showed Tester with 150,000 votes to Burns' 143,000.

Then, I refresh the page and poof! it's 138,000 to 133,000, with the total percentages reporting dropping form 75% to 70%. Then, after another refresh, the percentages jump back up to 74% but the vote numbers just go up a few hundred.

CNN? Are you fucking with me? Because I will slap the stupid right off your well-coifed head.

addabox

11-08-2006, 03:21 AM

Ok. I just read Tester's lead is up to 8k.

Exactly 5500 at the moment, if crazy world CNN can be trusted. 75% reporting.

tonton

11-08-2006, 03:25 AM

The most important counties in Montana still reporting:

Cascade: 39% left. 20,000 counted, 52/46 Tester.
Flathead 29% left. 17,500 counted, 57/39 Burns.
Meagher: 0% reporting, population?
Silver Bow, 56% left. 9,000 counted, 67/31 Tester.
Yellowstone, 0% reporting, population?

Flathead should add votes to Burns. Cascade and Silver Bow should add votes to Tester. Other smaller counties seem to be leaning toward Burns. Lots of votes left in Gallatin, but it's split so far. Who knows about Meagher and Yellowsone?

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 03:27 AM

Ok. My "Crap" stands then. :mad:

tonton

11-08-2006, 03:32 AM

Yellowstone is the biggest county in Montana, and if voting percentage follows the trend with the rest of the state (between 35% and 45% by my estimates), there could be as many as 60,000 votes up for grabs there. Looks like this is where the election will be decided.

Hopefully the county is full of Dem leaning conservationists and not Rep leaning cowboys...

Meagher county is aptly named. It's insignificant.

BRussell

11-08-2006, 03:42 AM

From what I've heard here in Montana, they're doing a recount in Yellowstone county. Not sure why. :/

tonton

11-08-2006, 03:54 AM

OK new research. In 2004, there was no senate race in Montana, Yellowstone County voted 66% to 31% in favor of the Republican in their House race.

It looks like Yellowstone split along the same lines as neighboring Carbon County in 2004. This year, Carbon is leaning Republican 51/46, but this is very unscientific, as Carbon is a very small county and Yellowstone is much more populous.Link (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/MT/H/01/map.html)

Assuming Yellowstone splits, I'm calling this one for the Dems. Based on research, not faith.

Bergermeister

11-08-2006, 03:57 AM

I have a feeling "The People" (AKA Southside Grabasski) won't be posting here for a while, unless it's to claim election fraud...

Poor Southside.
SDW is probably having a rough night, too.

Oh, this is nice to watch; Bush is being told rather strongy that he better shape up or the Repubs won't have a chance for the WH nextime around. Hopefully before that, he will realize what a total screwball he has been and mend his ways. He might also want to attend some ESL classes (English as a second language) so he can learn to speak the language so that he is able to visit Nevada now that they have an offciail language.

tonton

11-08-2006, 04:06 AM

Looks good. That big jump in favor of Repubs right now was Flathead reporting, which was the repubs strongest base. The rest of the counties look to split.

addabox

11-08-2006, 04:11 AM

Really hope you're right. This is getting too close for comfort.

Tester's lead down to 3300 votes.

Bergermeister

11-08-2006, 04:21 AM

What's going on at the moment? I am away from a TV and on a slow modem for the next couple of hours.

Why is Virginia taking so long?

tonton

11-08-2006, 04:27 AM

If 60,000 people vote in Yellowstone county, Burns will have to win by just 5 percentage points there to make up for those 3000 votes. This is really too close. It could come down to 100 votes or less.

tonton

11-08-2006, 04:29 AM

Virginia's in the bag, pretty much. 1% of 2.4 million voters is just 24,000 votes left (very rough estimate). It would be virtually impossible for the Repubs to make up 8000 votes out of just 24000.

shetline

11-08-2006, 04:31 AM

What's going on at the moment? I am away from a TV and on a slow modem for the next couple of hours.

Why is Virginia taking so long?
Virginia is in recount range. They're down to counting things like absentee ballots and provisional ballots now, I think. It might be a while until we get official results from Virginia because of this, but things look good for Webb.

Montana's hung up doing a recount in Yellowstone county, with no results expected until 8AM (Mountain Time, I'm supposing that means, 10AM Eastern). Indications are good that what's left will favor Tester.

I'm 90% sure Dems have the Senate as of now, but it's going to continue to be a nail-biter for a bit longer.

Bergermeister

11-08-2006, 04:35 AM

Cool! I'm in Japan so there is a bit of an information vacuum until I get home tonight to my satellite CNN.

If the Dems get both houses, that will rock Bushie Baby's boat more than just a little. Hope the Dems do it well, as that is what the people are asking of them.

tonton

11-08-2006, 04:40 AM

Really hope you're right. This is getting too close for comfort.

Tester's lead down to 3300 votes.

It's up to 4000 now...

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 04:42 AM

Well, according to this page: http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/results/RESULTS/DEFAULT.HTM

the "unofficial results" showed Tester winning Yellowstone 50.51 to 46.97 or 18161 votes to 16888.

Hassan i Sabbah

11-08-2006, 04:45 AM

Please win. Compulsary abortions for all. Forced marriages for all young men. An instant withdrawal from Iraq. George Bush strung up on the steps of Congress. Christianity banned. The nationalisation of all American industry and the collectivisation of agriculture. Five Year Plans! Show trials! Gulags for Republican dissidents!

Forward America!

Frank777

11-08-2006, 04:50 AM

Just once I would like to see an American election where the equipment does not malfunction in some way, the count takes place promptly, and a winner is declared at a reasonable hour.

You know. Like in Canada. ;)

tonton

11-08-2006, 04:58 AM

Excluding Yellowstone, the important counties are:

Cascade - Full results should add about 1000 votes to Tester
Fergus - Full results should add about 1100 votes to Burns
Gallatin - Full results should add about 700 votes to Burns
Other counties still reporting are pretty insignificant or split.

Again, Yellowstone would have to favor Burns by just 5% to make this an even race. And that's entirely possible.

tonton

11-08-2006, 05:04 AM

Well, according to this page: http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/results/RESULTS/DEFAULT.HTM

the "unofficial results" showed Tester winning Yellowstone 50.51 to 46.97 or 18161 votes to 16888.

Wow that shows only 36,228 votes cast, with 100% of precincts reporting. That's pretty low. Maybe this is where the discrepancies come from... missing ballots?

But of those cast, this makes things look pretty solid for Tester!

tonton

11-08-2006, 07:12 AM

Well, according to this page: http://www.co.yellowstone.mt.us/elections/results/RESULTS/DEFAULT.HTM

the "unofficial results" showed Tester winning Yellowstone 50.51 to 46.97 or 18161 votes to 16888.

Oddly, the same page now shows Burns ahead 50.57 to 46.83 or 15347 to 14212.

And according to the exit polls, Tester should be way ahead in Montana.

Don't tell me they're using Diebold machines... :grumble:

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 08:43 AM

It's a toss. In VA, te absentees will break more Republican. Anything could happen. I'm telling you:

If Burns loses and Allen wins, or vice versa, you're going to be saying one thing:

Guess we shouldn't have screwed over Liebermann! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

tonton

11-08-2006, 08:51 AM

It's a toss. In VA, te absentees will break more Republican.

WHY? You do know that most servicemen are against the war now, right?

tonton

11-08-2006, 08:53 AM

Guess we shouldn't have screwed over Liebermann!

Respectfully, SDW, you don't read what people post and you haven't read the news from a non-biased source.

The numbers reflect the fact that Lieberman has stated that he is "caucusing with the Democrats" which means he's in the D column on all those charts.

franksargent

11-08-2006, 08:59 AM

:smokey:

If CNN's numbers are correct (~99% counted in both MT and VA), given the current Democrat lead in those two remaining states, the Republicans need ~70% of the outstanding uncounted votes JUST to level the vote totals. Not very likely, IMHO!

Given the current totals and deltas, both states will certainly have recounts. So it is also very good that the Democrats have significant leads, at this time, with ~99% of all votes counted (read this as the Democrats will take leads into the recounts, a very good thing, IMHO)!

:smokey:

shetline

11-08-2006, 10:29 AM

What if he screws us and caucuses with Republicans?
Nah. I'd have preferred Lamont, and I was pissed at Leiberman for not gracefully accepting the results of the primary, but he's still not really that far off from other Dems in his voting record. His record shows that he's voted along with other Dems something like 90% of the time I think, or something like that.

There are definitely some bruised feelings on both sides to deal with here, and on some upcoming votes Leiberman will no doubt side with Republicans now and then, but there's no way he'll caucus with Republicans instead of Democrats. He might be feeling a little petulant, but not that petulant.

addabox

11-08-2006, 10:31 AM

You know what I just had a thought..

What if he screws us and caucuses with Republicans?

:wow:

I think this explains why the party brass refused to throw their weight behind Lamont-- if Lamont wins he's a solid D, if Lieberman wins, and we end up with a one vote lead like it appears we have, they need to make sure the keep the little snake somewhere on the reservation.

What I hate is if it does go like it looks like its going to go Lieberman will use his swing position to grandstand and extract concessions and make it about him. I really loath the idea of having to watch him do one of his fake weepy "I have consulted with the muse of my integrity" as he hands Senate votes to Bush.

Hopefully, some of the vindication of grassroots and progressive power that this election provides will make it easier in the future to remove showboating little shits like Lieberman from the party.

And please spare me you "proof of the suicidal left when a good centrists like Lieberman" etc. The man is a congenital hypocrite and provides cover for some of the worst excesses of the Bush admin.

addabox

11-08-2006, 10:35 AM

Nah. I'd have preferred Lamont, and I was pissed at Leiberman for not gracefully accepting the results of the primary, but he's still not really that far off from other Dems in his voting record. His record shows that he's voted along with other Dems something like 90% of the time I think, or something like that.

There are definitely some bruised feelings on both sides to deal with here, and on some upcoming votes Leiberman will no doubt side with Republicans now and then, but there's no way he'll caucus with Republicans instead of Democrats. He might be feeling a little petulant, but not that petulant.

Trouble being that 10% is on the most significant issues of the day. Real big ticket items that ought to be defining issues for the dems.

As far as petulance-- his conduct during the election suggests that petulance is his defining characteristic. Perhaps it was once not so, but the arrogance, veiled threats and most of all presumption of the right to power, as if to challenge him was to go against the natural order is what turned me decidedly against him.

thuh Freak

11-08-2006, 10:49 AM

Anyone know when the recounts start, and when they come in?

shetline

11-08-2006, 11:06 AM

Anyone know when the recounts start, and when they come in?
I don't think we'll see a recount in Montana. Tester currently leads by ~1700 votes with 1% left to report. This is a 0.43% lead, and the margin has to be 0.25% or less to trigger a recount in Montana.

Virginia will go into recount unless Allen concede (and that doesn't seem likely to me, but who knows?). Under 0.5% triggers a recount paid for by the state. 1% or less, but over 0.5%, a recount can be done, but the apparent loser has to pay for it. I'm sure Allen's people would fork over that money if they had to, and at this point, they wouldn't even have to, if Webb's lead stays at it's current ~0.33%

How long would a Virginia recount take? Not a clue.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:15 AM

Respectfully, SDW, you don't read what people post and you haven't read the news from a non-biased source.

The numbers reflect the fact that Lieberman has stated that he is "caucusing with
the Democrats" which means he's in the D column on all those charts.

I don't think that's true. He's still an independent, regardless of who he caucases with. Doesn't that determine control? Am I wrong here?

Flounder

11-08-2006, 11:21 AM

I don't think that's true. He's still an independent, regardless of who he caucases with. Doesn't that determine control? Am I wrong here?
Yeah, from every article I've read, you're incorrect.

shetline

11-08-2006, 11:38 AM

I don't think that's true. He's still an independent, regardless of who he caucases with. Doesn't that determine control? Am I wrong here?
Caucusing with Democrats means that when it comes time to vote on who's going to be Senate Majority leader, and who's going to head all of the committees in the Senate, Leiberman votes with the Democrats. Control of the Senate goes to the Democrats.

Dems will have to let Leiberman keep his seniority, I'm sure, or else they'd risk pushing Leiberman over the edge entirely. Perhaps Leiberman gets himself a juicy chairmanship in the deal as well.

Welcome to the American version of a coalition government.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:46 AM

Caucusing with Democrats means that when it comes time to vote on who's going to be Senate Majority leader, and who's going to head all of the committees in the Senate, Leiberman votes with the Democrats. Control of the Senate goes to the Democrats.

Dems will have to let Leiberman keep his seniority, I'm sure, or else they'd risk pushing Leiberman over the edge entirely. Perhaps Leiberman gets himself a juicy chairmanship in the deal as well.

Welcome to the American version of a coalition government.

Hmm. I didn't know that. But what if it's 50-49-1? Then the Republicans control.

shetline

11-08-2006, 11:49 AM

Hmm. I didn't know that. But what if it's 50-49-1? Then the Republicans control.
Yes. But that's called "dreaming". :)

audiopollution

11-08-2006, 11:50 AM

Hmm. I didn't know that. But what if it's 50-49-1? Then the Republicans control.

If it's 50 (D) - 49 (R) - 1 (I), then the Democrats control.
If it's 50 (R) - 49 (D) - 1 (I), then the Republicans control.

I bet Lieberman is getting a lot of calls from Republicans, right now.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:52 AM

If it's 50 (D) - 49 (R) - 1 (I), then the Democrats control.
If it's 50 (R) - 49 (D) - 1 (I), then the Republicans control.

Right, that's what I meant. But you're saying if it's a tie, then the Dems actually control.

Mike Eggleston

11-08-2006, 11:59 AM

Oh, this is nice to watch; Bush is being told rather strongy that he better shape up or the Repubs won't have a chance for the WH nextime around. Hopefully before that, he will realize what a total screwball he has been and mend his ways. He might also want to attend some ESL classes (English as a second language) so he can learn to speak the language so that he is able to visit Nevada now that they have an offciail language.

Arizona also passed English as the official language. I really hope that it becomes more mainstream, and populates through the rest of the United States.

audiopollution

11-08-2006, 12:01 PM

Right, that's what I meant. But you're saying if it's a tie, then the Dems actually control.

If Lieberman is sitting with the D caucus, then it's not a tie.

Think of the mayhem in countries with more than 3 moderately viable parties!

Mike Eggleston

11-08-2006, 12:03 PM

Right, that's what I meant. But you're saying if it's a tie, then the Dems actually control.

Actually here it is in breakdown:

If the Dems have a majority lead in the caucuses, then they control.
If the GOP has a TIE or lead, then the GOP is in control.

If the situation goes like this:
50 D - 49 R - 1 I, and they vote their party (including Independent) across the board, Dems win.
50 D - 49 R - 1 I, and Lieberman votes GOP, it is a tie, and Cheney gets to decide (GOP win).

shetline

11-08-2006, 12:09 PM

As the last view votes in Montana trickle in, Tester's lead has widened from about ~1700 to over 3100.

I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat and practicing her scales now. :)

dmz

11-08-2006, 12:11 PM

I think, statistically speaking, that VA and MT are gone to the (D) side -- you can't just sample a couple million people and then expect to bend the numbers. Mr. Gore learned that in FL.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 12:20 PM

"Screwed over Lieberman"? Yeah, those stupid voters exercising their right to choose another candidate in the primary. :rolleyes: "Screwing" Lieberman sounds like a freeper talking point.

The suicide prevention hotline is your friend AI wingers. :lol: :lol:

BRussell

11-08-2006, 12:34 PM

I just wanted to point out that I believe there will now be two Senators who are "independent but caucusing with Democrats" - Sander in VT and Lieberman in CT. If Dems win VA and MT, it will be:

R: 49
D: 49
I: 2

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 12:36 PM

Yep. I believe you're correct.

shetline

11-08-2006, 01:33 PM

Just so you all know, Montana has been called for Tester! :D

So we're down to waiting on Virginia to be settled, and I thinks that's damn near a done deal for Webb, even with a recount pending.

BRussell

11-08-2006, 01:46 PM

Just so you all know, Montana has been called for Tester! :D Cool! I still haven't seen that anywhere.

The fact that we're having recounts is interesting in how it compares to 2000. Personally, I'd like to see Webb say "unlike Bush in 2000, I'm not going to declare myself the winner and sue anyone who tries to count the votes." I'd like him to just say that the election isn't over and our primary goal is to make sure the votes are counted as accurately as possible, whatever the outcome. Only if Allen were to start playing games would we do the same. Something like that.

It might be too late though - I believe he gave a kind of victory speech last night - but it would be nice.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 01:51 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15620405/?GT1=8717

Just one more to go!;)

You'll forgive me if I cross my fingers!

shetline

11-08-2006, 02:28 PM

As the last view votes in Montana trickle in, Tester's lead has widened from about ~1700 to over 3100.

I can hear the fat lady clearing her throat and practicing her scales now. :)
Warning... you might want to cover your ears. I understand this part is going to be played by Candy Crowley.
:wow: :no: :devil:

addabox

11-08-2006, 05:42 PM

I hate that chick.

She and John King were talking about "President McCain" last night on CNN at 2:30 AM.

Lord, McCain really has sold his soul.

It's not so much the whoring, but the pompous cultivation of the "straight talk" bullshit.

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 08:37 PM

just in - source - sky news tv - virginia declares

***Democrats take the Senate! Democrats take the Senate! Democrats take the Senate!

shetline

11-08-2006, 08:43 PM

***Democrats take the Senate! Democrats take the Senate! Democrats take the Senate!
Are you privy to some special information, or did you just wake up and see how close (although still unofficial) the situation is? Sky News TV? Haven't seen anything more in the news I've looked at.

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 08:44 PM

Are you privy to some special information, or did you just wake up and see how close (although still unofficial) the situation is?

as usual im just a wee bit ahead of you :p

sky news UK quoting associated press

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 08:58 PM

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/mysteries/Untitled.jpg

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 09:03 PM

apparently, its won but just needs the GOP candicate to officially concede...

Fellowship

11-08-2006, 09:08 PM

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/COVER/061108/STG_CaptureSenate_6p.jpg

Bergermeister

11-08-2006, 09:11 PM

CNN is showing a breaking news aleert to thhe same effect, but says AP and Reuters are reporting it and they are trying to confirm it.

This is great; the only thing that could be better would be if Bush were to resign.

Oh, and for some of you out there who might ask "Why would he do that?", any reaqson would suffice. He wants to spend more time with his dog (there is a four legggged creature in the house). He hates flying in helicopters. He is finally going to kindergarten. He broke a toenail. Anything will do.

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 09:14 PM

front page of CNN

http://www.cnn.com/

The common people have spoken, not the common jester.!

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 09:18 PM

MarcUK

11-08-2006, 09:21 PM

In other news - Tony Blair about to investigated by police for fraud and corruption....
stem cells injected into blind and restore sight...
Jesus appears on TV and declares he never existed

VIVA LA REVOLUCION...

thuh Freak

11-08-2006, 09:59 PM

The common people have spoken, not the common jester.!

That overwhelming victory in VA feels like a mandate from god.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 10:00 PM

Well there you go! Icing on the cake!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15620405/

:wow: :smokey: :lol: :smokey: :wow:

franksargent

11-08-2006, 10:01 PM

:smokey:

Holy macaroni!

:smokey:

crazychester

11-08-2006, 10:08 PM

Woohoo! Way to go the Yanks. Now you've found your torch again, see if you can't finish the job and lead us all out of the valley of darkness, will ya?

Why?

Why not?

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:48 PM

shetline

11-09-2006, 12:20 AM

I have to say: I am REALLY surprised. Last night I was sure the Senate wasn't going anywhere. I really have to hand it to the Dems. And I have to hand it to the Republicans: Way to get schooled by not doing shit for two years, refusing to deal with immigration, spending like drunken Kennedys and generally having shitty hair cuts.
Not that I don't like hearing Dems congratulated, but let's put this in perspective... you're taking the knife's-edge winning or losing of the Senate as indicator that the Dems did well and the Republicans did poorly.

But one less "macaca" or Mark Foley, and this could have easily gone the other way. It was that close. I'm just as ready to admit this in victory as I am in defeat. The difference is you might respect it when I say it in victory, but if I were saying it in defeat, you'd react differently, and probably dismissively and scornfully, to the same truth.

If Republicans had clung to the Senate by a margin of a few thousand votes the other direction, they'd still be exactly the same momumental corrupt f*ckups that we see them as today. The only difference is that they'd be smugly victorious monumental corrupt f*ckups. And just because Democrats did win, it doesn't mean they still don't have a long way to go when it comes to standing up to Republicans more strongly and getting their message out much better than they have.

crazychester

11-09-2006, 01:39 AM

Not that I don't like hearing Dems congratulated, but let's put this in perspective... you're taking the knife's-edge winning or losing of the Senate as indicator that the Dems did well and the Republicans did poorly.
OTOH, don't underestimate the power of symbolism on hearts and minds. 9/11 should have taught us that if nothing else. Where there's a knife's edge, there are sure to be waiverers. I think the simple symbolism of the Dems win and Rummy hopping on his bike (now that's what I call a Lucky Door Prize!) is far easier for people to interpret and take on board, and more likely to sway waiverers, than abstract numbers, the analysis of which is no doubt already becoming irrelevant and losing currency, and which will have been forgotten by everyone barring a handful of academics and party apparatchiks, by around the middle of next week.

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 07:49 AM

Not that I don't like hearing Dems congratulated, but let's put this in perspective... you're taking the knife's-edge winning or losing of the Senate as indicator that the Dems did well and the Republicans did poorly.

But one less "macaca" or Mark Foley, and this could have easily gone the other way. It was that close. I'm just as ready to admit this in victory as I am in defeat. The difference is you might respect it when I say it in victory, but if I were saying it in defeat, you'd react differently, and probably dismissively and scornfully, to the same truth.

If Republicans had clung to the Senate by a margin of a few thousand votes the other direction, they'd still be exactly the same momumental corrupt f*ckups that we see them as today. The only difference is that they'd be smugly victorious monumental corrupt f*ckups. And just because Democrats did win, it doesn't mean they still don't have a long way to go when it comes to standing up to Republicans more strongly and getting their message out much better than they have.

I don't know how I would have reacted, but I can't imagine if it was that close I would dismiss your statement of it being won on a knife's edge.

I agree with everyhting else you wrote. My feeling is that this defeat is probably a good thin for Republicans.

Fellowship

11-09-2006, 03:23 PM

Allen concedes and in my view gave a very humble and respectful speech.

Fellowship

franksargent

11-09-2006, 03:23 PM

:smokey:

Allen just conceded in VA.

:smokey:

hardeeharhar

11-09-2006, 06:00 PM

They'll likely lose MT, RI, VA and MO...and TN. They will win PA and OH.
They might even lose MD and NJ. They're not taking the Senate.

Quote the SDW "nevermore"...

And so we now see that if SDW predicts something, the exact opposite occurs... Don't get on his bad side, he might predict you will live happily ever after...

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 06:42 PM

And so we now see that if SDW predicts something, the exact opposite occurs... Don't get on his bad side, he might predict you will live happily ever after...

Dude, that's out of line and a cheap shot. Everyone can be wrong sometimes.

hardeeharhar

11-09-2006, 06:43 PM

It was a joke.

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 07:25 PM

It was a joke.

I'm not sure it was.

hardeeharhar

11-09-2006, 07:32 PM

I am the one who said it. It was a joke.

Mike Eggleston

11-09-2006, 07:54 PM

And so we now see that if SDW predicts something, the exact opposite occurs... Don't get on his bad side, he might predict you will live happily ever after...

That was in serious bad taste. If it was humor you were going after, you missed your mark.