NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberman was pretty much forced out of the dem party for being to positive about the war...He may lean right on most thing, score one for the good guys.

First-being against the war does not make one a bad guy, nor being for the war, really. Emotional appeal doesn't win arguments. There are no Men in White Hats or Men in Black Hats, in general, in America Politics.

And he may lean right on some things, but for the majority of the the time, he will likely go as the Democrats do. Hell, he would have swung to the right to begin with, Dem or not, on some issues. So, basically, it is, in all intensive purposes, a Dem win.

Recount. Please let the recount go to the good guys.

Ah, good ol' Men in White Hats, eh? Unfortunately, politics is rarely black and white, and more often than not shades of grey at best.

Ah, good ol' Men in White Hats, eh? Unfortunately, politics is rarely black and white, and more often than not shades of grey at best.

is it a rainbow, then?

does that make them gay?

Well, Liebermann is a former Dem, and will likely pretty much act as a Democract in all intensive purposes(And in the cases that he doesn't, he wouldn't have to begun with).

Not sure about the other guy, though.

He's a socialist. He's always Caucused with the dems in the past.

The good guys? :rolleyes:


Yes the good guys, the people you vote against. But to you all non-liberals are worse than Hitler correct? Am I correct? I'm correct aren't I?

Yes the good guys, the people you vote against. But to you all non-liberals are worse than Hitler correct? Am I correct? I'm correct aren't I?

No, your a flamebaiter.

Most "liberals" do not hate "conservatives", at least not true liberals and conservatives. Unfortunatley, these ideals exist in neither party. The Democrat party is most assuredly not liberal, and the Republican most assuredly not conservative. They both suck.

No, your a flamebaiter.

Most "liberals" do not hate "conservatives", at least not true liberals and conservatives. Unfortunatley, these ideals exist in neither party. The Democrat party is most assuredly not liberal, and the Republican most assuredly not conservative. They both suck.


I am not a flambaiter, just reading into his posts.

Yes the good guys, the people you vote against. But to you all non-liberals are worse than Hitler correct? Am I correct? I'm correct aren't I?
No, you are far, FAR from correct (and remember that warning the Mods gave you about saying such things?).

I'm just pointing out that there ISN'T any good guys, bad guys in this. There are poltical parties, some stances from both I agree with, others I disagree.

Fear me, for I AM your nightmare, I am the middle, the swing voter, who took the time to read and vote on the issues and, like other swingers, had more than enough of GOP control over the threee branches.

If I may invoke another knight, only a Sith sees things in black and white.

I am not a flambaiter, just reading into his posts.

No, you're creating huge hyperbole's to make him seem bad.

Instead of attacking him, or others, why don't you try arguing your points? Say what your positions are, and why you believe in them. What you want to do, to change, or to keep strong.

And not in this thread. This thread is about the Senate election. Please go discuss this stuff in another thread.

The Democrat in MO now has a 1 point lead.

Go Claire go Claire go Claire go! *crosses fingers*

Not sure about the other guy, though.

bernie has worked with the dems more and more closely in the house ever since the reps gained power and went fascist. he votes with them on procedural stuff and gets committee assignments through them. it'll be much the same in the senate.

Just read that there are three states left in play, and the Dems need three more seats. That means that if the Reps win even one state, they retain the Senate?

No, you are far, FAR from correct (and remember that warning the Mods gave you about saying such things?).

I'm just pointing out that there ISN'T any good guys, bad guys in this. There are poltical parties, some stances from both I agree with, others I disagree.

Fear me, for I AM your nightmare, I am the middle, the swing voter, who took the time to read and vote on the issues and, like other swingers, had more than enough of GOP control over the threee branches.

If I may invoke another knight, only a Sith sees things in black and white.


Then don't make such black and white statments. Your one line post was way too vague.

Just read that there are three states left in play, and the Dems need three more seats. That means that if the Reps win even one state, they retain the Senate?
Yup.

assuming Lieberman keeps his word

i don't trust the guy - he's been drinking far too much of the kool-aid for the past 7 years or so.

Just read that there are three states left in play, and the Dems need three more seats. That means that if the Reps win even one state, they retain the Senate?

correct, if the reps win virginia, missouri, or montana, they will retain the senate.

Right now dems lead (narrowly) in all 3.

Then don't make such black and white statments. Your one line post was way too vague.
Oh so? I wasn't aware that I did, beyond rolling my eyes at your black and white comment.

YOU were the one who went apeshite over THAT.

Yup.
Virginia looks like it's going to join Ohio and Florida in being the butt of elections jokes for the next month or so. MO is pulling away, and who knows about Montana.

Speaking of election jokes (and being in Japan) I better start getting that large shipment of Viagra ready just in case it's needed. :D

Sorry... just had to.

Just read that there are three states left in play, and the Dems need three more seats. That means that if the Reps win even one state, they retain the Senate?

if the reps win one seat, it's a tie in the senate.

I don't know what happens as far as 'majority leader' goes (or is that just in the house?), but if the senators all vote according to party (or caucus) lines, (leading to a tied vote in the senate), the vice president (Dick Cheney) casts the tiebreaking vote.

if the reps win one seat, it's a tie in the senate.

I don't know what happens as far as 'majority leader' goes (or is that just in the house?), but if the senators all vote according to party (or caucus) lines, (leading to a tied vote in the senate), the vice president (Dick Cheney) casts the tiebreaking vote.
Probably back to the power sharing agreement from 2000. The GOP maintains the Majority Leader position and committee chairs, Dems get equal members on committee and equal access to the budget, both get to advance legislation.

Talent just conceded the MO Senate race. The Democrats have taken another seat!

Talent just conceded the MO Senate race. The Democrats have taken another seat!

how do you figure? I heard that, it didn't sound like a concession.

Talent just conceded the MO Senate race. The Democrats have taken another seat!

where?

what is your source?

MO to Dem

where?

what is your source?

it was on ccn channel. They haven't officially called it, and he didn't say "I concede" but...he was pretty hang dog about it.

edit: woah, missouri JUST predicted for the democrats!

It's down to 2!

where?

what is your source?

just now MSNBC. Strong to MaCskill. It look like the dems will have a majority in both houses.

how do you figure? I heard that, it didn't sound like a concession.

Erm, the bit where he said, "I just called McCaskill and congratulated her on winning"?

McCaskill is also being interviewed right this instant on my local news, talking about Talent's concession. :)

it was on ccn channel. They haven't officially called it, and he didn't say "I concede" but...he was pretty hang dog about it.

edit: woah, missouri JUST predicted for the democrats!

It's down to 2!

gotcha.

I don't have a TV on right now, so I'm getting it all from cnn.com.

which is a few minutes behind whatever is being broadcast.

where?

what is your source?

I'm watching the local news as I type. (I live in MO.) I heard both speeches live. :)

Claire McCaskill (D) Defeats Sen. Jim Talent (R) in Missouri There goes another one...

Montana only has another 300 precincts to report, according to NPR. The count of voters remaining is therefore about 86,000 - it'd have to go 38-48 to go to a tie, and it's unlikely Conrad Burns will pull 55% from the remaining precincts when he's gotten 46% so far.

I'm thinking Montana will be called Democratic inside a half hour.

Montana only has another 300 precincts to report, according to NPR. The count of voters remaining is therefore about 86,000 - it'd have to go 38-48 to go to a tie, and it's unlikely Conrad Burns will pull 55% from the remaining precincts when he's gotten 46% so far.

I'm thinking Montana will be called Democratic inside a half hour.

agreed, that's the way it looks.

Montana only has another 300 precincts to report, according to NPR. The count of voters remaining is therefore about 86,000 - it'd have to go 38-48 to go to a tie, and it's unlikely Conrad Burns will pull 55% from the remaining precincts when he's gotten 46% so far.

I'm thinking Montana will be called Democratic inside a half hour.

so it all comes down to the Virginia recount.

joy.

So the whole thing is likely to rest on a recount in VA?

Wonderful...:rolleyes: :p

So the whole thing is likely to rest on a recount in VA?

Wonderful...:rolleyes: :p
Webb does have 10,000 more votes though, according to CNN.com.

So the whole thing is likely to rest on a recount in VA?

Wonderful...:rolleyes: :p

If Allen requests it, which he probably will, but maybe he'll take a lesson from Kerry and concede rather than drag the nation through another recount.

so it all comes down to the Virginia recount.

joy.

which will go democrat and give them majority. Generally I would be annoyed at this idea, but Iraq pisses me off too much right now and if the democrats are the ones that will get us out sooner, then I'm happy about tonight.

which will go democrat and give them majority. Generally I would annoyed at this idea, but Iraq pisses me off too much right now and if the democrats are the ones that will get us out sooner, then I'm happy about tonight.

while I agree that in the end virginia will likely go democrat, montana is still a total tossup.

Webb does have 10,000 more votes though, according to CNN.com.
Allen can request a recount if he's within 1% of the total votes cast for both candidates of Webb...which is approximately 23000. (According to NPR, anyway). (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6452788)

Allen can request a recount if he's within 1% of the total votes cast for both candidates of Webb...which is approximately 23000.

correct BUT with an 11.5 thousand vote lead, the question is whether the recount will actually matter.

Allen can request a recount if he's within 1% of the total votes cast for both candidates of Webb...which is approximately 23000.
Hmm... Yeah, Virgina will be the Ohio and Florida of 2006. Poor state.

which will go democrat and give them majority. Generally I would annoyed at this idea, but Iraq pisses me off too much right now and if the democrats are the ones that will get us out sooner, then I'm happy about tonight.

i'm just annoyed at all the drama that is associated with recounts.

does anyone know if the electronic machines in virginia leave a paper trail?

in a way, I'm hoping it doesn't. It's the only way for enough republicans to get pissed at the problem for everyone to pull together and fix it.

correct BUT with an 11.5 thousand vote lead, the question is whether the recount will actually matter.
True. Allen probably shouldn't bother if the margin's over 10,000.

Can the GOP force Allen to request a recount even if he wants to concede? Will it?

Can the GOP force Allen to request a recount even if he wants to concede? Will it?

can they? absolutely not. In fact if there's a big enough majority where it looks like a recount may be pointless, he may look better to walk away from it with his head high, rather than drag it out for days or weeks, perhaps even until the new year.

and the democrat's margin in montana has fallen to 50% to 47%.

STill in the lead, but falling, with 70% of precincts reporting.

and the democrat's margin in montana has fallen to 50% to 47%.

STill in the lead, but falling, with 70% of precincts reporting.

I have a great feeling Tester will hold on.

I have a great feeling Tester will hold on.

that's my hope. If he does, and with an over 11 thousand vote margin in virginia, this will be the democrat's senate.

Hopefully the dems will win both houses, then Dubya will be the lame duck president for the rest of his term, and they can launch all sorts of investigations into party members.

Webb has Virginia with 99% of precincts reporting.

Tester has about 50% with 73% reporting.

I can't watch... Within 7000 votes in Montana now...

C'mon Tester...

can they? absolutely not. In fact if there's a big enough majority where it looks like a recount may be pointless, he may look better to walk away from it with his head high, rather than drag it out for days or weeks, perhaps even until the new year.

Well, if the margin is .5% or lower in Virginia, then the state will pay for it. Why not go for it? However, if it is higher, the candidate must pay for it.

Would be ironic, though, if the Republicans get all huffy about a recount in Virginia, if ya think about?

Well, if the margin is .5% or lower in Virginia, then the state will pay for it. Why not go for it? However, if it is higher, the candidate must pay for it.

Would be ironic, though, if the Republicans get all huffy about a recount in Virginia, if ya think about?

Been there, done that. They did it in Washington in 2004.

Well, if the margin is .5% or lower in Virginia, then the state will pay for it. Why not go for it?


Would be ironic, though, if the Republicans get all huffy about a recount in Virginia, if ya think about?

That's why not. Do you risk your reputation delaying election results for a month or more in an almost hopeless attempt to pick up 11 thousand votes, or do you look to the better interests of the nation, and bow out?

That's why not. Do you risk your reputation delaying election results for a month or more in an almost hopeless attempt to pick up 11 thousand votes, or do you look to the better interests of the nation, and bow out?

Eh, I didn't like it when Kerry did it, I won't ask Allen to do it.

But it would be nice if he did, just for the solid assurance of Democratic control - assuming Tester wins, anyway.

Eh, I didn't like it when Kerry did it, I won't ask Allen to do it.

But it would be nice if he did, just for the solid assurance of Democratic control - assuming Tester wins, anyway.

Kerry asked for a recount? I thought he just wanted all the votes in before the Repubs decled a victory.

Kerry asked for a recount?

No, he didn't. And in '04 it infuriated me.

Oh my god! I've time traveled!

70% of precincts?

Why did it go down?! It was 74% before!!!!

Oh my god! I've time traveled!

70% of precincts?
You on the CNN website? I could've sworn it said 74% a few minutes ago as well...

NPR says 640 of 867 precincts reporting...which is 74% if my calculator is right.

Edit: Thank fuck. I thought I was having a hallucination from a lack of sleep.

WHAT THE HELL? It says 74% again!

No, he didn't. And in '04 it infuriated me.

Ah, I see. I thought you were saying that he HAD wanted a recount, but you glad he didn't. Confused me for a second.

And really, in an election so close as that, with a state so close as that, a recount may have been in order. But that's just me.

WHAT THE HELL? It says 74% again!
Although with 10,000 votes fewer for both Tester and Burns than is shown here. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2006/general/by_state/sen_gov/MT.html?SITE=NPR&SECTION=POLITICS&TABULATE=1)

This is bull. I'm not going to sleep until Montana is finished!!!!

This is bull. I'm not going to sleep until Montana is finished!!!!

wish I could.

I have a calc test tomorrow that I'm preparing for.

Anyone know anything about Differential Equations?

(i'm kidding. please don't take this as an opportunity to derail the thread)

This is bull. I'm not going to sleep until Montana is finished!!!!
Same here. And I've been up since this time yesterday. Why do I do this to myself?

Ahhh! NPR just knocked their figures down as well! It's a plot to make me go crazy...

*gibbers*

wish I could.

I have a calc test tomorrow that I'm preparing for.

Anyone know anything about Differential Equations?

(i'm kidding. please don't take this as an opportunity to derail the thread)

If you were to ask me a year ago, I'd go into a long, derived explanation, regardless of how it tangents. However now, my brain has gone mushy in the Calc deparment.

And even though I'm really tired, I'm going to try and wait this out.

Go Tester go! Come on!

Ahhh! NPR just knocked their figures down as well! It's a plot to make me go crazy...

Perhaps a few precincts were reported twice?

75% reporting. Yessss, yessss. I'm so damn tired, OMG. Hurry uppppppp!

I love how there's the various sundry Democrats saying "no, there's no need for a recount; recounts are bad; you can't do a recount; stop whining, no recounts" for Virginia, but everyone just knows that if it were the other way around, they'd be shrieking up and down like children, demanding as many recounts as it takes to get their man in office.

I hate the infantilism of politics.

I love how there's the various sundry Democrats saying "no, there's no need for a recount; recounts are bad; you can't do a recount; stop whining, no recounts" for Virginia, but everyone just knows that if it were the other way around, they'd be shrieking up and down like children, demanding as many recounts as it takes to get their man in office.

I hate the infantilism of politics.

oh if he wants a recount he has the legal right to do it, no doubt about it. I just question whether it'll actually do anything.

I thought that a recount was automatic if it was under 1%, so it would be moot who wanted it. If it is really close then their probably should be one, just in case.

I thought that a recount was automatic if it was under 1%, so it would be moot who wanted it. If it is really close then their probably should be one, just in case.

In Virginia, it has to be half a percent or less for the state to pay for it(upon request, of course), and if above it has to be payed for by the candidate.

Really, in Virginia you could ask for a recount if there were a 20% margin, as long as you pay for it.

I love how there's the various sundry Democrats saying "no, there's no need for a recount; recounts are bad; you can't do a recount; stop whining, no recounts" for Virginia, but everyone just knows that if it were the other way around, they'd be shrieking up and down like children, demanding as many recounts as it takes to get their man in office.

I hate the infantilism of politics.

Because that happened in 2004, right?

When a canidate "wins" with a smaller percent of the popular vote for the third time in history, ala 2000, theres a larger reason to have a recount.

Because that happened in 2004, right?

When a canidate "wins" with a smaller percent of the popular vote for the third time in history, ala 2000, theres a larger reason to have a recount.

I recall a great many Democrats that were quite upset with Kerry not calling for a recall and an even larger amount of them that declared the election "stolen."

(and, once again, popular vote doesn't elect the President)

79% reporting. Tester leading by 2% still. Come on!

I recall a great many Democrats that were quite upset with Kerry not calling for a recall and an even larger amount of them that declared the election "stolen."

(and, once again, popular vote doesn't elect the President)

I don't like these 'hive mind' condemnations. The "I recall a great many" so then condemning the group that are talking now. Republicans nor Democrats get their instructions from a scent trail-you have a specific person who made a stink over 2004 and then is dismissing a call for a recount now, call that person out. But this "I recall a great many" so anyone who says anything now has to defend the "great many" you recall like they where them, that's just stupid.

I recall a great many Democrats that were quite upset with Kerry not calling for a recall and an even larger amount of them that declared the election "stolen."

(and, once again, popular vote doesn't elect the President)

Florida was also a very close state, with some suspicious voting patterns.

I'm not against recounts, at all, btw. I would just find it ironic if the Repubs get all huffy about how they want a recount, that's all. It would be funny how things turned about.

I don't like these 'hive mind' condemnations. The "I recall a great many" so then condemning the group that are talking now. Republicans nor Democrats get their instructions from a scent trail-you have a specific person who made a stink over 2004 and then is dismissing a call for a recount now, call that person out. But this "I recall a great many" so anyone who says anything now has to defend the "great many" you recall like they where them, that's just stupid.

I wasn't even talking about anyone from NSG. Calm down, row-bit. Check places like the DU--there you'll find the "great many people" I recall.

I'm not asking you to defend anything. That was a blanket statement of opinion from myself. It wasn't even asking for a reply. Oye.

Florida was also a very close state, with some suspicious voting patterns.

I'm not against recounts, at all, btw. I would just find it ironic if the Repubs get all huffy about how they want a recount, that's all. It would be funny how things turned about.

Aye, Florida was a close state. Suspicious? Perhaps. I think it's hilarious, though, that fourth graders could understand the ballots in Florida just fine, but the voters couldn't ("I voted for Buchanen on accident, oh noes!").

I, too, would find it ironic if the GOP pulled an Al Gore and threw a hissy fit over VA. If Allen has lost, then he's lost. Enough of this recount bullshit--unless there's a valid reason to require a recount.

come on tester! MSNBC says 90% that dems will take both houses. No sleep til its decided!

Can somebody please tell the Montanan(?) and Virginian volunteers to count them ballots faster? I want my sleep, but I want to know who's getting the Senate more.

They've all probably fallen asleep in Virginia. It's 4:02 in the mornin', lol.

I wasn't even talking about anyone from NSG. Calm down, row-bit. Check places like the DU--there you'll find the "great many people" I recall.

I'm not asking you to defend anything. That was a blanket statement of opinion from myself. It wasn't even asking for a reply. Oye.

First, you suck at guessing my level of excitement.

Second, what I said stands if you where talking about NSG, DU, or the guys who have meetings next to your trash cans at midnight. It was a generic blanket statement that allows you to throw that blanket on anyone else. It's still stupid.

They've all probably fallen asleep in Virginia. It's 4:02 in the mornin', lol.

well, it's 3:04 here, and I'm still awake.

(considering staying awake until the test in 6 hours.)



but does anyone here know what kind of machines they have over in montana?

was there a computer problem, or are we waiting for half a dozen people to make out some old geezer's handwriting?

I think they're using the old machines.

Come the hell on Montana! 83% reporting, Tester ahead by 1%.

Here's the current status as far as I can see:


Virginia:

Webb is 8,000 ahead of Allen, with 4 precincts left to report.


Montana:

Tester is 4,000 ahead of Burns, with 136 precincts left to report.

Well, looks like I'll be adding the United States to my Enemies Map.

Well, looks like I'll be adding the United States to my Enemies Map.

You so need to post a pic of this enemies map.

You so need to post a pic of this enemies map.

As is requested, it shall be done.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7552/enemiesmaprm0.th.png (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enemiesmaprm0.png)

Red is communists, green is muslims, brown is major grudges and policy disagreements, orange is minor grudges.

so we're a communist nation now? :p

how in the world can a USA with a democrat-controlled congress (if/when the dems win the last two seats) be considered communist, and Canada and Sweden aren't? :p

so we're a communist nation now? :p

Yeah, you were orange before. Congratulations, you got promoted, skipped right over brown.

how in the world can a USA with a democrat-controlled congress (if/when the dems win the last two seats) be considered communist, and Canada and Sweden aren't? :p

Canada has Harper, and Sweden is just in ruins anyway.

As is requested, it shall be done.

http://img86.imageshack.us/img86/7552/enemiesmaprm0.th.png (http://img86.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enemiesmaprm0.png)

Red is communists, green is muslims, brown is major grudges and policy disagreements, orange is minor grudges.

Woohoo, Ireland are grey!

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it's something to consider. I know the Republicans are considering it. Only one third of the Senate was up for election. 40 Republican seats and 27 Democratic seats were not up for grabs at all. Imagine if they were!

In 2008, another 1/3rd of the Senate goes up for grabs. Even if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, they have to seriously heed the message their constituents are sending them if they wan't to keep their jobs.

Whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the senate, the message has been sent. *nod*

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it's something to consider. I know the Republicans are considering it. Only one third of the Senate was up for election. 40 Republican seats and 27 Democratic seats were not up for grabs at all. Imagine if they were!

In 2008, another 1/3rd of the Senate goes up for grabs. Even if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, they have to seriously heed the message their constituents are sending them if they wan't to keep their jobs.

Whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the senate, the message has been sent. *nod*

How is it that at times you seem to be both the most irrational AND the most rational poster here? :)

How is it that at times you seem to be both the most irrational AND the most rational poster here? :)

I like to keep people on their toes. :)

I like to keep people on their toes. :)

then consider my toes...kept on?

I think?


that didn't come out right...

anyway: new information on the senate

according to CNN, in Montana:

Tester is in the lead by 2,700, with 90% of the precincts reporting

not much change in Virginia:

Webb still in the lead by a little less than 8,000, with 99% of the precincts reporting.

I like to keep people on their toes. :)

*nods* people standing on thier toes are less able to resist tackling.

anyway: new information on the senate

according to CNN, in Montana:

Tester is in the lead by 2,700, with 90% of the precincts reporting

not much change in Virginia:

Webb still in the lead by a little less than 8,000, with 99% of the precincts reporting.

For the running tally, Burns has picked up 1000 votes in Montana, with 91% of precincts reporting.

Latest numbers in Montana with 99% of precincts counted:

Tester 190,486 49%

Burns 188,900 48%

Well, looks like I'll be adding the United States to my Enemies Map.

Just when I think you can't act any more childish, BAM! An enemies map.

Just when I think you can't act any more childish, BAM! An enemies map.

It's not childish. It's a good way to keep track of who I like and who I don't like and where I'm not going.

It's not childish. It's a good way to keep track of who I like and who I don't like and where I'm not going.

Do you keep a list of people who were mean to you in grade school too?

Woo ... what a squeaker!

Oh, and let's not forget provisional votes, folks. Even if all the ballots have been counted, the provisional votes may not have been tallied yet and, thus, the Sec. of State cannot declare.

Patience, my pretties.

How is it that at times you seem to be both the most irrational AND the most rational poster here? :)

Because in a world led by the insane, the goofballs are the only sane ones left.

Because in a world led by the insane, the goofballs are the only sane ones left.

Hmm, that's sig-able.

Let's see...I had a really pessimistic outlook on the Senate race this year and had the GOP picking up a seat. Looks like that didn't happen, and the GOP is clinging to a tepid majority.

My predictions against the actual outcomes:

AZ - Kyl (R), 54-45 (Kyl won, 53-44...almost dead-on)
CA - Feinstein (D), 61-38 (Feinstein won 60-35...again, really close)
CT - Lieberman, 49-40 (Lieverman won 50-40...so close)
DE - Carper (D), 69-30 (Carper won 70-29...almost exact...)
FL - Nelson (D), 57-42 (Nelson won 60-38...even bigger than I thought)
HI - Akaka (D), 74-25 (Akaka won 61-37)
IN - Lugar (R), unopposed (As if this was in question)
ME - Snowe (R), 76-23 (it was actually 73-21...not close)
MD - Steele (R), 51-48 (Cardin actually won this one 54-44...first one I got wrong)
MA - Kennedy (D), 65-34 (actually 69-31...gave Teddy's opponent too much credit)
MI - Stabenow (D), 55-44 (actually 57-41)
MN - Klobuchar (D), 58-41 (Klobuchar won 58-38...so close)
MS - Lott (R), 69-30 (Lott won 64-35)
MO - Talent (R), 50-49 (McCaskill actually won 49-47, but her majority seems pretty limited)
MT - Burns (R), 50-49 (as of now, it's dead even at 49-all...could go either way)
NE - Nelson (D), 59-40 (Nelson won 64-36)
NV - Ensign (R), 56-43 (Ensign won 55-41...Jimmy Carter's kid didn't have a chance)
NJ - Kean (R), 50-49 (this one went to Menendez 53-45...wrong again)
NM - Bingaman (D), 59-40 (went to Bingaman 70-30...can't the GOP get anything in this state? I'm so moving there)
NY - Clinton (D), 62-37 (actually 67-31...just like Teddy's opponent, Hillary's foe got too much credit from me)
ND - Conrad (D), 61-38 (actually 69-30...for a red state, ND's politicians look awfully blue to me)
OH - DeWine (R), 52-47 (Sherrod Brown pulled it off, 56-44...I've never been so happy to be wrong in my life)
PA - Santorum (R), 51-48 (until this point, that is...Snatorum went down 59-41 to Bob Casey. Heh heh, I said "went down" in reference to Rick Santorum...)
RI - Whitehouse (D), 53-46 (actually 53-47...so I was right again)
TN - Corker (R), 52-47 (actually 51-48...)
TX - Hutchison (R), 62-37 (actually 62-36...close but no cigar)
UT - Hatch (R), 67-32 (only 63-31 for him...are people that ticked at him?)
VT - Sanders, 61-38 (actually 65-32...that GOP guy lost 2-1 to a fucking independent candidate...what a loser)
VA - Allen (R), 51-48 (Webb's actually up 50-49...and Macaca might go down. Along with Santorum.)
WA - Cantwell (D), 52-47 (won 58-39...did all those GOP people forget how to vote yesterday?)
WV - Byrd (D), 65-34 (actually 64-34...as if anyone was beating this old geezer)
WI - Kohl (D), 67-32 (close...67-30 actually.)
WY - Thomas (R), 71-28 (actually 70-30...the GOP got one blowout. Well, three if you count TX and UT. Oh yeah, and ME. I don't count NV; Ensign should have cannon-blasted Carter and only AK-47'd him.)

Wow. I got six wrong. Seven if you count MT. All in the same direction, of course. Maybe I should stop giving the GOP so much credit. They really phoned it in this year.

When there were less than 100 votes separating Al Gore and George W Bush in 2000 the people in the Bush camp were screaming "Sore-Loserman" at the Democratic Ticket and demanding they concede. Should the Democrats now take the same stance and demand that Blacka and Macaca submit to the will of the people? Webb won by nearly 2,000 votes, with the Tester vote being closer. A recount will not change the Webb vote and most likely wouldn't affect the Tester vote either. This settles it right? We now have a Democratic House and Senate. This is not because the Democrats are great but because W and the Republicans were so bad. Getting drunk on your own power always leads to bad things, but not always touching little boys.

what's very interesting is even though Webb is winning by more VOTES in virginia then Tester is winning by more VOTES in Montana, you look at the margin by percentage of votes, Tester actually has a wider lead.

Webb has 4.5 times as many votes in his margin than Tester has, BUT 2.4 million votes overall were cast in virginia and only 400,000 in Montana, so while Tester has a 1735 lead versus Webb's 7874, that 1735 actually represents a bigger percentile lead than Webb's 7847. Webb has 4.5 times as many VOTES in Virginia, however six times as many votes in virginia were cast overall. Which means that mathematically Tester's position is in fact MORE secure than Webb's, even though the lead looks smaller.

Both less than 1% however, while Tester's margin seems MUCH smaller, and more likely to flip, remember that mathematically he has a bigger lead as a percentage of actual voters than Webb does.

How so? That cocksucker was in the Ku Klux Klan? You can't spin that to be good by any stretch of the imagination.

George Allan, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, need I go on as your hypocrisy is showing? Hell, and that's just on race. Mark Foley, Bob Ney, The former governor of Conn., Mr. Taft from Ohio, White House chief procurement officer found guilty... and the hits just keep on coming. Don't give me your holier than thou crap... Oh yeah if we're going that root, Mr Haggard "the horrible drug addict with a penchacnt for gay hookers."

When there were less than 100 votes separating Al Gore and George W Bush in 2000 the people in the Bush camp were screaming "Sore-Loserman" at the Democratic Ticket and demanding they concede. Should the Democrats now take the same stance and demand that Blacka and Macaca submit to the will of the people?

This is what I've been saying all along, and it's a big problem with the republican party. Their actions in 2000 when they basically went "haha we won" and declared victory before the votes were all in, and before the recount had begun, and lambasted the democrats for still insisting the count go on will turn around and bite them in the ass.

They now have the option of either looking like hypocrits, clinging to a desperate, vain hope that somewhere, SOMEWHERE In virginia there's an extra 8,000 votes for them, while suffering the same jeers that they heaped out before, or concede defeat, back out, and walk away from the very slim chance that they might have held on to the senate.

Who do I support that gets worse ratings on race relations? Please, tell me?

he wrote that to idf, not you.

That's not going to happen. Tennessee and Virginia will both likely go Republican. I bet MO does too.

errrrrrrrhhhhheeeeerrrr, save your money on the bets

Yeah I'm hoping they'll ask for a recount. It's a 1% difference with, what, a 3% margin of error?

margin of error is for polls, not official vote counts. providing the voting machines work there should be 0 error.

margin of error is for polls, not official vote counts. providing the voting machines work there should be 0 error.

yea: it's like a game of darts.

the dart might be a few points off, but the board is never wrong.

I wouldn't use that line if it wasn't true. Dems do want to cut and run, its just a sad fact.

blah blah, you used canned rhetoric so we know where you stand. There have been several Democratic proposals put out there and none of them, except one, involves cutting and running. Most employ deadlines for political and security standards. You wouldn't know that if all you do is listen to Bush stump speeches, but you would if you watched or read C-SPAN transcripts. That would require more than a mild interest in the issues, which unfortunately most Americans do not have.

This is what I've been saying all along, and it's a big problem with the republican party. Their actions in 2000 when they basically went "haha we won" and declared victory before the votes were all in, and before the recount had begun, and lambasted the democrats for still insisting the count go on will turn around and bite them in the ass.

They now have the option of either looking like hypocrits, clinging to a desperate, vain hope that somewhere, SOMEWHERE In virginia there's an extra 8,000 votes for them, while suffering the same jeers that they heaped out before, or concede defeat, back out, and walk away from the very slim chance that they might have held on to the senate.

Somehow I doubt the republicans are afraid of being hypocrites. The public has a short memory so they can shout for a recount while ignoring the fact that they attacked Dems for wanting the same thing in 2000. They will count on no one remembering the past.

Somehow I doubt the republicans are afraid of being hypocrites. The public has a short memory so they can shout for a recount while ignoring the fact that they attacked Dems for wanting the same thing in 2000. They will count on no one remembering the past.

That was their thinking last night, and it cost them dearly. Don't for one second think that the Republican party doesn't recognize QUITE clearly that this vote was effectively 1994 in reverse, and they slid into the very same corruption and scandal that they claimed to be combatting when they took the house the first time 12 years ago.

For 12 years they've played the line about reform, and bringing a corruption free majority back to Congress, and people believed it. And it is those same people who believed in the republican message that abandoned them last night, in droves.

Don't think that the republican leadership doesn't recognize this.

he wrote that to idf, not you.

I believe it was my post he was quoting when he said that.

The problem that the Republicans face now is that complete hand recounts favor Democratic candidates.

Something about the higher percentage of spoiled ballots in minority districts.

The problem that the Republicans face now is that complete hand recounts favor Democratic candidates.

Something about the higher percentage of spoiled ballots in minority districts.

you know, I was just thinking this yesterday. Call it coincidence, call it conspiracy, call it what you will. On average the votes that tend not to get counted in a vote but would be picked up by a hand recount are typically majority for democrats.

wooooah boy.

According to CNN, the most recent numbers in Montana are

Tesser (D) 198,032
Burns (R) 194,904

Tesser's 1700 vote lead now has become a 3100 point lead.

Then don't make such black and white statments. Your one line post was way too vague.

You mean the singular word question of usage he asked you after your posting of "Please let the recount go to the good guys." to give you the opportunity to qualify the term "good guys" which was left unqualified BY YOU previously?

The problem that the Republicans face now is that complete hand recounts favor Democratic candidates.

Something about the higher percentage of spoiled ballots in minority districts.

Because poor people have no fucking clue how to punch a hole or fill in an oval.

49-48 in senate, now thats close.

does anyone here know how many people live in Meagher county, Montana?

that's the only county with 0% precincts reporting, and I have a feeling that when it reports, Montana will be decided.

the question is: are there enough people there to sway the vote?

or is the 3,000 vote lead in Montana safe?

pop around 2000( at least it was that 6 yrs ago), 3000 lead should be safe.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but it's something to consider. I know the Republicans are considering it. Only one third of the Senate was up for election. 40 Republican seats and 27 Democratic seats were not up for grabs at all. Imagine if they were!

In 2008, another 1/3rd of the Senate goes up for grabs. Even if the Republicans maintain control of the Senate, they have to seriously heed the message their constituents are sending them if they wan't to keep their jobs.

Whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the senate, the message has been sent. *nod*
This is the part that really counts.

Back in his first election, Bush barely squeaked through, even with all the fraud, yet he stood up in his victory speech and claimed a mandate and that the people had sent a message, which was the most insulting bull of that entire fiasco.

Well, this time a message really has been sent, and that message is, "*SLAP!* Get back in line, maggots! You work for us, not the other way around. You don't own our votes, and you don't get to gerrymander your way into some bullshit 'permanent majority.'" The way this went, I am sure the surviving Republicans must be feeling pretty shaken, and this will strengthen moderate Republicans in taking back their party.

I am happy with these results (and I had been very pessimistic beforehand). If the Dems get control of the Senate, it may be possible to undo some of Bush's damage more quickly, but a divided Congress is better in the long run. It will check-&-balance both the executive branch and itself. No more rubber-stamping, no more Tom "The Hammer" Delay style vote-extortion.

Democrats take Montana according to news if they also take Virginia Democrats will control both the Senate and the house. Rummsfield steps down from secretary of defense.

Here's a creepy thing now. Bush is set to deliver a press conference. In that press conference he is expected to announce the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

The creepy part is that it seems likely to me that he will pick Joe Liberman to replace him, allowing the repo governor of CN to appoint a new senator. I wonder what party that person would be from...

Democrats take Montana according to news if they also take Virginia Democrats will control both the Senate and the house.

Saw that, the AP is calling the Montana race for the Democrats. Virginia will be recounted pretty much automatically unless the margin goes over 11,000 votes, so it could be weeks before we have a result on that one. I did hear it said over and over last night that going into a recount ahead usually means you're going to win.

This is what I've been saying all along, and it's a big problem with the republican party. Their actions in 2000 when they basically went "haha we won" and declared victory before the votes were all in, and before the recount had begun, and lambasted the democrats for still insisting the count go on will turn around and bite them in the ass.

They now have the option of either looking like hypocrits, clinging to a desperate, vain hope that somewhere, SOMEWHERE In virginia there's an extra 8,000 votes for them, while suffering the same jeers that they heaped out before, or concede defeat, back out, and walk away from the very slim chance that they might have held on to the senate.
Why would they balk at that? It's their standard operating procedure, isn't it?


Somehow I doubt the republicans are afraid of being hypocrites. The public has a short memory so they can shout for a recount while ignoring the fact that they attacked Dems for wanting the same thing in 2000. They will count on no one remembering the past.
Precisely. Remember how it turned out they never said "Stay the course"?

Sometime last night, on MSNBC, Keith Olberman suggested to Chris Matthews that, if the Dems take Montana, then it would seem that the Republican party would have to insist on Allen demanding a recount in Virginia, even if the party had to pony up all the money for it (because over a certain percentage, the candidate demanding the recount has to pay for it). He said this in the context of wondering just how much they want to hold onto power. But no matter how much they insist, the request still has to come from Allen personally.

So, how crazy would the universe be if, after all his bullshit, the fate of the nation comes down to the ballsiness of George "Macaca" Allen?

pop around 2000, 3000 lead should be safe.

so is there any particular reason Montana hasn't been declared yet?

I mean: it's the only county with unreported precincts, and If it really only has a few thousand people in it...

Montana was just declared for Democrats (at least on NPR) which now leaves Virginia...*cue suspensful music*

*breathing a heavy sigh of relief*

Watching the Bush press conference now. Liberman will not be SoD, instead it will be Bob Gates, former CIA director.

Oh goody, a Democrat controlled House. Now, if we can get those last seats in the Senate, I can check "Democrat controlled government" off my Gay Agenda list and get busy on going after America's children. Ugh, so much to do!

*breathing a heavy sigh of relief*

Watching the Bush press conference now. Liberman will not be SoD, instead it will be Bob Gates, former CIA director.

I wonder what his background is in this sort of thing...makes sense to have a CIA guy run it, but I just hope he's better than Rumsfeld...

I wonder what his background is in this sort of thing...makes sense to have a CIA guy run it, but I just hope he's better than Rumsfeld...

He was CIA director under Clinton ('91-'93), I'm trying to find more about him now.

EDIT: Here we go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates)

Here's a creepy thing now. Bush is set to deliver a press conference. In that press conference he is expected to announce the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld.

The creepy part is that it seems likely to me that he will pick Joe Liberman to replace him, allowing the repo governor of CN to appoint a new senator. I wonder what party that person would be from...
Okay, you just made me feel sick to my stomach.

Because I'd totally believe Joe Leiberman's part in this scenario. The reason that bastard lost the Democratic nomination is because he's a fucking double-agent (figuratively). He a Rep in Dem clothing and always has been, and he routinely sabotages Dem initiatives.

Goddammit, your scenario is just the sort of schoolyard Macchiavellianism that Rove would come up with. But we can hope that Lieberman, who is a self-serving dirtbag, will put his own interests firsts. He got elected because the CT voters felt loyalty to him for saving their military bases, the loss of which would have hurt the state considerably. But, if CT matches the overall mood of the nation, then they will want to see him show more loyalty to them than to the president. If Lieberman is as ambitious as I think he is, he would do well to turn down such an appointment from Bush.

*breathing a heavy sigh of relief*

Watching the Bush press conference now. Liberman will not be SoD, instead it will be Bob Gates, former CIA director.
Whew. *safe to eat lunch now.*

Okay, you just made me feel sick to my stomach.

Because I'd totally believe Joe Leiberman's part in this scenario. The reason that bastard lost the Democratic nomination is because he's a fucking double-agent (figuratively). He a Rep in Dem clothing and always has been, and he routinely sabotages Dem initiatives.

Goddammit, your scenario is just the sort of schoolyard Macchiavellianism that Rove would come up with. But we can hope that Lieberman, who is a self-serving dirtbag, will put his own interests firsts. He got elected because the CT voters felt loyalty to him for saving their military bases, the loss of which would have hurt the state considerably. But, if CT matches the overall mood of the nation, then they will want to see him show more loyalty to them than to the president. If Lieberman is as ambitious as I think he is, he would do well to turn down such an appointment from Bush.


Now the CT race is a win/win, Liberman will caucus with the dems for the majority, and he won't be able to go on FAUX news as a dem, and udercut other dems.

I wonder what his background is in this sort of thing...makes sense to have a CIA guy run it, but I just hope he's better than Rumsfeld...
I don't see how it makes sense to put a CIA guy in charge of the Pentagon, unless Bush wants another SoD to give the generals a hard time about torturing prisoners, since that is against military law/procedures but the CIA is notorious for it.

According to his Wiki article, he seems to have no background for running the military at all. He's a career spook and yet another appointee with a personal background of connections to the Bush family. He does have some organizational and supervisory skills (Texas A&M), but otherwise, he's just another Bush appointee like all the other Bush appointees. This is just a change of window-dressing.

Oh, but he was an Eagle Scout.

And he may add some irony to Bush's last years. Favorite quote from Wiki article:

"I also enjoy cultivating shrubberies" -- Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Now the CT race is a win/win, Liberman will caucus with the dems for the majority, and he won't be able to go on FAUX news as a dem, and udercut other dems.
Good point.

I don't see how it makes sense to put a CIA guy in charge of the Pentagon, unless Bush wants another SoD to give the generals a hard time about torturing prisoners, since that is against military law/procedures but the CIA is notorious for it.

According to his Wiki article, he seems to have no background for running the military at all. He's a career spook and yet another appointee with a personal background of connections to the Bush family. He does have some organizational and supervisory skills (Texas A&M), but otherwise, he's just another Bush appointee like all the other Bush appointees. This is just a change of window-dressing.

Oh, but he was an Eagle Scout.

And he may add some irony to Bush's last years. Favorite quote from Wiki article:

"I also enjoy cultivating shrubberies" -- Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

Shrubberies?!??! :eek:

Gates may not be a wonderful choice (as if Bush could make one), and his connections to the Bush Family, well, that's just how things work in this Administration, but it's so pleasing to have Rumsfeld going. Especially after the rousing vote of support the Shrub in Chief gave him and Cheney last week.

Damn McCaskill won, I DEMAND A RECOUNT!

Damn McCaskill won, I DEMAND A RECOUNT!

You might want to rethink that, she's ahead by over 40,000 votes.

Shrubberies?!??! :eek:

Gates may not be a wonderful choice (as if Bush could make one), and his connections to the Bush Family, well, that's just how things work in this Administration, but it's so pleasing to have Rumsfeld going. Especially after the rousing vote of support the Shrub in Chief gave him and Cheney last week.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm crazy happy to see the back of Don Rumsfeld. I wish him all the best and sincerely hope the door doesn't hit him in the ass on the way out. Case closed. Time to start vivisecting the next loser.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm crazy happy to see the back of Don Rumsfeld. I wish him all the best and sincerely hope the door doesn't hit in the ass on the way out. Case closed. Time to start vivisecting the next loser.

Oooh, that's right, Gates has to go before the Senate, doesn't he? I suppose they'll try for a confirmation now, better than waiting until January.

Oooh, that's right, Gates has to go before the Senate, doesn't he? I suppose they'll try for a confirmation now, better than waiting until January.
Ya think? This is going to be the busiest time in Congress we've seen in many a year, I expect.

"I also enjoy cultivating shrubberies" -- Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense

And also cutting down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring. Ni!

Ya think? This is going to be the busiest time in Congress we've seen in many a year, I expect.

I wonder how many points in Fantasy Congress we get for confirmation hearings?

And also cutting down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring. Ni!

Otherwise known as "adapting to win" (formerly known as "staying the course"). Ni! :D

You might want to rethink that, she's ahead by over 40,000 votes.

Her Henchpeople Stuffed The Ballot Box I say! RECOUNT! RECOUNT!

Her Henchpeople Stuffed The Ballot Box I say! RECOUNT! RECOUNT!

Stealing elections is a time-honored American tradition and if true, I am glad the Democrats finally remembered how to do it. Why should the Republicans have all the fun? :p

I wonder how many points in Fantasy Congress we get for confirmation hearings?
I haven't been keeping up with Fantasy Congress here because, you know, I've been watching one on C-SPAN & C-SPAN2 for years. The really exciting part is going to be watching all those fat, lazy bastards shift their asses and actually show up for work.

Damn McCaskill won, I DEMAND A RECOUNT!

She won by a solid 40,000 votes well over 2%, there's not gonna be a recount.

*nods* people standing on thier toes are less able to resist tackling.

Exactly. :)

Lieberman WILL win, but it won't matter much as he's already said he'll caucus with the democrats.

Hopefully the Democrats will win enough Senate seats that they can tell him where to stick his caucus. Unfortunately, they'll probably let him in.

Are we still waiting on Virgina's count?

At work and so far VA is still counting according to sites...

Virginia isn't finished counting, but Webb has the lead still.

Virginia isn't finished counting, but Webb has the lead still.

by 1% I believe...

so it's a close one... :cool:

*thinks*

so the last three elections... there has been one state that holds everything up...

it's a conspiracy... :)

by 1% I believe...

so it's a close one... :cool:

*thinks*

so the last three elections... there has been one state that holds everything up...

it's a conspiracy... :)

I think if a state can't certify a winner in federal races within, say, 24 hours after the polls close, they should have to sit out the next election for that post.

I think if a state can't certify a winner in federal races within, say, 24 hours after the polls close, they should have to sit out the next election for that post.
LOL... or Diebold takes over their next election! :p

I wonder what his background is in this sort of thing...makes sense to have a CIA guy run it, but I just hope he's better than Rumsfeld...

One would think about anyone would be better then old Rummy. Gates is ex-CIA so maybe we will see something other then a simple blunt instrument now when it comes to Iraq and fighting terrorism.

I think if a state can't certify a winner in federal races within, say, 24 hours after the polls close, they should have to sit out the next election for that post.

No, their next "election" will be a duel to the death! Two men enter, one man leaves! Two men enter, one man leaves!

No, their next "election" will be a duel to the death! Two men enter, one man leaves! Two men enter, one man leaves!

How barbaric! Better just to put Allen's and Webb's name in a hat and draw out the winner. Very quaint and simplistic. No bullshit recounts and waiting weeks on end while the two sides scream at each other. Luck will determine who wins! 50-50 shot of winning is probably better then what Allen will get anyway if the numbers continue and he challanges the results.

LOL... or Diebold takes over their next election! :p

Before in America, you punched ballot. In post-2006 America, ballot punches you!

Before in America, you punched ballot. In post-2006 America, ballot punches you!

LOL...

as long as the Chad jokes stopped.

in our RPG world, our village had a family named Chad.

so yes, the little girl was known for her dimpled smile, the father was caught stealing and ended up hanging
the mother was pregnant (another term that was used for dimpled)
the eldest son was caught in a bar fight and was punched out...

by 1% I believe...

so it's a close one... :cool:

*thinks*

so the last three elections... there has been one state that holds everything up...

it's a conspiracy... :)

To be techinical, what exactly are they holding up? The only thing I can think of is the results considering the new House and Senate isn't in effect until January 1.

To be techinical, what exactly are they holding up? The only thing I can think of is the results considering the new House and Senate isn't in effect until January 1.

We want to do the Evil Liberal Triumph Death-To-Neocons Dance in the streets while the weather is still nice. Otherwise we'll have to rent a hall and that'll suck. :p

I voted Charlie Crist (R) for Governor of Florida which in fact won.
I also voted for Nelson (D) for Florida's Senate seat whose son on the same night as his dad's celebration was arrested for 3 felonies.

I voted for Nelson because I can't stand that bimbo Katheryn Harris (R) and obviously my the landslide for Nelson the majority of Floridians agree. :D

We want to do the Evil Liberal Triumph Death-To-Neocons Dance in the streets while the weather is still nice. Otherwise we'll have to rent a hall and that'll suck. :p

That's fine. I do have to congratulate the democrats for finally a job well done. However, can they not find a better person for the Speaker of the House. Surely they can do much better than Nancy Pelosi.

That's fine. I do have to congratulate the democrats for finally a job well done. However, can they not find a better person for the Speaker of the House. Surely they can do much better than Nancy Pelosi.

Oh, she'll do quite nicely. She comes from a good family in Baltimore, her father was a US Congressman and Mayor of Baltimore. She's been married to the same man for 44 years, they have five kids, and she didn't enter politics until the youngest was a senior in high school. She's not about to send hordes of Gay Activists to pillage the Heartland of the Homeland, nor raiding parties of IRS agents after your hard-earned money. In fact, the Pelosis, husband and wife, are worth $25 million, so she'd be right up there suffering with all the other millionaires.

It just came over the wires (http://www.cnn.com/) -- election officials have confirmed that Webb has won the Virginia Senate race against George Allen, giving the Democrats a 51-49 majority.

Let's here it for a clean sweep!

*Pops bottle of sparkling grape juice* (incase minors are here.)

Whoot! Congrats Dems!

Mr. and Ms. Democrat, it's official. It's a bouncing baby Congress.

I voted Charlie Crist (R) for Governor of Florida which in fact won.
I also voted for Nelson (D) for Florida's Senate seat whose son on the same night as his dad's celebration was arrested for 3 felonies.

I voted for Nelson because I can't stand that bimbo Katheryn Harris (R) and obviously my the landslide for Nelson the majority of Floridians agree. :D

I voted the same way. :)

Come out come out where ever you are!:cool:

Mr. and Ms. Democrat, it's official. It's a bouncing baby Congress.

err.... so who spanks that baby! :D

and with the House.... TWINS!

All I can do now is laugh, and clap.
So I will.
*ClapHaHaClapHaHaClapHaHa*

2 years to go until the 2008 Presidential election. I'm predicting that a Republican will win the next Presidency. I have a gut feeling that the Democrats are going to royally screw up which will inevitably lead to the next President to be a Republican.

I hope I'm wrong as for the "royally screw up" part but the Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now they need to prove themselves.

I voted the same way. :)

cool :)

2 years to go until the 2008 Presidential election. I'm predicting that a Republican will win the next Presidency. I have a gut feeling that the Democrats are going to royally screw up which will inevitably lead to the next President to be a Republican.

I hope I'm wrong as for the "royally screw up" part but the Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now they need to prove themselves.

Here's the problem though. Bush is still president, and the dem's don't have the votes to get past a veto.

So any law they pass, he passes. Any errors they make, he makes.

Being president is great when you're doing well, you're the first to get all the credit.

you're also the first to get all the blame.

Mr. and Ms. Democrat, it's official. It's a bouncing baby Congress.

Due date: sometime in early january.

Here's the problem though. Bush is still president, and the dem's don't have the votes to get past a veto.

So any law they pass, he passes. Any errors they make, he makes.

Being president is great when you're doing well, you're the first to get all the credit.

you're also the first to get all the blame.

There is more to the Senate and House than voting on bills and passing laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Branch

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnndddddddd.....


REPUBLICANS HAVE SENATE!

THANK GOD!

*cheers*

"Noooooooooo Democrat crap! Nooooooooo dead American civilians! Moooooooooreeeeeeee security!"

O Rly?

There is more to the Senate and House than voting on bills and passing laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Branch

I'm very aware of the powers of congress. The majority of their power is in legislature. It is why it's called the LEGISLATIVE branch.

2 years to go until the 2008 Presidential election. I'm predicting that a Republican will win the next Presidency. I have a gut feeling that the Democrats are going to royally screw up which will inevitably lead to the next President to be a Republican.

I hope I'm wrong as for the "royally screw up" part but the Democrats have been given a chance by the People so now they need to prove themselves.

Here's the problem though. Bush is still president, and the dem's don't have the votes to get past a veto.

So any law they pass, he passes. Any errors they make, he makes.

Being president is great when you're doing well, you're the first to get all the credit.

you're also the first to get all the blame.


what's going to happen is this:

the dems are going to pull together to undo most of the damage from the last 5~ years.

Bush can either veto this, which will make him look terrible and make a republican '08 impossible, or he can let the bills pass, and we win anyway.

the choice is either: they look bad, or we both look good.

At worst, the Dems and Repubs are going to be on equal footing in '08.

at best, the republican candidate is going to have to deal with a million unpopular vetoes by the current imbecile-in-chief.

Welcome back America. It's been a while. :)

Welcome back America. It's been a while. :)

you win this thread.

O Rly?

:p :p

Mr. and Ms. Democrat, it's official. It's a bouncing baby Congress.
Is it wrong that I am less excited about the Dems getting the Senate than I am about the first Majority Leader from Nevada (And the highest federal position ever held by an Nevadan)?

Is it wrong that I am less excited about the Dems getting the Senate than I am about the first Majority Leader from Nevada (And the highest federal position ever held by an Nevadan)?

Yes. It's supposed to stay in Vegas.

Damn, and I was hoping for a gridlocked Senate. That would have put a boost on things. Think about it: A Democratic House, a Republican president, and an even Senate. But no, now the Senate wil be Democratic. And if it was split, so little legislation would come out that we could at least have confidence in "That government is best which governs least." So much for limiting the evils. (sulks quietly)

Don't count out Lieberman and the Blue Dog Democrats. The Senate took a nice move towards the middle. It's not like it's Liberal Haven now.

Yes. It's supposed to stay in Vegas.
Ah, but Harry isn't from Vegas, he's from Searchlight. ;)

Damn, and I was hoping for a gridlocked Senate. That would have put a boost on things. Think about it: A Democratic House, a Republican president, and an even Senate. But no, now the Senate wil be Democratic. And if it was split, so little legislation would come out that we could at least have confidence in "That government is best which governs least." So much for limiting the evils. (sulks quietly)
You forget, the Dems have the majority, yes, but not nearly enough to override a veto. I'm guessing that President Bush will make up for lost time now.

Also, the GOP will suddenly discover how much it loves the fillbuster. Ironic, especially after they complained about it and tried to kill it, yes, but they will love it again.

Damn, and I was hoping for a gridlocked Senate. That would have put a boost on things. Think about it: A Democratic House, a Republican president, and an even Senate. But no, now the Senate wil be Democratic. And if it was split, so little legislation would come out that we could at least have confidence in "That government is best which governs least." So much for limiting the evils. (sulks quietly)

Well, it is a majority of one, and that only really comes because the two independents are Lieberman and a socialist, one who is more or less still a Democrat and the other who will caucus with the Democrats. So it's not a piledriver, really, it's still a check since Bush can't count on a rubber stamp but there is still going to have to be negotiation and compromise. It's just enough of a majority that Bush will have to actually work with people, which is all good.

Damn, and I was hoping for a gridlocked Senate. That would have put a boost on things. Think about it: A Democratic House, a Republican president, and an even Senate. But no, now the Senate wil be Democratic. And if it was split, so little legislation would come out that we could at least have confidence in "That government is best which governs least." So much for limiting the evils. (sulks quietly)

David Mayhew, a political science professor and congressional expert at Yale University (full disclosure: I took one of his courses several years ago) found that from 1947 to 1990, an average of 13 major laws were passed when one party controlled all the levers of power, compared to 12 when the President had to deal with either one or both houses of Congress being controlled by the opposition.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1555382,00.html

Well, it is a majority of one, and that only really comes because the two independents are Lieberman and a socialist, one who is more or less still a Democrat and the other who will caucus with the Democrats. So it's not a piledriver, really, it's still a check since Bush can't count on a rubber stamp but there is still going to have to be negotiation and compromise. It's just enough of a majority that Bush will have to actually work with people, which is all good.

That doesn't matter. the 20odd majority in the house is a FAAAR more effective check than a 1 seat majority in the senate. A WHOLE lot more.

What makes this good is not that it is a majority in and of itself, that has little value, the value is that the democrats, NOT the republicans will have the senate majority leader and it is the democrats NOT the republicans that will run the committees.

Well, it is a majority of one, and that only really comes because the two independents are Lieberman and a socialist, one who is more or less still a Democrat and the other who will caucus with the Democrats. So it's not a piledriver, really, it's still a check since Bush can't count on a rubber stamp but there is still going to have to be negotiation and compromise. It's just enough of a majority that Bush will have to actually work with people, which is all good.

You know, one of the big reasons Dems won the majority to begin with is because many of them are pretty conserative. Strong religious beliefs, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, etc. I have a bad feeling that these new Dems may not see completely eye to eye with the "old guard", the real liberals. There may be some more working with the GOP then people expect. I don't see the Dems getting anything past Bush's veto anyway, even if they do manage to get legislation through.

You know, one of the big reasons Dems won the majority to begin with is because many of them are pretty conserative. Strong religious beliefs, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, etc. I have a bad feeling that these new Dems may not see completely eye to eye with the "old guard", the real liberals. There may be some more working with the GOP then people expect. I don't see the Dems getting anything past Bush's veto anyway, even if they do manage to get legislation through.

Bingo.

Alot of these new congresscritters are quite socially conservative. Much closer to the Republicans than the older democrats.

The democrats may have won the election, but did they sell their soul to get it?

You know, one of the big reasons Dems won the majority to begin with is because many of them are pretty conserative. Strong religious beliefs, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, etc. I have a bad feeling that these new Dems may not see completely eye to eye with the "old guard", the real liberals. There may be some more working with the GOP then people expect. I don't see the Dems getting anything past Bush's veto anyway, even if they do manage to get legislation through.

the dems can put bush in an uncomfortable position by conceding some points, but attaching as riders their own points, bush then has to decide whether to let the riders through, or veto a popular point.

the dems can put bush in an uncomfortable position by conceding some points, but attaching as riders their own points, bush then has to decide whether to let the riders through, or veto a popular point.

Iraq may well be the only place that Bush will find trouble with the new Dem controlled Congress. Many of these new Democrats are hardly "liberal" by any means.

I suppose we will simply see a more sane government, no more torture bills I'd say. As if we should be glad to retrieve something we never should have lost to begin with...

That's fine. I do have to congratulate the democrats for finally a job well done. However, can they not find a better person for the Speaker of the House. Surely they can do much better than Nancy Pelosi.

Maybe, but she's been good as minority leader, really holding things together. She's been in politics and is good enough at it to know that the whole party isn't as liberal as she is and that compromise deals will often be necessary. I think she's a whole lot smarter than the president is (though that's not really saying much).

Macaca lost! Congress is ours! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

I think Bernie Sanders should run for President in 08. Agree/disagree?

I don't think he'd stand much of a chance, but that's just me.

No. He'd lose.

I wouldn't mind him as president, though. Not as much as almost anybody else, anyway.

Not the worst candidate. There are others that I would consider before him though.

<snip>
The democrats may have won the election, but did they sell their soul to get it?
Impossible. They're politicians.

You know, one of the big reasons Dems won the majority to begin with is because many of them are pretty conserative. Strong religious beliefs, pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage, etc. I have a bad feeling that these new Dems may not see completely eye to eye with the "old guard", the real liberals. There may be some more working with the GOP then people expect. I don't see the Dems getting anything past Bush's veto anyway, even if they do manage to get legislation through.
Not really a problem. One of the reasons the Dems have a reputation for ... well, for having no reputation, for not standing for anything, is because they are SO political, they bend and twist themselves to fit whatever the prevailing mood of the voters is. That's why real liberals have been complaining all along that the Dems aren't really liberal. They never were. That's not the point. The point is that, unlike the neocon-Republicans, the Dems will do as the voters tell them to. So don't look at the platform of the party or any given Democrat. Look instead at the social trends in the states.

This election saw setbacks for gay marriage (which frankly is not surprising; the times are not auspicious for another major civil rights push), but positive results for abortion rights. We also saw a significant increase in Democratic governors and, at the last count I saw, not one Democratic incumbent lost his or her seat. This is another clear message, in my view. It is a rejection of the extreme rightwing social agenda. While Americans may not be ready to make any great leaps forward right now, they made it clear they are not interested in sliding back, either. Even with the setbacks, I think this bodes well for the so-called "culture war." Those kinds of social changes should be driven from the grassroots up, anyway, not from the legislature down. And when we really look at the mood of the majority, it turns out they are not the "Moral Majority" at all. They move slowly, but they move progressively. And the Dems have been put on notice that the government will be expected to follow the people.

Hey, great, the Democrats have taken power. First on the agenda: surrendering to Iraq.

Hey, great, the Democrats have taken power. First on the agenda: surrendering to Iraq.

Thats why I voted democrat, so that we can surrender to iraq.

I sent Queen Pelosi a letter asking that before she disbands the army, she orders it to liberate saddam hussein and escort him to his new office in washington.

Thats why I voted democrat, so that we can surrender to iraq.

I sent Queen Pelosi a letter asking that before she disbands the army, she orders it to liberate saddam hussein and escort him to his new office in washington.

That's basically it.

That's basically it.

No, it gets better.

The other reason I voted democrat is that I want them to put Mullah Omar in charge of the DHS, which will be renamed the Department of Immigrant Welcoming and will basically have its whole budget spent on making these huge luxury barges to take thousands of people at a time from the middle east and north africa to the US for free, along with shipping crates for their belongings, which won't be searched.

We hope to establish a new "Friendship Peace Visa" which is given to anyone who wants one, and allows a six year visit to the US, with automatic citizenship at the end of those six years. Like with the luxury barges, which are a vital component of our program to promote islam, these visas will entitle the bearer to pass through customs without being searched or questioned.

No, it gets better.

The other reason I voted democrat is that I want them to put Mullah Omar in charge of the DHS, which will be renamed the Department of Immigrant Welcoming and will basically have its whole budget spent on making these huge luxury barges to take thousands of people at a time from the middle east and north africa to the US for free, along with shipping crates for their belongings, which won't be searched.

We hope to establish a new "Friendship Peace Visa" which is given to anyone who wants one, and allows a six year visit to the US, with automatic citizenship at the end of those six years. Like with the luxury barges, which are a vital component of our program to promote islam, these visas will entitle the bearer to pass through customs without being searched or questioned.
It's a shame some Republican asshat killed Zarqawi. We were going to make him Secretary of the Interior.




By the way, didn't we stop being at war with Iraq once we caught Hussein? So why would we be surrendering to them then? I'm confused about PF's earlier post, but I figured I'd get a more sensible explanation from you. ;)

It's a shame some Republican asshat killed Zarqawi. We were going to make him Secretary of the Interior.




By the way, didn't we stop being at war with Iraq once we caught Hussein? So why would we be surrendering to them then? I'm confused about PF's earlier post, but I figured I'd get a more sensible explanation from you. ;)

The troops' continuing mission, since we got saddam, has been to search for the WMDs, which President Bush was going to use on the north koreans to save freedom.

Queen Pelosi (peace be upon her) has other plans though. The troops will stay in iraq until those weapons are found, but then they will be turned over to the Iranians and to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

The troops' continuing mission, since we got saddam, has been to search for the WMDs, which President Bush was going to use on the north koreans to save freedom.

Queen Pelosi (peace be upon her) has other plans though. The troops will stay in iraq until those weapons are found, but then they will be turned over to the Iranians and to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.
Oh, I get it now. *gets it*

That Queen Pelosi (peace be upon her), she's one smart queen. ;)

Oh, I get it now. *gets it*

That Queen Pelosi (peace be upon her), she's one smart queen. ;)

I neglected to mention that after she disbands the border patrol, she will give the southwest six weeks to change all signs to spanish only and issue a Congessional Dictatorial Dictate that it now be called "atzlan." For her trouble, she'll be given a million dollars by the mexican government.

I neglected to mention that after she disbands the border patrol, she will give the southwest six weeks to change all signs to spanish only and issue a Congessional Dictatorial Dictate that it now be called "atzlan." For her trouble, she'll be given a million dollars by the mexican government.
She deserves it. Right, I'm off to bed. In the morning, I have to embroider the flags of Iran and Mexico over the stars and stripes. It's going to be a nice half and half effect from now on.

Hey, great, the Democrats have taken power. First on the agenda: surrendering to Iraq.

Nah, surrendering to your mom is the first thing on the agenda. She's really into that BDSM stuff you know.

Nah, surrendering to your mom is the first thing on the agenda. She's really into that BDSM stuff you know.

You fail.

I'm not even a Democrat, and I'm pretty excited. This is definitely a big change -- hopefully for the better.

AP is reporting that Virginia went Democrat by over 7,000 votes, with litte to no chance of a recount.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6131122.stm

So it appears that the Democrats narrowly missed snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Well here's to hoping that the Democrats manage to create some decent policies and make themselves electable instead of relying on people to vote fro them by virtue of not being republican... and if they don't then they could easily go the way of the Labour party in 1992. Thatcher being almost universally hated, but the electorate decide staying Tory is better than going Labour.

I'm not even a Democrat, and I'm pretty excited. This is definitely a big change -- hopefully for the better.

The sad thing is - the average voter seems to have reached a point where they can't see how it could be worse. At this point, any devil is looking prefereable to the one you know.

And the fact that Thatcher had gone in november 1990. sorry im being picky

The sad thing is - the average voter seems to have reached a point where they can't see how it could be worse. At this point, any devil is looking prefereable to the one you know.

Even Chris de Burgh?

And the fact that Thatcher had gone in november 1990. sorry im being pickySame difference, it wasn't Thatcher who was seeking reelection, and nor will it be George Bush.

Even Chris de Burgh?

Even Kylie Minogue.

Yes - it's that bad.

Even Kylie Minogue.

Yes - it's that bad.

Nothing is as bad as the mono-browed purveyor of filth - Chris De Burgh

Nothing is as bad as the mono-browed purveyor of filth - Chris De Burgh

Come on... you know you loved "The Lady in Red"...

No, it gets better.

The other reason I voted democrat is that I want them to put Mullah Omar in charge of the DHS, which will be renamed the Department of Immigrant Welcoming and will basically have its whole budget spent on making these huge luxury barges to take thousands of people at a time from the middle east and north africa to the US for free, along with shipping crates for their belongings, which won't be searched.

We hope to establish a new "Friendship Peace Visa" which is given to anyone who wants one, and allows a six year visit to the US, with automatic citizenship at the end of those six years. Like with the luxury barges, which are a vital component of our program to promote islam, these visas will entitle the bearer to pass through customs without being searched or questioned.

You forgot the most important part - they will raise taxes for all of us to 200% while the new, friendly immigrants receive permanent tax holidays. She will then use that tax rate to give slavery reparations to blacks i nthe form of a 20% tax cut, so their punitive tax rate will be only 160%. In addition, murder and rape will be completely legal, but saying the word "black," even in the privacy of your own home when you're referring to how you want your coffee, is punishable by 125,000 years in a "correctional facility" in which you will be forced to fingerpaint and watch "The View" all day.

Also, all guns are banned. If you have a gun, even a squirt gun, you will be killed on sight and your body will be thrown into a ditch.

You forgot the most important part - they will raise taxes for all of us to 200% while the new, friendly immigrants receive permanent tax holidays. She will then use that tax rate to give slavery reparations to blacks i nthe form of a 20% tax cut, so their punitive tax rate will be only 160%. In addition, murder and rape will be completely legal, but saying the word "black," even in the privacy of your own home when you're referring to how you want your coffee, is punishable by 125,000 years in a "correctional facility" in which you will be forced to fingerpaint and watch "The View" all day.

Also, all guns are banned. If you have a gun, even a squirt gun, you will be killed on sight and your body will be thrown into a ditch.

You forgot the plans to remove all white men from any executive office, and replace them with black females.

Or the plans to force every church to maintain a gay minister for every heterosexual minister in the interests of tolerance.

Looks like it's over, George Allen is said to be about to concede in Virginia, according to MSNBC (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15635543/from/ET/).

To Whom it may concern:

I would like to congradulate the democrats for a major victory. The only thing that would have made it better in my opinion is if Rumsfield would have needed to give Bush a ride home too. With that said, I also wish to remind the democrats that we
( The American People ) are expecting major changes. We will be watching what they do in the coming months. We are the backbone of this country, any doctor will tell you that you need to take good care of your back or else it can cause you alot of pain and suffering. We want politians that hear what we tell them then do things accordingly. We do not work for you, you are not royalty, as some seem to think. You work for us, we elect and pay you to do a job. That job is to take care of the backbone so to speak, you do it well, you can keep your jobs, if not ...

Do you agree or disagree?

Originally Posted by Ice Hockey Players
You forgot the most important part - they will raise taxes for all of us to 200% while the new, friendly immigrants receive permanent tax holidays. She will then use that tax rate to give slavery reparations to blacks i nthe form of a 20% tax cut, so their punitive tax rate will be only 160%. In addition, murder and rape will be completely legal, but saying the word "black," even in the privacy of your own home when you're referring to how you want your coffee, is punishable by 125,000 years in a "correctional facility" in which you will be forced to fingerpaint and watch "The View" all day.

Also, all guns are banned. If you have a gun, even a squirt gun, you will be killed on sight and your body will be thrown into a ditch.
You forgot the plans to remove all white men from any executive office, and replace them with black females.

Or the plans to force every church to maintain a gay minister for every heterosexual minister in the interests of tolerance.
Ah, the Domestic Policies. Truly, it is a glorious day. I think I'll celebrate by having an abortion and donating the stem cells to a gay couple.

To Whom it may concern:

I would like to congradulate the democrats for a major victory. The only thing that would have made it better in my opinion is if Rumsfield would have needed to give Bush a ride home too. With that said, I also wish to remind the democrats that we
( The American People ) are expecting major changes. We will be watching what they do in the coming months. We are the backbone of this country, any doctor will tell you that you need to take good care of your back or else it can cause you alot of pain and suffering. We want politians that hear what we tell them then do things accordingly. We do not work for you, you are not royalty, as some seem to think. You work for us, we elect and pay you to do a job. That job is to take care of the backbone so to speak, you do it well, you can keep your jobs, if not ...

Do you agree or disagree?

Good of you to speak for the American People. That should be sent to each an every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican or Independent. It certainly wasn't anything the Republicans who have controlled Congress for the last 12 years bothered themselves with.

I'm not sure you're going to see major changes (would you care to define those?), at least, not right away. The new leadership will need to find its feet and take stock of what it can and cannot do. George Bush can still veto bills and the Democratic majority is not so huge that it can be sure of an override. It'll be an interesting couple of years, I will say that.

Ah, the Domestic Policies. Truly, it is a glorious day. I think I'll celebrate by having an abortion and donating the stem cells to a gay couple.

Good for you! Why not donate 50% of your annual salary to a resource-consuming welfare cheat, too? That should round things off nicely.

Good for you! Why not donate 50% of your annual salary to a resource-consuming welfare cheat, too? That should round things off nicely.

Are you kidding? We're going to go rob rich people and give THEIR money to resource-consuming welfare cheats. Also, we're going to shout angrily at the next person who tells someone to "Get a job!" and force them into a re-education tolerance camp.

Oh, and while we're at it, we're going to make all tobacco sellers add a $10,000 surcharge to all packs of cigarettes and put the money toward middle school drama programs.

To Whom it may concern:

I would like to congradulate the democrats for a major victory. The only thing that would have made it better in my opinion is if Rumsfield would have needed to give Bush a ride home too. With that said, I also wish to remind the democrats that we
( The American People ) are expecting major changes. We will be watching what they do in the coming months. We are the backbone of this country, any doctor will tell you that you need to take good care of your back or else it can cause you alot of pain and suffering. We want politians that hear what we tell them then do things accordingly. We do not work for you, you are not royalty, as some seem to think. You work for us, we elect and pay you to do a job. That job is to take care of the backbone so to speak, you do it well, you can keep your jobs, if not ...

Do you agree or disagree?
Total agreement. I've been saying this for years, but the "But da Prezident rools" crowd have been shouting me down from their 6-year soapbox. I really think this is exactly the message that this election sent, and I can't tell you how glad I am that it got sent. I really was afraid the whole country had gone submissive because that was most of what I was hearing in public. Part of me kept thinking, "Keep the faith. Americans aren't like the French -- we don't riot when we're pissed off. Wait until the election before you give up," but I was really pessimistic. I said in another thread that I had lost faith in the American people, but dammit if they didn't prove me wrong. They really came through. I haven't felt this good in a long time.

My favorite part of it is that the exit polls show that the primary issue for voters was not the war, nor the economy, nor the social issues -- it was government corruption. This is music to my ears. I don't know if it's music to the Dems, too, but I'm sure they're hearing it loud and clear. We are watching them, and if they don't do better than the Reps did, I think 2008 and the next Congressional elections are going to be hair-raising indeed.

Nixon called them the "silent majority." Well, they weren't silent on Tuesday.

Good for you! Why not donate 50% of your annual salary to a resource-consuming welfare cheat, too? That should round things off nicely.
Excellent idea!

Good of you to speak for the American People. That should be sent to each an every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican or Independent. It certainly wasn't anything the Republicans who have controlled Congress for the last 12 years bothered themselves with.

I'm not sure you're going to see major changes (would you care to define those?), at least, not right away. The new leadership will need to find its feet and take stock of what it can and cannot do. George Bush can still veto bills and the Democratic majority is not so huge that it can be sure of an override. It'll be an interesting couple of years, I will say that.
Major changes to government can be accomplished with rather minor changes to law. A few things I would very much like to see:

- Changes to lobbying rules that will create greater accountability for the "social interactions" (read: non-cash donations, i.e. golf junkets) between lobbyists and elected officials, and much stiffer punishments for violations.

- Adjustments to the legal immunity of elected officials to remind them that they are not above the law, even though they make it.

- Another round of campaign finance reform for greater transparency in donation reporting. Right now, it is too easy for major donors to contribute way more than the legal limit but make it seem as if they are not.

- Queen Pelosi mentioned something yesterday about publishing all proposed legislation while it's being debated so the public can read it, too, before it gets passed. This would put an end to those Friday-night "emergency" measures, like the Patriot Act.

- And finally, restoration of enforcement powers to the GAO.

Measures such as these would make it extremely difficult to conduct government in secret, which is how it got so corrupt and how we got such horrible policies in the first place.

EDIT: Oh, and it would be nice if they changed FCC regulations in order to break up the media monopolies. I think you'd be astonished what a difference that would make.

Open government and free press. You give us that, and we, the people, can do the rest.

Major changes to government can be accomplished with rather minor changes to law. A few things I would very much like to see:

- Changes to lobbying rules that will create greater accountability for the "social interactions" (read: non-cash donations, i.e. golf junkets) between lobbyists and elected officials, and much stiffer punishments for violations.

- Adjustments to the legal immunity of elected officials to remind them that they are not above the law, even though they make it.

- Another round of campaign finance reform for greater transparency in donation reporting. Right now, it is too easy for major donors to contribute way more than the legal limit but make it seem as if they are not.

- Queen Pelosi mentioned something yesterday about publishing all proposed legislation while it's being debated so the public can read it, too, before it gets passed. This would put an end to those Friday-night "emergency" measures, like the Patriot Act.

- And finally, restoration of enforcement powers to the GAO.

Measures such as these would make it extremely difficult to conduct government in secret, which is how it got so corrupt and how we got such horrible policies in the first place.

EDIT: Oh, and it would be nice if they changed FCC regulations in order to break up the media monopolies. I think you'd be astonished what a difference that would make.

Open government and free press. You give us that, and we, the people, can do the rest.

Oh, I know. It just seemed to me that Kormanthor's post was a bit of a set-up job, giving him an excuse to lambast the Democrats for not doing his unspecified assignments. Maybe I've gotten too cynical lately.

Oh, I know. It just seemed to me that Kormanthor's post was a bit of a set-up job, giving him an excuse to lambast the Democrats for not doing his unspecified assignments. Maybe I've gotten too cynical lately.
It probably was an attempted set-up. Rightwingers are in a bad spot right now. Their preferred approach was soundly rejected by a clear majority of the people. All their claims to represent that majority are now trashed, along with their claims that the Dems don't represent the majority. All they have left is their claim that the Dems don't have a plan or that the Dems are no different. But the Dems have several years now to prove them wrong, and they are wasting no time, as Nancy Pelosi is already out there promoting the Democratic plan.

Good of you to speak for the American People. That should be sent to each an every member of Congress, Democrat or Republican or Independent. It certainly wasn't anything the Republicans who have controlled Congress for the last 12 years bothered themselves with.

I'm not sure you're going to see major changes (would you care to define those?), at least, not right away. The new leadership will need to find its feet and take stock of what it can and cannot do. George Bush can still veto bills and the Democratic majority is not so huge that it can be sure of an override. It'll be an interesting couple of years, I will say that.

I am a member of the American People and this is the message that I meant to send to politicians in general. From the response by the voting public I think that many are in agreement with me. Although I know what I think, I did not define the major changes because I thought that I would discuss that with my fellow americans first.

And there it is, George Allen just conceded (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15635543/).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/09/va.senate/index.html

49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 democrat-caucusing Independents. Democrats have the majority in the Senate. *nod*

It's a pity that there has to be a majority at all. :(