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

Manic Moran · 07-11-2006 10:22pm

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

NTM

cooker3 · 08-11-2006 2:32am

RedPlanet wrote:

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

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

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

bottlerocket · 08-11-2006 3:14am

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

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

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

YeatsCounty · 08-11-2006 7:08am

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

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

Manic Moran · 08-11-2006 8:02am

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

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

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

NTM

Dalfiatach · 08-11-2006 8:39am

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

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

Both "Independents" in the Senate are really Democrats.

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

Manic Moran · 08-11-2006 9:00am

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

NTM

08-11-2006 9:59am

poor fox news....

bonkey · 08-11-2006 10:22am

That reminds me....

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

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

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

free2fly · 08-11-2006 11:49am

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

petes · 08-11-2006 11:50am

free2fly wrote:

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

No*

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

Diogenes · 08-11-2006 11:52am

bonkey wrote:

That reminds me....

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

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

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

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

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

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

User45701 · 08-11-2006 11:56am

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

Rb · 08-11-2006 12:08pm

free2fly wrote:

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

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

Beruthiel · 08-11-2006 12:16pm

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

Rb · 08-11-2006 12:45pm

Beruthiel wrote:

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

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

08-11-2006 12:58pm

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

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

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

sovtek · 08-11-2006 1:01pm

Tristrame wrote:

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

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

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

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

Ruu_Old · 08-11-2006 1:23pm

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

daithimac · 08-11-2006 1:33pm

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

flogen · 08-11-2006 1:37pm

That's probably the biggest reason the Dems now hold the House, but stuff like the Foley scandal has also discredited the Reps amongst their religious base, so while they didn't vote for the Dems, they didn't vote for the Reps either.

It's worth nothing that there are plenty of conservative Dems getting seats in both the Senate and House, so it's not like there's been a liberal wave that has swept across America; and look at the success of Liebermann as proof that while supporting the war has dented many candidates it's not the only thing they vote on.

RedPlanet · 08-11-2006 1:45pm

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

08-11-2006 1:50pm

sovtek wrote:

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

So?
Point being,this war got Bushes party turfed out.There'll be no funds for the invasion of Iran or whatever other neo con crazy plan is out there.
Point being Americans voted for a re evaluation of whats going on and knew that would only happen if they voted Democrat.
Point also being, that Democrats now have the power to order congressional investigations that would otherwise be stalled by Republicans.

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

I know you're forever dispondent of your own country sovtek but Gore would never have gone into Iraq as Clinton wouldn't.
They wouldnt have went out of their way to try (and partially succeed) to convince the U.S public of the need to go into Iraq.

The cloak dagger and magicians wand for Bush has stopped working.
Faith in human nature to see things as wrong when they are done wrong has been somewhat restored today.

flogen · 08-11-2006 2:04pm

RedPlanet wrote:

Forgetabout the war in Iraq.
I'm just looking forward to the impeachment hearings and investigations into corruption and cronysim.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should spend most of their remaining days in the dock. Or trying to avoid it. (imo)

Won't happen, Rumsfeld has a good chance of being pushed (he'll step down on personal reasons, be praised as a great man by Bush, who will close the door and say 'thank fúck he's gone').
Other than that there won't be an impeachment, the Democrats can't be seen to stifle progress, because the Reps will say they're making the country less safe.

All the Dems have now (and it's still important) is the ability to shout louder when they question policy, and they will have some investigatory roles too, but again they'll be careful not to look like they're tearing the country in two.

sovtek · 08-11-2006 2:05pm

Tristrame wrote:

So?
Point being,this war got Bushes party turfed out.There'll be no funds for the invasion of Iran or whatever other neo con crazy plan is out there.
Point being Americans voted for a re evaluation of whats going on and knew that would only happen if they voted Democrat.
Point also being, that Democrats now have the power to order congressional investigations that would otherwise be stalled by Republicans.

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

I know you're forever dispondent of your own country sovtek but Gore would never have gone into Iraq as Clinton wouldn't.
They wouldnt have went out of their way to try (and partially succeed) to convince the U.S public of the need to go into Iraq.

The cloak dagger and magicians wand for Bush has stopped working.
Faith in human nature to see things as wrong when they are done wrong has been somewhat restored today.

My point is that you shouldn't your breath that much is going to change. Nancy Pelosi has already dropped impeachment, many dems talk about more troops in Iraq, more support for Israel and maybe a "dignified" exit from Iraq...someday (worked so well for Nixon didnit).
A little point underlying that is that as far as I can tell, democracy isn't working.

sovtek · 08-11-2006 2:07pm

Tristrame wrote:

Pulling out of Iraq in the morning , now that they are there isnt practical yet.

There is nothing practical in what's going on there now.

Manic Moran · 08-11-2006 3:24pm

free2fly wrote:

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

I think the answer to that is somewhere between 'no' and 'not effectively'

For all the talk of Iraq, the Republicans would have still won at least the Senate if it weren't for the scandals such as Foley's Page Boys or the Abramoff deal. It was that which killed them, not Iraq.

In the meantime, Bush has made it perfectly clear that he's not going to call the troops back. Congress cannot force him to do so. They can paralyse the budget, but ultimately if Bush doesn't order the Pentagon to move troops, they stay, whether they are given funds by Congress or not. So now you have Congresscritters with a choice between either refusing to fund the troops, or paying up anyway. They can also make trouble in other ways "We refuse to pass your new Domestic Social Development Budget unless you pull the troops back", but I think Bush has made it perfectly clear he believes the nation's priority is the War on Terror. If maintaining the nation's stance costs him every other program in order to stay in Iraq, I think he'll do it.

NTM

08-11-2006 3:27pm

sovtek wrote:

My point is that you shouldn't your breath that much is going to change. Nancy Pelosi has already dropped impeachment, many dems talk about more troops in Iraq, more support for Israel and maybe a "dignified" exit from Iraq...someday (worked so well for Nixon didnit).
A little point underlying that is that as far as I can tell, democracy isn't working.

Support for Israel has always been an American thing.
What is there to impeach from an American point of view?

As for a dignified exit from Iraq..It's either a good idea to withdraw in the morning (irrespective of the whys and wherefores of getting there) or it isn't.
It isn't.

There is nothing practical in what's going on there now.

It's easy to write one line like that.
The fact of the matter is,it would be likely to be all out sectarian warfare if there was a withdrawal in the morning.
Native security services couldn't cope yet.

Theres nothing new in that,we are where we are-Gore wouldnt have had it come to this and neither would Clinton.
Trouble is un doing the mess isn't as simple as a change in the U.S lower house,it takes a process now and thats Bush's fault.