Biden was my favorite candidates for the vice presidency, so I am pleased Obama chose him. He posses experience and can court the white working class voting bloc. Sen. Biden has experience, especially in foreign policy matters, and is willing to reach across party lines. It's looking like the Democratic camp has shaped up over the past couple months. However, what worries me is the constant pandering to religious groups who represent their own interests instead of the welfare of the nation. It will be interesting to see how this ticket plays out.
Showing posts with label 2006 US elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2006 US elections. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 August 2008
Monday, 7 May 2007
Back in the US...
Now that the French presidential election is over, there's another leadership race to focus on. Although it is still far away, the 2008 US presidential election is kicking into gear, with headline-grabbing (inter-party) debates already grabbing headlines — and fundraising through the roof.
Here's an update on what the candidates have been doing...
Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings. Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."
But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague. The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.
Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years. At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"
Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."
"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."
technorati tags: john+edwards, hillary+clinton, war+on+terror, 2008+US+presidental+election, rudy+giuliani, mitt+romney, john+mccain, fred+thompson, republican+debate, time+100, politics, barak+obama, race
Sunday, 10 December 2006
Yeah, the Democrats won, what's next?
Okay, the “thumpin’”, as President Bush put it, is over. The 2006 US midterm elections came to a close weeks ago, believe me, after all the blogging I did during the elections, I am relieved. Yeah, yeah, the Democrats took the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, by a landslide and a margin, but what’s next? Time to celebrate for moderates and liberals in the country? Time for change with the new majority Democrats? Not exactly.
The upcoming Democratic-majority US Congress may well be as bad as the current one. One positive: maybe the Dems will stick it to President Bush. One negative: do they have enough of a majority — even within their own party — to get anything done, let alone show the president that he is not the sovereign leader of America (or the world)? What about the fact that Bush has veto power? Just the squabbling — regardless of political affiliation — over Iraq, which, coupled with economy, was the main focus of the voters this past election, shows that the American people may be in for some ride these next years.
2006 elections
Even before the elections, political analysts were warning that even if the Dems won not all would be well. First of all, winning Democrats would most likely be unseating moderate Republicans, replacing them with slightly conservative to conservative Democrats, and, since they would not be able to get any moderate or liberal change done, the Democrats would be sad and worn out (as if they were not already). Meanwhile, the GOP would be ready to rise up to the Democrats. America [usually] loves an underdog, and keep in mind, a quarter of the electorate are evangelical or fundamentalist Christians — predominately in the South. The GOP would rally this massive demographic and stall any good chance of reform by creating a Democratic nightmare in 2008.
Gridlock, past and future
For the next two years, the Democratic Party will also have to deal with the fact that, even though they control the legislature, the executive still has its occupier — a Republican. I am speaking, of course, of President George W. Bush.
Back in 1992, a man from Arkansas, a man with a hope for America, was elected. President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, served for eight years, many of which were probably not what he wished they were. In 1994, Rep. Newt Gingrich and others launched what they coined as the “contract with America”, now referred to as the ‘Republican Revolution’ that resulted in massive seat gains for the GOP in both houses of Congress. This disabled Clinton from passing many of his sought-after laws. This also gave Americans a good taste of what political gridlock really is.
After the 110th United States Congress is sworn in next January, there will be at least two years of this gridlock. The differences between the Clinton era gridlock and the upcoming gridlock include the fact that back then the Democrats controlled the presidency, the Republicans the Congress, and it is now the other way around. The Dems also have less of a majority now then the Republicans had back in the ‘90s, and there is an ever-increasing conservative base ready to be fired up to come to the assistance of the Republican Party.
Pelosi and the Democratic roadmap
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, will bring. Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years).
I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party and America as a whole. Pelosi’s "100-hour plan" — a spin-off of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “100-day plan” — looks especially promising, albeit quite ambitious. The plan, outlined in an often-cited Associated Press article, calls for ethics reforms (e.g. lobbying restrictions), implementation of the recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), and an easier way for people to pay for college (e.g. interest rate cuts for student loans, educational initiatives). On Pelosi’s 100-hour to do list is also the passing of federally-funded stem cell research legislation, a raise of the minimum wage (from $5.15 to $7.25), the creation of a path to lower drug prices (which 85% of Americans back) [for those using Medicare], and other positive and progressive goals.
The ethics reforms are planned for the first day, in order to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation,” says Pelosi. During this entire plan, Pelosi has told AP she does not wish to further raise the national deficit that has ballooned under this president and this Congress; she says she is to institute a “pay-as-you-go” plan after her first 100 hours. The ultimate goal of this so-called 100-hour plan: "drain the swamp" of Republican rule the past 12 years in Congress, says Pelosi.
Political climate
The political winds have changed with the elections resulting in a Congressional majority for the Democrats, but it may be too insignificant, too late. Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's bipartisan friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political strategy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparency and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, neoconservatives, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types', and [other] special interests.
One ongoing question is whether the GOP can keep these conservatives and evangelicals on their side and can get them out to the polls, while staying congruent with respective ideologies of their various right-wing bases. This is where a two-party system with lax campaign finance regulation gets America: extreme polarized partisanship, elevated positions for special interest groups, and very limited choices for already-disgruntled constituents.
Representatives Pelosi (D-CA) and Boxer (D-CA) are two of the few quite liberal House members; Senators Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), and Kennedy (D-MA) are some of the few quite liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).
Dem options; in conclusion
The Democratic win in Congress is symbolic at best. There are, however, a handful of things that may be of good use to the Democrats and the nation. One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. DeLay is now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges, including those relating to campaign finance, and is being investigated for his roll in the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandals.
It ultimately comes down to this question: can the Democrats make a significant difference with their new majority in the US political scene? Unless the Democrats can rally support for the required two-thirds vote for a presidential veto override, I remain pessimistic. The Democrats may be or may not be lucky enough to get some of the forward-looking reforms passed by a majority of Congress anyway.
I am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena, but not to the extent that Executive-Legislature relations are harmed [too much]. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30-seat advantage in the 435-seat House of Representatives. No matter what, there will be gridlock.
Meanwhile, the race for 2008 is already well underway. That’s politics.
The above is an essay outlining the Democratic victory and the issues surrounding it in this past midterm election in the United States. Some of the writing is extracted from previous posts I wrote on this blog.
Monday, 13 November 2006
Some news in brief...
Maybe I'll post more later.
Something I have been waiting for — it was swept under the carpet until after US midterm elections — is the James A. Baker III-led nonpartisan Iraq Study Group. They will probably offer, like the 9/11 Commission, some good advice only to be ignored by the president and unknown by the public (not that they can't read it, multiple factors, societal and political, surround the public ignorance on such matters). Bush meets members of Iraq Study Group:
President George W. Bush cautioned Democrats wanting to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq to consider conditions on the ground as he met on Monday with a bipartisan group expected to offer a plan for changing course in Iraq.
The group's work has attracted great interest from both parties after the opposition Democrats' sweeping victory last week that gave them control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Injecting a note of caution into the possibility of a major shift in strategy, Bush said: "I believe that it's important for us to succeed in Iraq, not only for our security but for the security of the Middle East, and that I'm looking forward to interesting ideas."
On the same topic (news from yesterday but all the more relevant today), the Iraq Study Group may have some good options to offer:
After meeting with President Bush tomorrow, a panel of prestigious Americans will begin deliberations to chart a new course on Iraq, with the goal of stabilizing the country with a different U.S. strategy and possibly the withdrawal of troops.
More politics. Man, Rove has a lot of nerve! (This article has a lot of great metaphors, by the way.) "Rove remains steadfast in the face of criticism":
For a man still climbing out of the rubble, Karl Rove seemed in his usual unflappable mood.
The Architect, as President Bush once called him, has a theory for why the building fell down.
[Rove retrieved] a single sheet of paper that had been updated almost hourly since the midterm elections with a series of statistics explaining that the "thumping" Bush took was not such a thumping after all.
The theory is this: The building's infrastructure was actually quite sound. It was bad luck and seasonal shifts in the winds that blew out the walls -- complacent candidates, an ill-timed Mark Foley page scandal and the predictable cycles of history. But the foundation is fine: "The Republican philosophy is alive and well and likely to reemerge in the majority in 2008."
Rove encouraged [(challengers to his political forecasting formula)] with supreme confidence. "You are entitled to your math, and I'm entitled to the math," he told a National Public Radio interviewer who suggested Democrats might win.
The question is, did Rove really believe the sunny optimism he resonated leading up to the elections, or did he know all along that this past midterm would not result in the GOP getting a grade A?
UPDATE: I can picture the partly laid-off Dateline NBC staff, doing a show called "Inside the mind of Karl Rove: the architect, the sorceror" or "To catch Bush's brain, the Karl Rove story", trying to probe the mystery that is the somewhat-placid and underpaid presidential adviser. Rove is slightly under-credited too; he is probably just one of the politicians doing it for power and glory... what happened to those guys? K-street, that's what happened — immense lobbying and special interest groups.
technorati tags: quotes, news, politics, foreign+policy, current+affairs, iraq, middle+east, iraq+study+group, rove, Bush, White+House, United+States, Republicans, Democrats, clearthought, us+elections, elections, midterm+elections, dateline, nbc, in+perspective, karl+rove
Thursday, 9 November 2006
Kos prepping for '08 Senate races
Kos watch: 2008 Congressional elections, a 2 year head start...
Kos (of the Daily Kos) is already looking ahead — in depth — to the 2008 US elections, working his Kos-style political analytics like [almost as well as] Larry Sabato works his Crystal Ball.
Here are some extracts, read the post yourself for more details:
The 2006 Senate map was terrible for us. It's a testament to how bad things have gotten for the GOP that we were able to squeeze out six seats.
In any case, 2008 looks far, far different. If all goes well, we should be lining up for an absolute slaughter of the GOP. In two years, Republicans will be defending 21 seats, to 12 of our own.
Moody partisanship; feelings on the elections
An array of moods extracted from opinion pieces (not necessarily the moods of the pieces themselves)
Glum (NYT op-ed)
Though the assembled reporters were hardly glum, conservatives of every stripe can console themselves by considering the limited scope of the Democrats’ midterm sweep.
Giddy (Brooks article)
Why am I weirdly happy? I’m a conservative. Many people I know and admire lost tonight. And yet somehow this strikes me as a good night for the country.
Rush Limbaugh pissed off/apathetic (multiple feelings expressed) at Republican losses. Apparently the raving irrational 'conservative' commentator is angry at the 'nonpartisan' and non-"conservative" Republicans. The article actually makes less sense than most of his works but it has raised some eyebrows. (By the way, that guy talks a lot [of nonsense]!)
The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried.
A final word from that David Brooks post:
All in all, an end to the era of base-mobilizing politics and a victory for the center (albeit with a Democratic tilt). Nancy Pelosi seems to understand this. She’s striking a bipartisan pose, not a triumphalist one. We’ll see if it lasts.
[tagname]
Allen caves in, Dems take Senate
In the 2006 US midterm elections, Sen. George Allen (R) has finally conceded his super-close race against James Webb (D).
The Democrats now control the Senate by a mere one seat (51 D, 49 R) and the House of Representatives by at least 33 seats (229 D, 196 R, 10 ?).
Out of the two very close Senate races — Montana and Virginia — this election, both loosing Republicans did the right thing by conceding and not dragging on the election by calling a recount in their races (I say that only because there was no sign whatsoever of questionable counting or voting fraud in either race).
Afternoon politics: Allen to concede, Bush to change?
The Democrats are about to win the Senate, if they haven't already (depends who you ask):
Virginia Sen. George Allen (R) will concede that he has lost the election to Democrat James Webb at a 3 p.m. news conference in Alexandria, according to a source close to the campaign with direct knowledge of the senator's intentions.
As of this morning, Allen trails Webb by 7,484 votes after a bruising reelection campaign. Republican sources said Allen had concluded that no amount of recounting would change the outcome, but members of the senator's campaign staff would not publicly confirm his intentions.
So far, canvassing, as Virginia law calls for when an election is as close as Allen v. Webb is, has not shown any different results than the small lead Webb has. (See previous posts on the Allen and Webb race for more.) This aftermath of the 2006 midterm election will be over soon...
Speaking of changes in the political winds, President Bush seems to want to be everyone's friend again; a "united, not a divider", I doubt it. Much of the White House's political stratigy depends on polarizing and dividing a nation, which is easy to do with (1) lack of government transparancy and accountability more than ever (2) fear mongering in the "war on terrorism" (3) splitting a two-party nation so most vote for the GOP, using (1) and (2) as vote-gainers. This is all along with ideological and economic class partitioning, e.g. evangelicals/religious right, Neocons, 'safety moms', 'Wall Street types'.
It is almost over, closure is eminent...
Allen should admit defeat
AP has been reporting (yesterday) that the Dems have won Virginia and thus the Senate and the entire Congress (I want to wait a bit more, make sure it all wraps up). But, since mid-day yesterday, is was pretty much certain that the Democrats has won, with Webb (D) beating Allen (R) by 7,000 or so votes in the close Virginia Senate race in this US midterm election.
Obviously I wish my party had won," Hastert said in a statement that added he intends to return to the "full-time task" of representing his Illinois constituents.Does that mean Speaker (soon to be ex-Speaker) of the House Rep. Dennis Hastert has not been representing his Illinois constituents these past years? Is that not his job description, to represent his constituents? If it is a 'full-time task', then he just admited that he has not been doing his entire job as a representative, of course most already knew that by the way he goes about doing his job...
Technorati Tags: hastert, webb, allen, virginia, virginia+senate, democrat, democrats, speaker, house, senate, midterm, election, elections, virginia+senate, virginia+race, ap, congress, news, politics, current+affairs, in+the+news, clearthought, in+perspective, blog, commentary
Technorati Tags: hastert, webb, allen, virginia, virginia+senate, democrat, democrats, speaker, house, senate, midterm, election, elections, virginia+senate, virginia+race, ap, congress, news, politics, current+affairs, in+the+news, clearthought, in+perspective, blog, commentary
Wednesday, 8 November 2006
Pelosi and the 'dirty word'
I am starting to feel a bit more optimistic about House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi's vision for the Democratic Party. Especially her "100-hour plan" calling for ethics rules (and lobbying restrictions), 9/11 Commission Report implementation (which the US government is still getting failing grades from), an easier way for people to pay for college (i.e. insurance changes for students and educational initiatives), the passing of stem cell legislation, and more positive and progressive goals.
I do not know much about Pelosi, except that she has been called a "liberal" — which many seem to think is a dirty word. Message to those who believe that "liberal" is a dirty word: look it up in the dictionary! Ignorant closed-mindedness is not being a good conservative; it is being ignorant and closed-minded. Next, they will be saying that the dictionary is 'liberal'...
I am not saying that all who oppose Pelosi are stupid. If you can back up your arguments, and can use facts (in their factual form, of course), than even if you are a 'conservative', you are not the kinds of people I am talking about. Also keep in mind many of these ideologies are from the slightly-demented American political terms (different from political ideologies on the world scale, such as political alliances and more defined terms of what is left and what is right and what is centre), so American liberalism is "liberal", American Conservatism (including Neoconservatives and the religious/Christian right) are "conservatives".
Technorati Tags: pelosi, liberal, conservative, neocon, 9/11+commission, 100-hour+plan, nancy+pelosi, house, democratic+party, democrats, american+conservatism, american+liberalism, religious+right, christian+right, politics, news, current, opinion, commentary, in+perspective, clearthought
Blogger v. me, CNN v. AP, Allen v. Webb
I have not been able to post because of Blogger client problems (status codes 1-500-3 and 1-500-4).
I printed out many, many good articles to read on paper since my eyes are starting to go nuts from looking at my computer screen all day yesterday and today.
Virginia still has not been called by CNN, but it has by AP. (CNN does not call races this close unless one party makes the concession). There is a 7,300 vote lead Webb (D) has over incumbent Allen (R) and all Allen has to do is concede defeat — which may happen any minute. If he does not Virginia law requires that before a recount, canvassing of polling places (et al) must take place. That would begin to happen on next Monday.
Please, Sen. Allen, I am begging you... concede to Sen.-elect Webb so I will have my closure! I cannot wait until Monday and beyond!
Technorati Tags: personal, allen, webb, election, elections, recount, midterm, virginia, senate, politics, news, current, AP, CNN, in+perspective, clearthought, blogger, blogger+error
Democratic sweep? (update 3)
BREAKING NEWS:
Montana is called for the Democrats. They now only need Virginia to have a majority.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is expected to resign. Probably something the White House has been saving for after the election, or they just decided to do it after the GOP lost so much this midterm election.
Democratic sweep? (update 2)
Apparantly 99.84 percent of precincts are now counted in Virginia's race between Allen (R) and Webb(D). Webb seems to be ahead by 7,000-8,000 votes (7,046 according tot eh afore-linked source). Also, Kos dug up some statements by the Democrats in both the Montana and Virginia races saying they don't believe in recounts of ballots.
Both Allen and Burns will have the right to call for a recount, it seems. Yet given their prior public comments on recounts, we should expect them to pass.
Well, unluckily for Allen (R-VA) and Burns (R-MT), they are both behind their Democrat rivals by only thousands of votes.
I'm sure these former Senators will stand by their words, and not develop a double standard now. Right?
Kos of Daily Kos has done a great job at covering these elections, The Huffington Post has been like a dumbed-down (slow and skimpy) version of the Drudge Report.
technorati tags: election, elections, allen, webb, virginia+senate, senate, democrats, republicans, kos, montana, virginia, us+senate, midterm+election, votes, recount, politics, new, in+perspective, commentary, forecast, democratic, clearthought, in+the+news, current+affairs, blog
Democratic sweep? (update 1)
The Democrats have taken six governorships, around approx. 30 House of Representatives seats, and four Senate seats — meaning they have the most governors and the majority in the house, but the Senate is still hinging on two races. Now, the DSCC has released a celebratory message of Congressional triumph: the Democrats have won those two very close races, thus the Dems have swept Congress. They don't want an erronious and premature celebration like in the past.
DSCC statement:
Both Jon Tester and Jim Webb have won their races in Montana and Virginia but want to make sure that every vote is counted. We expect to have official results soon but can happily declare today that Democrats have taken the majority in the U.S. Senate.
Montana Vote Situation: Jon Tester leads Conrad Burns by approximately 1,700 votes (as of 11am EDT) and counting.......
Virginia Vote Situation: Jim Webb is up by approximately 8,000 votes and once the provisional ballots are counted, we expect Webb's margin to increase....
technorati tags: election, elections, allen, webb, virginia+senate, senate, democrats, republicans, kos, montana, virginia, us+senate, midterm+election, votes, recount, politics, new, in+perspective, commentary, forecast, democratic, clearthought, in+the+news, current+affairs, blog
Virginia, Montana Senate races still deadlocked!
With 99 percent of precincts reported in both races, Virginia's Webb (D) is beating Allen (R) in Virginia by about 8,200; Montana's Tester (D) beating Burns (R) by 1,800 votes in Montana. Democrats and Republicans still are stuck at 49 seats each (in a 100-seat Senate). These two races will decide who control. Dems have to win both Virginia and Montana to get the US Senate. Lieberman (Conn.) is included as Democrat though he isn't one, be aligns with their caucus. The Dems have gained four Senate seats so far this election.
Will the Dems take advantage of their wins? Plus, Speaker Pelosi
One of the best things that can come out of this exchange of power in Congress is that the rules former Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay (now indicted on a slew of well-deserved charges) set up making the House majority party so much more powerful could be used to the Democrat's advantage — and possibly the advantage of the nation. I, however, am not too optimistic that the Dems will take full advantage of the majority power and the ability to investigate the White House by using Executive subpoena.
As I talked about in this post outlining various election and post-election scenarios, there will be party change — for better or for worse — almost certainly in the Republican and Democratic parties. One can only hope that the Dems will take this chance, grab it by its horns, and make the best of their around 30 seat advantage in the House of Representatives. One problem, the House is still moderately conservative since many moderate Republicans were beaten by Democrats and there are relatively few liberal Democrats (especially compared to the fact that there are 435 seats in that body of Congress).
It will be interesting to see what the first woman Speaker of the House will bring, Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency (on the very off and unrealistic occasion that both President Bush and Vice President Chaney were to pass away in the next two years). Pelosi and Boxer are two of the few liberal House members; Feingold, Feinstein, and Kennedy are two of the few liberal Senate members (all are Democrats).
I will be panning through the post-election dirt of commentary, sifting for a few pieces of gold today.
Senate outcome still unclear
The Democrats definitely control the House, but the Montana and Virginia (99 percent of precincts reporting; Allan (R) and Webb (D) are deadlocked with only 8,000 votes separating them) Senate races are both between 0 and 1 percent difference. The Dems and GOP are still — after a full night — tied 49-49 for control of the House of Representatives. The good news is McCaskill (D) ended up beating incumbent Talent (R) in the Missouri race. The Dems also won most other key races.
Bruce Reed of Slate is quite content at the Democrats wining the House,
Going into tonight, Democrats had celebrated a grand total of three truly happy Election Nights—1986, 1992, 1996—in the past three decades and three truly miserable ones in this decade alone. So, for Democrats, an election in which we were destined to win back the House and a majority of governorships for the first time in 12 years is more than a good night. It's a new lease on life.
More soon.
Tuesday, 7 November 2006
Counting down to US elections: 0 days (update 13)
Outcome (partial)
It looks like the Democrats have pulled off the expected win in the House of Representatives (NBC News predicted it at 10:56 PM EST) — with only the votes from the western part of the US still needing counting and calling. They have not done badly in the Senate either, which is still very close.
CNN states, as of 11:59 EST, three Senate seats, 21 House seats, and six governors so far have been gained by the Dems — with four, 96, and seven (respectively) still waiting to be called. 189 Dems, 150 GOP so far called/resulted.
See the latest calls on national, state, and local elections and voting matters in the US.
Tomorrow...
Tomorrow will come with a tirade of pundits and experts (as well as students and laypeople trying to be learnt, like me) offering their views of this election. I will offer mine too.
Tomorrow at a bit before 8 AM EST, I will post some results. Later and throughout the day, I will catch you and myself up on the latest post-election buzz.
I want to get some good sleep tonight, I woke up at 5:15 AM today (I usually wake up nearly two hours later).
Election news coverage
I think CNN has done a fine job, especially at calling, this election (BBC News was my winner for the 2004 elections). Drudge Report — which I rarely use — has also provided a good amount of tidbits on developing stories. During the election, Real Clear Politics and CQ Politics both were good on the political analysis front, Washington Post let me down, BBC News only let me doen on their charts (minute, not detailed, direct from AP), Google News should have created a mini-section for election news (in my opinion), Daily Kos was the best blog for the elections, The Huffington Post was the most Drudge-like but without the breaking news first or finding it before the rest of us, Yahoo! News provided AP and Reuters reports, MSNBC lagged behind CNN in their calling and prediction... and that's about it.
Counting down to US elections: 0 days (update 12)
Lieberman projected to win Conn. Senate race. As Kos puts it:
The White House celebrates Joe Lieberman's victory. So do war mongers.
Foreign Policy compares several Congresspeople running for office on the issues.
A BBC News blog, The Reporters, post points out that...
It's been six dismal years for the Democrats. They are desperate to get back into power. Are they so desperate they'll break their own resolution and start celebrating prematurely?
Though, it should be noted that much of the celebration comes from expectatons from the likes of Larry Sabato, who is smart enough to have a crystal ball named after him.
The Democrats need three more seats to take the Senate, 12 to take the House.
Counting down to US elections: 0 days (update 11)
Another sign that the Democrats will have trouble, even if they win the House (which they almost certainly will) is in this Michael Kinsley piece for The Guardian:
What will a Democratic House of Representatives be like? The Republicans have been painting a portrait of Democrats roasting children on a spit in the Capitol Rotunda. Hoping for a more encouraging view, I picked up A New Direction for America - a 31-page manifesto released by House Democrats in June. All I can say is, thank goodness I voted beforehand.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post has a neat media wrap-up of predictions, bits about events, and sample drafts of election outcome reports (not real though).
See also this post on other election outcome scenarios.
So far: the Republicans are ahead by three seats in the Senate races; the Democrats are ahead by eight in the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
