Looks like we got the Senate!!

[Zooropa]

Looks like the Republicans got the senate!!! WOO HOO!!! Cool beans.

[garibaldo]

I think Democrats can blame themselves for this defeat. Clearly they didn't have a clear national strategy for this election, the issues they chose didn't resonate enough with voters and they just couldn't mobilize their side to the polls.

[Not George Lucas]

Goddammit.

It's just a bad idea for one party to hold the House, Senate, and Presidency.

[bonosloveslave]

Originally posted by Not George Lucas

It's just a bad idea for one party to hold the House, Senate, and Presidency.

I'm not complaining. Maybe some things will actually get done around here now.

[MSU2mike]

Originally posted by garibaldo
I think Democrats can blame themselves for this defeat. Clearly they didn't have a clear national strategy for this election, the issues they chose didn't resonate enough with voters and they just couldn't mobilize their side to the polls.

I think Terry McAuliffe may be looking for a job later this afternoon.

[Not George Lucas]

Originally posted by bonosloveslave
I'm not complaining. Maybe some things will actually get done around here now.

Yes, it means things will go faster, but it also means that pretty much anything the president proposes, good or bad, will be passed. That's why I hate partisan politics. I think there should be more than two major parties or none at all, and I think the majorities in the House and Senate as well as the presidency should all be different.

Having all of Congress and the president in the same party is like saying, "I have complete trust in you, Mr. President, and anything you want is fine with me."

No one in Washington represents me.

[melon]

I think I'm going to have to be forced to reshape the Democratic Party. They've been spineless since the Reagan era, and they have never been the master of propaganda like the Republican political machine.

They had better watch out before they head into irrelevance. I would not fear to say that the Democratic Party is in slight danger of being destroyed, in a similar fashion as to how the Federalist Party imploded in the early 1800s.

Melon

[Lilly]

MWAHAHAAAA

South Dakota elected its best candidate, Democrat Tim Johnson. But check these results:

JOHNSON (D) 167,477 50%
THUNE (R) 166,949 49%
EVANS (L) 3,064 1%



Don't think recounts aren't in the process.


What's amazing is that is a lot of voters! I mean, that's a little over 350,000. And that's uhh well almost half the population LOL.


So...our one senator is a Democrat.

[MSU2mike]

Originally posted by Lilly
MWAHAHAAAA

South Dakota elected its best candidate, Democrat Tim Johnson. But check these results:

JOHNSON (D) 167,477 50%
THUNE (R) 166,949 49%
EVANS (L) 3,064 1%



Don't think recounts aren't in the process.

Two points:

1. Any election that close should be recounted.
2. I was under the impression that there were a number of absentee ballots still to count. Either that's wrong, and there aren't so many...of the AP has called it prematurely.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by melon
I think I'm going to have to be forced to reshape the Democratic Party. They've been spineless since the Reagan era, and they have never been the master of propaganda like the Republican political machine.

Melon

I think Clinton's team did quite a fine job spinning the propaganda.

We look forward to your canidacy Melon!

[melon]

Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think Clinton's team did quite a fine job spinning the propaganda.

We look forward to your canidacy Melon!

To hell with Clinton and the rest of existing political system. I intend to bring a cultural revolution.

And I'm determined to do just that.

Melon

[Lilly]

Originally posted by MSU2mike


Two points:

1. Any election that close should be recounted.
2. I was under the impression that there were a number of absentee ballots still to count. Either that's wrong, and there aren't so many...of the AP has called it prematurely.

Two points:

1. yes. but recounts in other cases are irritating.

2. i wouldn't say "a number." it's probably less than 1,000 absentee ballots, which will not make or break this election. remember, we have a freakish population here.

[us3]

Originally posted by Lilly
MWAHAHAAAA

South Dakota elected its best candidate, Democrat Tim Johnson. But check these results:

JOHNSON (D) 167,477 50%
THUNE (R) 166,949 49%
EVANS (L) 3,064 1%



Don't think recounts aren't in the process.


What's amazing is that is a lot of voters! I mean, that's a little over 350,000. And that's uhh well almost half the population LOL.


So...our one senator is a Democrat.

u have 2 demos. lest u forget Tom d. Recount is automatic. Yes it will be interesting given "voting registration irregularities" in SD. If the talley is close to the same w/ Johnson still in the lead, Thune should concede.

BTW- recount isn't automatic according to tim J...Thune hasn't conceded yet.

[Lilly]

I meant 1 this here election to vote on. I can't live in So Dak and forget about Tom. He wasn't up for re-election or anything though, as his name wasn't on any ballot.


Recount? yes

Thune win as a result of absentee ballots or recount? no, probably not.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by MSU2mike


I think Terry McAuliffe may be looking for a job later this afternoon.

Let's takle a look back at the career of Mr. McAuliffe:

NBC’s Tim Russert: Now, you said in The New York Times last week, “Jeb Bush is gone.” You want to take those words back? McAuliffe: Of course not. I’ve very excited about what’s going on in Florida. Russert: He’s going to lose guaranteed? McAuliffe: Yep. That is why the president was down there yesterday for his 13th visit. People in Florida are energized. They’ve already started the early voting. And if you look at Broward and Dade counties, there are lines already, huge lines, people--record vote coming out in Florida... we are going to win Florida which is going to set us up, Tim, very nicely for 2004. (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” November 3, 2002)

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by melon about the democrat party
They've been spineless since the Reagan era, and they have never been the master of propaganda like the Republican political machine.

me, i'm just glad the governor i voted for won. this was the first election i was able to vote in, and it made me feel glad that someone i voted for won. it made me feel like my voted did matter, and it did make a difference.

i wasn't surprised that the person i voted for for senate didn't win, though. i voted for a third party person, which is essentially like throwing away your vote, at least here. it sucks, but that's how it is. for the house, the person i voted for didn't win (not by a long shot) but oh well. you win some, you lose some.

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by Not George Lucas


Yes, it means things will go faster, but it also means that pretty much anything the president proposes, good or bad, will be passed. That's why I hate partisan politics. I think there should be more than two major parties or none at all, and I think the majorities in the House and Senate as well as the presidency should all be different.

Having all of Congress and the president in the same party is like saying, "I have complete trust in you, Mr. President, and anything you want is fine with me."

No one in Washington represents me.

Why isn't this arguement made against all the far-left European governments? Same situation, right?

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by melon
I think I'm going to have to be forced to reshape the Democratic Party. They've been spineless since the Reagan era, and they have never been the master of propaganda like the Republican political machine.

They had better watch out before they head into irrelevance. I would not fear to say that the Democratic Party is in slight danger of being destroyed, in a similar fashion as to how the Federalist Party imploded in the early 1800s.

Melon

I've been thinking the same thing for a while now. I predict that with the new campaign finance laws and stronger outturns for green party candidates, the democratic party will be fractured by the far-left and both will lose out to Republicans as a result. If the Republicans take a hard swing to the right with their new powers, I imagine the Democrats can capture the center and the swing voters. Should be interesting. I can't imagine Bush completely ignoring public opinion because he still needs to win 2004. So, I'm hoping for the former! I'm going to make donations to the green party and the socialist party to help you guys out!

Republicans! Start funding the green party! It's our only hope.

It's an exciting time to be a Republican!

[STING2]

No one will say it, but I think a big part of the reason for the Republican victory is support among Americans for Bush's war on terrorism and policy on Iraq, despite indications that these were not the top issue's by media polls in this election. I remind you this was a midterm elections for a president that lost the popular vote in 2000 with an economy that has been slow on the recovery front. First term presidents, even popular ones, usually do not gain seats in mid-term election, this is the first time in a half century or a century I believe. Add in the economy and it is truly a huge victory. War on terror and Bush's policy on Iraq I think clearly swayed voters to vote for the GOP.

[Lilly]

Originally posted by STING2
No one will say it, but I think a big part of the reason for the Republican victory is support among Americans for Bush's war on terrorism and policy on Iraq, despite indications that these were not the top issue's by media polls in this election.

What Americans are you talking to?


This country is clearly split on the validity of the War on Terrorism and apparently its subsequent wars that MUST be fought. I don't really want this to be a war discussion thread, so I'm going to bring it back by saying there are other reasons people voted Republican.