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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

before you flame me for being a liberal, confession: i voted for a few republicans

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.

 

[garibaldo]

No one in Washington represents me.

They should have some nutjob wheeled into congress from a mental institution and he can shout something crazy like "Labadada DAH!" during each session and then he'll leave. I think that's adequate representation of your side. Hahaha

How about Marrion Barry? He's in Washington. He's the best crack-smokin, bribe taking, whore-boinking representative of the left that I've ever seen.

Sorry...sorry...I'm not done gloating.

 

[bonosloveslave]

They should have some nutjob wheeled into congress from a mental institution and he can shout something crazy like "Labadada DAH!" during each session and then he'll leave. I think that's adequate representation of your side. Hahaha

How about Marrion Barry? He's in Washington. He's the best crack-smokin, bribe taking, whore-boinking representative of the left that I've ever seen.

Sorry...sorry...I'm not done gloating.

Let's not forget dear ol' Ted Kennedy........

 

[STING2]

Lilly,

Most opinion polls do show support for Bush's war on terrorism and USA policy on Iraq. In addition, Congress both House and Senate supported Bush's resolution on Iraq by an overwhelming majority. Even a majority of Democratic senator's supported Bush's resolution on Iraq. More Democratic senators supported Bush Jr.'s resolution on Iraq than they did Bush Sr. resolution on Iraq in January 1991, that was clearly supported by the American people. There are few other issues that have this much strong bi-partisan support. Of course, if there are other issue's you think the public likes the Republicans more on, I'd be interested to here what you think they are.

 

[Rono]

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.

Yep,...scared people vote for conservative politic ideas and solutions.

 

[Lilly]

They should have some nutjob wheeled into congress from a mental institution and he can shout something crazy like "Labadada DAH!" during each session and then he'll leave. I think that's adequate representation of your side. Hahaha

How about Marrion Barry? He's in Washington. He's the best crack-smokin, bribe taking, whore-boinking representative of the left that I've ever seen.

Sorry...sorry...I'm not done gloating.

garibaldo, you know this stuff is inappropriate to post. please act accordingly.

 

[Lilly]

STING2~

Sorry if I came off completely wrong there. My personal opinion on the war is really complicated (yes under x and y circumstances, no under a and be circumstances).


I think public opinion polls are generally inaccurate. Some that eliminate as many factors as possible are mildly accurate. But phone polls don't get people who work either during the day, or at night, the people that don't have phones very well can't answer them, and generally it's someone that is younger than 18 who answers the phone and can't participate in the poll. But how else do we poll? online? What about people who don't have access online? Or people who vote more than once?


The sentiment that I've gotten from the upper Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, northeast Nebraska) has all been anti-war.



IF (when) we do go to war, I don't want it to be over something frivolous. I know that a lot of Democrats back the war, and that's something that shows me the war is apparently worth fighting. Same thing if there were a Democratic President and Republicans backed him in an iffy war, it just gives more backing to the war.


Umm, if that made sense, then I'm done.

 

[garibaldo]

STING2~

Sorry if I came off completely wrong there. My personal opinion on the war is really complicated (yes under x and y circumstances, no under a and be circumstances).


I think public opinion polls are generally inaccurate. Some that eliminate as many factors as possible are mildly accurate. But phone polls don't get people who work either during the day, or at night, the people that don't have phones very well can't answer them, and generally it's someone that is younger than 18 who answers the phone and can't participate in the poll. But how else do we poll? online? What about people who don't have access online? Or people who vote more than once?


The sentiment that I've gotten from the upper Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, northeast Nebraska) has all been anti-war.



IF (when) we do go to war, I don't want it to be over something frivolous. I know that a lot of Democrats back the war, and that's something that shows me the war is apparently worth fighting. Same thing if there were a Democratic President and Republicans backed him in an iffy war, it just gives more backing to the war.


Umm, if that made sense, then I'm done.

First, let me say that you're WAY too uptight about small jokes at the expense of liberals. God knows there has been a ton against conservatives on this board. You need to lighten up. I even apologized at the end!

Secondly, most polls aren't just run by a ragtag bunch of news people with an agenda without consulting statisticians.

Thirdly, I submit that your "sense" of things is flawed because you're going to tend towards liberal points of view and stray from conservative ones. That's just your bias.

 

[STING2]

Lilly,

I'd agree with you about support for the war and policy on Iraq in the states you mentioned. The midwest, even with Republicans in office, I think tends to be a little more Isolationist when it comes to foreign affairs.

Polls are never 100% accurate, but are often very close within a margin of error of + or - 5%. I think the election of public officials is very accurate and if there was really strong opposition to the war on terrorism or the policy on Iraq, I think we would have seen it in yesterday's election. Its difficult to say what exactly yesterday's election was an endorsement of, but I feel it did endorse the President's policies on Terror and Iraq, because these things are very serious and known by virtually everyone. While many will disagree with me on this next point, I feel that not voting(when one has the opportunity) is simply an endorsement of the outcome.

 

[melon]

Indeed, I believe Republican victory was due to immense war fervor amongst conservative areas of the country. We want blood...and I'm sure now we'll get it...

Melon

 

[Lilly]

First, let me say that you're WAY too uptight about small jokes at the expense of liberals. God knows there has been a ton against conservatives on this board. You need to lighten up. I even apologized at the end!

Secondly, most polls aren't just run by a ragtag bunch of news people with an agenda without consulting statisticians.

Thirdly, I submit that your "sense" of things is flawed because you're going to tend towards liberal points of view and stray from conservative ones. That's just your bias.

1. No, I'm not WAY too uptight about SMALL jokes at the expense of liberals. I don't count:

He's the best crack-smokin, bribe taking, whore-boinking representative of the left that I've ever seen.

as a SMALL joke.

2. I know this. I'm a reporter, I run polls all the time. BUT, it depends on how to take polls...they don't reach everyone. So when I see a poll that says "66% of South Dakotans believe x, y, and z" I know it's 66% of however many they polled, not, as is often inferred, actually 66% of South Dakotans believing x, y, and z.

3. I'm independent, I don't make my life decisions based on a party line. The fact that I'm an Independent doesn't mean that I don't like something associated with the Republican party simply because it is associated with the Republicans, and I don't automatically like everything the Democrats or Independents do just because it's them either. I think for myself. It doesn't effect my "sense" of things. What does determine my sense of things is talking to people, reading the newspapers, etc. And that's not something I can taint.