The official Election Day 2006 thread!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
VintagePunk said:
Not that tonight hasn't been full of great developments, but why oh why couldn't the American public have had their flashes of insight two years ago? :|



fear.

pure, abject fear of another 9-11. when the Republicans say, in effect, "vote for us or you'll be killed by terrorists," it's kind of a stark choice.

and Kerry, while a fine debater, wasn't a terribly good candidate.

(i should really go to bed)
 
Irvine511 said:
fear.

pure, abject fear of another 9-11. when the Republicans say, in effect, "vote for us or you'll be killed by terrorists," it's kind of a stark choice.

and Kerry, while a fine debater, wasn't a terribly good candidate.

(i should really go to bed)

Yeah, Bush's campaign was all about instilling fear in the voters...which...ironically, isn't that the same tactic of the terrorists???

And :down: to Kerry. I wanted Dennis to win. :sad: But I guess the country wasn't ready for a Catholic Vegan President.
 
Irvine511 said:




fear.

pure, abject fear of another 9-11. when the Republicans say, in effect, "vote for us or you'll be killed by terrorists," it's kind of a stark choice.

and Kerry, while a fine debater, wasn't a terribly good candidate.

(i should really go to bed)


Agreed. I've said time and time again that the GOP spin machine is frighteningly powerful and effective.

I used to be completely immersed in politics, but was so discouraged by the '04 results, I had to give it a rest. I haven't followed much of the race prior to tonight, but I hope the Dems have learned a few lessons in PR since '04 that will serve them well in '08.
 
VintagePunk said:



Agreed. I've said time and time again that the GOP spin machine is frighteningly powerful and effective.



it's true. much of Republican successes over the past 6 years have been due to superior organization and Democratic blunders, and George Bush has always, always been very fortunate in his enemies.

am just dying to see what the WH reaction will be.

and the first thing they all need to do is fire the fuck out of Rumsfeld.
 
HEY!! Now that Dems have control of the house...can we start talking impeachment?


I don't quite remember the procedure exactly, but it starts with the legislative branch...that's all I know.
 
Irvine511 said:




it's true. much of Republican successes over the past 6 years have been due to superior organization and Democratic blunders, and George Bush has always, always been very fortunate in his enemies.

am just dying to see what the WH reaction will be.

and the first thing they all need to do is fire the fuck out of Rumsfeld.
...and put in Lieberman.
 
Irvine511 said:



am just dying to see what the WH reaction will be.

and the first thing they all need to do is fire the fuck out of Rumsfeld.

Apparently we'll have to wait till tomorrow for reaction, because GW is taking this evening to pout. That notion fills me with far more glee than it ought to. :wink:
 
A_Wanderer said:
...and put in Lieberman.


so lamont can be CT senator. :)


So looks like Mo is swinging dem and STL hasn't yet reported. I'm probably going to bed after they call it, trusting MT to be ours and that VA won't be ours for sure for weeks.

CT numbers are itneresting, some really close races.
 
I've got to be at work at 9 a.m. but I'm too excited to sleep!

After six years of frustration this all feels so strange.

(Edited because I forgot it's already tomorrow where I live!)
 
It looks like it is very possible for the Dems to actually win the remaining 3 senate seats they need to take the senate. CNN just gave Missouri to the Dems. Webb is apparently ahead by 12000 votes now. And in Montana, after 65% of the precincts, the Dem is leading by 11000 votes. Hmmm.....

Apparently all the incumbent Dems have won too. I am interested in how the White House responds to these results.
 
Last edited:
Webb's lead in Virginia has jumped from about 2300 votes to around 5700! Absolutely incredible that two and a quarter million people can only differ by that number of votes. On CNN earlier they were talking about how recounts only change around 800 votes max, and that anything above that would indicate lots of problems with the initial count. A recount where 5700 votes changed sides would be extremely rare....

unbelievable night!!!!

tomorrow will be a beautiful day!
 
VintagePunk said:

Apparently we'll have to wait till tomorrow for reaction, because GW is taking this evening to pout. That notion fills me with far more glee than it ought to. :wink:

:lol:

Yep. I love the image I'm getting of pouting Dubya too. :D
 
Tester lead just moved to 3%. Will they even have a recount in Virginia with an 11000 vote difference?

Pretty quiet forum tonight from the conservative posters too.
 
Last edited:
They said on either CNN/FOX/MSNBC (I watch them all) that it had to be 1% (total vote) or within?...for the recount.
 
Last edited:
OH THIS WILL BE SWEET IF THE DEMS WIN- i so wanna see GWBs reaction if it happens, what is the likely hood of an impeachment if the dems take both houses do you think?
 
U2DMfan said:
They said on either CNN/FOX/MSNBC (I watch them all) that it had to be 1% (total vote) or within?...for the recount.

Yes, but will they bother if the difference is 10000 or so. The loser has to request the recount. It's within the recount variance and I suppose you have to do whatever you can to win.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN analyst was saying that it's hardly worth the effort based on his experience with past recounts as a lawyer. He discussed one case separated by 300 or so votes and after a long drawn out recount, the winner ended up getting an extra 37 votes. So his point was unless the margin is pretty small, it won't make a difference anyway.

I think Webb's lead has shrunk a little over the past hour too.
 
Webb's lead down to 7400 now.

Tester lead down to 2%.

Pretty dramatic finish for sure.
 
Back
Top Bottom