Election Day

[HibachiDG]

Political opinions to the forefront, today is election day and we all have the opportunity to exercise our right to vote.

If you voted, who'd you vote for? What races are you most likely to follow today?

I voted last week with an absentee ballot for PA...Voted for Bob Casey Jr for senate...mainly because I dislike Santorum a whole lot. I did not vote for Casey in the primary, but I think he'll be fine. Voted for Ed Rendell as Governor, which was an easy thing to do. Lynn Swann seems a nice enough guy and I hope he runs for something like Congress in a Republican district in a couple of years. On my local races, I voted for a couple of democratic candidates that I don't know a whole lot about, but my dad has done some work for and my mother says the one lady is nice, so, hey, she can go to the statehouse. Had a ballot referendum asking if the Commonwealth should be indebted 20million to pay some bonus checks to veterans of the first Gulf War. Said no to that.

Michigan has some interesting ballot options, as voters are voting on eminent domain, affirmative action and dove hunting.

[suedon1970]

I usually don't vote straight party lines, and although I am a registered Republican, I voted this morning for incumbent democrat Bill Nelson for U.S. Senate over that icky shrew Katherine Harris.

Just a story about Harris (yes THAT Harris of the controversial 2000 presidential election) I have met her several times, but one of the last times was in August 2004 after Hurricane Charley hit our area. Now let me tell you, the town I worked in at the time was absolutely devastated - houses and commercial buildings destroyed, huge, stately oak trees splintered and in the middle of roads, no power, no water, you get the picture. I show up at my bank to help out, everyone is in jeans and t-shirts, giving out supplies and water, and here is Harris, wearing a business suit, full makeup, shaking hands, politicing!!! I felt like telling her: "B***h, time to help your constituents, get your hands dirty & get to work!"

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by suedon1970
I felt like telling her: "B***h, time to help your constituents, get your hands dirty & get to work!"

Then, fists were flying, clothes were being torn and the audience was yelling "JERRY!! JERRY!! JERRY!!"



I am getting ready to go vote. Wish me luck!

[suedon1970]

Then, fists were flying, clothes were being torn and the audience was yelling "JERRY!! JERRY!! JERRY!!"



I am getting ready to go vote. Wish me luck!

:lol: :lol: I tell ya, I was seething so much, it came pretty close to that scenario, Toby!

Good Luck!!!:thumbup:

[catman]

I voted this morning and did not vote a straight party ticket, as I usually do not.
I'm not sure how the results will turn out here in Iowa, but the weather is great and most of the harvest is in, so farmers will be able to come to town and vote. The weather is supposed to be very nice for the rest of the week, so those farmers that are not done with their harvest should be able to get it done after today's vote.
I encourage everyone to vote for the candidates that they feel will represent their interests best and not be swayed by the negative campaigns that both parties are running.

[tobynosker]

I voted for three Democrats, three Republicans and one Libertarian.

On a national scale, I voted for Incumbent Jerry Moran (R) to continue to serve in the United States Congress and represent the first district of Kansas, while I also voted for Incumbent Kathleen Sebelius (D) to continue to serve as governor of Kansas.

The most highly contested race in the state has been for the attorney general seat, and I voted for Democrat Paul Morrison to unseat Republican Incumbent Phil Kline.

[IntheNet]

I voted straight Republican because I think they've all done a good job... local ballot inititives wanted to take more money from me via higher taxes and I said no way... They also wanted to define marriage strangely and I said no way. Then they gave me some sticker and I told them where to put it... Some broad asked me on the way out how I voted and I told her where to shove it... So much negativism...

[tobynosker]

But, won't it be tough for the broad to shove it, with the sticker already placed in that particular region?

[buckeyefan78]

State candidates...blah. Didn't vote for any of 'em. I almost went Green for governor but nah. Only voted for 2 local candidates. Did vote for most of my local issues. We had some state issues too...

Issue 1: Didn't vote on it.

Issue 2 (Increase Min. Wage): Yes

Issue 3 (Gambling and Education): No

Issue 4 (Restricts Smoking in certain places): Yes

Issue 5: (Restricts Smoking in public places): No

[Ellis]

Wow, the Democrats are making a huge run. It looks like they have a chance of taking the Senate and House.

[catman]

Not necessarily a huge run. They seem to have taken control of the House, but not certain they will win the Senate.
In a side-note, there was a local race in which $6M was spent in total during the campaign.

[HibachiDG]

It's going to be damn close, though. Webb apparently pulled ahead of Allen late. FOX is calling it for Webb, it seems, putting the democrats at 49. But, I mean, recounts and lawyerin'-up is forthcoming as that one was seperated by something like 2500 votes. Missouri, Talent leads now, apparently a lot of the areas where McCaskill is expected to be strong have not reported, yet.

So, a lot could still happen.

[KevinBeane]

Dems, as I write this, need to win all three Senate races still contested to take a majority there. But, even if they win just one of the three, they will have a de facto majority with the two Independents voting Dem on most issues (notable exception being Lieberman on Iraq votes).

[LA sports]

Voted Republican across the board except for one American Independent. Republicans winning almost everything in California including Gov, Lt. Gov & Secretary of State as well as insurance commissioner. Diane Frankenstein will of course win again though and the dems have done very well nationally so congrats to all the liberals. I hope the two parties can work together and be effective, but I doubt it.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
FOX is calling it for Webb, it seems, putting the democrats at 49. But, I mean, recounts and lawyerin'-up is forthcoming as that one was seperated by something like 2500 votes.

One of the county commission races here locally resulted in the Incumbent receiving 508 votes, and the challenger receiving 506 votes.

Who thinks a recount is going to be demanded in this case?

[IntheNet]

Webb apparently pulled ahead of Allen late. FOX is calling it for Webb...

Yeah... all the leftists won last night...even Daniel Ortega won... a complete leftist liberal coup... a bad night for America...

The only good thing in yesterday's results that I can see is that hopefully, by letting the leftist liberals win now, America will see their true colors by the 2008 election to return to normalcy then...

:(

[HibachiDG]

The only good thing in yesterday's results that I can see is that hopefully, by letting the leftist liberals win now, America will see their true colors by the 2008 election to return to normalcy then...

The democrats cast their net extremely wide for this election, a vast changed from 2004. McCain is already talking about the Republicans regrouping, and if they do, this could be possible. But, if they run like the democrats did in 2004, cocky and gung ho on the big issue, they might run into the same problems the democrats did in 2004.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
The only good thing in yesterday's results that I can see is that hopefully, by letting the leftist liberals win now, America will see their true colors by the 2008 election to return to normalcy then...

Always looking at the glass as half full, huh?



Although unlikely, if Hillary Clinton were to get elected President in 2008, and then Jeb Bush follows her into office, our countries list of Presidents will have gone:

Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, Bush.

God Bless America!

[catman]

Now its up to the Democrats to actually do something with their majority. The last time they were in control of anything in Washington, it resulted in nearly nothing being done -- Senate, 2001-3. The result of that strategy was the defeat of the Senate Majority leader.
I congratulate the Democrats on running a superior campaign and hope that they will do something to move the country forward.

[buckeyefan78]

This was a pretty surprising election IMO.

Minimum wage was on the ballot in 6 states and got raised in all of 'em.

Affirmative action restrictions passed in Michigan...a blow to mainstream liberals.

South Dakota voted against the toughest anti-abortion legislation we've ever seen.

Dems took control of The House and perhaps The Senate.

Gay marriage was on the ballot in 8 states. "Traditional" marriage prevailed in 7 states but check the numbers out...

1. Virginia...57%...Simply amazing. Virginia is still the heart of the Confederacy. Only 57% were against it? Shocking.

2. Colorado...53%...Another amazing. Colorado is considered the "Confederate state of the West."

3. Idaho...63%

4. South Carolina...78%...expected.

5. Tennessee...81%...expected

6. South Dakota...52%

7. Wisconsin...59%...disappointing for an urbanized Union state esp. with the effort put in by the interest groups up there.

I believe Arizona said "No" to the ban with 51%. I'm not sure if that is official though.

Ohio and Pennsylvania also went left in many races (including governor and Senate)...a good development for the Dems in 2008 as they are the key northern states. Perhaps the Republicans in the southern and western parts of Ohio and in central PA are tired of the right. I'm assuming on ethical issues but really don't know.

[Marc]

I believe only the recount in Virginia is standing between the Dems controlling the Senate, and Webb (D) has an 8,000-vote lead. In other words, mark it down as a sweep for the Dems. And I think it's just a preview of 2008.

[buckeyefan78]

Yeah...that's the way things look right now Marc.

Other notes...

Cheney fired Rumsfeld.

The Confederacy nearly elected their first African-American Senator since Reconstruction but Henry Ford (D) of Tennessee was narrowly defeated.

[Marc]

And Arnold won in a landslide, which is surprising because this was an election dominated by the Dems. Neither he nor Bush can speak English, but at least Arnold seems competent. I winced watching Bush's press conference today. I think Bush has a crush of David Gregory...

[buckeyefan78]

And Arnold won in a landslide, which is surprising because this was an election dominated by the Dems. Neither he nor Bush can speak English, but at least Arnold seems competent. I winced watching Bush's press conference today. I think Bush has a crush of David Gregory...

:lol:

Actually Gregory and Bush don't get along very well so that explains the bantar.

Arnold is left on many social issues and came along when Californians desperately needed a Goldwater Repubublican on finances. Whether he's lived up to those stereotypes is up for debate but that is the perception and reason why he's done well IMO.

[Ellis]

I really don't like the politicians in either party right now, but thank god that America has steered away from Conservatism.

[Marc]

I think one reason why I like Arnold is we are similar politically. In other words, we are not traditional liberals or conservatives. I am very liberal in some areas, and conservative in others. Arnold seems to be the same way, which makes him appealing to more people. He added a democrat as a top aid a while back when he realized his approval rating was dropping, and now he's popular again.

Ellis, we were never governed by conservatives to begin with. The Bush administration talked the talk, but ended up spending worse than democrats and as a result, our deficit is through the roof with only future generations having to pay the price.

[buckeyefan78]

I really don't like the politicians in either party right now, but thank god that America has steered away from Conservatism.

I wouldn't go that far Ellis. Many races were decided by "ethics" and it just happens the conservatives got caught with their hands in the cookie jar this time around...esp. in Ohio (coin scandal, Taft convicted). The ethical issues in most of these cases were beyond your typical Democratic indiscretions (sex with legal chicks). That was the main problem as I see it.

[catman]

Ellis, did you notice the Democrats that won elections yesterday? Most of them would be considered moderate to conservative, politically. Nobody really liberal was elected for the first time.
Conservatism is not dead, nor will it be any time soon.

[IntheNet]

Ellis, did you notice the Democrats that won elections yesterday? Most of them would be considered moderate to conservative, politically.

Agreed. The Dems fielded only disallusioned conservative candidates or moderate Dems. Good campaign strategy actually. But the Dem party is still controlled from the hard left...

Nobody really liberal was elected for the first time.

No but a Socialist took the reins...Gay Bernie in the Green Mountains.

Conservatism is not dead, nor will it be any time soon.

The Liberalism Democrats will bring will simply rehabilitate the GOP for the 2008 elections; perhaps it is good thing that America gets a brief taste of it. Winning elections is a new thing for Dems. I simply believe that Pelosi and company are the enema that is needed by the nation; the best advertisement and campaign commericial for John Mccaine, Newt Gingrinch, and Jeb Bush in 2008 is Pelosi's San Francisan liberalism on display now...

[catman]

Not sure I'd include McCain in the "conservative" ranks. He is a bit to my left and I'm a centerist.

[bama4256]

I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi for sure-God have mercy on this country.

Went with Republicans. Thank God Ford lost in Tennessee. God help Missouri and Virginia and our once great nation.:(

[catman]

Don't be so hard on the Democrats, Bama. The new members of Congress are not the "hard-left" that some of the leadership is. If they do what they campaigned on, they will not vote with their leadership. If they don't, and the Republicans run decent candidates in 2008, they will be out after 1 term.
The Democrats won the election without having any real plans to move the country forward, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. They have not had a legitimate new idea to move the country forward in over a generation.
I doubt if things will change much in Washington.

[Richard the Lionheart]

For the record, I was far more upset over the fact that Issue 5 passed in Ohio, than the fact that the Dems took over Congress...I really did not care who won at all.

Anyway, I would have to disagree with some in here that this is a trend, that will lead right into '08. This election, IMO, is a slight deviation from a larger trend, going the other way. Anyone who considers himself conservative should be pleased with the result of the election.

The Republicans, frankly, deserved to loose. They were a stagnant party, getting nothing positive accomplished, and spending more than the party they call "the big government people". Then you throw in the little side issues of corruption and all that. Apparently, they couldn't handle 12 years of power without it going completely to their heads.

Bush was a lame duck before this election, he was a lame duck since after his reelection. For Republicans, having a Democrat controlled Congress changes little. The main thing will be immigration, Bush will get his patty-cake immigration bill through, and his laughable No Child Left Behind bill, but we all knew that nothing serious was going to be done about immigration (the root causes behind it) anyway, and the No Child Bill is just another example of the wild, unneccessary broadening of Federal power. Being a minority party for a while should be good for the Republicans, I think.

Also, and this is where I really disagree with some, this sets the Republicans up nicely for the Presidential race in '08. Now that Democrats are the majority party, they will be expected to contribute something, and if they do that is great for the war and the country...if they don't then the country will see it, and the Dems will loose. Its not as easy to govern as it is to point out flaws in others while they are governing. This will be a lesson soon learned.

The Democrats very smartly did not run on anything this cycle. They won't be able to do that in '08. That is why I feel this is a temporary shift. If you want my prediction, we're looking at a President Mitt Romney.

[KevinBeane]

Its not as easy to govern as it is to point out flaws in others while they are governing. This will be a lesson soon learned.


Maybe, but it's not like the Democrats haven't been in charge before. Which leads me to...


The Democrats won the election without having any real plans to move the country forward, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. They have not had a legitimate new idea to move the country forward in over a generation.


I think you mean, "They don't have any new ideas that I agree with." If you think they really have no governing philosophy, platform, and practice, I'd be happy to send you a buncha links.

I agree to a point with Ricky's prediction...there will probably be a lot of "compromise" bills passed that no one is happy about, as Buch will veto anything large-scale that is counter to Republican philosophy. I don't see the voters holding that against the Democrats in 2008, especially if they note how much better the economy genereally seems to run in modern times under Democratic stewardship.

[IntheNet]

...if they note how much better the economy genereally seems to run in modern times under Democratic stewardship.

The current stock market boom and record low unemployment rate had nothing at all to do with Democrats; any Democrat trying to use the economy issue as a feather in their cap does so at their peril...

[HibachiDG]

Well, the reality with the economy is that while the numbers look sharp, the middle class is being altered in a way that a lot of people don't like. The upper middle class is certainly gaining wealth, if not widening, while there becomes a gap with the rest of the middle class. So, it's not the economy, per se, that democrats are going to attack. Just in getting more good paying jobs for the middle class and jobs with benefits.

The other thing the democrats should pass that will certainly may make the economy numbers look like they are dropping, on the whole, will be the minimum wage and raising that nationally. Although, raising the minimum wage hasn't had the drastic economic effects that people expect. Raising the minimum wage is something that on the surface, should hurt the economy, and you just have to justify the bumps down with the reasons for a fair salary for folks. However, in practice, a minimum wage raise has helped economies. A lot of economists are actually coming around on that, the old logic is heading out the window. Democrats should work on getting that done, but, I think most Republicans were seeing that as something to get done as well, mainly because of how it has worked in practice.

[catman]

Maybe, but it's not like the Democrats haven't been in charge before. Which leads me to...



I think you mean, "They don't have any new ideas that I agree with." If you think they really have no governing philosophy, platform, and practice, I'd be happy to send you a buncha links.



Please do. I'd be interested in seeing them.

[Anthony]

No matter what the talking heads say, I refuse to believe that Iraq was the deciding issue in this election. Have we become a nation of quitters all of a sudden?

On the contrary, there is strong evidence to suggest that the biggest reason for the Democratic juggernaut was economic: In two states alone - Pennsylvania and Ohio - the Republicans lost two Senate seats and five House seats. And for further confirmation of the prominence of economic issues in this election, state ballot initiatives to increase the minimum wage went six for six, if I'm not mistaken.

And unless the political landscape changes dramatically within the next two years, the Republicans are going to have a hard time holding onto the White House in 2008: They're in trouble even in their base in the South, where they could lose as many as four states: Louisiana (an absolute slam dunk for the Democrats thanks to the Katrina fiasco), Virginia (it seems as if the political "Mason-Dixon Line" now runs about halfway through the state), Florida, and Missouri (where the liberals swept both ends of the doubleheader on Tuesday - the Senate seat and the stem cell vote). Elsewhere, the Republicans lost two House seats in Iowa (including the stunning upset of Jim Leach) and even the Mountain West is starting to look shaky for them (a state like Montana shouldn't have even been in play, and Arizona's rejection of a gay-marriage ban is further proof that the West is starting to resent what they see as Southern domination of the Republican Party).

So long as the Democrats don't take another walk on the wild side in choosing their nominee, they've got an excellent chance of recapturing the Presidency in two years (a Hillary Clinton-Wesley Clark ticket sounds about right).

[KevinBeane]

Please do. I'd be interested in seeing them.

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/real_security/

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=254077

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/

http://www.democrats.org/a/national/economic_growth/

http://www.sddp.org/vertical/Sites/{46DCB7CA-470E-4991-8122-F0D6D3C18BD9}/uploads/{609BAF8C-3BAB-4886-8603-0435F26E248B}.PDF

The whole tab under "ideas" on the dlc.org main page covers a lot of ground. I'll grant you that, except for the last link (which is just from a state Democratic organization), it's mostly outlines and overviews rather than nitty-gritty details but I don't think that's any different from the Republican official websites either.

[catman]

Thanks for posting those. I'll read through them when I have a bit more time than I have right now.

[BurghGuy]

A little late but...

I voted for Swann and Santorum - I'm in PA in case you couldn't tell. Why?

Well, first off it had nothing to do with the war. I'm so sick of the war. I used to think I supported it and it looked alright initially and on paper, but this is getting ridiculous. How much longer are we going to be over there? My cousin comes home for a few months after serving a 1 1/2 years and now they're saying he may have to go back over! Come on! I'm not in favor of an immediate withdrawl - as I would assume most anti-war people are as well (correct me if I'm wrong) - but we really need to start pulling out of there. I think my feeling right now are not anti-war, but rather pure frustration with how thing are going. America has it's problems, too, you know!

OK, anyways...I'm a fiscal conservative (big fan of Reagan) and I think that Santorum and Swann would have done more to keep government out of the economy. The smaller the government, the better. I suppose this border the beliefs of being a libertarian, but I do have some feelings on some social issues, but I haven't fully thought about them as much as I have. Perhaps I will eventually become a libertarian. Who knows.

But I felt like Santorum would continue to do good things for PA. Not that I don't think Casey will, but I liked the way PA was going.

Nonetheless, I completely see why the American people voted the way they did...To show their frustration with the President (who's approval ratings dropped again - if anybody saw that). I'm frustrated. I know that.

[HibachiDG]

But I felt like Santorum would continue to do good things for PA. Not that I don't think Casey will, but I liked the way PA was going.


Then why vote for Swann? I don't understand that. PA has been moving forward so much under Rendell. In a lot of different areas.

[BurghGuy]

Doug,

I actually went into the voting booth undecided on governor. Rendell seemed alright and Swann hadn't made himself known. So, I really did not know who to vote for. Is that bad? I'm asking a serious question, here. If you don't know who to vote for 100%, should you vote?

[HibachiDG]

I don't think that is bad, no. Especially given the type of candidate Swann was and what you said about your political leanings. I actually hope Swann runs for Congress in 2 years in some Republican House district.

As for generally answering your question, if you don't know who to vote for 100%...I don't think it is bad because most people aren't 100% when they vote, I would imagine. Better to do that than not vote, I think.

[BurghGuy]

As for generally answering your question, if you don't know who to vote for 100%...I don't think it is bad because most people aren't 100% when they vote, I would imagine. Better to do that than not vote, I think.I agree, too. I felt very hypocritical though because I'm not an advocate of voting on a party ticket, but I voted for Swann because he was a Republican and I was undecided at the time. It was my first major election I voted in (granted I'm only 18 and everything else was just a primary and special election) so I guess I should have been more aware about the governor election.

[BurghGuy]

Don't be so hard on the Democrats, Bama. The new members of Congress are not the "hard-left" that some of the leadership is. If they do what they campaigned on, they will not vote with their leadership. If they don't, and the Republicans run decent candidates in 2008, they will be out after 1 term.
The Democrats won the election without having any real plans to move the country forward, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. They have not had a legitimate new idea to move the country forward in over a generation.
I doubt if things will change much in Washington.
I agree.

I fell that most Democrats won because of the voters frustration with the President and the war. I'm not going to lie, I was tempted to swing my vote from Santorum to Casey because of this.

Anyways, this divided government is good right now. Lame duck George is going to have some trouble getting things passed and might start to use his veto a little more.