Midterm Elections - Democrats win House

[-Demosthenes-]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_States_Democrats_win_House_majority

It seems that the Democrats have taken the House of Representatives, and maybe the Senate. In my district the incumbent won, Democrat Jim Matheson. I voted for him, my parents voted against him . Yes, a democrat in Utah; crazy but true. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what changes.

[bascule]

It's all down to Virginia and Montana for the Senate. Both are very close, and both may require a recount.

 

Pretty interesting, because Virginia has been the site of some very, very dirty campaigning, reminiscient of Nixon-era "ratf*cking"

 

A somewhat more reputable URL on the matter:

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=16105

 

Some URLs Pangloss won't like:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/6/1717/68014

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/voter-intimidation-virginia/

[Sisyphus]

Also, there will now be 6 more Democratic governors, in New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ohio, Colorado, and Arkansas, for a new total of 28 vs. 22 Republican.

 

Also interesting (if not unexpected): For the first time in New York history, the governor, comptroller, attorney general, and both senators will all be Democrats.

[Pangloss]

What happened yesterday was a moderate mandate. It was a mandate from the people who actually matter. Republicans stayed in power so long because they made a big tent and kept people like me under it. They lost power when they forgot about us. This election PROVED that no matter how great your "get out the vote" efforts for your base, if you can't swing the middle then you will lose.

 

That's absolutely as it should be. It's not MY fault that 70-80% of the country votes solid-block party, it's THEIRS. They deserve their own frustration -- they earn it every time they "vote".

 

People like me run this country -- people with open minds and a better perspective on the big picture. WE decide what's best for the closed-minded, the ideological, the rage-filled haters.

 

Yesterday was a good day for people like us, not for people like Nancy Pelosi or Al Franken.

[Sisyphus]

True. Lieberman, running as independent, won re-election in Connecticut. I sincerely hope the Democrats learn from it.

[ParanoiA]

True. Lieberman, running as independent, won re-election in Connecticut. I sincerely hope the Democrats learn from it.

 

Now there's a democrat with a spine. Even though he's an independent now, he's still a dem to me. I think he's great. And I hope he makes the dems grovel a little...

[Pangloss]

Oh yeah great point about Lieberman -- surely a sign of the power of the moderate middle if I've ever seen one.

 

Of course it didn't help the way out-of-state, extremist liberals campagined for Lamont. As a voter that would've irked me to no end.

[-Demosthenes-]

It's really interesting to see how people feel about the political parties here in Utah. Most people I know are republican. We have a lot in common with the Democratic party, if any cares to look.

 

In the end the average Utahn is republican because of abortion, "big government", and to a lesser extent gay marriage. We just hate federal government intervention. We loose out on a lot of money because we don't want to be "controlled" by the federal government. We have on of the least funded education systems, but somehow it still works really well. Volunteering parents at the schools, especially elementary, all but run the schools in some places. It's really strange how it all works.

 

Gay marriage is interesting because of Utah's history. A lot of people like to avoid the issue altogether. Utah was actually not allowed to be a state for a long time because of plural marriage. To support it would almost be hypocritical, and defining marriage in the way that some want to would confirm that the federal government was right to deny statehood, among other things. I've probably gone of topic, it's just such a weird and interesting place.

[D H]

What happened yesterday was a moderate mandate. It was a mandate from the people who actually matter. Republicans stayed in power so long because they made a big tent and kept people like me under it. They lost power when they forgot about us. This election PROVED that no matter how great your "get out the vote" efforts for your base, if you can't swing the middle then you will lose.

 

I too was in that big tent. Now we shall see which party is first to learn the wrong lesson from this election:

• Republicans thinking they lost because the republicans haven't been conservative enough in the last few years
  
• Democrats thinking they won because we, the people, lust for some far left utopian future.
  

 

From what I have seen so far, the Democrats are well on the way to learning the wrong lesson. I am sure the Republicans are not too far behind.

[Tetrahedrite]

I too was in that big tent. Now we shall see which party is first to learn the wrong lesson from this election:

• Republicans thinking they lost because the republicans haven't been conservative enough in the last few years
  
• Democrats thinking they won because we, the people, lust for some far left utopian future.

 

From what I have seen so far, the Democrats are well on the way to learning the wrong lesson. I am sure the Republicans are not too far behind.

 

No offence D H, but if you think that the (American) Democrats are "far left", then you have a lot to learn about politics.

[PhDP]

What happened yesterday was a moderate mandate. It was a mandate from the people who actually matter. Republicans stayed in power so long because they made a big tent and kept people like me under it. They lost power when they forgot about us. This election PROVED that no matter how great your "get out the vote" efforts for your base' date=' if you can't swing the middle then you will lose.

 

That's absolutely as it should be. It's not MY fault that 70-80% of the country votes solid-block party, it's THEIRS. They deserve their own frustration -- they earn it every time they "vote".[/quote']

 

What a display of arrogance.

[Phi for All]

What a display of arrogance.

On who's part?

[bascule]

What happened yesterday was a moderate mandate. It was a mandate from the people who actually matter. Republicans stayed in power so long because they made a big tent and kept people like me under it. They lost power when they forgot about us. This election PROVED that no matter how great your "get out the vote" efforts for your base, if you can't swing the middle then you will lose.

 

Well, that's one way of putting it. I like this one better:

 

This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. In fact, these results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism.

 

I leave it up to you to guess (or Google) who said that

[SmallIsPower]

Um, moderate mandate? There were 33 Senate seats up for vote, roughly 18 were Republicans, 5 or 6 have switched to Democrats. American states are polarised, urban/rural, BibleBelt/secular. After being flipped off at antiwar rallies, I can say that war polarises the population further. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to withdraw, especially if they thought it aided AlQueda, or if they didn't want the previous deaths of troops to be in vain. This is also a big shift especially considering how many one issue voters there are on the right. About 15 seats were needed to shift the house, and it's been conclusively shifted, despite gerrymandering so maybe 25 seats have shifted of the 230 the Republicans had. This is not a small change. Nancy Pelosi wants investigations. There are bound to be nasty things coming up around the 1 1/2 hours it took NORAD to respond on 9/11 or response to Katrina, or why we're having so much trouble in Iraq, weakened by 12 years of sanctions. While what has gone on over 6 years is known, when we find out why, there's likely to be more damage.

[bascule]

The final split for the Senate: 49/49/2, with 2 Democratic-leaning independents (one of which is Lieberman, who may harbor some obvious resentment)

 

Effectively, the Democrats control the senate majority as well.

[SmallIsPower]

The 2 independants are Lieberman and Sanders, who's almost a Green. Lieberman is the swing vote, which makes it about as close to a tie as you can get.

[bascule]

The 2 independants are Lieberman and Sanders, who's almost a Green. Lieberman is the swing vote, which makes it about as close to a tie as you can get.

 

On the issues, Lieberman is far closer to Democrats, despite the (now defunct) "DINO" (i.e. Democrat-in-name-only) public sentiment about him

[SmallIsPower]

I don't like him and his prowar and pro-pharmacetical ideology, but I think he'll respond to pressure to get out of Iraq.

 

The Senate went +6 Democrats, with only 1/3 up for elections at that rate, if all of them were up for relection, about 18 would change hands, and the Senate would be 63-37 Democrat, even though the membership of the Senate gives disproportionate representation to the more rural, conservative population. A straight party vote could almost remove Bush from office, is that a moderate mandate?

[ParanoiA]

A straight party vote could almost remove Bush from office, is that a moderate mandate?

 

You better hope not. If the dems did that, their stay in both houses would be very short.

 

With both houses under Democrat control, you don't really need to be threatened by Bush. Besides, everyone says he's stupid so what scares you so much about him? Also, most of the liberals I know think Cheney is pulling the strings for Halliburton, so how would that help anyway?

[Pangloss]

A straight party vote could almost remove Bush from office, is that a moderate mandate?

 

When Bush has a <= 40% approval rating? Absolutely.

 

Not going to happen, though. There will be no impeachment, for a number of reasons that have little if anything to do with popular appeal. Excitable types can keep going to their impeachment parties, and if they're really good little sheeple the Democratic National Convention might even send them a nice note signed by Howard Dean. But they're too smart to go that route. Not that that's saying a whole lot.

[Sisyphus]

I don't like him and his prowar and pro-pharmacetical ideology, but I think he'll respond to pressure to get out of Iraq.

 

The Senate went +6 Democrats, with only 1/3 up for elections at that rate, if all of them were up for relection, about 18 would change hands, and the Senate would be 63-37 Democrat, even though the membership of the Senate gives disproportionate representation to the more rural, conservative population. A straight party vote could almost remove Bush from office, is that a moderate mandate?

 

Yes, of course it is. The bottom line is you can't have a swing without swing voters. And this was one hell of a swing. If everyone were permanently and completely polarized, neither party could ever gain or lose any seats, because the same percentages in each district would vote Democratic and Republican each time, and the winner would always be the same. If the Democrats had won every single election, that would be the biggest "moderate mandate" of all time, because it would mean a huge block of people all over the country were willing to change their minds.

[BobbyJoeCool]

So... SLIGHTLY off the OT...

 

I read the final count in the senate is 49-49 (meaning 2 third party/independant)... so... when this happens, which party gets the majority? (AKA, which party gets the majority leader and which the minority leader...)

 

Ditto with the house (although it didn't happen)

[Pangloss]

Much of what happens is actually based on something call "the caucus", which is a loose entity that ostensibly indicates how a member will vote (but in a non-binding way). Because the two independents "caucus" with the Democratic party, the Democratic party is considered to have the majority, therefore they will have the leadership role (they actually vote on who gets to be the majority, if memory serves). They'll get to decide committee chairmanships, for example. However, in recent years Democrats have complained about not being given fair representation in these chairmanships because they are not THAT far in a minority, so it will be interesting to see how they play things now that they are in charge (and how the press spins it when that plays out).

 

Where the caucus becomes irrelevent is in the day-to-day voting. Any member can vote any way they like on any issue, and it's not unusual at all for them to "break ranks" with their party on a key vote, especially if their constituency tends to see things differently from the party line. There's a reason why Lieberman is considered a moderate -- his electorate is moderate. So he's not likely to support far-left legislation, no matter what the Senate Majority Leader says. His first and foremost obligation is to his constituency.

 

But yeah, simple answer, Democrats get the Majority Leader position and Republicans get Minority Leader.

[Pangloss]

Incidentally, the Vice President of the United States (Dick Cheney) gets a 51st vote in the Senate any time there's a tie. This will be significant over the next two years. Essentially, Democrats caucus 51 votes and Republicans caucus 50 votes (including Cheney). If only one "Democrat" decides to "break ranks" then the vote goes the other way. Much will ride on how effective Harry Reid (who I believe will be the new Majority Leader) is.

 

Also, it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster, which means that Republicans will be able to stop anything that don't like (much as Democrats have been doing). Of course, doing so has other ramifications, particularly in terms of popular opinion.

[SmallIsPower]

Paranioa, I was just trying to say that if we voted on all 100 Senators, the Senate would be far from center. Removing him today would be a disaster. Congress won't be doing anything as egregious as it did the last few months, ending habeous corpus, removing the need for FISA warrants, recinding the Geneva Convention etc. consenting to another Alito nomination etc. I hope that the neocons are disabled from using some of the powers they go recently.