What I do not like is the number of pro-life democrats who were elected to the House.

Dem 47, Dem-Ind 2, Rep 49, 2 undecided.

Undecideds:
Virginia (4 precincts unreported)
Webb (D) - 1,170,564 (leads by ~7850 or 0.3% of the vote)
Allan(R) - 1,162,717

Montana (1 precinct unreported)
Tester(D) - 194,914 (leads by ~1800 or 0.4%)
Burns (R) - 193,179

I think it's down to the absentee ballots.

Totally hilarious to think that the difference between Republican and Democrat control of the senate could be Allan's bigoted stupidity. Not so hilarious to think it could be who has the better lawyers.....

We should rename this thread: Dispatch zee lawyers!

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin_Laddle:
Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! Is there yet hope for America? Is the nation beginning to move away from it's genocidal, racist, imperialist roots? Will enlightened, progressive values yet carry the day? Speaker PELOSI!!!!!!!

---

Pelosi has vowed to “drain the swamp’’ of Republican ethics within 100 hours of the new Congress being sworn in next January, promising moves to raise the minimum wage, raise ethical standards, lower drug prices, end subsidies for big oil companies, make student loans more affordable and implement all the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.

from: Angry voters punish Bush

A controversial proposal to ban affirmative action at public colleges and governments was approved by Michigan voters Tuesday.

"It's a very important victory for the people of Michigan and for the country," said Ward Connerly, a major backer of Proposal 2. "Despite all the opposition we had, this was a clear signal from the people."

Michigan is now the third state in the nation to outlaw racial preferences at public entities by way of a ballot proposal. Connerly, a former University of California regent, successfully spearheaded those measures in California and Washington and now Michigan.

.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakota rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.

Nationwide, a total of 205 measures were on the ballots Tuesday in 37 states, but none had riveted political activists across the country like the South Dakota measure. Passed overwhelmingly by the legislature earlier this year, it would have been the toughest abortion law in the nation, allowing the procedure only to save a pregnant woman’s life.

Lawmakers had hoped the ban would be challenged in court, provoking litigation that might eventually lead to a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

---

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Montana (1 precinct unreported)
Tester(D) - 194,914 (leads by ~1800 or 0.4%)
Burns (R) - 193,179

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:
[i]A controversial proposal to ban affirmative action at public colleges and governments was approved by Michigan voters Tuesday.

"It's a very important victory for the people of Michigan and for the country," said Ward Connerly, a major backer of Proposal 2. "Despite all the opposition we had, this was a clear signal from the people."

---

Yes, a great victory for all those poor, downtrodden white middle class brats with entitlement attitudes everywhere!

Jesus.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Arborman's prediction for the next two years:

1. US economy gets into trouble.
2. War doesn't end
3. Democrats blamed for everything
4. Republican resurgence in 08.

The only way out would be a successful impeachment campaign based on Bush's blatant lawbreaking. His lying can't really be touched - it's not illegal (though it should be), but he's broken or claimed immunity from several laws.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pencil-skirt:
well, lieberman will vote Democrat. Who's the other independent?

---

Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist. He began as mayor of Burlington and was elected as an independent to the House of Representatives in 1990.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
I would think such a thing would boost investor confidence.

---

You mean even higher?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Ok, I just woke up after a five hour nap and it looks like they pulled it off.

The Senate win is nothing short of miraculous when you compare it to the situation of about 10 p.m. last night Central time.

---

Yes. Webb didn't take the lead until the vote count hit 98%, when late precincts from Richmond and Alexandria came in. McCaskill was losing most of the night, but took the lead when big chunks of St. Louis and Kansas City came in. And then within a half hour, she declared victory. Tester led all the way through, but saw his lead continue to shrink till the end when he upped his margin.

Happy but wary. . .

quote:

---

Excuse me while I check inside Pandora's Box.

Ah, there it is. Bruised, battered, worn and torn, but there it is:

Hope.

Hello there, nice to see you again.

American progressives woke up this morning holding on to hope like a favourite pillow, perhaps dizzy with the news of a big turnaround, and just a little apprehensive of what the Democrats will do with power now that they have it again.

I went to sleep at three a.m. Central time with Montana and Virginia's Senate races hanging by a hair. The political wise guys like Jeffrey Toobin of CNN seem to think things will hold up for the Democrats. It didn't seem possible at 10 p.m. last night, but future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi might soon be caucusing with future Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

---

quote:

---

Fourteen Senators Face Voters for the First Time since Authorizing Iraq War

By Stephen Zunes ....

Senators who authorized the invasion of Iraq facing voters for the first time since then this Tuesday are:

George Allen R-Virginia
Conrad Burns R-Montana
Tom Carper D-Delaware
Hillary Clinton D-New York
Mike DeWine R-Ohio
John Ensign R-Nevada
Kay Bailey Hutchison R-Texas
Herbert Kohl D-Wisconsin
Jon Kyl R-Arizona
Joe Lieberman D- Connecticut
Trent Lott R-Mississippi
Richard Lugar R-Indiana
Ben Nelson D-Nebraska
Rick Santorum R-Pennsylvania
Olympia Snowe R-Maine

---

By my quick count, only Allen (still waiting to confirm in VA, of course), Burns, DeWine and Santorum were defeated.

Some of these likely went down for reasons other than the war, of course.

Burns in Montana had ties to Abramoff, for instance, Allen had his 'Macaca' moment, and DeWine in Ohio was likely hurt by GOP scandals in that state.

[ 08 November 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

Just as I thought. The war mongers didn't get thrown out because of war mongering but because of party politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Does anyone think Lieberman might decide to cross the isle and caucus with the Republicans if at some point he becomes less than enchanted with the Dems?

---

No I think that the Ned Lamont Lieberman fight is more an internal fight between the pro-Dean and anti-Dean elements of the DNC.

Lamont won the battle but lost the war.

As far as Dean goes he now has to demonstrate that he can lead a party that has taken a giant step to the right. The win is as a result of rightwing freaks who have infiltrated the Democrats.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

No I think that the Ned Lamont Lieberman fight is more an internal fight between the pro-Dean and anti-Dean elements of the DNC.

Lamont won the battle but lost the war.

As far as Dean goes he now has to demonstrate that he can lead a party that has taken a giant step to the right. The win is as a result of rightwing freaks who have infiltrated the Democrats.

I am disgusted that the pro-life anti-SSM dems are the reason that they won so big.

---

quote:

---

Burns in Montana had ties to Abramoff...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:
Thanks.

Just as I thought. The war mongers didn't get thrown out because of war mongering but because of party politics.

Am I wrong?

---

The warmongerers didn't get thrown out, period. Lots of Democratic warmongerers out there. Lots of them voted for Iraq.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

No I think that the Ned Lamont Lieberman fight is more an internal fight between the pro-Dean and anti-Dean elements of the DNC.

Lamont won the battle but lost the war.

As far as Dean goes he now has to demonstrate that he can lead a party that has taken a giant step to the right. The win is as a result of rightwing freaks who have infiltrated the Democrats.

I am disgusted that the pro-life anti-SSM dems are the reason that they won so big.

---

quote:

---

Let's not forget, the only qualification that you need in order to be a Democrat is a pulse and a blue tie and a willingness to disregard any left-wing or progressive principles if you think it might get in the way of winning.

---

Only partly right, Michelle, Lady Moderator of the Babble Township. If you look at campaigns in the US in general, you see the Democrats are pretty much in line with the philosophy of the Liberals in Canada: campaign from the center-left and then govern like a bunch of corporate lackeys that they really are.

Elections are when the Democrats trumpet out their supposed values, based on social reforms that happened generations ago that the Dems haven’t dared do since. Then they dump these in order to curry favour with the Corporate America dictatorship. That’s why the more liberal elements of Corporate America put lots of cash into the Democrats as well (Ted Turner, Bill Gates, even Donald Trump).

It’s why, if folks remember, in the 2004 elections, Dem contender John Kerry described the choice as between the old line conservative billionaire blue bloods and the new more liberal-minded (supposedly) generation billionaires. That’s likely one of the reasons he lost—not much of a choice if you don’t identify very well with billionaires.

But you are absolutely right about war mongers in the Democrats. This can’t be understated. It’s true there are also sincere social reformers and even social democrats there as well. But sadly they aren’t the majority. That’s why throughout the campaign, we heard some Democrat candidates talking about an end to the invasion in Iraq, while other Democrats were talking about a “new direction” in Iraq.

But for those here hoping for some quick action in Iraq (like a pull-out in a year), I say forget it. Even if the Democrats push Fuhrer Dubya to set a date, it likely won’t be for several years, in which he can do whatever he likes in unleashing a torrid of brutality and mass murder there. Plus, all the corporate hand-outs of Iraqi assets to Corporate America will likely stay in place.

It was fun, though, to see Dubya so pissed off. He realizes the public in general told him to fornicate off. And actually it seems like Evangelical wacko candidates took the biggest hit. The rapture didn’t sweep them away, but the voters did! (smirk)!

What was actually pleasantly surprising were the public comments on the evening-long call-in session on the C-Span election coverage network. Most people calling in were either voting Democrat or for independents. Many of the reasons offered were things like Bush lying about Iraq, the disappearance of the separation of church and state, the erosion of democratic rights, and the worsening economy as people see they are getting poorer while the US elite gets fatter. Also mentioned a couple times was the forsaking of New Orleans by the government.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

I am disgusted that the pro-life anti-SSM dems are the reason that they won so big.

---

Pardon my total ignorance of Democratic politics (really...I usually don't pay any attention to them)...but who are you talking about?

I had heard Harry Reid was pro-life but he was re-elected. Are you arguing the newcomers are more conservative?

quote:

---

Originally posted by VanLuke:

You mean even higher?

Yesterday the Dow hit another intraday high and only a few days ago one record close after another

---

quote:

---

As far as Dean goes he now has to demonstrate that he can lead a party that has taken a giant step to the right. The win is as a result of rightwing freaks who have infiltrated the Democrats.

I am disgusted that the pro-life anti-SSM dems are the reason that they won so big.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Does anyone think Lieberman might decide to cross the isle and caucus with the Republicans if at some point he becomes less than enchanted with the Dems?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:

While I'll assume most of the new Democratic Senators are anti-SSM

---

Anti-SSM but most likely pro-civil unions or benefits of same kind, which is almost as good as one can hope for in U.S. politics with regards to LGBT equality. Unlike in Canada, pro-full equality politicians are still relatively rare south of the border.

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: folker ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
No, Bernie Sanders will keep the Dem in power in the Senate.

---

No. The dems have 49, the republicans have 49 and then there is Lieberman and Sanders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The headline story on the Star's website has this on Pelosi:

Pelosi has vowed to “drain the swamp’’ of Republican ethics within 100 hours of the new Congress being sworn in next January, promising moves to raise the minimum wage, raise ethical standards, lower drug prices, end subsidies for big oil companies, make student loans more affordable and implement all the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.

from: Angry voters punish Bush

This is going to be fun to watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The best case scenario is that the Democrats win, and, well, I'm afraid they ain't Jesus.

---

"Raising ethical standards" is not really the same as, say, "banning corporate donations". It's kind of an empty phrase.

Lowering drug costs is draftable but getting it past Bush will be difficult - unless it has no teeth. People are already predicting that Democrats could repeal the prohibition but not require the administration to negotiate lower prices, making the legislation easier to pass.

The Minimum Wage will almost certainly go up but, how soon and how fast? I'd like to see it go up to $7.25 an hour in 2 years as Ed Kennedy has proposed but I'm not holding my breath.

Reducing the interest rates on student loans is not a bad thing - but it's not that revolutionary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist. He began as mayor of Burlington and was elected as an independent to the House of Representatives in 1990.

Lieberman may be a nominal Democrat but a very rightwing one. The Republicans basically supported him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Vermont's Bernie Sanders, who is more to the left than the Democrats, and will certainly support them over the Republicans.

---

This means two things:

1) It would be very hard, verging on impossible, for Lieberman to caucus with Rebublicans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
One of the most interesting results was the election of Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Shunning the advice of DLC leaders who called for "Republican lite" positions, he ran a strong antiwar and economic populist platform and did well in the coal-mining counties which are filled with Reagan Democrats and where Kerry got crushed in 2004.

---

Yes, everyone said Brown couldn't win a statewide race. But he ran on economic populism and won 56%-44%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Does anyone think Lieberman might decide to cross the isle and caucus with the Republicans if at some point he becomes less than enchanted with the Dems? Do you think the Republicans might try to motivate him in that direction?

---

I had to laugh when I heard his defence, that he voted with the Democrats 80% of the time, or whatever the percentage was. Big frigging deal. The other 20% of the time were the dealbreaker votes, the important issues of the day. He voted for Iraq. He voted for DOMA. He voted to allow religious services in school (if they are held in memorial of a student or teacher killed at school). He voted in favour of trying 14 year-olds as adults, and getting adult sentences (although actually, that was a bit of an "omnibus" bill with some good features too). He voted for a bill that "prohibits any US court, justice or judge from hearing or considering a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on the behalf of a non US citizen who is detained at Guantanamo Bay." He voted for No Child Left Behind.

Okay, I'm getting tired now. My source.

Also, according to this, he favours the death penalty - and it isn't just for adults anymore, kiddies! Yeah, he's okay with frying the small fry, too.

Oh, and apparently he voted to increase drug penalties too! Hey, if Joe doesn't like a joint, he'll be sending you to the joint if you do.

[ 09 November 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TCD:
Bernie Sanders declined the Democratic nomination in order to maintain his independence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

Didn't he basically vote with the Repubs on every issue, anyway, even while nominally a Democrat? I thought that was the main reason for his primary defeat.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Heh. Well, no, not every issue. Just every IMPORTANT issue.

[...]
He voted to allow religious services in school (if they are held in memorial of a student or teacher killed at school).
[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pencil-skirt:
So no one has answered my question yet. What is so bad about the new batch of Democrats? Is it just that they are as wishywashy as the old batch of Democrats?

---

McNerney defeats Pombo

[ 11 November 2006: Message edited by: Policywonk ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
Does anyone think Lieberman might decide to cross the aisle and caucus with the Republicans if at some point he becomes less than enchanted with the Dems?

---

why should he?? as the single truly undecided, non-aligned swing vote, he is BY FAR the biggest winner this week;

from dead duck to national kingmaker in 2 months, huge influence now, and owes nothing to anybody ....
Hillary will be very very careful around him, after quickly endorsing loser Lamont in August

[ 11 November 2006: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Leiberman won't cross over to the Republican side, even though, in theory, he could. Say what you will about his principles, he does stick to them.

---

Well, apparently, in an American context anyways, it's not really.

quote:

---

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MIDTERMS. Here's an abridged version of an election wrap-up memo I've been sending around:

The prevailing geographic trend for 2006 was a Rust-Belt realignment in which a cohort of Rockefeller-Ford GOP moderates was ousted by progressive Democrats who ran to their left. A major consequence of this mini-realignment is that both parties will be more ideologically and regionally coherent and, perhaps, more polarized as a result.

The irony of this transformation is that conservatives who pushed an agenda that included the Iraq war, deficits, and social issue interference from the beginning of life (stem cell bans) to the end of life (Schiavo), have mostly survived, while their more moderate brethren suffered the casualties. This provides a potential opportunity when the newly-entrenched and embittered minority overreaches, as it did even when the moderates were still around to act, in theory, as a “check.”

---

So the spin that the new congress will still be conservative, in an American context, is exagerated to say the least. Especially those who are saying that it was actually conservative Democrats who provided them with their victory. Yes, the Republicans will still likely be very conservative, which is intresting since most of the spin likes to exagerate Bush's conciliatory moves (like how they need to finish the job in Iraq). But in large part, 'moderate' Republicans, were defeated by relativley progressive Democrats. So I geuss this just goes to show you that being devoid of content, and proclaiming how centrist you are, whether or not your alleged centrism actually addresses any issues, doesn't seem to help get one elected.

Anyways, here's another take on that:

quote:

---

Wow. What a conservative wave. A great victory for conservatives indeed. Throw in uber-conservative freshmen Phil Hare (IL-17), Keith Ellison (MN-05), and Mazie Hirono (HI-02), who all filled Democratic open-seats, and who will all probably join the progressive caucus, and this is the most conservative House of Representatives of all time. The most conservative part was probably when progressive Mazie Hirono took over for Blue Dog Ed Case in HI-02, after Case lost his Senate primary to ultra-conservative Daniel Akaka. A big right-wing shift, that. A close second was when progressive Bruce Braley took conservative Jim Nussle's seat, and then Nussle lost the Iowa Governor's race anyway. Truly, hard-right swings across the board.

---

Ohh Scaary Conservatives!

[ 11 November 2006: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

The last sentence killed me:

quote:

---

Not only did the president's visit signal that Pombo was in trouble - Bush was only stumping in districts where the contests were tight to raise money and motivate the party faithful base - but more importantly, McNerney said, it kicked the anti-Pombo contingent into high gear.

"It jelled things," he said. "All of a sudden there was a lot of media interest. At the same time, we had poll numbers that showed we were neck-and-neck, and we also broke the $1 million mark in our fundraising."

McNerney's campaign issued a press release asking Bush to come back.

---

quote:

---

Sadly, little coming from America's politics can fire my enthusiasm. During my lifetime, America has busied itself with the task of burying liberalism, reminding one of October's frenetic squirrels hunting and burying acorns.

The nation is pretty much at ease with ugly imperial government. Liberalism, and I mean liberalism in the broadest, richest sense of the word, is a topic of bathroom humor.

We read and hear a great deal about the Democrats' sizable victory in mid-term elections, and I suppose after six years of Bush's near-insanity, people have a right to a little excitement, although one is sobered by the recollection that the same people returned him to office just two years ago. At least, the world can be grateful that Bush has been hobbled for his last two years.

The Democratic Party has been all but dead for years as a meaningful national alternative. The party has no recognized national leader. It has no cause, no fire in the belly. It has been largely silent for six years while Bush rampaged through the world and literally peed on American liberties like a grotesquely-smirking, small-town sheriff. No President in history has shown so little respect for human rights, and with so little excuse, yet all the would-be defenders of the Republic, whether Congressmen or the Don't-Tread-on-Me crowd, have been no where to be seen. And Democrats like Lieberman or Kerry can hardly be distinguished from Republicans.
....

I doubt there is widespread concern that Iraqis still huddle in homes with no reliable electricity or clean water, no jobs, and fearful to step into murderous streets. I doubt there is much guilt over having killed half a million of them. I doubt there is guilt about running a secret gulag and torturing helpless captives. I doubt there is guilt about blood-spattered holes like Abu Ghraib. Because if there were such guilt, there would have been a revolt against Bush's criminal government.
....

The greatest horror Bush has inflicted on humanity, the suppurating body of Iraq, is unlikely to be attended by Democrats. They want the White House in two years, and they do not want to be left holding Bush's "tarbaby." Instead, they will scrutinize and highlight every twist and turn of Bush's bumbling, murderous efforts as he struggles to leave Iraq. American politics are just that brutal. No wonder there are so many wars.

---

quote:

---

Forget political correctness. As a progressive that did not drink the Democratic Kool-Aid I remain skeptical about what will now happen. To begin with, the revolution has NOT arrived! Bush is still president. The corporate state is safe. The Upper Class has little to fear. Lobbyists will be writing different names on checks. Winning Democrats will entertain more than they will produce historic restorative reforms. Did Republicans deserve to lose? Of course! Was there a set of promised political and policy reforms by the Democrats to justify enthusiastic voting for them? No. Appropriate rejection of Republicans should not be conflated with passionate embrace of Democrats.

Those Americans who thought their votes would bring much needed systemic change to our political system lost. They just don't know or admit it yet. As usual, the third-party movement lost, because the two-party duopoly maintained its stranglehold on our political system. Populists and true progressives lost. Who or what was the biggest winner? The short-term and delusional tactic of lesser-evil voting won big.

---