Democrats win Senate

Athelstan

Diabloii.Net Member
Is this confirmed? Are there going to be legal challenges?
Well, its not completely confirmed, because the votes were still being counted in Virginia. However, the difference between the votes is about 7,236. Previous voting recounts have resulted in changes of just a few hundred votes. And according to the article, Allen will not request a recount unless there is a great deal of difference in the numbers. Gaining Virginia puts the Dems at 51 seats, and I don't really see any further legal issues that can be challenged. I think the Republicans are just gona admit defeat.

What a horrible week for Bush and friends.



 

Yossarian

Diabloii.Net Member
The AP has called it that way, although its yet to be confirmed. I'd imagine that there is only one possible legal action senate seat. A few recounts will occur but perhaps no legal action.
 

Road Ratt

Diabloii.Net Member
Athelstan said:
What a horrible week for Bush and friends.
The Republicans got their arses handed to them, They lost the House, now the Senate (most likely) and the majority in Governorships, Yet they can still count themselves lucky! If this had also been a presidential election year, with the current dissatisfaction in this administration and congress, we could've seen Hillary Clinton(?) being sworn in early next year as well.


I'm just hoping that with all these changes in congress that we'll actually see some real changes. I'm not gonna hold my breath but I am hoping, only time will tell.
 

Athelstan

Diabloii.Net Member
Bush is gona have to order some new veto pens, because thats all he is gona be doing for the next two years. And there is no way in hell the Democrats are gona be able to override any of his vetos. Can anyone say deadlock?
 

Yossarian

Diabloii.Net Member
If you look at recent history this is no surprise. 2 term presidents often see a huge loss in house and senate in their 6th year.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
How about Arizona giving the ole thumbs up on gay marriage? I never saw that one coming.
Erm, no. For one thing they didn't give the thumbs up, just voted down one particular bill to ban it outright - and even then, apparently it's because campaigners convinced voters that the bill would also put the healthcare entitlements of heterosexual marriages in jeopardy. And from what I read a bunch of other states were offered anti-gay marriage bills and they approved them, so it's still a sorry time for personal rights.



 
I wonder if I'm the only registered Republican who's kind of happy that the Dem's came out ahead. Its been described as a "shift of power", which is accurate in that the Democrats have more, but is inaccurate in the respect that they're not as dominant as the Republicans were. The Republicans are still strong enough (when you include the President) to block any nonsense that the Democrats might push, and the Democrats are now strong enough to block any nonsense from the Republicans

We might get some responsibility back in government.
 

Xynrx

Diabloii.Net Member
Erm, no. For one thing they didn't give the thumbs up, just voted down one particular bill to ban it outright - and even then, apparently it's because campaigners convinced voters that the bill would also put the healthcare entitlements of heterosexual marriages in jeopardy. And from what I read a bunch of other states were offered anti-gay marriage bills and they approved them, so it's still a sorry time for personal rights.
Let me rephrase,

How about Arizona not giving the ole thumbs down on gay marriage? I never saw that one coming.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
I wonder if I'm the only registered Republican who's kind of happy that the Dem's came out ahead. Its been described as a "shift of power", which is accurate in that the Democrats have more, but is inaccurate in the respect that they're not as dominant as the Republicans were. The Republicans are still strong enough (when you include the President) to block any nonsense that the Democrats might push, and the Democrats are now strong enough to block any nonsense from the Republicans
I don't think you are the only one at all, in fact I read an article a week or so ago about lifelong, avowed Republicans saying the same thing. I'm happy with this outcome, the only thing that would make me feel better is if the number of third party members and independents in the two houses had gone up a lot.

We might get some responsibility back in government.
And maybe they'll start negotiating with each other instead of screaming at each other. Fingers crossed.



 

caddad

Diabloii.Net Member
Montana isn't that big of a surprise. Burns had a close call in 1994 and 2000 and has continually slid "out of touch" with most Montanans.

Besides he had his 18 years and the new guy is pretty moderate and the best opponent to challenge Burns yet. Not that you guys care, just thought i'd pass the info along. :)

-D2netDad
 

Bortaz

Banned
I wonder if I'm the only registered Republican who's kind of happy that the Dem's came out ahead. Its been described as a "shift of power", which is accurate in that the Democrats have more, but is inaccurate in the respect that they're not as dominant as the Republicans were. The Republicans are still strong enough (when you include the President) to block any nonsense that the Democrats might push, and the Democrats are now strong enough to block any nonsense from the Republicans

We might get some responsibility back in government.
You're absolutely right. The Republicans were spanked by conservative voters for running away from their conservative roots.

The profligate spending, laxity on border protection issues, and growth of government that has been going on the past several years finally caught up with the House and Senate Republicans.

It's interesting to me how many "blue dog" Democrats (that is, conservative democrats) were elected. Based on the number of conservative Democrats who were elected (and how many liberals were not), we may actually have a more conservative Congress than we had under the Republican majority.

I hope the Republican party will learn from this...return to its conservative roots, and get their act together for 2008. Maybe they'll even have the good sense to nominate a true fiscal conservative as President in 2008...my vote is in for Mitt Romney.

Of course, seeing liberals like Charlie Rangel, Ted Kennedy, Alcee Hastings, Nancy Pelosi, and Dingy Harry Reid hold chairmanships in vital committees is frightening to me.



 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
Well, its not completely confirmed, because the votes were still being counted in Virginia. However, the difference between the votes is about 7,236. Previous voting recounts have resulted in changes of just a few hundred votes.
Last I heard there is 130,000 absentee ballots to be counted. The day is young.

I don't hold out much hope but give it time. December comes quickly after all.



 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
Montana isn't that big of a surprise. Burns had a close call in 1994 and 2000 and has continually slid "out of touch" with most Montanans.

Besides he had his 18 years and the new guy is pretty moderate and the best opponent to challenge Burns yet. Not that you guys care, just thought i'd pass the info along. :)

-D2netDad
I thought that was interesting information. Thanks for posting it.

You're absolutely right. The Republicans were spanked by conservative voters for running away from their conservative roots.

The profligate spending, laxity on border protection issues, and growth of government that has been going on the past several years finally caught up with the House and Senate Republicans.
I hope you're right and this isn't simply - as our media has been saying - about Iraq.

It's interesting to me how many "blue dog" Democrats (that is, conservative democrats) were elected. Based on the number of conservative Democrats who were elected (and how many liberals were not), we may actually have a more conservative Congress than we had under the Republican majority.

I hope the Republican party will learn from this...return to its conservative roots, and get their act together for 2008. Maybe they'll even have the good sense to nominate a true fiscal conservative as President in 2008...my vote is in for Mitt Romney.
Depending on the definition of "conservative" in this context, I'd be very happy if this all proves true.



 

Bordillo

Banned
while im certainly not pleased with the election outcomes, I wont judge until the legislature does something stupid
 
Top