Skewering vote results.

[Rex Kickass]

The Democrats took the Senate. A net gain of 6 seats gave them a 51-49 majority.

 

The final two seats were decided by about 10,000 votes (3,000 in Montana, 7,000 in Virginia)

 

Seems like a closely divided country, right? Well, yes and no. At least not as close as you'd think.

 

Where you vote mattered a lot to the closeness of Senate elections. If this was a nationwide election, the GOP didn't just lose control of Congress, they got crushed.

 

According to CNN, the total vote count for all Senate elections swings this way. (Might be a little off, I did the math with a calculator.)

 

Dem - 15,841,568

GOP - 12,957,644

 

Weird thing is? In 2004, in total vote count - more people voted for Democratic senators than Republican ones.

 

What does this mean? Some claim it could represent a mandate for the Democratic party. But in reality it means very little. Just that the races for GOP held seats were much closer, on average, then seats for Dem held seats.

 

And now a reply to my own horrible math.

 

This total only covers about half the Senate races.

 

But the percentage totals in total popular vote are pretty stunning 55% for the Dems, 43% for the GOP, 2% for Independent candidates.

[sox4lifeinPA]

it means that there's a huge independent group that votes down the middle of the aisle. When one party shows total disregard for their votes, they go the opposite way. The GOP got slammed because they acted in complete defiance of everyone's wishes...however, if things went better in Iraq, and i would say incredibly better, this would be moot. GOP would retain house.

 

So, I actually feel really great about this election because I believe politicians are going to have to work together (at least marginally) so that their seats in congress are protected.

 

Hooray for Democracy!

[Rex Kickass]

I just think its an interesting thing to see. With individual seat races, its possible for one party's candidate slate to get more votes than the other and lose seats (like 2004) and its possible for a pretty seismic gap to result in no real change of power (which wouldn't have been the case this year without 3,000 Dem votes in Montana).

[Rex Kickass]

I love the way numbers get spun. Some Democrats think its a revolution in the way the voting populace think, which its not. Some GOP think its just a correction and was a close election..... like Karl Rove, for example.

 

 

http://time-blog.com/allen_report/2006/11/...ect_speaks.html

 

Karl Rove and the RNC spins "how close" this was. 77,000 votes cast the other direction on Tuesday, and the House stays Red.

 

Sounds close, right? But 77,000 votes is also the difference between the Dems capturing another 19 seats last week.

 

So although 77,000 votes in specific districts may have been the difference between 14 and 29 seats lost for the GOP, it's also the difference between 29 and 48 seats lost for the GOP.

 

They also note that this wasn't a big shift for "6th year mid terms" (referring to the midterm elections in the second term of a presidency.

 

Rove is famous for his political statistics, and his team has come up with an array of figures to contend that the Republicans' loss of 29 seats in the House and six in the Senate is not so out of whack with the historic norms. In all sixth year midterms, the President's party has lost an average of 29 House seats and 3 Senate seats, according to these figures. In all sixth-year midterms since World War II, the loss was an average of 31 House and 6 Senate seats. And in all wartime midterms since 1860, the average loss was 32 House and 5 Senate seat.

 

There have been exactly four "sixth year midterms" since World War II. 1950, 1974, 1986 and 1998. 1974 was right smack dab in the middle of Watergate.

 

In 1950, the Truman led Democrats lost 28 seats in the House. And five seats in the Senate.

In 1974, the Nixon/Ford GOP lost 49 seats in the House. And four seats in the Senate.

In 1986, the Reagan led GOP lost 5 seats in the House. And eight seats in the Senate.

In 1998, the Clinton led Democrats gained 5 seats in the House. And there was no change in the Senate makeup.

 

So this "merely average" 6 year midterm turnover was only eclipsed in the last 60 years by the 1974 election, held two months after the President resigned rather than be impeached.

 

But remember, its just "average."

 

What does this mean? Not a lot, actually.

[kapkomet]

Rove can spin this out of his ass 20 ways from Sunday. The point is these screwtards couldn't get the message out to the people because of their arrogance and got their asses handed to them. There isn't much other way to spin it.

 

When a party can come to power under a platform that is made of nothing, it's a sad testament to who was in power.

[Texsox]

When a party can come to power under a platform that is made of nothing, it's a sad testament to who was in power.

 

You sound like a tape of every conservative talk show. The Dems have a platform, have a plan. Rush and Hannity repeating over and over again that the Dems have no plan, doesn't make it true.

[kapkomet]

For your information, I haven't listented to the radio in a good two or three weeks, at least. I have more then enough to do then listen to that drivel for hours on end.

 

The Dems do NOT have a plan for Iraq, which was the big election turning point.

 

How many quotes do you have to show that says "we have to do anything but what we're doing"?

 

What a plan.

[Rex Kickass]

You're right, Kap. They have about three plans for Iraq. Because the only place where there has been any kind of debate on Capitol Hill about what to do in Iraq has been in the Democratic Party

[kapkomet]

You're right, Kap. They have about three plans for Iraq. Because the only place where there has been any kind of debate on Capitol Hill about what to do in Iraq has been in the Democratic Party

Let's see.

 

Plan A. Get out now.

 

Plan B. Get out now, but to a lesser extent.

 

Plan C. Get out sometime really soon.

 

That's about it.

 

You have to be careful what you wish for.

[Gregory Pratt]

I firmly believe that the GOP doesn't lose BOTH houses if it weren't for Mark Foley. There's nothing quite like the news that your political party hid a pedophile for, at least, one year, to damage your credibility with a nation that is already disillusioned with your rule.

[kapkomet]

I firmly believe that the GOP doesn't lose BOTH houses if it weren't for Mark Foley. There's nothing quite like the news that your political party hid a pedophile for, at least, one year, to damage your credibility with a nation that is already disillusioned with your rule.

That was part of it. The other part is that the plain reality is that Sir Knighthood of the American Pulse, aka Karl Rove, aka Turd Blossom, really f***ed up on the true American opinion this time.

[Gregory Pratt]

That was part of it. The other part is that the plain reality is that Sir Knighthood of the American Pulse, aka Karl Rove, aka Turd Blossom, really f***ed up on the true American opinion this time.

 

Tell you the truth, King Karl gets more credit than he deserves.

 

In 2000: Republicans win by fluke or fraud, depending on your POV. You can't call it any less than, at least, fluke, when the GOP manages to get 500,000 less popular votes and win anyway, though it would come with the assistance of Ralph Nader, Katherine Harris and the SCOTUS.

 

In 2002 and 2004: I believe that the Democrats really Shrummed it up. Nobody can screw up an election like Bob Shrum, and I think that these two had more to do with Democratic failures, politically, than anything Rove ever did.

 

In 2006: finally, some new blood was in charge (Schumer and Emmanuel) and they know how to sparr.

 

But, about this year's election, more than anything, I believe Foley was the final, clinching factor. One can look to the Catholic Church's scandal a few years ago for further evidence.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually Kap, I take that back. When I look at various issue releases from other Senators who ran under the Dem ticket, I found a plan for Iraq. First, tell Iraq we aren't there forever. Internationalize the conflict by using our friends in the region to take an active interest. Develop an exit strategy for leaving Iraq but remaining close enough by to take care of any serious fires needing to be put out.

 

Speaking of which, what exactly is the plan we have now? 1. Stay in Iraq. 2. ?????? 3. Profit!?

 

For more than two years, Jim Webb has been proposing a formula that might lead to the end of our occupation of Iraq. The first step would be for this Administration to say unequivocally that our country has no desire to occupy Iraq in the long term. It has not done so, and we should be mindful of the many comments by those who pushed so hard for this war, to the effect that we should set up a long-term “MacArthurian Regency” in Baghdad. We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.

 

The second step would be for us to begin immediate discussions with those countries that are culturally and historically invested in Iraq, and arguably aligned with us, to become overtly involved in a diplomatic solution, taking responsibility at some level for future stability among Iraq’s competing factions. This is do-able. Quite frankly, it will be more difficult in the wake of our failure to take similar steps during the early stages of the recent events in Lebanon. As you might recall, during the first days of that action, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the Israeli attacks. By not taking advantage of those gestures, we lost a great opportunity to bring some long-term stability in both situations. But, we should continue to pursue these sorts of solutions, just as we should work to break Syria apart from its unnatural alliance with Iran through direct discussions – something this Administration, with the strong support of George Allen, has refused to do.

[kapkomet]

I think Bush has been very clear about not staying "Fovever", but doesn't want to put a concrete date to anything so these blowhards can sit, wait for that date, and then blow everthing up the next day.

[Texsox]

http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/RealSecurity_web.pdf

 

I will not try and summarize a 123 page report, but above is the Democratic plan. Real Security addresses five subjects: Iraq, the War on Terror, homeland security, the state of the US military, and energy independence. It has been released since March of 2006, and largly ignored by the conservative media. Again, just because the conservatives keep saying something, doesn't make it true.

[Gregory Pratt]

I think Bush has been very clear about not staying "Fovever", but doesn't want to put a concrete date to anything so these blowhards can sit, wait for that date, and then blow everthing up the next day.

 

We're staying forever. Not in a 130,000 troops sort of way, but we'll be there with a presence of some sort for the longest time. I think it be a mistake not to, at least, have air force bases there.

[Balta1701]

I think Bush has been very clear about not staying "Fovever", but doesn't want to put a concrete date to anything so these blowhards can sit, wait for that date, and then blow everthing up the next day.

If nothing else, GWBush has been 100% crystal clear that we're not leaving Iraq as long as he's the President.

 

GW has defined leaving as losing, and so by not leaving, we're not losing. As far as I can tell, to him, it seems to be as simple as that.