2006 American Midterm Elections

Election Results Last Updated: 9/12/2006 10:20pm

US Senate
Republican
78% of 515 Reporting
LINCOLN CHAFEE 26,307 54%
STEPHEN LAFFEY 22,719 46%

Normally I frown on such Machiavellian machinations but I'm pretty fucking sick of Republican control of Congress.

christ i hope so, and i think that the sentiment is out there, but i think that they're gunna pull so much shit that they might retain one, or pull some denny hastert bullshit and try to jam up the works with nominees, fucked vote counts, and other sundry. Hell, 300,000 missing votes in ohio? that's just the start. Fuck, man, we're dealing with extremely authoritarian folks here; as Thom Hartmann says repeatedly, they ain't necessarily greedy and they ain't evil. They're True Believers and they seriously immerse themselves in idealogy.

but yeah, it's like the 2004 campaign never ended.

and it's going to be interested to see what actually has to happen to make people give a fuck. Did the drowning of an entire city do it? did that neighbor kid down the road dying over there do it? i don't know.

Read the comments, it's an interesting mix of 'practicality' and anguish.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), September 12th, 2006.

Just like me voting for Laffey! Welcome to RI politics, where our Republican senator is pro-choice and our Democratic congressman is pro-life.

My wife voted for Chaffee, she couldn't bring herself to punish him for the sins of the Republicans. Chaffee's a terrible communicator, he's like Forrest Gump fresh out of an Intro to Public Speaking course. To his credit, he has a distinguished record of standing up to our bullying, vindictive president. That counts for something in my book - unfortunately not as much as the looming possibility of another Republican congress.

A Chafee / Whitehouse runoff is a fairly even match. RI is heavily Democrat, one of the bluest states in New England, but the Chaffee name carries a lot of political capital here. The RNC is going to pour cash into his campaign since he's got a fighting chance. Plus, some Democrats seem to have difficulty looking at this race strategically, ie a chance to regain control of Congress. Worrying.

People do not give even one fuck.

It's very hard not to be cynical about the whole thing.

christ i hope so,"

I assume this is a typo.

already did, didn't they? i thought they dumped a shit loada resources in just to make sure he won, which has the nice double effect of making sure the better target isn't nominated, and lets Chafee know who's writing the checks.

xpost

I assume this is a typo.

yeah, i originally read that as "lose," and that I hope ta god that they get pushed the fuck out

Actually I wouldn't mind if the majorities were reduced to razor-thin margins.

except that it still keeps them at the controls, able to block votes from getting to the floor, etc. the same shit is going on in my own state, in my limited understanding, in the Oregon State House(repub-controlled, so important shit doesn't make it thru).

also, the public hasn't turned against the war. it just figured out that we're losing.

I really have no idea what's going to happen in November. I don't anticipate a Dem majority in either chamber, but it's definitely possible to win both.

or, I should say, that we're not going to "win".

i just think it's that particular american mix of cynicism, insularity, overwork, and ignorance, same as what usually kills civil life

Pretty much my sentiment. I don't have a lot of faith that the Dem party leadership is going to pull together with a strong message and agenda. Even if they do, it takes time to set into the general public consciousness. We still don't have the overall infrastructure for a return to electoral dominance and effective governance. I think it will be a few more years in the wilderness for the Dems. Any Democratic gains will come from Republican corruption and incompetence, not because people understand the different ideologies and philosophies of governance.

I think if we win the house, we will lose it again in 2008, barring any major changes.

I'm not throwing up my own hands with cynicism about the process, but I'm completely cynical (or at least, somewhat hopeless) about the usual group of people who will not participate in the process. And given the choice, I'd much rather people get politically/socially involved on a municipal level than worry to death about which state judge they are voting for. But some people, as kingfish notes, simply don't have any idea what civil life is all about.

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0811830667.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

?????????!?!

already did, didn't they? i thought they dumped a shit loada resources in just to make sure he won, which has the nice double effect of making sure the better target isn't nominated, and lets Chafee know who's writing the checks.

I was thinking more from the perspective that if Laffey won, the RNC was planning to pull their support, call the race a lost cause, and spend the money elsewhere.

But yeah, I've been getting glossy mail pieces from Chaffee every other day for the last month.

Actually I wouldn't mind if the majorities were reduced to razor-thin margins.

except that it still keeps them at the controls, able to block votes from getting to the floor, etc.

This is my concern exactly - majority party has a lot of say in how things are run, what gets done, priority setting. They're the committee chairs, possess the speaker position, etc. Bush is a bit of a lame duck at this point but anything that can be done to minimize his power further is valuable.

The Republicans have redistricted to ensure they will hold onto power of the congress. That's why opportunities to do end-runs around them are so important (e.g. sending Laffey off to certain defeat against Whitehouse in RI). The democrats in RI should've done a lot more to encourage unaffiliated voters to cast a ballot for Laffey in the Republican primary. Another missed opportunity.

W.
T.
F.

One fun bit of all this: how likely do y'all think that John Bolton's UN nomination is going to get thru?

We don't need Leahy in charge of anything, but Ted Stevens and Pat Roberts are radioactive cancer.

I thought it was CW that it was dead.

While I agree that the scope and effectiveness of the social conservative/evangelical base is over exaggerated, they do seem like a much bigger and more in-step grass-roots support network than liberal activists.

i would call it sizable, but not huge. I still think that the majority of folks either

1) just don't know
2) just don't care
3) just too busy to find out(Jon Stewart mentions this frequently)

they do seem like a much bigger and more in-step grass-roots support network than liberal activists.

no question, and it's gunna be like that for years

Herding Democrats/left-leaners is like herding cats. Maybe harder.

exactly, which is why more & more folks lately(lakoff, wallis & others) have been talking about the need to articulate the what, how, and why the shared values are...

interesting. your Dad voted against what most people around him were for every time with the exception of post-Watergate.

I've never once detected any principles whatsoever with Ford. He's an empty suit. A total phony.

I'm voting for him tomorrow for the obvious reason, but I sort of hope the Dems take the Senate without him.

uh, isn't that actually the AVERAGE turnout?

(xpost!)

Of course, the majority of them are Republicans. How do you surpress the Republican vote?

Yeah! I think the percentage was 34.3 or something.

His rather addled reasoning was that people are depressed and will stay home (since he doesn't talk to any Democrats who aren't Pelosian "secular-progressives" he must know what he's talking about)

Dear, you ask polling station workers to conduct literacy tests.

xpost

http://www.detroitfunk.com/images/FEB05/kerriganknee001.jpg

i mean really guys, we've been dealing with this kind of transparent GOP shit for over a decade now!

Winners like Gary Andersen!

you mean John? my take is most of his supporters were essentially Northeastern Rockefeller Republicans and Western/Midwestern conservative Democrats. in '80, they were seriously disenchanted with the Carter environment and personality, but deemed Reagan too mean/extreme on personality/issues, and in the race between malaise man and the movie actor, no one looked like a winner, so the more involved voted Anderson and the less involved stayed home - Reagan barely broke 50%. Four years later, the climate had changed, Reagan won the personality contest hands down, and most of these people were persuaded to come over, giving him the morning in america glow that turned out those who want to vote for a winner. in '88, the climate and issues were even, there were no personalities and no winners. Bush held onto enough of the independents, but some went back to the Dems, and many stayed home. in '92, the climate had changed, Clinton had the personality and the issues and he and Perot took the indies away. the Dems have kept most of the Northeasterners and some of the Mid/Westerners ever since, while the rest stayed with Perot and then moved towards the GOP when it took on a more rural cast, won the personality contest, and gave off the apperance of greater friendliness on the issues. that group has slowly developed second thoughts over the last few years and is the reason why some Dems seek a 'Western strategy'.

Editorial opens fire on Rumsfeld

Four US military journals have called for Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit, accusing him of losing control of the situation in Iraq.
cf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6120856.stm

xp

xp

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/9823/thatonepartyla8.jpg

"Y'know, that one party..."

Wasn't Anderson a moderate Republican (i.e. what Reagan became post-'84)?

snark aside -- this is interesting. heath shuler and THIS dude?!?

Oh, there's *plenty* of Rumsfeld love around still, don't underestimate it. Some of it quite embarrassing by any standard...

http://www.ct.gov/governorrell/lib/governorrell/montageSep06b.jpg

Senate - Dems take 6, all but AZ and TN

House - Dems take 34...
AZ-5 (Hayworth)
AZ-8 (open)
CA-11 (Pombo)
CO-4 (Musgrave)
CO-7 (open)
CT-2 (Simmons)
CT-4 (Shays)
CT-5 (Johnson)
FL-13 (open)
FL-16 (Foley)
FL-22 (Shaw)
IA-1 (open)
ID-1 (open)
IL-6 (open)
IN-2 (Chocola)
IN-8 (Hostettler)
IN-9 (Sodrel)
KY-3 (Northup)
MN-1 (Gutknecht)
NH-2 (Bass)
NM-1 (Wilson)
NY-20 (Sweeney)
NY-24 (open)
NY-25 (Walsh)
NC-11 (Taylor)
OH-1 (Chabot)
OH-2 (Schmidt)
OH-15 (Pryce)
OH-18 (open)
PA-6 (Gerlach)
PA-7 (Weldon)
PA-10 (Sherwood)
TX-22 (open)
WA-8 (Reichert)

I think the GOP narrowly keeps AZ-1, KY-4, MN-6, NY-26, NY-29, PA-8, VA-2, and WI-8.

Wildcards
KS-2 (Ryun)
NV-3 (Porter)
OH-12 (Tiberi)
PA-4 (Hart)
WY-AL (Cubin)