AP, NBC Call VA Senate Race For Webb

by hilzoy

And that means that Democrats control the Senate. And that, in turn, makes me a very happy camper.

Last night I said to myself: whatever else happens, Santorum will lose, and that's a wonderful thing all by itself. If Weldon loses too, I will be very, very happy. If Allen loses -- well, then I'll be euphoric. I got all three, with Richard Pombo's loss thrown in for good measure, and control of both houses. So I am floating about on a cloud of bliss.

I'll try to write something more coherent about what I think this means at some point, but for now, all I can do is think of little phrases like "Chairman Leahy", and grin.

Comments

[bob mcmanus]

Umm, I was just discussing this. Isn't the actual breakdown 49-49-2? If Joe Lieberman or anyone else switches parties what happens with committee chairs?

This is ugly close, as I understand the Senate.

[matttbastard]

Sanders has already said he'll caucus with the Dems, as has Lieberman.

Guess which one I trust to keep actually his pledge?

[Amanda]

I am moving from the state that just reelected to the Governator to the state that just threw out Santorum. Into John "'Cut-N-Run'" Murtha's district no less. Apparently I made a good choice.

[matttbastard]

*actually keep*

With that, I concede defeat to the English language.

Adieu.

[Ugh]

All the talk today has been that unless the canvassing process shows big changes, Allen will concede, perhaps as early as tomorrow.

And so I find myself in the same position I was in 1994, euphoric at the results of the mid-term congressional elections.

[cleek]

*actually keep*

or: "keep, actually," would've worked, though very awkwardly. maybe if you threw in some line breaks here and there, you could've disguised it as a poem:

Sanders has already said he'll caucus with the Dems as has Lieberman

Guess!

which one I trust
to keep actually
his pledge?

[cleek]

crappy crap crap crap. the comment system messed up my line breaks and ruined my perfect little poem. one more try (because a lame joke deserves repeating):

Sanders has already said
he'll caucus with the Dems
as has Lieberman

Guess!

which one I trust
to keep actually
his pledge?

[Dantheman]

Amanda,

Welcome aboard to the Keystone State.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I'm going to go out on a limb and trust both Sanders and Lieberman.

[kenB]

Lieberman's not going anywhere -- if he switches, he loses his Dem support in CT, and without that, he doesn't go back to Washington in 2012. And obviously he'd be throwing away any role in a future Dem administration.

[cleek]

oh, by the way, The Right was Right

[Shinobi]

I, too, think Lieberman will stick with the Democratic party. Rats don't jump on to sinking ships, as a rule.

[dmbeaster]

Lieberman is not really a Democrat, and will continue to piss on the Party from a great height as has been his behavior for years now.

He will live for the moment and use his position to bargain for whatever he thinks will promote him further. And all the while, pretending that his posture is simply bipartisan centrism.

If he were to openly switch to the Republicans, he will get a temporary buzz and then forever be adrift. He will be a pariah to everyone -- the fate of all turncoats.

If he was not such an egomoaniac, he could use this moment to admit he had strayed and affirm his desire to work with the Party again. Heck, he could have done that and insured victory in the primary, but he would not do it. Instead, he acts out his sense that he was treated badly.

[stickler]

I expect Lieberman to be a genuine ass, but I'm not sure it matters. If he were to actually adopt an (R) after his name, he'd anger too many people. If he doesn't, and he caucuses with the Democrats, they run the show and there's no role for Darth Cheney.

But if I were Pat Leahy, I'd make sure to never, ever, turn my back on Mr. Lieberman.

[mithimithi]

Heh, all day I keep hearing Minnie Riperton's Les Fleur in my head:

Ring all the bells sing and tell the people everywhere that the flower has come
Light up the sky with your prayers of gladness and rejoice for the darkness is gone
Throw off your fears let your heart beat freely at the sign that a new time is born

[Decided FenceSitter]

Lieberman, on a great many of the issues, tends to vote liberal and with the Dems; it is just on a couple of key items that he provides cover and votes in a manner in which the apparently vocal majority on this page would disagree with.

[Jesurgislac]

DecidedFenceSitter: and votes in a manner in which the apparently vocal majority on this page would disagree with.

...and, as I understand it, a manner in which the Democratic primary voters in Lieberman's own state disagreed with: and given the election results from Connecticut, it appears fairly likely that a large number of Democratic voters in Connecticut disagreed with Lieberman... and a large number of Republican voters agreed with him.

[Slartibartfast]

It'll be interesting to see how this comes out:

'Undervotes' in race to fill Harris' seat spur call for inquiry

Mark K. Matthews | Sentinel Washington Bureau
Posted November 9, 2006

Of the 142,000 people who went to the polls Tuesday in Sarasota County, more than 1 in 8 either did not cast ballots in one of the most competitive U.S. House races in the country or were victims of a machine malfunction that did not record their votes.

State and county elections officials said they were not sure why there were so many so-called "undervotes" in the race between Republican Vern Buchanan and Democrat Christine Jennings.

But an attorney for Jennings, who received 368 fewer votes than Buchanan, said he suspects problems with the touch-screen-voting machines were responsible. And he's demanding an investigation.

"We were hearing from voter after voter about machine irregularities in Sarasota County," said Kendall Coffey, who was part of the team that represented Al Gore in the recount of the 2000 presidential election. "Something very wrong has occurred."

Here's how the problem came to light.

More than 142,000 people went to the polls in Sarasota County to cast votes for candidates running for U.S. Senate, Florida governor, a host of other state races and House District 13, the seat Katherine Harris gave up to run for the U.S. Senate.

But the final results showed that 18,382 people either chose not to vote in the House race, were confused and missed the contest on the ballot, or were victims of a malfunction in the touch-screen-voting machines.

[zmulls]

I made this comment over on the carpetbagger as well, re: Leiberman switching to Republican. There might have been a temptation if the Senate were tied, or if the Republicans still controlled 51-49, but the zeitgeist is clearly with the Democrats right now.

The Iraq issue is trending Democratic as well. As Leiberman learned after the primary, he had to make it sound like he was not quite so positive for the war effort as he had been. He's been backpedaling for a while.

Sean Hannity tried to corner him about switching, but Joe said he promised to caucus with the Dems (but would act independently).

Here's my thinking. The 2008 Senate map will look *very* different. We were on the defensive this time, and had to attack "unwinnable" seats. In 2008, (and I'm sorry I don't know which seats, I read it on another blog), there will be 9 vulnerable R seats and only 2 vulnerable D seats. In other words, the burden is on the Republicans next time, and the likelihood is that the Democrats will pick up another one or two.

If you were Joe Leiberman, looking at that map, and thinking the chances of the Republicans taking it back in two years were very slim, who would you "bet" on……..? (Everyone in the Senate should start whispering that in Joe's ear…….every day…..)

Leiberman stays with the Democrats because he could lose it all in two years by switching, if the Democrats pick up even one more seat. And nobody would forgive him. He'll do something or other petty to vent his frustration, but overall I think he'll be welcomed back, cause that's just politics.

A personal aside: Hilzoy, you mentioned how happy you were about Weldon......are you in his district as well? (I am....and was darn happy to cast my vote for Sestak this time....)

[Slartibartfast]

It's possible Lieberman's thinking something like that, and it's also possible Lieberman's thinking of how much hay he can make as the swing vote, with Cheney as the tiebreaker.

Unless I've screwed up the math somewhere, in which case disregard that last. Lieberman's not really all that old, so I'm guessing he's probably looking past the next couple of years. I really doubt he'd switch to Republican, especially considering how easily he won as an Independent.

[Ugh]

Anyone got a link to what the latest tally in the House is?

[OCSteve]

Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats, and I believe him to be an honest man.

While not recanting his war vote, he has never been that far apart from other Democrats on what to do now.

He has a lifetime ADA rating of 76 – I don’t think you have too much to worry about.

After what was done to him, he should make the new Senate leader get down on his knees, but I doubt he will.

[cleek]

TPM has a tally:

Senate 51D 49R 0 In Play
House 230D 195R 10 In Play

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: After what was done to him, he should make the new Senate leader get down on his knees, but I doubt he will.

*nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad...

[cleek]

i'm pretty happy that Vernon Robinson didn't make it in NC-13 (not that he had a chance).

[Ugh]

thanks cleek

[Jesurgislac]

After what was done to him

I just registered this. OCSteve, you are aware that "what was done to him" is that the Democratic voters of Connecticut decided that they'd prefer someone else in the primary elections? Lieberman seemed to think this was terribly unjust, but in a democracy, politicians have to accept that their actions may lead to voters deciding they'd prefer someone else. You don't agree? (Lieberman got back in, pretty definitely because a lot of usually-vote-Republican voters decided they wanted him, and that was their right, too. But Lieberman has no call and no cause for complaint about "what was done to him": he lost a vote, that's all.)

[OCSteve]

*nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad...

I had begging in mind – but I do like how your mind works ;)

[cleek]

I had begging in mind

that comes first

[OCSteve]

Jes:

Of course the Democratic voters of CT have the right to choose who they want as a candidate (although I didn’t care for all the out of state activism I saw going on).

What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign, the blackface and the crude remarks – the FDL crowd and their like. I have always felt that Lieberman was a very honorable man, especially for a long term politician. I thought he should have been at the top of the ticket in 2000. The vileness of that primary fight disgusted me, and I didn’t even have a dog in the fight.

The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.

[JakeB]

I have to say it actually feels a bit like morning in America to me the last couple of days. Rather late morning, of course. Still . . . I look forward to seeing John Conyers's actions over the next few months. "Cry havoc and let slip the investigative powers of Congress!"

[Jesurgislac]

What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign

You mean, the campaign was viler by far than the one Bush/Cheney ran against Kerry, which you approved of? You're on surer ground than me here: I wasn't in Connecticut during the campaign, and direct news about electoral campaigns in the US tends to filter to the UK only when it's a Presidential election. And obviously, blog reports about campaigns tend to be skewed. In general, reliable reports say Republicans ran a far dirtier campaign than Democrats, but that says nothing about specific case. So, if you were in Connecticut during the primaries, and are testifying from your personal knowledge that the pro-Lamont Democrats were running a viler campaign than any other in your personal experience, well, what can I say? You would be speaking from your persona; experience, which I don't have.

If, of course, you're speaking from your experience of how the Lamont campaign was reported in the rest of the US, then somehow I doubt that it was viler than most American campaigns, because (a) you're biased and (b) you would be reading biased sources.

The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.

Why should the DNC have supported Lieberman against the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters? If the Connecticut Democratic voters had turned to the "far left" (though I'd hardly describe Lamont as "far left") that's their democratic right, isn't it? It would actually have been wrong for the DNC to override their preference... in a democracy.

[matttbastard]

"far left"

Hadn't realized Lamont captured the 4th International vote.

(The Socialist Equality Party must be weeping.)

[spartikus]

What I had in mind was more the sheer vileness of the campaign, the blackface and the crude remarks – the FDL crowd and their like.

I'm not sure any candidate is responsible for things written on third-party blogs.

[John Thullen]

Ugh:

"And so I find myself in the same position I was in 1994, euphoric at the results of the mid-term congressional elections."

THAT is some kind of bipolar disorder, with euphoria at BOTH ends. I think it is referred to as the More-Than-Happy Syndrome.
When you argue with yourself, which side do you take?

On the other hand, Meet The Press could have you on as a guest and the nation could watch you go at it with yourself. Talk about gridlock!

;)

More seriously, but not much more, I saw a few minutes of Chuck Schumer on the O'Reilly show last night being alternately interrupted, bullied, patronized and condescended to, and then caught Tom Delay on CNN being treated rather benignly, for a criminal thug, by Lou Dobbs and a panel of questioners.

It occurs to me that the Democratic Party needs a brand new media strategy. I see no need for "interviews" with the likes of O'Reilly and the much of the other FOX crew, and I'm not interested in hearing Democrats, outside of Lieberman, being interviewed on the radio by the Hewitt/Limbaugh Axis.

Certain media careers must end, like Rather's did.

The Republican Party had a unified media and political strategy. What not the Democrats?

And I'm preparing to vomit as Hillary Clinton sidles up to Rupert Murdoch.

I don't recall Gimle going drinking with the Orcs at the end of Part III of Lord Of The Rings. Maybe they cut that scene.

[Ugh]

When you argue with yourself, which side do you take?

Sometimes both, sometimes neither, never one or the other.

[OCSteve]

you're biased

Well – yeah. I said I like the man and I think he is an honorable politician, a somewhat rare breed.

What am I doing in here arguing in support of a Democratic Senator in any case? I think you folks have finally warped my brain ;)

(proceed with the obvious jokes)

[kenB]

The DNC did not support him as they should have, bending to the will of the far left.

Why should the DNC have supported Lieberman against the will of the Connecticut Democratic voters?

Presumably OCSteve is talking about before the primary vote?

[Jesurgislac]

I said I like the man and I think he is an honorable politician, a somewhat rare breed.

To be honest, OCSteve, what's coming to mind is that set-to we had recently where you condemned in the strongest terms Kerry's honorable behavior in speaking out publicly against US atrocities in Vietnam. I suspect, therefore, that your admiration for Lieberman's honor doesn't have much to do with my definition of honorable behavior.

I'm also reminded of the half-joke/half-definition of an honorable politician - one who stays bought.

I actually have no idea what honorable behavior Lieberman has exhibited in in his political career that makes you admire him (and I note you didn't say whether you were in CT during the primaries campaign.... were you?) but given that Kerry evidently didn't appear to be an honorable politician to you, I can guess you are not inspired to admiration/liking by (for example) resistence to corruption, speaking truth to power, courage in physical danger, and solid hard work. All of which would apply to Kerry, and none of which apparently made you like/admire him. (Liking is tougher, I admit: I like some politicians whom I'd never vote for, and I dislike some politicians whom I'd probably vote for. So...)

What am I doing in here arguing in support of a Democratic Senator in any case?

Tell yourself he's not a Democratic Senator after January... ;-)

[Jay C]

[insert obvious joke about OCSteve's brain HERE]

But, Steve, to respectfully argue your point about Joe Lieberman: it seems pretty obvious (to me, anyway) that he really did win re-election by becoming - whether by his own design or nor - the de facto Republican candidate in the race. I am convinced that if the Connecticut GOP had had its act together and put up a more vigorous/respectable candidate than "Gamblin' Al" Schlesinger, said candidate would have bled off a significant percentage of the mainline Republican vote; and, given the less-than-overwhelming percentages Lieberman garnered in any case, it probably would have been enough to send Sen. Ned Lamont to the 110th Congress.

As it was, the national GOP decided to go with Joe - much good as it will do them - and so here we are.

[cleek]

the national GOP decided to go with Joe

and vice versa, to a degree.

[OCSteve]

the de facto Republican candidate in the race

I can agree with that. I think enough Republicans realized their guy had no shot, so they voted for Lieberman over taking a chance that Lemont would win. I don’t expect Lieberman to change his views based on that.

Jes: No I was not in CT, my perceptions were formed by the media – new and old.

All of which would apply to Kerry

We’re not going to find any common ground here. I don’t want to rehash 04. I give. Uncle.

[Ugh]

Looooooost! The Precious is loooooooost!

(note: same link I posted in the Donald thread)

[Anarch]

Jes: *nods* Everyone now knows blow-jobs are really, really bad...

God, you're such a lesbian...

[KCinDC]

From the Bizarro World post Ugh linked to:

A decade or so from now when a rational post mortem on the Iraq War is written, rather than the noxious and counterfactual hit pieces churned out by the Washington Post’s allegedly unbiased reporters, this is the day that will be pegged as the day we lost the war.

He seems to have glossed over the fact that those postmortems will be written in Arabic by the subjugated people of the Islamic Republic of North America.

[Ugh]

I'm seeing reports that Allen will concede at 3pm today.

[Jesurgislac]

OCSteve: We’re not going to find any common ground here. I don’t want to rehash 04. I give. Uncle.

Uncle right back atcha. ;-)

God, you're such a lesbian...

Actually, I'm such a slash fan. The first thing I think of when someone mentions a man on his knees before another man... ;-)

[Ugh]

Msnbc, for example.

[243]

Jes: "Actually, I'm such a slash fan. The first thing I think of when someone mentions a man on his knees before another man... ;-)"

Curious -- which fandoms?

[st]

You can put me in the camp that thinks Lieberman will caucus happily with the Dems. As a Dem, he is perhaps the most powerful man in the Senate. As a Republican, he is just one of 50 votes to be swayed.

Besides, looking past the war and his general blindness to how badly he was being used by the GOP in his quest for "bipartisanship," his voting record reveals him to be a dependable guy on most issues I care about. I thought his actions in the last few years (particularly the cloture vote) justified the primary challenge, but now that the question is settled, I think Joe will be perfectly happy to settle into a nice big office and solidify his leadership position. Oh, and I'll also bet $50 that he runs, and wins, as a democrat in 2012.

[baskaborr]

I hereby award 10 bonus points to Mithimithi for mentioning Minnie Ripperton! And second the sentiment. For some reason I've got a tune from her days with Rotary Connection stuck in my head today... "Want you to know"

Want you to know you made me happy.
Want you to know you made me sad.
Want you to konw you made me happy.
You are the best thing
that I ever had.

[Jesurgislac]

M.U.N.C.L.E., M*A*S*H, MacGyver. I only like to slash men from TV series beginning with M. ;-)

[OCSteve]

Blurb on the news, Allen to concede this afternoon. (I think, I just caught part of it walking by the TV.)

And this is quite interesting:

Michael Steele for Republican National Chairman?
Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who came up just short yesterday in his Senate race against Rep. Ben Cardin (D), is mulling a bid for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, according to an informed GOP source.
I do believe I like that. I don’t know if he has the fund raising chops, but I quite like the idea of it.

[st]

OCSteve - he lost by 10 points. I'm not saying he shouldn't be the RNC chair, I'm just saying your definition of "just short" is a bit different than mine.

Steele himself is a personable guy, and he made a smart TV move and use of his funding edge by putting out a very early series of jokey, avuncular ads intended to defuse negative ads from Cardin; "You are going to see 'em, ads using grainy black and white shots of me, and saying 'Steele hates puppies.' Well, for the record, I love puppies." The strategy worked, insofar as Cardin's first two weeks of ads were forced to adopt that jokey tone, and the gloves didn't really come off until the end of the cycle.

But, of course, this year, savvy media strategy was not nearly enough, and Steele got trounced. Just not a good year to be a Republican, especially against a Dem incumbent. I have no doubt Steele will appear again.

[OCSteve]

I'm just saying your definition of "just short" is a bit different than mine.

That was the original article, I fogot to set it off.

[st]

OCS - fair enough. It's an interesting idea, to be sure, and would show the GOP reaching deeper in its ranks and moving outside the current team (and to my mind anybody would be better than that twerp Mehlman). Do you have a link to the original article?

[javelina]

Re Lieberman vs. Lamont - I was for Lamont. Lieberman lost me with his interference in the Terry Schiavo mess and his support for the war in Iraq. But I'm not a Connecticut voter, so like OCSteve, I had no horse in this race.

That being said, to call Lamont far left is ... well, it brings to mind Dave Barry's description of the Senate: "White Male Millionaires Working for You!" Written many years ago and still apt. Lamont would've been a pretty typical senator, I suspect. But perhaps the reference was to Lamont's supporters.

[KCinDC]

The "far left" label seems to come from a widespread confusion between two things that aren't that well correlated: (1) degree of opposition to Bush (or the war) and (2) position on a simplistic left-right political spectrum. Howard Dean and Ned Lamont are thought of as far left, despite their political beliefs. Lieberman is thought of as a conservative Democrat because he's been a Bush enabler. The conservative McCain is somehow "moderate" because he occasionally makes noises in opposition to the administration. Maybe, just maybe, this election will help the media and others get over that confusion.

[Arky Vaughn]

These labels kind of drive me nuts as I am in agreement with KC. What exactly do Howard Dean or Ned Lamont believe or espouse that earn them the "far left" label? What does "liberal" mean? Why is it so bad? How is John McCain "moderate"? I fear these labels are amorphous meaning different things to different people thus becoming a hindrance to communication.

But perhaps that is too obvious of a point to make

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, I think the "far left" label springs from netroots support for Lamont, not as an accurate descriptor of Lamont's politics. Or it could be those wacky Mentos-esque commercials featuring Markos.

He does bear a suspicious resemblance to Michael Emerson from Lost, but I'm not sure what that says about him politically.

[st]

It means he has one hour to live unless you let those people go.

[KCinDC]

I don't think Kos is any more "far left" than Howard Dean, but he did make a mistake in naming the Daily Kos site after himself.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think Kos is any more "far left" than Howard Dean

So...what's your point?

;p

[KCinDC]

Allen is in the middle of his concession speech right now.

[KCinDC]

Somehow I hadn't noticed the phrase "Burns and Allen" until I saw it just now in a MyDD headline. Say goodnight, Gracie!

[Jackmormon]

Ok, I understand that throwing around that football is his schtick, but c'mon.

[Davebo]

After what was done to him, he should make the new Senate leader get down on his knees, but I doubt he will.

What was done to him? He had the big dog himself Bill Clinton campaigning for him in the primaries. Along with Boxer and Hillary.

Is it the Dem party's fault that Joe lost his primary battle? The facts say no. But hey, we all know facts have a liberal bias.

Or are you suggesting that the Democratic Party should have ruled the primary invalid and allowed Joe to run on the Dem ticket despite losing?

What thought process or lack thereof led you to this silly conclusion?

[KCinDC]

If anything, Lieberman should be thanking the national Democrats for their lack of support for Lamont in the general.

[Steve]

This election had an amazing feel to it. Am I the only one who feels like I'm living in a whole different country than I was last week?

[Bruce Baugh]

No, it's not just you, Steve. Such huge problems still...but i feel like it's not all just downhill some more.

[Anarch]

Incidentally:

OCSteve: Lieberman promised to caucus with the Democrats, and I believe him to be an honest man.

Assuming facts not in evidence. In fact, outright ignoring facts in evidence. I suspect that Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can't make him as good an offer as they, but make no mistake: he's a dishonest, egotistical ratf*** who's only in it for himself. And I say this as someone who thought he'd make a good VP candidate in 2000; I don't know if I simply misjudged him then or if he really changed as dramatically as all that, but I'm astonishingly grateful that he never attained that office.

[kid bitzer]

"This election had an amazing feel to it. Am I the only one who feels like I'm living in a whole different country than I was last week?"

Agree totally.

After 2004, I felt as though the Twin Towers had just been knocked down a second time--and by domestic terrorists. Mourning in America.

Now I feel as though we might be able to put those Towers back up again. I went to the hardware store yesterday, bought a new flag to replace the old one, and flew it on the front porch all day, just to celebrate the small, incremental recovery of my country.

[OCSteve]

There are some things I need to stay away from in here. I’ll add Lieberman to the list. It was always like wearing a raw steak around your neck and walking into the lion’s den over at BJ too.

[bob mcmanus]

"will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can't make him as good an offer as they"

Read on a Republican blog that Repubs will offer Lieberman Majority Leader, with the complete agenda control that entails. Grain of salt, of course.

[CaseyL]

"After 2004, I felt as though the Twin Towers had just been knocked down a second time."

Yes! My god, I remember that; I remember walking into work the next day and feeling a deep, deep funereal hush - and wondering if it was just me or if the whole department was in shock. (Turned out to be the latter.)

And you're right about the sea change in the way things feel now. Reminds me of a line from "The Wanting of Levine," in which a character say, on the night FDR is first elected to the WH, "At last: a mensch. Things might not get much better, but at least now I know they won't get any worse."

I do believe things will get better, mind you. I'm just so battered by the last 4 years, my main emotion right now is like we've escaped a train wreck.

[hilzoy]

CaseyL: Me too. That's why I haven't been able to write anything since: I feel sort of flattened, though in a better way than after previous elections.

[rilkefan]

"will caucus with the Democrats because the Republicans can't make him as good an offer as they"

Any chance in that scenario that one of the remaining moderate Republican Senators (Snowe?) might switch to the other side? Of course I would imagine a Lieberman switch and a redistribution of leadership based on Cheney's tiebreak would lead to a complete loss of function of the body.

[OCSteve]

Dems are working with some high expectations:

-When asked which Party they believe would cut taxes for the middle-class 42% said the Democrats while only 29% chose the Republicans.
-When asked which Party will work toward reducing the deficit 47% chose the Democrats while only 22% chose the Republicans.
-Again, when asked who will keep government spending under control the Democrats held a 17 point edge (38% Democrats, 21% Republicans).

Any talk of tax hikes or increased spending is not going to go over well with the folks who just put them in power.

2 years…

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class? Sigh. I guess the good news is that it wasn't 51%. I wonder what percentage of the 42% also wants national health care?

[Yukoner]

I have a vivid recollection of the TIME magazine cover following the 1994 mid-terms. It had a blazing headline "Storm Across America" over a photo of a twister.

I wonder what it will be (already is?) this time?

[Jeff Eaton]

This whole thing with GW going to his father reminds me of Robert the Bruce in Braveheart. Rummy happens to be William Wallace.

Wow. Those RedState folks sure do like their pop history analogies.

[Yukoner]

OC Steve and Sebastian,

Isn't this just standard fare? I want my taxes cut and the defict reduced and spending (that I like, not the bad kind) increased?

It's a bit curious looking back on the way this general attitude has shifted in Canada over the past 10 or so years. A few years ago a bunch of right wing US wannabes led by the National Post made a big effort to start (actually they were claiming it was already underway) a "tax revolt" while also advocating for (small) debt reduction and big, BIG increases in military spending. It went nowhere I think because the large majority of the electorate here seems to have a firm grip on the idea that you should pay for what you get.

So, under the Liberals and now under the Torys we get debt being retired, modest spending increases (with trims here and there), and modest tax reductions here and there. And I am happy.

[liberal japonicus]

Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class?

Is it just me, or do others think that these questions have been deployed so often, without any information about what taxes and services are at issue (or even what middle class means), that it is actually meaningless in determining what policies to follow?

[Ted]

Personally I hope Harry Reid has already scheduled meetings with Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to discuss the results in New England, speculate on how much more he's going to like being in the majority than the minority, and ask them about their future goals and plans....

[lily]

I think the term "far left" has no connection to a person's beliefs or preferred policies. The right tried to put that label on any Democrat who was feisty and not intimidated. It was a ploy to marginalize people who might effectively fight back against rightwingers. That's why Dean got the label even though he's a moderate with some conservative positions. It's just a framing term with no actual connnections to a person's political stances.

[John Thullen]

Sebastian:

Well, you're right. Americans, in general, need to stop whining about taxes.

Too bad it's the national sport.

[bob mcmanus]

"Yikes 42% think the Democrats will be able to cut taxes for the middle class?"

I should have a link, but I do believe there is a Democratic plan to adjust the Bush tax cuts to redistribute the benefits downwards. With no net change in revenue.

As I said in another thread, I think the Democrats will pretty much make those 2010, or somewhat different, tax cuts permanent. Everything will be about 2008. Liberals are not going to be overjoyed.

Some of what I read sounds crazy, like ending oil subsidies to fund alt-energy; or counting on a "peace dividend" to provide funds for new programs. But it appears Pelosi is deadly serious about PayGo, and giving at least a temporary appearance of fiscal probity.

[john miller]

I also think they will b doing something about taxes on the middle class, rolling back the tax cuts on the top 2% and avoiding elimination of the estate tax. I don't think most people would have any problem with any of that.
On a different point, and one I haven't seen much in the media about, nor on this thread, is the extent of this victory for the Democrats.

And by that I mean on the state level, and not just governorships. The Democrats no control 15 state legislatures by owning both houses. Over 200 seats changed hands across the country, even in the South. In my local very conservative Reublican area northwest of Chicago, the state representative for the last 22 years went down to defeat, and a Democrat w2on the seat in the state Senate for the first time that I can recall.

This is what the Republicans really have to worry about. They built their party into what it is from the local level on up and it appears the Dems are doing the same thing.

Maybe Dean isn't so crazy after all.

[john miller]

Sorry about all the typos.

[CaseyL]

Dean is incredibly vilified, based on the distortions of liberalism v. conservatism. He's an "extremist liberal" - based on what? Because he's a Democrat? Because he signed the bill allowing same-sex civil unions in Vermont? Because he's feisty?

Regarding taxes, they're going to have to be raised, because there's no other way out of the hole we're in. The last time we had balanced budget was under Clinton, and he had to raise taxes to do it. Raising taxes on the top 5% and reviving the estate tax (with an exemption raised to $5 million) are relatively painless options. Cutting spending would not be - mostly because the programs sure to be cut are already so underfunded they can barely accomplish their missions.

The biggest difference I hope the Democratic majority can make is in the quality of legislation and debate. No more sneaking egregious earmarks into thousand-page bills - and no more setting votes so soon after the bills are delivered that no one can read them thoroughly before voting. No more empty sound-bites and slogans passing for debate. No more letting major contributors' lobbyists write legislation.

[Nell]

the Democrats will pretty much make those 2010, or somewhat different, tax cuts permanent.

Read MaxSpeak for what that would mean to the fiscal picture.

The tax cuts expire automatically; Congress would have to vote affirmatively to make them permanent.

In other words, what are you smoking, guy?

[kid bitzer]

"Regarding taxes, they're going to have to be raised, because there's no other way out of the hole we're in."

Yup, I think one of the first things that Pelosi and Reid should do is to call some conferences where they basically pull the fire alarm and describe the magnitude of the damage that has been done over the last six years.

People are going to be shocked when they realize how much of their money the drunken sailor has run through. And how little everyone but the super-rich got for it.

But the party is over now. The grown-ups haven't been able to take away all of the keys--Junior still has the keys to the army, alas--but we can at least keep his hands off the check-book.

The party is over, and the country is littered with damage. You don't see it if you're a wealthy corporate Republican, or if your idea of economic health begins and ends with the Dow.

But the damage to the working class and its economic future has been immense. There is a crisis in our finances, caused by Bush's profligacy.

It is Bush who has raised the taxes for our children and grandchildren, by running up the debt far beyond anything left by the Clinton administration.

We can reduce the Bush tax increases on our children if we start paying them down in advance.

Bush tax. Pay it now, so that our kids pay less later. Cause one way or another, Bush already spent it.

[bob mcmanus]

"In other words, what are you smoking, guy?"

Dorals.

It is four years. But we will likely be in acknowledged recession in six months, and I don't know deep it will be, or how long it will last.

If the three choices during economic slowdown (and war) are tax increases, trillion-dollar deficits, or entitlement cuts, I would say all three are politically impossible.

and as kid blitzer says, there we are. :)

Yes, thanks to unnamed people who put a psycho in the white house in 2000. May they never be forgiven.

[cleek]

No more sneaking egregious earmarks into thousand-page bills - and no more setting votes so soon after the bills are delivered that no one can read them thoroughly before voting. No more empty sound-bites and slogans passing for debate. No more letting major contributors' lobbyists write legislation.

1. none of that was a major campaign issue.
2. very little of that is a Republican-only failing.
3. a lot of that is what politicians do.

lobbyists have always written bills. ex. the DMCA, and the "Sonny Bono" copyright act before it, was written by lobbyists and signed by Clinton. playing the rules to your own advantage is what politicians do.

don't trick yourself into thinking poltiicans won't be politicians. our only hope is that this batch will, on balance, do more good than evil.

[cleek]

let me add...

that's not to say i don't think the Dems will be better. i just don't think they're going to be perfect.

[Fledermaus]

OK, I can't resist this. It's time us democrats let Andrew and OCSteve in on the real platform.

Let the glorious revolution begin, Commrades!

[Bruce Baugh]

I'm far from convinced that the general public is so thoroughly opposed to all tax increases. What I do find is folks unwilling to pay when they think they're getting ripped off, and willing to pay when they see a connection between what they pay and what gets done. I also find, listening in to conversations in stores, barber shop, and the like, a lot of folks looking for reasons to feel hopeful. Often pretty desperate for it. They also feel isolated and detached from the country's affairs.

The Republicans could have owned that desire to belong - it's a staple of several threads in conservatism, after all. But the mercantile branch is actively hostile to it, preferring to treat citizens only as employees and customers, and theocrats only want community with the right dogma. I haven't any idea whether the Democrats can pick up on this, and my prophet's license was suspended on election day until I undergo a refresher course. But I see possibilities there.

[Anarch]

OCSteve: I’ll add Lieberman to the list. It was always like wearing a raw steak around your neck and walking into the lion’s den over at BJ too.

Interestingly, while I haven't liked Lieberman in several years, and even called for him to be removed from the party back in 2004, I didn't really dislike him at a personal level -- in other words, I didn't really consider him a bad person -- until this year. The way he comported himself through the election, though... that was a whole new barrel o' ugly, and one that I doubt I'll soon forgive.

[heet]

Hi again... Just wanted to relate a story -

I saw Nancy Pelosi in NYC on vacation on Saturday night. I was at a restaurant near the village and our waiter came by and told us who was in the booth 10 feet away. She was with some younger people, nobody I recognized anyways. On the way out, my buddy wished her luck on Tuesday. Looks like it worked...

[243]

Jes sez: "M.U.N.C.L.E., M*A*S*H, MacGyver. I only like to slash men from TV series beginning with M. ;-)"

M.U.N.C.L.E. -- that's my youth. Maybe you should try the L's. Life on Mars seems to have some possibilities. OTOH, what do I know, my wife is still doing B7