US Midterm Elections

**pete** · 08/11/2006, 10:00 PM

Democrats taken Congress. Looks like Democrats will take the Senate although wouldn't be US election with a court challenge.

In other new Arnie re-elected in California.

News site

In Virginia, the State Board of Elections announced it would not certify the outcome of the race between incumbent Republican Sen. George Allen and Democratic challenger Jim Webb until Nov. 27, after which recounts could begin. There are no automatic recounts in Virginia. The candidates were separated by about 7,800 votes out of more than 2.3 million cast, with indications from both camps that any final outcome could wind up in court.

**ken foree** · 08/11/2006, 10:24 PM

yeaahooo. muted for the simple fact that the country is so fukking broken that it'll take more than 2 years of democrat investigations and gov't paralysis to fix. tactical win rather than a principled one - they really just ran as the alternative to the incumbent mess, with no real message. result of which cheers me no end but fingers will point their way as they try and extricate the nation out of this manure heap

**pete** · 08/11/2006, 10:35 PM

Democrat control of the Senate & Congress could be a disadvantage in next Presidential election as Democrat candidate could get blamed for countries woes based on fact they controlling those Houses.

I don't know if its historical event that istting President loses both Houses.

**strangeirish** · 08/11/2006, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by pete

Democrat control of the Senate & Congress could be a disadvantage in next Presidential election as Democrat candidate could get blamed for countries woes based on fact they controlling those Houses.

I don't think that's going to happen Pete, simply because the voter's know exactly how those woes came about and it's going to be more than a two year fix. The economy is moving along at a steady pace over here, but the national debt has doubled in the last six years. The main thing Democrats are going to face in the presidential election is choosing the right candidate and how that candidate is going to articulate a foreign policy and reduce the national debt.

**dahamsta** · 08/11/2006, 11:34 PM

These are the same voters that put Bush in the White House a second time strangeirish, I wouldn't give them too much credit. I was only saying what pete said last night: there's a huge opportunity here for the dems to either screw up in the next two years, or just put themselves in the position where they can be painted as screwing up by the GOP. They do that, they lose the presidency; and the president's got veto power, plus the unprecedent powers granted him by the incumbent.* Finally, it has to be said: do we really want the democrats in charge of the house, the senate, the states and the white house? Isn't that very nearly as bad as the republicans in the same position? Won't they just go in the opposite direction and tax america into the ground, and spend all the money unwisely? It works both ways, particularly in America. In four years, we could be bleating "Red State Good, Blue State Baaaad" to each other...

adam

* I say 'he' because it won't be Clinton. And if the dems put clinton forward, they'll pretty much guarantee another republican president. American ain't ready for a female president yet. Maybe a black president. (Can you say black this week, or are we back to african-american again?)

**strangeirish** · 08/11/2006, 11:54 PM

The turnout was unusually high for a mid-term election and finally some of the Democrats got off their ass's and went out and voted. My concern is that a lot of those voters were Republicans at heart and were really out to show their dissatisfaction with Bush. It will be interesting to see how the Dem's handle the Christian right, not to mention some sort of exit strategy for Iraq. I don't know if it's a good thing in the long run that they control the senate and the house, but although Bush has the power of veto, you won't see him run rough shod over the constitution again. The white house is their's to lose at this point, but mid-terms and presidentials are two different animals.
Edit Just to touch on the tax thing. Raising taxes is not something the average American wants to hear and the Faux News pundits couldn't help themselves but bleat it out repeatedly that the Dem's are going to raise taxes in a last ditch attempt to sway the undecided, but how else are they going to reduce the Country's national debt?

And yes, we're back to African-American again.

**Dodge** · 09/11/2006, 12:31 AM

Originally Posted by dahamsta

These are the same voters that put Bush in the White House a second time

Yeah but he beat the most gormless man ever. Jeesh, I'd have beaten Bush but Kerry was ridiculously poor in public. I'm sure he's a brilliant politician but he couldn't inspire anybody...

(Can you say black this week, or are we back to african-american again?)[/I]

We can say black. Americans can't apparently

. Heard a US ice hockey commentator ask a Canadian clack hockey player what was like "being an African american in a mostly white sport" He quipped back. "I dunno, I'm neither Arfrican nor American"

**dancinpants** · 09/11/2006, 12:53 AM

The major tax hikes will be aimed mostly at the top 1% earners (ie the absolutely filthy rich) in the country...the only people who are reaping rewards from a having the Republicans in power.

Warren Buffet once said that his secretary was in a higher tax bracket than he was FFS.

Anything is huge improvement on the disaster the Republicans have left in their wake. And as Strangeirish said, how do you reduce the MASSIVE national debt without taxing?

Alot of people will be happy at the prospect of having the minimum wage raised for the first time in 12 years. The dems tried to raise it a few weeks ago, but the republicans ruined that by saying "OK we'll raise the minimum wage, if we can get rid of estate taxes". Again a move that made no sense whatsoever and one that would have benefitted the wealtiest 1%.

**BohsPartisan** · 09/11/2006, 7:48 AM

Fiscally the Dems differ very little from the GOP. Economicly they're as right wing as each other. All this election means is that Americans want out of the war.

**jebus** · 09/11/2006, 1:12 PM

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Fiscally the Dems differ very little from the GOP. Economicly they're as right wing as each other. All this election means is that Americans want out of the war.

Agreed, the main difference between a Democrat and Republican government these days is what companies get better tax breaks. Remember that a majority of Democrats voted in favour of the Afghan and Iraq wars when they commenced, just because the Blues don't have a pig-headed leader who refuses to admit he was wrong (yet) doesn't mean that the Demos will bring the smiley face back to the sun that shines over America when they get back into power

**pete** · 09/11/2006, 2:04 PM

Originally Posted by dancinpants

Warren Buffet once said that his secretary was in a higher tax bracket than he was FFS..

Sounds like i'm in the wrong job.

On an aside was glancing through some results & apparently there are 12,500 Socialist Workers Party voters in some Massachusists District.

**BohsPartisan** · 09/11/2006, 2:27 PM

Just for info, they're not the same as the SWP here. They were the original party of Trotsky's fourth international before it splintered after WW2. They are mainly a publishing group called Pathfinder.