Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KeithHernandez]

Listening to liberals or listening to Democrats? Most Dem candidates at the moment are not what I would consider liberal.

Yea, that is very, very true, but it will at least be better.  I did not vote, because I live in OK for one (the only time I have voted is for dem primaries, and after my canidates lose in that, I am done.)  But I am happy that the democrats look to be doing okay.  Plus, the independence are basically democrats, but will mean that the democrats won't actually have a majority in the senate.  Thhis should help so the Karl Rove Machine will not be able to trash the democrats for doing nothing, or whatever.  He won't be able ot blame the horrible situation Bush may have created on the dems.  That said, lots of these Democrats are social and economic conservatives who don't support the war.  At least the democrats dominate the house now.

no, I mean the clueless liberal students around me who say completely bullshit things. and basically say that anyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant bigot who hates women and gays and black people and doesn't believe in freedom or democracy.

I feel the same way.  But, uh, lots of people who disagree with gay marriage or affirmative action, etc. may not actively be bigots, but it is pretty hard not to argue that if they vote that way they are taking away the rights of others, who, because of their sexual choices or our country's past, do not have the same opurtunities.



Also, I really love election night.  The best t.v. of every two years.  This means I got wasted and watched it, so sorry if this doesn't make the most sense.

[melack]

I tried to coin the term Blitzgasm for CNN's election coverage, but so far it's failed to catch on. Maybe I should have gone with Wolfgasm.

[wombat]

The thing that I love about living in a small town is that I don't even have to show ID when I go to vote. I got some free candy, I filled in my ballot, and was on my way in under 2 minutes.

I live in a big place and didn't have to show ID either.  But we didn't get free candy, just a lousy sticker. That's the real difference I guess.

[jough]

Yeah, I never have to show ID - just sign the little book.

I can't find anything online about the local elections, so I guess I'll have to buy a newspaper to see if my local State Rep won reelection or not (he's a real slimeball and has been in office for about 20 years).

But all of the people I voted for in the bigger elections won, so I'm happy-ish.  It's too bad that the Democrats couldn't take control of the Senate, but at least they have the house.

At least there's that.

[Drygioni]

It's amazing at the level of interest these elections generate among folk here (myself included). Every hour or so today I checked on how the elections were going; practically everyone I've talked to is rooting for a smack in the face to the Republicans. Erm, myself included.

See, I mainly care about foreign policy when it comes to politics in other countries, and to the best of my rather limited knowledge the Democrats will be more reasonable in this field. They're also slightly more aligned with my views on abortion, stem cell research etc.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Speaking of elections, I have to point out that I was reelected (by a wide margin!), and I am still the Mayor of motherfuckin' Banana Town.  I just want to make sure everyone knows that.

[theinevitable]

stem cell initiative: passed!
mccaskill: elected!

yayy.

[Ben-San]

no, I mean the clueless liberal students around me who say completely bullshit things. and basically say that anyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant bigot who hates women and gays and black people and doesn't believe in freedom or democracy.

I think the problem here is less with liberals and more with clueless students.

[Drygioni]

But all of the people I voted for in the bigger elections won, so I'm happy-ish.  It's too bad that the Democrats couldn't take control of the Senate, but at least they have the house.

At least there's that.

It looks like that the Democrats HAVE taken the Senate. There are likely to be recounts in Virginia and Montana (both self-proclaimed Democratic victories) though.

[KeithHernandez]

The Senate is actually 49 republican 49 democrat and 2 independent, if the dems win Virginia and Montana.  However, of the two independents, one was a democratic senator for years, but was ousted in a primary this year, so had to run as an independent.  The other is a socialist from Vermont who will also side with the democrats.  So they have basically won I guess, but it is not that great.  Many of these cats is just anti war conservatives, but I guess that is better than pro war conservatives.

[Drygioni]

The Senate is actually 49 republican 49 democrat and 2 independent, if the dems win Virginia and Montana.

My mistake, I'm none too hot on the business of US politics. IE, I misread Google News.

[CortJstr]

It looks like that the Democrats HAVE taken the Senate. There are likely to be recounts in Virginia and Montana (both self-proclaimed Democratic victories) though.

Dammit, we just had a fuck*ng recount last year. Of course then the difference was something like 325 votes.

[Noah]

no lieberman is still a democrat

and now they're saying it looks like the dems got virginia and montana so yeah it's 50 / 49 and the democrats are going to take control

according to the news

[Turbo Ninja]

according to the news

This phrase has officially lost its authority over my opinions.  See, my new job is at a TV station and I volunteered to stay late on Tuesday and help with our election coverage.  Ohio's results were delayed about 90 minutes because of poll problems around Cleveland so I had some time to learn how we got and processed the results.  Do you know where these "results" come from?  The sales team goes down into the newsroom and camps out at vacant computers.  We monitor the Board of Elections websites from various counties and type the running updates into a script that our IT Director wrote, which in turn feeds to our website and to the crawl at the bottom of the screen.  The script included an algorithm that declared winners based on percentage of precincts reporting and overall vote spread.

So all of these results, all these "we're calling son-and-so in favor of so-and-so" moments that each network strains to announce first, are the product of the relative reliability of Wanker County's website. 

This came back to bite us when one county posted inaccurate information and the script used it to declare a winner.  In reality, only 10% of precincts were reported and the vote count was too close to call.  Election night corrections/retractions are rough for a station's cred.

There is no more direct source for vote totals than the respective boards of elections.  They are the root of the official counts and their information cannot be immediately verified by any other source.  The AP might report results, but they're getting their info from the exact same places we did.  I know how ad-hoc our reporting gets on election night and while Bloomberg or CNN or the AP might have more resources and stronger channels once the results are received, I can't imagine anyone getting the actual tallies any faster than you could get at home for free (unless you post someone at each BOE and have them constantly reading you updated stats in real time, which is hell of cumbersome).

[CortJstr]

But the "calls" are often made based on exit polls as well. I know more than once CNN called in favor of the guy who actually had less votes with only 2% reporting.