After 40 years, Dems take House seat Flaherty wins Habay's seat in special election By Ed Blazina, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Wednesday, April 12, 2006 Democrat Shawn Flaherty, who narrowly won a special election last night for the state House seat in the 30th District, doesn't care if people think his reason for winning is corny. Mr. Flaherty, 46, a Fox Chapel attorney, said he won the election because warm, sunny weather helped bring more than 10,000 voters to the polls. For that, Mr. Flaherty credits his late father, former Pittsburgh Mayor and Allegheny County Commissioner Pete Flaherty, who he said always had a knack for scheduling birthday parties and other family activities on sunny days. "Over 10,000 people voted today," Mr. Flaherty said after a victory speech to about 75 supporters at the Etna Volunteer Fire Co. social hall. "I think my Dad had something to do with that. He was smiling down on me today." Complete but unofficial results showed Mr. Flaherty defeated Republican Mike Dolan, 26, of O'Hara by a count of 5,545 to 5,437. It will be the first time in more than 40 years that the district, which includes Fox Chapel, Hampton and parts of Ross, Shaler and O'Hara, will be represented by a Democrat. Mr. Dolan, 26, said he wasn't sure why he lost. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06102/681367-179.stm
Democrat ahead in special election in California stronghold SAN DIEGO (AFP) - A Democrat running for a seat in the House of Representatives pulled ahead of her rivals in provisional results of a special election in a Republican stronghold left vacant by a corruption scandal. With two-thirds of the 445 precincts counted in San Diego's 50th Congressional District, Francine Busby had 43.28 percent of the votes. Brian Bilbray and Eric Roach, Busby's two closest Republican rivals were trailing with 15.32 percent and 14.31 percent of the votes respectively. Five other Republicans received between 1.62 and 7.40 percent of the vote. Unless Busby gains a majority of votes, however, she will have to square off with the runner up in a June 4 runoff vote. Busby's victory is seen a possible indication of voter preference in the upcoming November legislative elections, in which the Democrats hope to recapture either the House or the Senate, which have beeen under Republican control since 1996. Eighteen people took part in the special election to replace Republican Randy Cunningham, who resigned his House seat in November after pleading guilty to taking 2.4 million dollars from a military contractor to influence the award of defense deals. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006041...B3ZWCms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
This will be a national referendum for the Republicans. Money will be flowing. TV commercials will be bleating. Not for the faint of heart. Good times.
Previously held by Republicans, yes... but it is still California afterall. But I've got my fingers crossed the trend continues. I remember when the Repubs took control of the legislature and their mantra was "now watch us go to work." Steeped in corruption, running up huge deficiets and starting contraversial wars, they went to work alright.
I think Dems will take back some seats. My hope is that neither party gains significant control ever again.
Iowa voted for Bush in the last election, and it was the first time in 20 years their vote had been for a republican. With the South Dakota issue and Bush's complete lack of leadership, I'm sure several Midwestern states will fall back Blue this time around.
For political reasons, I wanted the Dems to simply get close to taking back Congress, but not actually get it. If they get control, it means Republicans can repeat their "Democrats are obstructionists" crap in 2008. However, seeing how many stupid things they are passing, I don't think waiting 2 years is a good idea. I love gridlock - I'd like to see Democrats take control of one chamber or the other. That ensures that anything that passes will have to be moderate enough for both parties to support. That's when the best governing happens.
Max, we are stuck with Bush until the end of his term. If the Democratic Party can regain one of the branches of Congress, it'll be great, and good for the country. If they regain both, it'll be even better for the country, because Bush will be stopped in his tracks. I would like to see that, very much. It might be better for Democrats to take just one chamber of Congress, because it will make running against the GOP easier in '08, but I'm not convinced that we'll have a good candidate in '08. (a good Democratic candidate) If we don't, then I'd rather not take any chances. The number one reason, from my perspective, to have Democrats take the Senate, as well as the House, is to prevent Bush from appointing any more lifetime Federal judges of the ilk he'd like to have. You may not feel the same way, and I respect that, but I see taking the Senate as even more important than taking the House, for that reason. And if Democrats take the Senate, they most assuredly will be taking the House as well. Keep D&D Civil.
In the course of a one-minute speech delivered recently at the Abington Township Rockledge Boro Republican Organization Annual Dinner this past Friday, Renee Amoore, co-chair of the state GOP committee, stated: http://www.theeveningbulletin.com/s...737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6.net/
Democrats Beat Republicans in 2005 Fund-Raising on Wall Street April 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats outdid Republicans last year in attracting political donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers for the first time since 1994, helped by support from hedge funds and companies such as Merrill Lynch & Co. Democrats got $13.6 million, or 52 percent of the financial industry's $26.3 million in political donations in 2005, said the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group that researches the influence of money on elections and public policy. In the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Republicans received 52 percent of the $91.6 million given by the industry. ``Wall Street wants change'' on issues such as the Iraq war and the budget deficit, said James Torrey, chairman of the Torrey Funds, which manages about $1 billion. ``I'm finding people who are registered Republicans who are saying to me, `what can I do to help?''' `Party With No Power' ``When the party with no power can raise more money than the party with all the power, it means people are pretty disturbed about the country's condition,'' Kramer said. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ann7KHncBOdc&refer=us
It's an indicator, but financially the difference doesn't mean much...2%? Take a look at what the Rx industry did for the Republicans as Bush was gearing up to hand them a windfall in Medicare funds (at the same time trying to blame health care inflation on maplpractice claims and not one of the real culprits...pharmaceutical cost inflation): http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=H4300 In 2002, the Republicans got 80% of the Rx $$$.... the difference alone was worth over $13 million. aarp's comments on drug costs: http://www.aarp.org/research/press-center/presscurrentnews/pharmaceutical_prices_increase.html
State of the Party - Mehlman warns of possible catastrophe RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman met with Republican members of Congress this week to impress upon them just how bad the opinion polls are looking for them, and warning that they face a possible catastrophe in November. Republicans will focus in their campaign on the danger of electing Democrats to a majority in Congress. Their catch-word is "dangerous," http://www.humaneventsonline.com/enpr/current_enpr.html#2 Let the Swift Boating begin!
this was a STATE house seat? now you're trumpeting narrow victories in individual state elections as some sort of national harbinger? you're really reaching dude...
