Election Day

So all of this will result in a complete keeping of the status quo in the Senate?

If so...very unusual for the midterm elections that the President's party does not lose seats.

 

I can't wait until I am old enough to vote. My sister voted for the first time today, since she turned 18 in September. I went with her at 8 pm, before school, and she made my dad take a picture of her outside the booth, lol. It was pretty embarrasing.

 

There's no doubt it's unusual for the president's party to maintain status quo. Certainly a great deal is owed to 9/11 here, but even more is owed to the fact that today's Democratic Party stands for approximately nothing. They deserve to do worse than they will. McAuliffe deserves to lose his job and Daschle deserves to lose power. I'd love to think that this sort of setback (they'll spin it, but make no mistake it's a setback) would inspire some serious soul searching as to what, if anything, the Democrats stand for, but I know better. Every setback since 1988 has only made them more timid. I envy the Republicans among you that. I don't agree with what the Repub's stand for but there's no doubt they stand for something.

 

If Lieberman holds true to his beliefs and does not sell himself out like he did during the 2000 campaign, I'd consider voting for him. But then again...I really like Bush. Maybe Lieberman should wait until 2008...at least if he wants to have the chance to win my vote.

See...there are a few Dems I actually like.

 

Lloyd Doggett, Congressman from Austin is a badass. Wouldn't mind nominating him at all. I've always liked Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, as well.

 

I agree with Batman. The Dems these days don't seem to have what it takes to be leaders.

They bowdown to the Presidents tax cuts. They bow down to the President on Iraq. They don't have their own budget ideas out there at all.

At this point what's the difference between them the Republicans?

As Hakeem the Dream would say sometimes... 'They are playing not to lose, instead of to win.'

I think the Dems would have done better to stand for something rather than to just support the president on issues which would seem to be too 'popular' to oppose.

I hope this doesn't keep going this way, otherwise we will be left with a one party system. One party systems don't really work when it comes to democracy. Maybe now they will let third party candidates into the debates, and give the people a real choice.

 

I think it would be unfortunate if Lieberman were the nominee, given the conflict in Israel and given his bias there. I'd say the same about someone who was strongly pro-Palestinian as well, by the way. If there is to be peace there, we'll need to play a meaningful part in brokering it and that can't happen with a president who shows bias. (I think Bush has made the same mistake, by the way, but we've been through that in other threads.)

Further, while Lieberman is a principled politician, he is a quintessential "New Democrat" from the DLC. As someone who identifies most closely with Dem Party ideals, I blame them most for the party's lack of compass.

There was a link on Drudge Report earlier today to a story in which Gary Hart said he was considering a run, but I doubt that'll happen.

The last time I truly believed in an electable Dem was when Cuomo almost ran in '92. It's a little known BBS fact that, all those years ago, I ran Jerry Brown's Houston campaign office. He slept on a futon on my floor. I also worked for him at the convention in NYC. Good stories. One of the most surreal nights of my life was the night I drank with Brown, Mayor Flynn of Boston and Jack Germond of the McLaughlin Group at Keneally's. The next day we went to the Urban Mayors Conference and Gov. Brown told me he thought Elyse Lanier was hot. That was the moment I decided he must be gay.

 

Actually, wouldn't the results shown here end up with the Republicans picking up a seat?

I read it as Republicans picking up 4 new seats (Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri and South Dakota) while losing 3 (Colorado, Arkansas and North Carolina). With two states staying the same (Texas and New Jersey) and Louisiana heading for a runoff.

That's not to say that these are the only races with the opportunity to change hands (or that these results will end up being the final results).

 

Nice point, but I think it's even worse. They are playing versus the point spread! To keep losing, but by less than you expect. Never mind not losing.

 

I'll bet you dollars to donuts one of the networks will be using some type of early-indication system. And once one of them starts using it, the pressure will mount for the others to follow suit.

 

I wouldn't bet against that usually, T_J, but I'm thinking the networks will be especially cautious about predicting races after 2000. At least we've got that rascal Matt Drudge.

 

Agree. It's like Mack Brown and Greg Davis took over the DNC for the last 3 months.

 

I'd say the opposite. What's to like about him if you're a liberal? I can understand conservatives being annoyed with him, but when it really counts he always rolls over for you guys. You could have a much less favorable opposition leader. I don't suppose it'll surprise you that I wish you did.