Democrat or Republican? Who do you think will win?

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:41 am Post subject:

Don't forget that the two independent winners to senate (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont) are included in the 48 stated as "Democrat." So the true number of Democrat senators confirmed so far are 46. However, I guess it really make no difference because Lieberman and Sanders are both liberal.

... *checks sites*

Oh yeah, democrats are indeed leading in all of the three undecided states. Sory of surprised to see McCaskill suddenly taking the lead with a margin of 20000 votes. Virginia is quite a tight race.

Leb · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:25 am Post subject:

Talent conceded, so that's one of their needed three. Tester is holding at 9000 votes, and suddenly Webb has jumped up to a 12000 vote lead. Wow.

I'd start looking at Montana pretty soon, since that's the closest race with the fewest precincts reporting in. If Virginia quietly goes to Webb, then it will be the Republicans' last hope at effectively controlling the Senate.

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:31 am Post subject:

Yeah, Webb now has more than a 1% lead, and if he continues, there'd be no recount.

The Montana race is getting closer and closer. Man, this is such a close race! The refresh-button on my browser is getting a workout.

Edit: Hmm... looking at the precinct turnout so far, it seems like a lot of the yet unfinished counties are mostly pro-Burns, so this may be a real close race. However, Tester is strong in the larger precincts it seems, and those are also still not complete.

Leb · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:35 am Post subject:

No kidding! I almost think I'd be happy regardless of what way the Senate goes just for the excitement this election's brought.

EDIT: Tester's lead has dropped to 7000. At the rate it's been going, they'll be dead-even by about the 85-90% mark for precincts reporting in.

EDIT 2: Maybe not? 75% in, holding at roughly 7200.

Yvl · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:12 am Post subject:

Uggghh... I can't decide whether to stay up to finish this or not...

It's like watching the Super Bowl or something...
_________________

Masaya · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:17 am Post subject:

Soo it looks like the Democrats are going to rule the Senate and House?

Edit: Oh god its too close in Virginia. They're going to recount most probally.. T_T
_________________

Calvin · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:20 am Post subject:

Vextor · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:20 am Post subject:

House is set as Democrat, but Senate is still uncertain. Democrats have a slight lead in Virginia and Montana, but their Montana lead is shrinking. Virginia is probably set, but it's currently within the 1% margin, so there may be a recount.

Edit: Hmm, somehow the entire data for Yellowstone County in Montana was reset. That place was pro-tester, so the Montana tally has been shifted towards Burns at least at cnn.com.

Calvin · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:23 am Post subject:

I bet if the dems get Montana, there will almost certainly be a recount in Virginia. The GOP certainly won't want to give them control of the Senate.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

Masaya · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:26 am Post subject:

Ced told me the results wont likely even change till the morning.. I have a feeling he's right and maybe I should just go to bed. Anyoen else have the same feeling?
_________________

Thor McOdin · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:31 am Post subject:

I am going to love this in the morning. The Dems won the House. I am crossing my fingers, but are we in the midst of another "lame duck" president? As a former resident of Great Falls, Montana, I am crossing my fingers.
_________________

Not all ninja codes are brewed equally. Here at Shinobi, we use the choicest Bavarian hops that are ripened to perfection. One sip and we will have you saying...nothing.

Calvin · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:35 am Post subject:

Doesn't "lame duck" refer to an elected official who isn't reelected, but is finishing out their term? For example, Bush Sr. would have been a lame duck because Clinton beat him when he was running for his second term.

I could be wrong, though.
_________________

I changed the number on my phone so you can't call me up at home, and you can't say those
things to me, that make me fall down on my knees.

Thor McOdin · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:42 am Post subject:

Good call. That was my bad. Zonder, you are indeed correct.

I honestly don't know what I was thinking with that definition. Actually, I think CNN and MSNBC misinterpreted that definition about a week ago on their broadcasts. However, he is lame! Hah, hah! Oh...that sucked.
_________________

Not all ninja codes are brewed equally. Here at Shinobi, we use the choicest Bavarian hops that are ripened to perfection. One sip and we will have you saying...nothing.

Masaya · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:43 am Post subject:

I thought "Lame duck" was refered to a president which was from an opposite party of which controled both house and senate. However I could be wrong as well. I'm sure theres a term for both..
_________________

Yvl · Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:50 am Post subject:

No, "Lame Duck" is a president that's sitting in office after the next president has been chosen.

	Forum Index -> Community Forum	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
Page 6 of 9