Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think I'm finally seeing why you're saying that Palin was important for the Republican base. I take it that McCain and another moderate would have never been able to encourage the base to even go out and bother to vote?

McCain squeezed out about every vote possible given the hand he was dealt. There is no way that any republican candidate could have beaten any democratic candidate in this election, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by stevew

/rockin chair

You hear Liddy Dole is 86?

C'mon, I deserve some love for this.

[Vegas Vic]

Fox News calls Indiana for Obama.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think I'm finally seeing why you're saying that Palin was important for the Republican base. I take it that McCain and another moderate would have never been able to encourage the base to even go out and bother to vote?

Well, in terms of the presidential race, all it would have probably changed is the margin of victory for Obama, not the eventual outcome. But the secondary effect may have eventually been more important. Do Chambliss (R-GA) and McConnell (R-KY) win their Senate races without Palin on the ticket? The margins seem to suggest at the very least that it could have made the difference simply by influencing Republican voter turnout.

[stevew]

funny stuff....McCain won my county by 2 votes out of 48,600ish

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

McCain squeezed out about every vote possible given the hand he was dealt.

Depends upon how far you go with the definition of "the hand he was dealt".

The level of pro-McCain enthusiasm even among those who voted for him was pretty damning, so if you include that in his hand then yeah, this was about as good as it could get. But virtually anyone with an (R) beside their name running against Obama could have done the same IMO.

[Dutch]

Tom Brokaw was on MSNBC saying he was thrilled with the outcome and once backstage was going to have a celebratory drink.

[sooner333]

Ummmm...is Ted Stevens really going to be able to pull this out?

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Depends upon how far you go with the definition of "the hand he was dealt".

The level of pro-McCain enthusiasm even among those who voted for him was pretty damning, so if you include that in his hand then yeah, this was about as good as it could get. But virtually anyone with an (R) beside their name running against Obama could have done the same IMO.

I disagree. Romney or Huckabee would have lost by larger margins. Giuliani probably would have made it closer, but there's no way that he could ever win the republican nomination in the first place.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just in general terms, after looking at some of the various exit poll data, I wonder: is there any nation on earth where as many peculiar outcomes occur?

I mean, there's such a disconnect sometimes with how people vote on a ballot measure versus how they vote for national level offices. I see it on a large scale when I look at exit polls, I see it on an anecdotal level when I look at my parents & grandparents voting history.

Is every other country that votes as schizo as we can be?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Is it worth it to hand the country over to the Dems (essentially) for a decade or more if we come out with a stronger, new party? I want to break from the Republican Party--the religious conservative GOP, that is--and form a new Republican Party based on fiscal spending responsibilities, and get back to what I feel was always our strengths.

My ideal new party would be moderate to centrist on social values, would be absolutely against any further interference of religion in state affairs, and would focus on the original GOP ideal of less spending, less taxes. And frankly, the Christian right can go do whatever they want to with themselves.

I answer your question with a question.

Is it worth it to hand the country over to the Dems (essentially) for a decade or more if we come out with a stronger, better country? And to add to that, if that is the case and happens would you still be dead set against the Dems just because they didn't do things the way you wanted them done going in?

JiMG is an extreme example of this. It doesn't matter if/how much the country improves under Obama, it wasn't done his way so it still sucks. He not only won't give the guy a chance, he is ready to say it is the worst day in our history as a country. That is a stance I can't understand. I just wonder how many people who label themselves as strictly Dems/Reps are pretty much the same (though not as extreme and angry about it as Jon)? I have always felt it is most, at least for the core of those parties.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just in general terms, after looking at some of the various exit poll data, I wonder: is there any nation on earth where as many peculiar outcomes occur?

I mean, there's such a disconnect sometimes with how people vote on a ballot measure versus how they vote for national level offices. I see it on a large scale when I look at exit polls, I see it on an anecdotal level when I look at my parents & grandparents voting history.

Is every other country that votes as schizo as we can be?

I think that it's indicative of most people actually having their own opinions and leanings on each issue rather than having one blanket opinion that covers all the issues. It just shows how diverse America is as a country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Cringer

IIt doesn't matter if/how much the country improves under Obama, it wasn't done his way so it still sucks.

There seems to be a legitimate disconnect somewhere here, let me take a quick stab at it. I'm running out of steam at this point so I'll boil it down without even trying to go into any nuances. I'll stipulate the ones that I believe you're able to fill in without them being spelled out, not trying to shortchange the answer, just trying to get to bed.

Bottom line: I want what I want, just like most voters. We all have different stuff we want & assign varying weight & priority to those things. The more of those things we get, the better we like it. But how is not giving me what I want "an improvement"? And how could often giving me the direct opposite of what I want "an improvement"? I mean, that seems like the most elementary of concepts.

If Obama suddenly decides to give me what I want, it's all good (although that would be one heck of a heel/face turn in wrestling parlance). In other words, perception of "improvement" is directly related to giving me what I'm looking for. How could it possibly be otherwise (for anybody)?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I think that it's indicative of most people actually having their own opinions and leanings on each issue rather than having one blanket opinion that covers all the issues. It just shows how diverse America is as a country.

But what about those that are directly contradictory to each other? Just to pick one example, voting to restrict affirmative action and voting for people who advocate it? How does that make any sense?

On something like splitting a Pres/Cong vote, I can at least figure that you're shooting for gridlock. Not my preferred situation but at least I can get my head around how you're thinking. Some of the other contradictions though, not nearly so much.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But what about those that are directly contradictory to each other? Just to pick one example, voting to restrict affirmative action and voting for people who advocate it? How does that make any sense?

On something like splitting a Pres/Cong vote, I can at least figure that you're shooting for gridlock. Not my preferred situation but at least I can get my head around how you're thinking. Some of the other contradictions though, not nearly so much.

Perhaps affirmative action is not the issue why that person if voting for that candidate. The voter may vote against affirmative action and still support someone who is for affirmative action but whose leanings on other issues coincide with that voter's leanings.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Just in general terms, after looking at some of the various exit poll data, I wonder: is there any nation on earth where as many peculiar outcomes occur?

I mean, there's such a disconnect sometimes with how people vote on a ballot measure versus how they vote for national level offices. I see it on a large scale when I look at exit polls, I see it on an anecdotal level when I look at my parents & grandparents voting history.

Is every other country that votes as schizo as we can be?

I've been thinking about this, too.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

There seems to be a legitimate disconnect somewhere here, let me take a quick stab at it. I'm running out of steam at this point so I'll boil it down without even trying to go into any nuances. I'll stipulate the ones that I believe you're able to fill in without them being spelled out, not trying to shortchange the answer, just trying to get to bed.

Bottom line: I want what I want, just like most voters. We all have different stuff we want & assign varying weight & priority to those things. The more of those things we get, the better we like it. But how is not giving me what I want "an improvement"? And how could often giving me the direct opposite of what I want "an improvement"? I mean, that seems like the most elementary of concepts.

If Obama suddenly decides to give me what I want, it's all good (although that would be one heck of a heel/face turn in wrestling parlance). In other words, perception of "improvement" is directly related to giving me what I'm looking for. How could it possibly be otherwise (for anybody)?

I understand what your point is I believe, and it did cross my mind during and after I posted that. At the same time, it kind of supports how I feel. You are never going to love the guy, or lets just say the Democrats, because they don't want all the things you want. When it comes down to it though you also know (as I have seen you post along these lines before) you (or anyone else) would never get exactly what they want from anyone in office (including hardline Republicans) unless that anyone was you as Dictator and Supreme Commander of the Universe. Even then you wouldn't be happy because you would end up fighting off coups.

So because you will never get everything you want, you will never be happy. Even if the economy is riding high, wars and terrorism are not a worry, there is less poverty, compromises are made that help the energy problem across the country, jobs are created, the national debt is reduced, you will still want the other side out because even though those things got better, you still have high taxes on tobacco products and other more "minor" issues (not using minor to make them seem trivial, just we all have our own issues which we watch out for). You don't care if their way of doing things improved things for the whole country in many ways, and perhaps keeping them in there would keep things going on the right track in those areas, you would rather things be done your way even if your way may or may not screw those things up just so you can get more of the other issues taken care of how you would like them to be.

Not sure how well I am explaining here, getting tired and trying to finish some work still. Basically, even if they improved some things for you doing it their way there is no being happy with the compromise of some things getting better and others not, even though it is unrealistic to think you will ever get everything you want. So therefore you won't say "Hey, they did a pretty good job," you will just want them out even though it may risk those improvements going away.

[Dutch]

I'm assuming this monster thread will die shortly, so I wanted to say congrats to President-Elect Barack Obama on running a great campaign and winning the Presidency. I am dissapointed only along party lines, but I hope we all recognize the symbolic importance this brings to our country. There are many nations that are historically "better" than us who have never elected a minority into the highest office of their land. So, well done Barack Obama, but well done America for allowing politics, (and not race) decide this election.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Ummmm...is Ted Stevens really going to be able to pull this out?

I'm starting to wonder, and if he indeed does then I wonder about something else: If he resigns is Alaska a state that would have the governor appoint his replacement? And if so could Palin appoint herself? And if she did, at what point could she make the appointment for the full term instead of temporarily until a special election (day one? 3 yrs + 1 day? something else?)

[EagleFan]

I just hope he keeps the promise of eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. I really hope he goes a little farther and adds tax breaks for companies that keep (and create) jobs here and penalties to companies that send jobs overseas.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm starting to wonder, and if he indeed does then I wonder about something else: If he resigns is Alaska a state that would have the governor appoint his replacement? And if so could Palin appoint herself? And if she did, at what point could she make the appointment for the full term instead of temporarily until a special election (day one? 3 yrs + 1 day? something else?)

I believe I read that in Alaska, if he resigned, it would go to a special election immediately, without anyone being appointed in between. Could be wrong though.

[mauchow]

Some unbelievably close races as I wake up. Wow!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

I believe I read that in Alaska, if he resigned, it would go to a special election immediately, without anyone being appointed in between. Could be wrong though.

Well crap, that takes the comedy potential out of it. I was picture a scenario where the legislature appointed Palin in spite of her protests that she didn't want to go. Would have been a laugh riot I'm tellin' ya.

[Young Drachma]

Leave it to the Onion to put things into perspective...

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Certainly an interesting election night. It does appear that most of the trends that I had pointed out in previous posts did pan out for the most part. I said that the national vote would be much closer than the 6-7 point prediction by most polls on average. As of right now, my 3 point win by Obama prediction looks like it will be right on target. In regards to the battleground states, they were similarly very close as I had brought up in my posts. The electoral vote is a bit misleading as there were many state results that were very close. Even a turnout of 1% less Democrats as a whole could have produced a much different result. The one result that did surprise me was the Pennsylvania election. I think we'll find that the black vote in the urban areas along with the female vote gave Obama that huge cushion.

Obama supporters should enjoy the euphoria that comes from an election win. Hopefully this election will allow America as a whole to move past one more level of discrimination. I honestly think that may be the biggest positive thing that this Obama win does for this country, but even if it's the only thing, it's a good thing.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly an interesting election night. It does appear that most of the trends that I had pointed out in previous posts did pan out for the most part. I said that the national vote would be much closer than the 6-7 point prediction by most polls on average. As of right now, my 3 point win by Obama prediction looks like it will be right on target.

Where are you looking at, MBBF.com?

The sites I am looking at are showing close to a 6 point spread for Obama with many votes in California, Oregon, and Washington still uncounted. This will settle in the 6-7 point land.

Cartman, he is trying to spin the actual election results. Please get in here.

[Flasch186]

{shakes head}

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Where are you looking at, MBBF.com?

The sites I am looking at are showing close to a 6 point spread for Obama with many votes in California, Oregon, and Washington still uncounted. This will settle in the 6-7 point land.

Cartman, he is trying to spin the actual election results. Please get in here.

CNN now has it up to a 5 point lead (was smaller when I checked earlier but you may be correct about the west coast voting) while FOX had it at 3-4 last I checked.

BTW........It appears Al Franken is behind by a few hundred votes with 99% of the vote in. Hopefully common sense will prevail there. Those 400K people that voted for the independent candidate may end up with buyer's remorse if Franken ends up winning.

[Butter]

Have to agree with Jon that a move to the left socially by the Republicans would do nothing but expand the Democrats' power. They are a big part of the Republican base, and to pretend otherwise is fooling yourself.

Could there be room for a third party that is fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal? Maybe. But more likely is that the religious right wins a battle for the GOP soul, and the GOP continues to take a beating in the 2010 mid-terms until they get this figured out.

The best thing that could happen for Republicans is that Obama turns into a crazed tax-and-spend liberal with a majority in both houses of Congress. If that happens, they really won't have to fight as hard internally, because the choice will be clear. But if Obama governs as moderate, from the center-left, it's going to be quite difficult for Republicans to present themselves as a clear choice without appealing to the religious right, which is a big turn-off for a lot of independents. It's quite the conundrum.

[Fighter of Foo]

Anyone know what's going on in GA? I'm reading there are thousands of early ballots cast that were not counted. Can anyone confirm or deny?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Could there be room for a third party that is fiscally conservative and socially moderate/liberal?

If Obama struggles and the Democrats don't deliver on most of their promises, I'd say the climate is right for a Perot-like 3rd party candidate. Pick out a big businessman that would run the government like a business and put him on the ballot. People could very well buy into that. I'd personally like it because I could have a fiscal conservative candidate without the moral strings attached.

[Butter]

Franken trails Coleman in Minnesota by 762 votes out of 2.68 million cast. Wow.

Despite Fox calling Chambliss a little early, I do think he will hold on with about 50.2% of the vote to avoid a runoff.

I think Merkley is poised for a comeback win in Oregon, in looking over which counties still have not had their votes counted.

And Alaska... seriously, what the fuck?

All tolled, it looks like it will be 57-43 for the Democrats, if they want to continue to include Lieberman in their party for the votes sake. Right about where everyone thought it would be. Obama's rising tide couldn't quite lift the boat all the way to 60, but man was it close.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Have to agree with Jon that a move to the left socially by the Republicans would do nothing but expand the Democrats' power. They are a big part of the Republican base, and to pretend otherwise is fooling yourself.

I know that everyone keeps saying that here and on tv and in the papers, but I just don't see how this is the case. My impression of the last three elections (2000, 2004, 2008) is that roughly 48% of the country will vote republican and roughly 48% of the country will vote Democrat regardless of how worthless or good the candidate either side offers up. The winner of the past few elections has been the party that got that middle 4-5% of voters to go to their side.

I understand that every other moderate is not exactly like I am in my beliefs, but the only reason I did not vote republican in this election is because I can not get on board their social agenda. I feel that I am a religious person, probably moreso than most on this board, however I temper that with my strong feelings that the government just shouldn't get involved in some things, some of which are the strong conservative social agendas that the religious right tries to push.

I honestly feel that many if not the majority of my fellow moderates are tired of the government getting involved where they shouldn't, are tired of too much government both fiscally and socially. That is reflected with how the country flip flops every few years in their votes for various national races. No one is ever satisfied any more with the job that the people in Washington are doing.

I honestly believe if the Republican party got rid of the religious right, dropped the social agenda from their platform, focused entirely on reducing government bloat, and removing the government from meddling in things they shouldn't be (both foreign and domestically), that there would be a stronger draw from the middle of the country to this party.

By pushing further right, you may get more ultra-conservatives to vote than otherwise before, but you also push the middle to the opposing camp. So you gain some votes, but they gain more. You (the republicans) need to work on realizing that you don't win the election by alienating the middle 5% of the country, you win by listening to their desires.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

And Alaska... seriously, what the fuck?

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised about that. Alaskans aren't voting for Ted Stevens. They're voting for the Republican Partly fully knowing that another election will take place right after the sentencing where they can vote for another Republican that isn't in trouble with the law. No one should be surprised by that.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I honestly believe if the Republican party got rid of the religious right, dropped the social agenda from their platform, focused entirely on reducing government bloat, and removing the government from meddling in things they shouldn't be (both foreign and domestically), that there would be a stronger draw from the middle of the country to this party.

You do that, and you lose the south. What was the only big part of the nation that went for McCain in this election? The South.

So, doing what you suggest would earn the GOP Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Utah every year. Nee-ha.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lemme see here, yesterday's map on one browser tab, primary results on another tab. Assignment to Obama or McCain based CNN.com totals when I started marking these. Oddities in delegate totals due to various things, such as delegates being reallocated after voting, caucus procedures, etc. "Winning" primary candidate listed first based on CNN's designation of winner.

Obama states - 30
CA - Clinton 232/200 ... McCain 158/Romney 15
CO - Obama 45/23 ... Romney 43/McCain 2
CT - Obama 36/24 ... McCain 30
DE - Obama 14/8 ... McCain 18
DC - Obama 25/13 ... McCain 19
FL - Clinton 54/46/1 ... McCain 57
HI - Obama 21/8 ... McCain 20
IL - Obama 133/49 ... McCain 57/Romney 2
*IN - Clinton 42/41 ... **McCain 30
IA - Obama 35/17/4 ... Huckabee 17/Romney 12/McCain 4/Paul 2
ME - Obama 21/10 ... Romney 18/McCain 3
MD - Obama 55/39 ... McCain 37
MA - Clinton 66/51 ... Romney 22/McCain 18
MI - Clinton 38/36 ... Romney 0/McCain 26/Huckabee 4
MN - Obama 58/27 ... Romney 38/McCain 1
NV - Clinton 13/20 ... Romney 25/McCain 7/Paul 4/Huckabee 2
NH - Clinton 12/15/1 ... McCain 7/Romney 4/Huckabee 1
NJ - Clinton 71/55 ... McCain 52
NM - Clinton 20/17 ... **McCain 29
NY - Clinton 159/121 ... McCain 101
NC - Obama 78/51 ... **McCain 52/Huckabee 8/Paul 5
OH - Clinton 82/74 ... **McCain 86
OR - Obama 41/23 ... **McCain 25/Paul 4
PA - Clinton 101/80 ... **McCain 2(74)
RI - Clinton 21/10 ... **McCain 16/Huckabee 4
WA - Obama 61/31 ... **McCain 16/Huckabee 8/Paul 5
WI - Obama 53/34 ... McCain 31/Huckabee 6
VA - Obama 63/33 ... McCain 61
VT - Obama 14/7 ... **McCain 17
PR - Clinton 42/19 ... McCain 23
** indicates wins after Huckabee withdrawal

McCain states - 22
AL - Obama 29/28 ... Huckabee 26/McCain 22
AK - Obama 14/4 ... Romney 12/Huckabee 6/Paul 5/McCain 3
AZ - Clinton 35/31 ... McCain 53
AR - Clinton 38/8 ... Huckabee 32/Romney 1/McCain 1
GA - Obama 70/29 ... Huckabee 54/McCain 12/Romney 6
ID - Obama 19/3 ... **McCain 18/Paul 5
KS - Obama 30/10 ... Huckabee 36/2
KY - Clinton 40/16 ... **McCain 44
LA - Obama 39/26 ... Huckabee 0/McCain 47
MS - Obama 25/13 ... **McCain 38
*MO - Obama 46/41 ... McCain 58
MT - Obama 17/7 ... Romney 25
NE - Obama 22/8 ... **None (McCain beats Paul 87%/13% non-binding)
ND - Obama 15/5 ... Romney 8/McCain 7/Huckabee 5/Paul 5
OK - Clinton 25/21 ... McCain 35/Huckabee 6
SC - Obama 39/14 ... McCain 19/Huckabee 5
SD - Clinton 9/12 ... **McCain 27
TN - Clinton 46/35 ... Huckabee 24/McCain 22/Romney 9
TX - Clinton 79/75-Obama 39/28 ... **McCain 122/Huckabee 16
UT - Obama 17/11 ... Romney 36
WV - Clinton 23/12 ... Huckabee 18
WY - Obama 12/6 ... **Romney 2/McCain 5
** indicates wins after Huckabee withdrawal

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Franken trails Coleman in Minnesota by 762 votes out of 2.68 million cast. Wow.

Tightens to 571 votes over the past few minutes. Only 1 county, a heavily Democratic one, is still listed with any votes outstanding, and it is only about 1% of the county's vote outstanding.

So, how can you do a recount with electronic voting? "Aw, shit, Excel didn't have the Sum function all the way down the column! We've got it now."

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You do that, and you lose the south. What was the only big part of the nation that went for McCain in this election? The South.

So, doing what you suggest would earn the GOP Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Utah every year. Nee-ha.

I am suggesting that I don't buy that the south is suddenly going to be voting Democrat if you get rid of the religious right. I don't see the south as a social conservative, fiscally liberal area. I see them as a social conservative, fiscal conservative area. I am saying that I feel the south would still view the republican party as the lesser of two evils, but you would now have a much stronger base in any battleground state that consistantly flip flops.. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, the East coast of Virginia, North Carolina and you might just possibly start getting some of the entire Northeast back in the way of house seats or such.

[astrosfan64]

Which shows you how dumb the south is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Anyone know what's going on in GA? I'm reading there are thousands of early ballots cast that were not counted. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Strictly guessing here since I've been busy for the past hour or so (see post above), but it sounds like you might be referring to 40k-60k early/absentee ballots that haven't been counted yet.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Franken trails Coleman in Minnesota by 762 votes out of 2.68 million cast. Wow.

Since the margin is less than 15,000 votes there's going to be a recount. Hopefully they can dig up a few more Franken votes.

Minnesotans have already disappointed enough by reelecting fundie McCarthyist Michelle Bachmann to the House.

[Butter]

Obama wins Indiana and North Carolina, a big wow from me there. I didn't think he had a chance in hell in Indiana, despite the tightening over the closing weeks of the election.

And Obama was never close in North Dakota or Arizona despite what the tightening in polls there suggested. I think the North Dakota polls were half-assed at best, while Arizona was maybe just showing a standard poll tightening of things towards the end that wasn't borne out by the results.

All in all, it seems the polls got most of it right. Virginia and North Carolina were considered close but ultimately went for Obama. Ohio was close, but also a lean Obama which is where it ended up. Pennsylvania was an 11 point margin, which is about where the polls had it all along. Missouri was a virtual tie towards the end with a tiny lean for McCain, and that's exactly where that one went.

I think Fivethirtyeight.com has proven itself with this election.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Strictly guessing here since I've been busy for the past hour or so (see post above), but it sounds like you might be referring to 40k-60k early/absentee ballots that haven't been counted yet.

Martin-Chambliss Race Still Too Close To Call - Vote 2008 News Story - WSB Atlanta

The race between Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin remained too close to call early Wednesday morning, as Martin hoped to force a runoff.

With 98 percent of precincts reporting, Chambliss led Martin 51 percent to 46 percent. Both candidates worried that Libertarian Allen Buckley held roughly 3 percent, according to figures from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office.

WSB-TV Channel 2 political analyst Matt Towery believes some counties have not reported ballots cast during the advance voting period.

"Something just doesn't add up," said Towery.

[Butter]

So, is this the thread for Democratic gloating? Or do we need to take it outside?

Because I am so damned happy I am going to be able to watch the news again, I don't know what I'm going to do with myself.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

DT and JimGA just agreed on something!

*head explodes*

nah - we've been conversing and agreeing more and more lately (see my signature)

Originally Posted by sooner333

Ummmm...is Ted Stevens really going to be able to pull this out?

I guess I see MBBF's point, but still I find it disgusting. Talk about making yourself look bad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In Georgia, Chambliss just dropped to 49.9% ... but there are still a number of precincts outstanding. I'm going to try to see if I can get a halfway decent read on what those might show. Still unclear to me is whether those are all absentee ballots (typical GOP lean in Georgia, at least prior to early voting which includes a portion as absentees) or if they may be early votes (which were skewing more heavily Dem.

[ISiddiqui]

It seems most of the outstanding early votes are from Fulton, Cobb, and Gwinnett Counties. Fulton is, obviously, Democratic. But Cobb and Gwinnett are heavily Republican.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It seems most of the outstanding early votes are from Fulton, Cobb, and Gwinnett Counties. Fulton is, obviously, Democratic. But Cobb and Gwinnett are heavily Republican.

If those are where most of the outstanding votes are left, it will be down to the wire to see who wins there depending on which county has the majority of outstanding votes to be counted.

Just so I am clear though, the numbers are set now where I can safely root for Saxby to lose and not give the Democrats too much senate power (60+) right? That would be ideal for me. Moderation in all things and all that

[ISiddiqui]

Rahm Emanuel is Obama's CoS:

Most Emailed News Stories

[JonInMiddleGA]

GA Sec. of State office is listing both Cobb & Gwinnett as completed.
I'm still working my way through the list (159 counties takes a while to sift through) but right now I'm thinking run off since Fulton has 3 precincts still outstanding and he's already down to 49.9 as it is.