Close races that would bring balance
 

These are the races that I have been watching that have the potential of bringing back a two party balance in the House and Senate. Early results are coming in, but I'm waiting for the fat lady. If you have recent updates or another race that we should watch, please post it in this topic.

THIS IS A SERIOUS TOPIC: MOCKERY AND OTHER FORMS OF BS WILL EARN A REPORT POST

Arizona Senate:
Jim Pederson (D) CNN
Jon Kyl (R)

Arizona 1st:
Ellen Simon (D)
Rick Renzi (R)

Arizona 5th:
Harry Mitchell (D) CNN
J.D. Hayworth (R)

Arizona 8th:
Gabrielle Giffords (D) CNN
Randy Graf (R)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

California 4th:
Charlie Brown (D)
John Doolittle (R)

California 11th:
Jerry McNerney (D)
Richard Pombo (R)

California 50th:
Francine Busby (D)
Brian Bilbray (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Colorado 4th:
Angie Paccione (D)
Marilyn Musgrave (R)

Colorado 5th:
Jay Fawcett (D)
Doug Lamborn (R)

Colorado 7th:
Ed Perlmutter (D)
Rick O'Donnell (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Connecticut Senate:
Ned Lamont (D)
Joe Lieberman (I) WON

Connecticut 2nd:
Joe Courtney (D)
Rob Simmons (R)

Connecticut 4th:
Diane Farrell (D)
Chris Shays (R) CNN

Connecticut 5th:
Chris Murphy (D) CNN
Nancy Johnson (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida 9th:
Phyllis Busansky (D)
Gus Bilirakis (R)

Florida 13th:
Christine Jennings (D)
Vern Buchanan (R)

Florida 16th:
Tim Mahoney (D) WON
Mark Foley/Joe Negron (R)

Florida 22nd:
Ron Klein (D) CNN
Clay Shaw (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Idaho 1st:
Larry Grant (D)
Bill Sali (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illinois 6th:
Tammy Duckworth (D)
Peter Roskam (R) CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iowa 1st:
Bruce Braley (D) CNN
Mike Whalen (R)

Iowa 2nd:
Dave Loebsack (D)
Jim Leach (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indiana 2nd:
Joe Donnelly (D) CNN
Chris Chocola (R)

Indiana 8th:
Brad Ellsworth (D) CNN
John Hostettler (R)

Indiana 9th:
Baron Hill (D) CNN
Mike Sodrel (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kentucky 3rd:
John Yarmuth (D) CNN
Anne Northup (R)

Kentucky 4th:
Ken Lucas (D) CNN
Geoff Davis (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maryland Senate:
Ben Cardin (D) CNN
Michael Steele (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minnesota Senate:
Amy Klobuchar (D) WON
Mark Kennedy (R)

Minnesota 1st:
Tim Walz (D) CNN
Gil Gutknecht (R)

Minnesota 2nd:
Coleen Rowley (D)
John Kline (R)

Minnesota 6th:
Patty Wetterling (D)
Michele Bachmann (R) CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missouri Senate:
Claire McCaskill (D) WON
Jim Talent (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montana Senate:
Jon Tester (D) CNN
Conrad Burns (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nebraska Senate:
Nelson (D) CNN
Ricketts (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nevada 2nd:
Jill Derby (D)
Dean Heller (R)

Nevada 3rd:
Tessa Hafen (D)
Jon Porter (R) CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Hampshire 2nd:
Paul Hodes (D) CNN
Charles Bass (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Jersey 7th:
Linda Stender (D)
Mike Ferguson (R)

New Jersey Senate:
Bob Menendez (D)CNN
Tom Kean, Jr. (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Mexico 1st:
Patricia Madrid (D)
Heather Wilson (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York 19th
John Hall (D)
Sue Kelly (R)

New York 20th:
Kirsten Gillibrand (D) CNN
John Sweeney (R)

New York 24th:
Michael Arcuri (D) CNN
Ray Meier (R)

New York 25th:
Dan Maffei (D)
James Walsh (R) CNN

New York 26th:
Jack Davis (D)
Tom Reynolds (R) CNN

New York 29th:
Eric Massa (D)
Randy Kuhl (R) CNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

North Carolina 8th:
Larry Kissell (D)
Robin Hayes (R)

North Carolina 11th:
Heath Shuler (D) CNN
Charles Taylor (R)

North Carolina Senate:
Schuler (D)
Taylor (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ohio 1st:
John Cranley (D)
Steve Chabot (R) CNN

Ohio 2nd:
Victoria Wulsin (D)
Jean Schmidt (R) CNN

Ohio 12th:
Bob Shamansky (D)
Pat Tiberi (R)

Ohio 15th:
Mary Jo Kilroy (D)
Deborah Pryce (R)

Ohio 18th:
Zack Space (D) CNN
Joy Padgett (R)

Ohio Senate:
Sherrod Brown (D) WON
Mike DeWine (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pennsylvania 4th:
Jason Altmire (D) CNN
Melissa Hart (R)

Pennsylvania 6th:
Lois Murphy (D)
Jim Gerlach (R)

Pennsylvania 7th:
Joe Sestak (D) CNN
Curt Weldon (R)

Pennsylvania 8th:
Patrick Murphy (D)
Mike Fitzpatrick (R)

Pennsylvania 10th:
Chris Carney (D) CNN
Don Sherwood (R)

Pennsylvania Senate:
Bob Casey (D) WON
Rick Santorum(R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rhode Island Senate:
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) CNN
Lincoln Chafee (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tennesee Senate:
Ford (D)
Corker (R) CNN

Texas 22nd:
Nick Lampson (D) CNN
Shelley Sekula-Gibbs (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia 2nd:
Phil Kellam (D)
Thelma Drake (R) CNN

Virginia Senate:
Jim Webb (D)
George Allen(R) RECOUNT REQUIRED

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington 5th:
Peter Goldmark (D)
Cathy McMorris (R)

Washington 8th:
Darcy Burner (D)
Dave Reichert (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wisconsin 8th:
Steve Kagen (D)
John Gard (R)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing to point out with the Maryland races is that there are an unusually large number of absentee ballots out there this year, something on the order of 100,000 to 150,000 I believe, based on the Republican Governor's concerns over problems in the primary elections with the electronic machines.

So, depending on the final spread tomorrow morning, the Senate race listed might not be known for another week or more.

Excellent point dj. Oregon and Washington are primarily mail in, and our troups overseas will all be absentee ballots. We won't know much of anything for some days to come.

Good greif (not meant as mockery, and if Charles Brown is reading this on TFP, I mean that with all due respect).

All humor aside, I am waiting with great interest for the nation wide results. I hope that voter turn out is as good everywhere as it was in my little berg (the 10th largest city in the US).

They are saying Baltimore had a record turnout as well (since it's about 8-1 Democrat, not too good in my mind :D)

Let's not forget the Tennesee Senate race.
Honestly, I think that the House organization is a foregone conclusion for the Democrats. Same story with the gubernatorial elections where the Dems will spread their majority. The Senate is where it's at kids and it's going to be decided in Virginia, Tennesee, Missouri, Montana, and a possible black horse in Arizona.

Ohio
Sherrod Brown (D) WON
Called by all the major polls, he has an ~10% lead with 54% of the precincts counted.

Has DeWine conceded?

Michael Barone...foxnews election analyst, evaluated the Webb vs. Allen senate
race in VA, a few minutes ago. Although Allen is leading by one percent, 28,000 votes with about 90 percent of the vote counted, Barone was of the opinion that the unreported vote from 3 heavily populated African-American precincts would be enough to put the VA senate contest into a result as close as FLA
2000 Bush vs. Gore....he predicts at least a 36 day recount delay before the Webb. vs. Allen result will be known.

Brit Huime and another fox talking head, then declared that there were no reports of impropriety in Virginia that would effect the vote....ha ha ha !!:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

foxnews just reported Schuler over 8 term incumbant Taylor (R-NC), for the house seat in western NC. My repub inlaws live in that district...so I've taken an interest. In that beautiful, mountainous forested area, the home of the Vanderbilt estate and Pisgah national forest, Taylor was known as "chainsaw Charlie", because of his own. sometime secret real estate holdings, support for developers and lumber companies. Taylor is the only private US citizen to own a majority stake in a bank in Russia, and his partners in the NC bank that he controls, are serving prison terms.

Schuler is a 34 year old conservative dem....baptist, ex-NFL QB who never lived up to expectations, considering his athletic talent....

The talking heads have proclaimed that the Democrats have taken the House.

Yes he has

Also hasn't the New Jersey Senate race been called for Menedez?

I'm personally interested in Nebraska. Most of that interest comes from it being my home state, but a lot of it comes from the "What's the Matter with Kansas?" perspective. The house races, in that state, are amazingly close so far with a Dem actually ahead in one. It's been a long time since they've had a Dem House member (1958 in one of the close districts where the Rep candidate is slightly leading). As a historical note it's interesting, but as a practical matter it seems like this (along with results in Indiana and Ohio) seem to be showing a Midwest shift away from bold red to more of a purple (thats a mix of red & blue for you non-art people). The implications of such a move could be huge as the Midwest has always been a strong measure of where the Christian working class are leaning.

Updated to a win. :)

Catching up with the posted requests.

Yay! I was right and have equal intelligence to the vast majority of America who also saw this coming. :p

I just wanted to point out that the gubernatorial races are extremely interesting - it's looking like a true Dem landslide. Considering the track record of former Governors becoming presidents, this election could be fertile ground for talent cultivation.

In the case of the Maryland governor's race, if the landslide encompasses it, I hope in the name of all that is good and holy in the world you aren't right with the President comment.

Thank you. Added the senate races for these states. Any other additions?

I hadn't thought about that in "future president" terms, but that's a good point. What I thought particularly interesting about the gubernatorial electiosn was what that landslide says about voters. It would seem to indicate that America trusts Democrats to run their states, but not necessarily their nation (Note: that "necessarily" is key and may be determined later tonight).

A very good point, and please know that I have a Dom chilling for that alone. :thumbsup:

Nope, you're doing great. Thanks for the superb thread attention.

I would like to point out that some of those CNN points up there haven't actually been projected by CNN; they just have a lead on CNN. I'm specifically referring to Missouri, Montana, Tennesee, and Virginia.

Ah, thank you for the distinction. I'm getting my data online rather than the tube. My "yellow" posts are only meant to reflect a lead by a source. :)

This just in:
Webb
1,141,052 50% 99% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results

Republican Allen
(Incumbent)
1,138,676 49%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/

Burns is losing to democratic party challenger in ND, 52 to 46,

With heavily urban areas in Tenn. and MO, not yet reported,
dems Ford and McCaskill also still have a chance for senate seats....

At least there is one thing we can say right now...

...every vote DOES truly count :)

I just heard that the Webb/Allen contest is so close that a recount will be necessary.

Don't ya just love it! :thumbsup:

Too true, too true. It is worth noting that in Virginia (Webb/Allen) if the margin of victory is less than 1% the law provides for an automatic recount if the loser requests it. However, it is very difficult to make up a full percent in a recount unless there was some serious stink.

The Terminator won again. I'm feeling a little sick. At least the Republicans lost the House.

Let him sit there and get the full blame for his governance. The House will likely be quite helpful in that effort.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that McCaskill will eke out a very narrow, come from behind victory in the MO senate race. Talent is ahead by about 50,000, but he has no large pockets of potential votes to pickup in the precincts that have no reported. McCaskill will pick up many votes from Jefferson Cty, a St. Louis metro area that has not reported any votes, but is known to be very densely democratic. KC urban precincts, friendly to McCaskill, will also feed more votes to her....

...I don't hold much hope for Ford in Tenn.

Now, it is reported on CNN that AP has inverted the numbers of the VA sec'ty of state's numbers for Webb vs. Allen....with a small percent of Webb favored Alexandria precinct, still to report....so ???

I expect that the worst the dems will do in the senate is a 50 - 50 split, (Cheney will then vote with repubs as tie breaker) if only Webb in VA or McCaskill in MO wins, assuming Burns loses to Tester in MT...

Just a note, to head trouble off at the pass...


[MOD NOTE]
Save the smarmy one-liners and quips, keep your trolling and baiting under control, and we'll all survive this election period.

Keep up the shenanigans, and see how quickly the temp bans fly.

Consider this the first warning- anything after this will come with short vacations.

[/MOD NOTE]

Excuse Me? Review this topic and every post and you will find that you are way off the mark. And I don't appreciate that you have used the same frickin warning that you gave u2's topic.

This topic is clean of BS of any kind. Explain your warning, Analog. :mad:

-
McCaskill in MO now ahead by 1000 votes...that was quick...and Ford in TN is about to concede to repub, Corker...

He said he was just heading off trouble. At least I hope that it's just a pre-emptive warning. It doesn't take a psychic to see that this thread has massive trouble potential. I mean it may be the last thread with real conjecture about the results.

It is the very same warning that he gave to Ustwo's crap thread. This is not a crap thread. :mad:

McCaskill is a surprise, and will also likely get a recount. Ford's loss due to racism implications is so Rovian. He may have lost simply on an honest comparison of positions, but all we get is a disgusting ad campaign.

McCaskill now ahead 813000 to 799000.....
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...&yek=&state=mo

.if her lead holds, Tester beats Burns in MT, and Webb's lead survives a VA recount......if....!!!!

....we could have the beginning of checks and balances, again....but the house repubs are the mor to the right survivors, and the moderate repubs lost their seats in the house to conservative dems.....so sentiment may not change much, just the leadership.....but it's something.......

Tester is leading Burns in MT....94000 to 79000...but only 40 percent of precincts have reported.....McCaskill has her lead with 80 percent of precincts reported.....

If the Webb lead of 2700 votes is accurate....at this snapshot in time....the dems control both houses of the next congress..... by a hair....

Wow, Webb ahead by a vapor. I actually said a prayer for him, voted for him, being an evangelical and all. Go Webb! And the final count has him ahead.

Haven't you heard the Jebus pepul gots brains and want to votify two?

The house is now taken by the Dem's. I would welcome a 50/50 split in the Senate to ensure greater scrutiny in the next SCOTUS appointee.

I can't be happier that we have regained a two party system of checks and balances. The reports of voter fraud/intimidation/suppression do concern me, but that is for another thread.

I'm off to look for more election updates.

Looks like McCaskill is barely pulling ahead. I remember hearing stemcell research was arguably the most important issue in Missouri, yet it seems to be having a negligible impact.

Amen to you, Jebus pepul. :) I have heard that some exit polls indicate that the Evangelical Right has voted for Dems based upon their disgust with corruption issues. I take that with a grain of salt until all of the votes are in.

Kisses to Ch'i:icare:

I've entered every voting booth in the last few years begging the GOP to show me the way to true fiscal stewardship.

It ain't happening. Hey GOP, entice me and I'm yours.

Elph, awesome thread and good job with all the info and stuff. I guess those of us on the West coast are still counting right now and stuff.

I just got back home, let me look around and I'll reply soon. This really has been an exciting election.

McCaskill takes Missouri. Montana and Virginia are left and Democrats lead in both...

Dems need the two seats to take the senate...

The West coast is getting little attention for now, and the major races are way East of here. :)

This election is the most important mid-term election in the history of our country; or so say the pundits. Word.

McCaskill wins! And then there were two.

I'm beginning to fear the wraith of one Chief Justice Roberts on the upcoming abortion case. ;)

Oooh, my head is spinning from all the races. It's hard to keep a track of.

You're right too Elph. And some of the nastiest races have been out that way too. I wonder though, even with a changing of the guard, will there still be real change or business as usual? Or will it turn into a stalemate? I understand what you are saying about bringing it back to the 2-party. But I'm of the mind that we need to get to a 3 or 4-party before things get real interesting.

Interesting that Lieberman won as an Independent. Are there any other independents out there?

For certain; no recount!?

Yep, Talent conceded and Montana is looking good. All eyes on Virginia now and I'll tell you that it's good have that lead going in to, what is sure to be, a trying recount process.

Let's save these important questions for a new topic, once we know the makeup of the house and senate. I think we just showed that bunch that they can't count on "business as usual" from the People! :thumbsup:

Bernie Sanders is also a Senate independent, but he is an independent like Lieberman and I wouldn't count Lieberman as a real independent. He's stated time and time again that he'll vote Democrat and that he is only an Indie because he lost that primary. Both are strongly Dem leaning, middle of the road guys.

I hope there will be change and that if there is a stalemate that it won't come from this new Congress. I don't really believe in a multiparty run-off style election system and even if you are behind I think we can agree it won't be happening here anytime soon. Regardless, we are talking about a real check on the executive and that's what this election was about.

Man, Montana is a hell of a nailbiter. This is really really coming down to the wire!

I will probably be up quite late tonight watching the election results come in.

It's been years since there has been an election in Oregon I've actually liked watching.

Hmm. Agreed. Assuming the Senate also goes over (to the Democrats), then the next 2 years will be interesting.

Still Muad, I'm not letting go of my hope for mulitpartyism in the (hopefully near) future :). I would like to see more independents, Green and Libertarians in the Congress etc down to the state and local level. I feel it will give better choice and more balance.

Even with this election, this Democratic "sweep" of sorts is real indicative of how the general populace feels about the need for change.

PNW voters bite their nails for much longer, yes? :)

Ok, so it looks like it's just Virginia and Washington left right? And that could go for a recount but it looks like Jim Webb has unseated George Allen.

Then that would mean that Dems take the House and Senate.

I also find it interesting that despite the sweep, many of the races were real close reflecting how divided/polaroze we really are.

Elph, I'm with you, I truly hope some balance will be restored, but I'm greedy. I wamt more change, evolution, cooperation etc..... we'll see.

Tester in the lead by 7,158 votes and Webb in the lead by 7,546 votes so far. Things are looking good. Shades of Missouri I hope.

26 pickups for the House being reported.

The undecided Senate races are:

- Montana: Tester/Burns
- Virginia: Webb/Allen

A 50/50 split in the Senate is possible. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba Excuse Me? Review this topic and every post and you will find that you are way off the mark. And I don't appreciate that you have used the same frickin warning that you gave u2's topic. This topic is clean of BS of any kind. Explain your warning, Analog. :mad:

It's a pre-emptive warning to the denizens of the Tilted Politics forum. Many like it have been issued before, on many occasions. It's not a new concept. It's quite clearly a warning that things will not be allowed to get out of hand with the election uproar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuadDib He said he was just heading off trouble. At least I hope that it's just a pre-emptive warning. It doesn't take a psychic to see that this thread has massive trouble potential.

Indeed, and also that the Tilted Politics forum in general is set to explode with post-election chatter.

I was here for the 2004 presidential elections, and we all got through that without letting the board become like every other mud-slinging flame-war site out there. We will do it again.

So like I originally posted- keep the respect level up, the shenanigans down, and we'll all continue to have the quality discourse of which we have come to hope the Tilted Politics forum is capable.

Thank you all,

- analog.

I think this will be an interesting 2 year regardless of how the Senate goes, but I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for it til that decision comes down. But even if we don't get them the fundamental structure of Congress has changed. We have more moderate democrats and less conservative republicans. This is going to move both parties right. Also we going to have Dems heading up more commitees. This could go any number of ways, but Congressional Dems and the Bush administration are now going to be forced to mix and the results will be interesting.

This "sweep" is clearly indicitive of the people's desire for change. But the breadth and depth of that desire is questionable. I think it's clear that this was a message about Bush and his White House. It is also a message about Iraq. That should be clear from the Dems holding their incumbents so this wasn't an anti-incumbent message. This also was not a sign of America moving to the left or okaying a liberal agenda. We are tired of the extreme right, but that doesn't mean we don't still fear the extreme left. This is election was not a mandate and if it was it was only a mandate for oversight and for some change. How the Dems handle this will be the key to '08. If they are responsible steward of the last six years and ask the much needed questions, give it the needed oversight, and restore Congress as a responsible check AND balance to the executive then we can talk mandates in '08.

As for the multiparty elections, I think that would be a good topic for us in a seperate thread. I will say that another party moving up has always meant another party moving down, shortly there after. It's just the way our institutions are set up to force a two party system. So to make this happen we would need to change a lot of procedure and a fair amount of Constitution.

I agree, MuadDib. This was more of a course correction than a validation of a liberal agenda. But I do think the Bush Administration can't ignore the lesson of this election.

Thanks, rat. I think that Bush 'can' ignore the lesson and there is a real possibility that he won't work with the Dems, especially if the Rumsfeld thing comes up. I think Rumsfeld really needs to consider resigning of his own volition to avoid this issue and keep Bush from either having to go back on his statement or bring this issue to a head. I think if it does come to a grid lock then it will only make things worse for Republicans since there is a clear American desire for some reorganization. The Pentagon needs an overhaul and the war needs some fresh perspective.

On that note though, I suppose if the executive and Congress become locked it's only going to help Dems in '08 so either way I think we have a great opportunity here.

Agreed, but there's work to do in the next two years. The Dems promised change, and they'd better deliver.

Let us review where we've just come from....and ask what a "liberal" agenda might look like....so we can recognize it, if it rears it's "ugly" head.

Nov. 1992: After 12 years of republican party presidents, democrat is elected.

Feb. 1993: Terrorists planted and detonated a massive bomb in a basement level of the WTC in NYC, seven died and a signifigant number were injured. Law enforcement investigated, made arrests and several convictions in US federal court resulted. The cases were successfully prosecuted by asst. US Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald.

Fall, 1993: Democratic controlled house and senate pass democratic president's rollback of republican era tax cuts that had focused on signifigantly cutting
the taxes of the wealthiest.
<b>Reagan reversed some of the drastic 1981 tax cuts that he had sponsored in the first days of his presidency, Clinton sponsored a much more modest tax increase that targeted primarily, the wealthiest taxpayers.</b>

Sept. 30, 1993. Last republican president's budget year ends. Treasury debt has increased, year over year, by $360 billion. Treasury debt has increased, since last democratic president, in 1981....from $1070 billion, to $4200 billion.

Nov. 1993: Republicans take control of the house in mid-term elections on the strength of new speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich's "contract with America".

May, 1995: Murrow federal building bombed by terrorists in Oklahoma City, 169 killed....arrests made by law enforcement, convictions in US federal court resulted, lead conspirator/bomber later executed.

1998: In a highly partisan charged atmosphere, conservative house republican leaders mount a campaign to impeach president Clinton for lying in a deposition taken under oath in a civil suit, financed by conservative republicans who have hounded the Clinton administration in 5 years of investigations conducted by a special prosecutor. The impeachment process moves to the senate, where republicans fail to obtain a conviction. At the end of Clinton's presidency, in 2001, the eight years of investigation of Clinton and his wife have cost $70 million, resulted in no findings of wrongdoing against the Clintons...and an X-rated report on Clinton's extra marital relations, before and during his presidency. The special prosecutor, highly partisan Kenneth Starr, is rewarded for his efforts with an appointment by the principle financier of the eight years of harrassment against Clinton, Richard Mellon Scaife, to the dean's chair at Pepperdine law school, on Malibu Beach, CA.

Jan. 2001: Clinton leaves office during a budget year when the $360 billion annual debt increase of the 1992-1993 republican budget has been reversed to a surplus in 2001. The surplus ended when SCOTUS installed president Bush pushed through a tax cutting program that included the mailing of tax rebate checks to taxpayers that totalled $39 billion, in summer, 2001. On sept. 30, 2001, the last Clinton budget year ended, with a total annual treasury debt increase of $18 billion. (This equates to a $21 billion surplus, without the tax rebate checks, and it would have been a signifigantly larger surplus, if not for the immediate effects of Bush sponsored tax cutting).

We cannot be sure of the position that the US would be in today, as far as the support that it would enjoy from other countries if the 9/11 attacks had been treated as a law enforcement problem, instead of with an aggressive, military, CIA, and DIA response.

We do know that the 2001 budget surplus had been reversed to a new accumulation of $3000 billion in treasury debt, in just five years, including a debt increase in the last year of $570 billion....including a budgeted $300 billion and supplemental appropriations of $270 billion for GWOT operations and Katrina disaster relief.

The US military is mired in wars in both Iraq and in Afghanistan, with little hope of accomplishing "the mission" in either country. When the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001, in response to the 9/11 attacks, the ruling taleban, ousted in the US led military operations, had eradicated the Afghan opium crop, the largest in the world. Opium from Afghanistan now floods the urban streets of the west, and the taleban is poised to retake control of Afghanistan. US forces are suffering their highest rates, yet, of casualties in Afghanistan, along with increasingly resentful, foreign NATO sponsored troops. In Iraq, US forces are suffering their highest rates of KIA in two years, with no relief in sight.

Perhaps the most alarming consequence has been the undermining of the constitutional rights formally guaranteed to all US residents and those subject to US authorities treatment under the provisions of the Geneva conventions. US official policy with regard to respect for human rights and treaties and laws related to those rights have also eroded alarmingly.

The purpose of recalling where we've been, and where we are now, is to ask how a "liberal agenda", if one emerged....if such a "thing" existed...could be even slightly as harmful as the reversals from former fiscal, diplomatic, and military stability, that we've just experienced...in less than six years' time.

Could we afford this "liberal agenda"? Do the suspected "architects" of such an agenda, come into power, this week, with a past reputation for the kind of fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement that would be required to impelement such an agenda, in today's period of federal treasury, fiscal crisis?

Please point to examples of such a record...of these "liberals". Please describe how America would be better (or worse...) off today...and the world....if the US had continued the pre republican control, pre 9/11 policies of progressive taxation and responding to domestic and foreign terrorist attacks with law enforcement, and surgical military strikes instead of with massive military operations, and occupations of foreign countries that include unilateral replacement of existing foreign regimes, in their entirety.

We don't seem any better, any more secure, any wealthier, or certainly....any free---errrr, from the shift to an intensely militaristic, intensively tax cutting, political policy emphasis. Nor do we enjoy a better relationship with the rest of the world, or a reputation as a diplomatic, "honest broker", in the ME, or anywhere else.

So....tell me....what have we gained from a signifigant shift to the right, that began with "the contract", in 1994, and ends today, with these election results. <b>If a shift away from "the right", is shifting towards</b> a "liberal agenda", given the past achievments of "liberals"....of control of military spending "creep", and increases in non-military federal employment....along with respect for the constitution and a record of judicial appointments of "mainstream" judges who reflect the tenor of the times and the sentiments of a larger majority....what have we to fear....from "liberals", hobbled by the yoke of a newly racked up, $3000 billion deficit and the wasting effect of a military mired in two major eastern fronts, a newly empowered Iran, stronger due to the destruction of their former enemy regime in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, empowered by lack of any signifigant US energy conservation or alternative development.....and by the Bush administration dismantling of the UN north Korean nuclear inspection program that would have postponed the current bomb development, by at least a decade?.... <b>IMO....if that is a shift towards a "liberal agenda"....away from the failed "conservative agenda.......bring it on!</b>
Have I missed anything?

No you're pretty close to dead on here. But I think we are allowing ourselves to talk in black & white neo-con terms. By defining liberal and conservative as the only terms we tie in all of the affirmative action, gun control, women's rights, environmental, death penalty, tax, wage, UN, etc issues with every political movement that occurs. This framing favors Republicanism (specifically conservativism) because it's the party-line liberal is far more rare than the party-line conservative. To put it differently, there are more people against everything than are for everything. This framing of the discussionis what helped boost the neo-cons into power in the first place.

I am a Clinton man, through and through. From that New Democratic perspective I am a believer in the third way. While everything you've said is correct I can't agree with presenting it the way that you do. Let's not define ourselves exclusively by how we aren't the 'contract'-ers. We can variously support some 'liberal' issues and not others. We can think (and state) that the Republicans had some good ideas even more good intentions. Most Americans believe that the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is negligible anyway and from an issues point of view they are largely correct. The difference is that Clinton attempted to make us the party of responsibility and accountability. And that leads me to say the first highly contraversial thing I've said in a while; the Republican party has been plagued by corruption and scandal for a long time (not saying the Dems are free from it but as a matter of degree I think it's distinguishable) and its largely in part to their business ties. Think K-street, think Haliberton, think tax cuts. While we are different parties in terms of what is more okay to stand for or not on social issues, by and large the difference isn't vast. That being said let's distinguish ourselves as the party of responsible government.

Wow that was a tangent, I'm honestly sure how I got there, but answer your original question, a 'liberal' agenda has been defined by neo-cons and it's been defined as pro-gay rights, anti-guns, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-criminal rights, anti-tax cuts, tree-hugging, okay-with-drugs, Cindy Sheehans/Michael Moore supporters. Did <b>I</b> miss anything? Fact is that America is no more okay with all those issues lumped into one term (liberal) than they were 24 hours or 24 years ago. And by those terms America is not supporting liberalism in this election. But now I remember how I got on my tangent. We let them define us and only time and a strong effort to unbridle that generalization will change that. So what we have to do as Democrats is not be liberals on their terms. Don't claim it, don't say it, and certainly don't act like it ESPECIALLY now that we have some power. We won this cycle because we promised to do a job that wasn't getting done and we'll go far and be able to make some real changes if we exercise some restraint and fulfill our charge without over-stepping our grant.