roachboy

and here is the obvious question...

what are your provisional assessments of the election results as they unfold?




for myself, i am not yet clear about it...and obviously it will be diffcult to say much that is not obviously provisional while the mt and va senate races remain unclear.

1. general question:

why is it that television news gets to effectively determine the speed with which an election results are "determined"? i was in a resto last evening with friends--on the wall across from me were 3 television monitors---football, espn meta-football, and the cnn talking heads. so it was the election and other sports. and once again i watched election results being projected based on very small percentages of actual votes counted.

since it is evident that there are procedural problems with elections, and that these problems appear to be more complex than simply one or the other party like two puppeteers pulling the strings for their own advantage, why is it not reasonable to allow for more time before elections are effectively decided on television based on statistical models etc.?

i think people can handle a period of uncertainty in the interest of making sure that such democracy as there is in the states is actually functioning.

what is the deal with this?

2. on the results themselves:

well, it seems fairly clear that we are in for a couple years of ideological battle over which party gets to represent the center. again.
it is obviously too early to tell how the right is going to respond, but i think this poses an interesting dilemma for them.

ideology

what i would expect from on the ideological level is to see the right shift into oppositional mode and try to use the new composition of congress to reinforce their version of identity politics.

in other words, i expect to see the right media apparatus shifting into a version of the mode it worked under clinton. this because despite the myriad debacles they have to deal with thanks to the bush administration, the right managed to get considerable turnout and many races were and remain much closer than i had imagined. so their political machinery held in general, even as it lost ground tactically. that is why i do not expect much in the way of change from the right on ideological grounds--i think this will be seen as a tactical loss.
the strategy will unfold in a straight line.

politically--in terms of actual governing--the position the republicans are in is interesting-ish: i expect you will see what is required, which would be a shift toward the center legislatively. but this remains a bit murky in terms of outcomes, so..

structurally, it looks like paralysis.
i do not see this as a good thing, particularly not on the question of iraq.

on iraq: what do you see following from yesterday?
i am not sure.
i dont see "this isn't working" as the reverse of any consensus within the democrats about what to do.



what do you see the implications of the election for the process of creepng executive power? do you see any of the administration's attempts to alter the balance of power between branches being withdrawn or changed?
it is still early, but maybe a sense of how this will go...

economic policy change?
i am not sure that i see any consensus amongst democrats on this.
i am not sure there is one.


i do find myself feeling a bit of relief on the question of judicial appointments. in this, paralysis is surely preferable to stacking the courts from the right.


in terms of international reactions so far--what i have been seeing is an enormous, global sigh of relief tempered with a bit of anxiety over the implications of gridlock in a context already so thoroughly shaped by the bush administration and its various wars.
but we'll see: for me this is an interesting question.

this is far from comprehensive as questions go, so feel free to reframe the thread as it goes.

and who knows, maybe we can have an actual discussion, since none of us knows exactly what will transpire on the basis of yesterday...

and as a proactive note to the proactive mods: i do not see these results are much reason to go all partisan. paralysis is what it is. it is a stopping, not a moving forward. i think you can relax a little.
what do you see as resulting from yesterday?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

aceventura3

I congradulate the Democratic Party. I think the expectations are very high, I wonder if they can deliver. Will they:

End our involvement in Iraq?
Cut spending?
Balance the Budget?
Fix Social Security?
Raise Taxes on the rich?
Find Osama Bin Laden?
End Corruption in washington?
Cancel the Haliburton contracts?
Create more jobs?
Raise the minimum wage?
Impeach Bush?
Work in a bi-partisan manner?
Create energy independance?
Protect us from terrorism?
Provide universal health care?
Lower the cost of prescription drugs?

I am looking forward to see how they respond.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

kutulu

Hopefully
Ending the Iraq involvment would cut spending considerably
Hopefully
That depends on what you call 'fix', would they have the balls to raise the threshold at which people don't have to pay any more?
Maybe, if they do it should be offset by cuts to the middle and lower class
It's up to the military and CIA to find Bin Laden
Corruption will always be in Washington, maybe it can be minimized, maybe not.
Haliburton contracts will not be canceled, oversight should ramp up considerably
Hopefully
Hopefully
Nope
I really hope so
Same
I don't think we will see universal health care pick up steam until a time at which they have both houses and the Presidency.
Hopefully

stevo

You would think so, and it would be easy if there was just one network to give us election results. But we have several and if one decides to project results, well, the sheep will watch and ignore the other networks...$$$.

Is it that the bush admin won't want to work with the dems, or that the dems don't want to work with bush? Bush worked with the dems early in his presidency. Something about a prescription drug plan, then got lampooned by the left. You know what bush says...fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice, you can't fool me twice.
i don't know. more of the same.

no.

just don't raise my taxes.


are any supreme court appointments expected within the next two years?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

MuadDib

1. Media: The 'talking heads' calling elections and other such activity is actually highly scientific. Clearly I mean scientific in the mathematic/scientific method manner of the term. The media calls elections based on two major factors (though a vast number of sub-factors are taken into account). Those factors are the reported vote statistic and historical precedent. Statistically they look to the number of votes reported in relation to the spread and voting population of a given state. For example, if you have a small state like Rhode Island and 15% of the vote is in but the spread is also 15% appart then you can call that election because to make up that difference is politically unheard of, if not mathematically impossible. This is where the precedent comes in. In our example if the rest of the state went to the opponent by a margin of 75% or more then the opponent would win, but that is politically impossible. If the state was that one-sided in every county outside of the one's reported we would either know about it and thus not call the election (as the decision on MO was withheld even with Talent leading and only 15% remaining, because the remaining counties were known to be deeply Democratic. Even there it still barely made more than a 1% difference.) or it would be red flagged for corruption. It is important to realize that these are only projections, but they are extremely accurate and well thought out projections and when they are wrong it is because of a very huge deal.

2. Results:
Ideology: I predict that this will move the Republicans further right. Now bear with me on this because I don't think it's because they don't get the message from this election cycle. They will move right because they lost a good number of moderate seats and the ones that held were pretty right-entrenched. Also, they will have to go reactionary on this because they don't want to show that the Dems can do the job they couldn't. Now the Dems got to this point by moving to the center so right now the center vote is with them and the Repubs aren't going to take it, at least not for a while and not without the Dems screwing up this opportunity. That being said the latter is a possibility. If the Dems take this election as a mandate to liberalism then they will fall and fall hard. Though we now have more moderate Dems in seats there are still a good number of entrenched far left liberals who hold a lot of sway in the party. However, the ball is in the blue's court now so they get to decide how to play it while the red will be stuck playing defensive reactionary politics and won't have the discretion to define themselves and the policy that they used to.

Governance: Again reactionary now. Thereis an air of change is about and they are going to need to show tempered resistance to Dems while not becoming obstructionist. They are also going to need to be able to distinguish themselves from Dems. I think this will lead to them fighting loudly on issues then giving them votes to have it their way (if they need them). Warn them that they were wrong then give them enough rope to hang themselves. Make them fight for every inch and try to force them leftwards.

Structure: Back to the balance of powers and not a moment too soon. Honestly, even with just the house we are going to have some great checks on the executive and we're going to be moving back to traditional America politics. That means vetos and gridlock, but that also means scrutiny and oversight. I see a massive review and a moderate readjustment of Iraq policy. I see a call for a restructuring of the Pentagon and possibly in Homeland Security. There's gonna be a lot of heat, a lot of name calling, and a fair amount of gridlock; but in the end this is what this election was about. I see a lot of drama coming out of this, but it will be good for the nation.

Iraq: Let's be clear, there will be no withdrawl. There will be deep review of policy, there will be attempts at a new direction, but the specifics will be left to the executive. I predict that we will have at least 9 months of investigation, review, and analysis. I then see another 6 months of policy making and debate. Then when the dust has settled we may have two locked sides, but more likely is we'll have a deeper understanding and a compromise position that will amount to us remaining Iraq for a long time, but reducing our numbers there slowly and steadily and also revamping our approach to Iraq restructuring policy, but not military policy.

Executive Power: This was the second major issue of this election. This and Iraq are why the Dems won. Americans are inherently uncomfortable with centralized power. That fear is in our blood and taught to us from our first social studies class onward. It doesn't matter if it's and FDR or a GW Bush, we don't like absolute authority. That isn't to say that either president actually had absolute power, but America was not comfortable with this. War will always bring us behind strong leaders for a fair amount of time, but even that becomes common place after a while and we get back to our democratic (that's lower case, type of government democratic not party Democratic just to be clear) roots.

Economy: We are deeply in trouble here. We are in the whole and this will be the Democratic issue of this Congress. We need to balance this budget and stop deficit spending. This issue is not what won the Dems the election, but they will need to address it (and address it well) because the 'mandate' for change is not only limited in it's scope, but also in it's time span. They have two years to either take care of the corruption and Iraq or at least show that they are making progress and fighting tooth and nail to get there. In '08 the Dems can't cry Iraq or corruption. The Repubs will scream failure and false promise. What the Dems will start to focus on and move towards is this issue because once progress has been made in Iraq (and this would happen in two regardless of the outcome of this election) there will still be the economy. The Dems aquired the power of the purse, but it is an empty purse and they will have their hands full trying to refill it. If they can provide oversight in Iraq and make headway with the budget (not necessarily the economy because that is very much effected by the previous Congress) then they will have a good '08

3. Conclusion: Opportunity, opportunity, opportunity! It's a good day to be a Dem. If you're a Dem go ahead and pat yourself on the back and celebrate, but when the day is done you've inherited a legislative mess and you asked for it. Roll up your sleeves and get to work because you'll be fighting six years of policy and unrestricted White House authority. You'll be fighting opposition from the right that doesn't want to look they can't do a job you can. You'll be fighting the left who wants to pull you away from what got you hear and abuse this stewardship for party gain. And most of all, you'll be fighting the inertia of a snowballing right agenda that has massive momentum. That's an Iraq policy that you wouldn't have done,but you're stuck with, an economy that is deep in the red, but you didn't put it there, and a social agenda that will need to be approached with the greatest of delicacy and temperance. Only time will tell if the Dems can control the Congress and control themselves long enough to possibily make change. They can if they have the will, let's see what they do.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

host

roachboy....I don't want to brag....but on the fly last night, only with the resources of quick lookups of county demographics posted on wiki, I was able to make projections in VA, TENN, MO, and MT senate races that were all ahead of the network's reporting...and so far....that have all turned out to be the actual outcomes. Once a small sampling of results comes in, the balanced and unbalanced results in a given county seem to offer a highly reliable, predictive direction of the final, whole result. The fact that urban areas in almost all states, lean democrat, and rural areas, republican, IMO, make the task even easier, and more reliable, with even small initial "samples".

I am pessimistic about what will happen in the next two years. Democrats are hobbled by the mess that they've inherited....I've detailed that here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...15#post2150715

...and for two other reasons:
the Bush admin. ignored congress when it's own party controlled it, and ignored many of the laws that it passed....I expect they will try to continue to do this....forcing impeachment and dem attempts for conviction in the senate....at least force the hand of the dems....and the country...through that process........in an intentional political strategy of polarization...don't forget....they have been described, for good reason, as the most partisan administration.....ever.

Rove will work tirelessly to contest every close election, especially in VA and in MT senate races. He will tirelessly discredit the integrity of the vote results of the opposition, in every close contest....see the report I posted about his efforts in Alabama to reverse election results in Alabama in 1994.

I predict that there will be no peace....no spirit of bi-partisanship, and a Rovian strategy to force dems from their current gameplan....best behavior, middle of the road, congressional leadership-in aniticipation-of-2008-presidential-ambitions.....into a warring counter-party to aggressive Bush admin. "business as usual" political and governance strategy. I see a strong possibility that the white house will act in an increasingly outrageous manner that will intentionally play to their ultra-conservative base, demonize the dems, and preserve as much of the "war time" unitarian executive centerpiece strategy, that we've all enjoyed observing....so far.

Count on it....what do you think that they see, that they have to lose....by acting this way? If you can put yourself in their place....the answer is....NOTHING!

MuadDib

I see where you are coming from here, but I respectfully disagree. On your first point, that Bush didn't listen to his own party, this shift makes all the difference in the world. The Bush administrations's word was law from the Republican party for a very long time. Their message of rally behind the leaders (Repub Executive and Legislature) doesn't fly when the Congress won't defer to the President, especially within their own party. No Bush didn't listen to them because he didn't have to. A good number of them were elected/re-elected because of Bush and his message. Now we (should) have a in charge of at least one house of Congress that has no incentive to cowtow to Bush and behind them a clear American message supporting contention between Congress and the President.

As for your second reason, you are right. Rove will work tirelessly to make the most of these events for the Repubs. But even if all contests went this way the elections are still a Dem wash. Too many challenges will hurt the Repubs more than they'll help by down playing election results that, maybe, ought to be recounted by lumping them in with elections that are clear AND by brining on that sort of sore-loser attitude that plagued the Dems after 2000. No matter where you fall politically I doubt there is a person out there that thinks Karl Rove is a dummy. If I can see this, and you can see this, then he can see this. My belief is that man is already thinking about '08 and what's going to need to be done to win back the Senate (if it is lost) and retain the White House. He's thinking about legislative strategy to push the Dems leftwards again and most importantly he is thinking about how polish the Repub image back to it's past sheen.

What do they have to lose? Two words, "O Eight". There is absolutely no mandate in this election outside of clean up and re-order. Voters didn't ideologically shift they just wanted accountability that they felt the Republican Congress wasn't giving. If the Repubs allow themselves to be the victims here and don't acknowledge this mandate then God help them in '08 because they will literally have given The Presidency and, likely, even greater control of Congress to the Dems. The people of this country are ready for a centering, moderate change. If the Dems give that to them then awesome, but the Repubs still hold a lot of reins here. This is a message for them to clean up and if they do then they will very likely gain some power back in '08, but they still have so much to lose if they don't because the Senate will be close no matter who wins MT or VA and the Presidency will be on the line very soon. If you are a Repub you have to ship up or risk an '08 purely Democratic federal government with absolute legislating ability. And more than any candidate or social change, that is what the RNC fears most.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

flstf

roachboy, you obviously look into the political ramifications of this election in far more detail than I do. From my point of view as a casual observer of the political process the largest impact will be that the Senate amnesty bill now has an excellent chance of passing the House and becomming law since the house Republicans were the only thing holding it up.

Most everything else will stay the same since Bush has veto power, or am I missing the overall picture here?

stevo

my first thoughts were of the amnesty bill as well

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

hiredgun

We may see deadlock when it comes to domestic 'wedge' issues: that is, primarily social issues behind which the religious right is mobilized. I'm not sure the democrats will really try to touch those anyway.

On the economy, we're likely to see a messy eventual compromise that rolls back some of the tax cuts, but perhaps not all.

On Iraq, the administration has already signalled a willingness to move. I took today's announcement about Rumsfeld as a truly good sign as far as the potential for things to be accomplished over the next two years.

As for your question about the media: well technically, of course, it's not really Television that determines the winner of an election, even if all the stations feel the need to 'project' a winner long before the local authorities actually make an announcement. The problem, of course, is that the process of resolving a close election (say, through recounts or a legal battle) is in itself political and thus can be heavily influenced by media coverage.

A radical solution would be to prevent news organizations from conducting exit polling. This cure might be worse than the disease, though, because sans paper receipts with some of these newfangled electronic machines, exit polls might be our only way to independently verify that a result is plausible. Then again, 2004 proved that these polls had no legal weight against the official vote counts, so it may be moot altogether.

I can understand your annoyance, and I share your concern with turning election into a sport without regard for the impact this might have on the process. I don't know of a really practical solution, though.

ubertuber

Statistical modeling and prediction has more bullshit in it than we often admit. It's right until it's wrong, and that's pretty much all there is to say. A race can't be called definitively until enough of the vote is in to mathematically lock one candidate out. Anything before that can't be considered definitive - there will always be predictions (educated guesses, but guessing nonetheless) involved. That said, I think it will be some time before we have tightly packaged results on election day. Once the recount option was used so vigorously in 2000 it will never be completely off the table again.

My only clear thought is that Iraq will again be a major issue in the 2008 elections. The new Congress will only be in session for 16 months before campaigning begins in earnest, and that isn't much time to assess, debate, vote, and act in ways that can be considered settled to presidential candidates. We're not done with this for some time. And there's some justice in that - we don't deserve to put Iraq behind us anytime soon. You break it, you buy it.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam