# 2006 Election results



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2006)

Well, so far it looks like the Dems have taken the house and are still in the running for the Senate.

Anything interesting or noteworthy happen in your districts? The only referendum we had in my county dealt with school bonds, but I hear alot of states had referendums on same sex marriage. Anything else out thre worth mentioning?

What are your opinions so far on the results?


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2006)

Live Free or Die in Blue New Hampshire. 

New Hampshire has always been the 'reddest' of the Northeast states - which means, not very red at all. The 'Live Free or Die' attitude, given us by General Stark, if I am not mistaken, has always led to a very libertarian government - no services, no taxes. 

A demographic shift has been occuring, as Massachusetts Expatriots look for affordable housing and lousy commutes - or the 'New Hampshire Advantage' - Tax Free consumption. 

Both Congressional Seats changed party affiliation yesterday. Paul Hodes has been running against Charles Bass for three years now. He easily defeated Representative Bass. Carol Shea-Porter has defeated Jeb Bradley. She basically came out of nowhere, recieved very little party support during the election and won by a comfortable margin.

Yesterday, on the news, I watch an anchor ask local expert, Mike Barnicle, why New England hates the President so much. Mr. Barnicle said it was because of the war. I prefer to think that we discern in the President, a native son and local, regardless of what he would have you thing, the truth; He is out of his element and unable to handle the tasks of the job.

This year, it was not a good thing to be a Republican running for election in the Northeast. In this area, it seems, we voted for Change.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2006)

I looked at some ballot measures... looks like alot of bans on same sex marriage measures failed with Arizona still in doubt. Also looks like every minimum wage increase measure passed. Missouri passed Stem Cell research measure... couple of marijuana proposals failed...

Looks like the Dems need two more seats in the Senate with slight leads in the remaining two seats... recounts here we come! Just hope it does not take too long....


----------



## crushing (Nov 8, 2006)

Michigan has been a blue state in national elections for the last few cycles, voting for Clinton's second term, Gore, and Kerry.

Like most of the rest of the country it is pretty much status quo in Michigan as incumbents win.  We returned the Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator.  I think all of the incumbents in the US House also won (6 Democratics and 9 Republicanistics).  A Republican won an open house seat.  I think it had a Republican in it previously.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 8, 2006)

crushing said:


> Michigan has been a blue state in national elections for the last few cycles, voting for Clinton's second term, Gore, and Kerry.
> 
> Like most of the rest of the country it is pretty much status quo in Michigan as incumbents win. We returned the Democratic Governor and a Democratic Senator. I think all of the incumbents in the US House also won (6 Democratics and 9 Republicanistics). A Republican won an open house seat. I think it had a Republican in it previously.


 
It seems we have a nice balance in Michigan right now of Republicans and Democrats.  Let's hope they work together to do some good work.


----------



## Monadnock (Nov 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Live Free or Die in Blue New Hampshire.
> 
> New Hampshire has always been the 'reddest' of the Northeast states - which means, not very red at all. The 'Live Free or Die' attitude, given us by General Stark, if I am not mistaken, has always led to a very libertarian government - no services, no taxes.


 
Well, that will all change now. I'm sure we'll see a sales and /or income tax very shortly, in addition to the already rising property taxes.


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2006)

Sen. Kennedy got re-elected for his 7th term in the senate. 

The Gubernatorial election was interesting.  The two loeading candidates would have lead to Massachusetts first black governor or first woman elected governor.

There was a ballot measure that entailed expanding liquor licenses in Massachusetts.  Between both sides, received an 11 million dollar campaign.   The spending surprised me...this is not a big statet.  The measure was denied.  

There was also a convoluted question that sounded like a brilliant idea but very badly executed.  Proponents called it "open ballot votiing" and it allows a candidate to be elected by more than one party.  Which would be interesting, but given that Mass. has long been a 1 party state...

IF I can ever convince myself to move off the North Shore, I will likely be one of those Massachusetts expats that Mike refers to before to before too long...just in my case I'm looking for a more affordable community and a _shorter_ commute.


----------



## Kreth (Nov 8, 2006)

Well, here in NY we managed to re-elect Hillary Clinton. I'm still trying to figure out all this stuff she's done for NY that I keep hearing about. AFAIK, all she's done is rename some buildings.
Oh, and we also elected an anti-gun Governor and House rep.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2006)

Kreth said:


> Well, here in NY we managed to re-elect Hillary Clinton. I'm still trying to figure out all this stuff she's done for NY that I keep hearing about. AFAIK, all she's done is rename some buildings.
> Oh, and we also elected an anti-gun Governor and House rep.



I still have not figured out why you elected her in the first place. She is no NY native and only moved there because she knew she could get in. Try running in Arkansas, where you spent most of your life...

oh well  It was legal, but I'd have a hard time electing someone that has not at least lived in my state for a while.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 8, 2006)

Well, I, for one, welcome our new Democrat overlords!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 8, 2006)

Indiana, a normally very red state, kicked some Republican butt.

In addressing Republicans I can only quote Bill Clinton, "I feel your pain."  I'm not particularly bothered by it, by I feel it.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 8, 2006)

*BAM! *


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 8, 2006)

My personal politics are obvious, but I will always be content with what the American people decide. Even if it conflicts with my personal opinions. I love my country and trust in our system. In the long run, I think a change in the status quo is a good thing. Many of the Democrat victors seem very moderate anyway so Im not crying any crocodile tears over the results. I just hope that they will learn to work together for US rather than infight between themselves.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 8, 2006)

I am very happy with the results on a national level, but I am actually not completely happy with some of the democratic wins here in our state, because I feel that some of the republican canidates that lost were a better choice and better equipted to deal with the economic issues of our state. 

For the record, I am an independent with a strong liberitarian bias.

But, as Blotan alluded, I think it is really important that we have faith in the process, participate in it, and work hard to make it better. I have read a lot of posts lately that point to both apathy and discouragement with the process. People too often think that their votes, their opinions, and their work won't and don't matter. I think that we need to caution ourselves against that apathy and discouragement. Our opinions and votes won't matter only as much as we feel that they don't matter, and only as much as we let it. 

So, regardless of election results, I think we really need to keep our heads up and remain participants in the process.

Paul


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2006)

We nearly had a democratic sweep in Wisconsin, but that isn't something that should surprise anyone.  What will surprise people are the ballot measures that passed.

WI is now home to an amendment banning same sex marriage and it is also home to the death penalty.

I'm very saddened that both of these passed...


----------



## Carol (Nov 8, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> I am very happy with the results on a national level, but I am actually not completely happy with some of the democratic wins here in our state, because I feel that some of the republican canidates that lost were a better choice and better equipted to deal with the economic issues of our state.


 
Know what you mean, Paul.  Lincoln Chafee, a popular, and moderate Republican from Rhode Island lost his seat to a Democrat.  The Senator's approval ratings among Rhode Islanders were high, but the disapproval of Iraq was higher.   Quirkily, the new Democrat's name is "Whitehouse". 

However, I'm also very disappointed that the incumbents that have been in office for 2 or more years have not done things differently than the way things panned out.

It will be interesting to see what transpires.


----------



## crushing (Nov 8, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:


> We nearly had a democratic sweep in Wisconsin, but that isn't something that should surprise anyone. What will surprise people are the ballot measures that passed.
> 
> WI is now home to an amendment banning same sex marriage and it is also home to the death penalty.
> 
> I'm very saddened that both of these passed...


 
I'm not surprised.  Sadly, like a few other blue states, the Great Blue State of Michigan also passed a same sex marriage ban in 2004.  We haven't re-legalized the death penalty after being the first state to outlaw it 160 years ago.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 8, 2006)

Dems just took the Senate... got control of both houses! Heaven help us


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Dems just took the Senate... got control of both houses! Heaven help us


Evil Laugh (twiddling fingers)


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Dems just took the Senate... got control of both houses! Heaven help us


 
Everything comes in cycles. In a way I wish one party would do such a good job for ALL of us that we would keep electing them in. What seems to happen is we get pissed off with the status quo every once and a while and change up.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 8, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Dems just took the Senate... got control of both houses! Heaven help us



Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.

Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.


----------



## IRO-Bot (Nov 8, 2006)

Well... Orin Hatch (read: Satan) took senate for Utah... Blast it all.  I was really wanting Pete Ashdown... But alas, it didn't happen.
Of course, when you're in a state as conservative as Utah, you can only expect the Republicans to take it.


----------



## mrhnau (Nov 9, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.
> 
> Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.



Actually, I don't mind all that much... I prefer having mixed parties. means less gets done, and in DC that seems to do better


----------



## Hand Sword (Nov 9, 2006)

Since D.c is useless, and un satisfactory, no matter who's in control, Maybe we should go back to pre- Articles of confederation. No D.C., and each state is a separate entity, worrying about it's own borders, and making decisions for themselves. Then maybe, some real results will get done.
"All politics is local", right?

It's very scary when people forget about being american and focus more on being a R, D, or I, then holding a person's party responsible for an individuals actions, or voting that way simply for that reason.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Nov 9, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.
> 
> Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.


 

My thoughts too Rich. The only reason I started voting Republican was when they were the only party that seemed to support my personal values. As the Democrats become more moderate they start to become more appealing to me. I even voted for one this past election (GASP!!).


----------



## donald (Nov 9, 2006)

Its a sad day in Ohio...


----------



## bluemtn (Nov 9, 2006)

Our senator was relected, and he's pushing 90... Considered historical...  As always, there was a school levy-  seems like that's always coming around.  I'd vote for it, but you should see what they were proposing!  OUCHOUCHOUCHOUCH!  Other than that, nothing significant.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Nov 9, 2006)

mrhnau said:


> Actually, I don't mind all that much... I prefer having mixed parties. means less gets done, and in DC that seems to do better


 
How true is that.  Generally the less that get's done means there is less that they screw up.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 9, 2006)

Rich Parsons said:


> Control is fine, but to override a sitting president, they need two thirds. This is not a runaway train. It just means that boht parties will have to respect each other to move forward.
> 
> Personally I would like to see some more third party candidates do well and be in positions to have swing decisions. This is a check that would keep both parties in their place.


Not so. The dems and republicans would only unite against them.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

donald said:


> Its a sad day in Ohio...


 
Why? 

Because people showed up at the polling place?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Why?
> 
> Because people showed up at the polling place?


The republicans are the only party that wanted people to stay home. Threats were made and mis-directions provided.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

I found, but have not verified from a second source this information. 



> *If you're keeping track at home,* using Senate numbers only, Democrats' 31,591,495 votes equals 55 percent of the vote. (House voting totals don't work because so many incumbents run unopposed.) So at last count, the country is, by rough-perhaps-but-the-most-accurate-count-we-have 55 percent Democratic and 45 percent Republican.


 
I would like to see the numbers for the House. Although the gerry mandered districts might affect the numbers.


----------



## CoryKS (Nov 9, 2006)

What I find interesting is the complete lack of concern about "stolen elections".  Seems like that was a big worry a few weeks ago, what with those new-fangled polling machines, but I guess all those fears must have dissipated somehow.  There's no mention of it anywhere.  How on earth did they manage to reassure so many people in so little time.  It's amazing.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

It has not disappeared. 

There were quite a few anomolies reported througout Tuesday. They deserve to be investigated in full. 

I think there would sufficient reason to call for careful investigation on the Allen/Webb race. I have watched carefully as the individual polling districts have audited their results. The results from those audits seem to be confirming the vote count. 

Have you watched 'Hacking Democracy' ... it is terrifying.


----------



## matt.m (Nov 9, 2006)

Missouri, a very red state, is now blue again.  I am as big a democrat as your going to get, I was quite pleased with the results.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> I have watched carefully as the individual polling districts have audited their results. The results from those audits seem to be confirming the vote count.


 
Just found this article... 

I hadn't realized that Virginia was quite so much under the thumb of electronic voting machines. It certainly makes my statement about 'audits confirming votes' a bit silly.



> Virginia uses a plethora of different voting technologies. Just about every major vendor is represented. Most of votes in that state were cast on paperless DREs. There are no ballots to recount. A meaningful recount in Virginia is not possible.
> 
> The DRE vendors like to pretend that they can perform recounts. They take the vote totals on the machines and print corresponding ballots, and then count them by hand. Let me give an analogy to demonstrate how silly that is. It would be comical if vendors weren't actually doing it and convincing people that they were performing a recount.
> 
> ...


​


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 9, 2006)

A Democratic rout, here in New York and across the US.  I'm doing a happy dance.

What pleases me the most is that we'll finally have some investigations into who outed a covert CIA agent, how the intelligence was manipulated, and where all our money went in Iraq.  And maybe some election reform.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 9, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Just found this article...
> 
> I hadn't realized that Virginia was quite so much under the thumb of electronic voting machines. It certainly makes my statement about 'audits confirming votes' a bit silly.
> 
> ...


 
Well....good, I guess. Hopefully Virginia will be a HUGE cluster**** now, demonstrating that easily hackable voting machines is not the way to go, so that we don't let this happened for a larger, presidential race.

One could hope, anyhow.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 9, 2006)

Your elections have been followed over here with a great deal of interest, mostly because of Iraq. We know about the Democrats and the Republicans but do you have any other parties? Also is there a cap on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign? Some of the candidates are reported as spending millions of dollars, is that acceptable to voters or is it felt that only rich people can run for office?


----------



## Carol (Nov 9, 2006)

Hey Tez!



Tez3 said:


> Your elections have been followed over here with a great deal of interest, mostly because of Iraq. We know about the Democrats and the Republicans but do you have any other parties?


 
Technically there are other parties but none have made any substantial headway.  Perhaps the best known Independent is Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut (Al Gore's running mate in his bid for the presidency in 2000).  Sen. Lieberman was a Democrat for all of his career.  However, he he was challenged for his party nomination in the primary election, and another Democrat beat him.  He ran to be re-elected as an Independent, and won.   This is a very rare example.

If it were possible, I'd like to see the party system done away with, personally.  

However, the party system plays a deep role in which person does what duty in Congress, it would be impossibly to simply do away with without changing the very backbone of our country's government.



> Also is there a cap on how much a candidate can spend on their campaign?


 
There is a cap as to how much a candidate can spend, but there are also special interest groups that are permitted to funnel money towards a party.  Naturally, the party can then funnel money to the candidate.  To say this is a point of controversy would be an understatement.  

Another twist to the story...any money that is left in a candidates individual war chest after the campaign is over, can be kept by that candidate.

My senator, Sen. John Kerry, challenged President Bush during the last presidential elections in 2004.  Sen. Kerry lost the election.  But...of the US $75 Million war chest that each candidate began with, Sen. Kerry had US $15 Million left over!  He did NOT commit his entire warchest to his campaign, he did NOT do everything he possibly could to defeat President Bush, and as a result, he took a $15 Million payday!!!

That to me is wrong on SO many levels!!



> Some of the candidates are reported as spending millions of dollars, is that acceptable to voters or is it felt that only rich people can run for office?


 
I can't speak for everyone, but I think its largely felt that only rich people can run for office.  One not only has to have the money but to also be able to put up with having one's personal life scoured for any notion of scandal or salaciousness that might make for a profitable news story.

There is definitely a feeling among many people of hopelessness and loss of control.  There is also some optimism.  

However, the political system in our country has been something that is has been in flux, ever since that day in 1776.    Whatever the situation is like now...is not something that will stay.  It will change, and the change will bring benefits and drawbacks.   Fingers crossed for the outcome.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 11, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> What I find interesting is the complete lack of concern about "stolen elections". Seems like that was a big worry a few weeks ago, what with those new-fangled polling machines, but I guess all those fears must have dissipated somehow. There's no mention of it anywhere. How on earth did they manage to reassure so many people in so little time. It's amazing.


 
One story on this subject I have seen, and will continue to watch, is the 13th District in Florida. This is the US House of Representatives Seat left open in this election by Representative Harris' decision to seek the Senate seat. 

Sarasota uses many electronic voting machines. The House race is showing more than 18,000 undervotes for teh House race. That is, more than 18,000 voters voted for one of the Senate Candidates, but did not vote for the House candidate. This number of undervotes qualifies for more than 12% of the voters. Some districts show as much as a 22% undervote. 

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061111/NEWS/611110530/1270/NEWS0101

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/NEWS/611100463/1270/NEWS0101

Sarasota Undervote. 

Incidently, the current standings in that election are that the Republican Candidate (in a heavily Republican district) is winning the election by approximately 380 votes.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 11, 2006)

Thanks for the explaination! I think on the whole over here we are pleased with your election results because of Iraq. We're obviously in this together and I think we all feel that things can't go on as they are. Our government is under pressure now from both the electorate and the military so please God we can see some light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 20, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> What I find interesting is the complete lack of concern about "stolen elections". Seems like that was a big worry a few weeks ago, what with those new-fangled polling machines, but I guess all those fears must have dissipated somehow. There's no mention of it anywhere. How on earth did they manage to reassure so many people in so little time. It's amazing.


 
The Florida 13th House Seat has officially been contested today. A period of time was required to pass before the election could be certified. Once certified, the challenge could be issued. 

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/005583.html

Watching this closely, for the sake of our nation.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 20, 2006)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111806B.shtml

*



Clear Evidence 2006 Congressional Elections Hacked 

By Rob Kall 
OpEd News 

Friday 17 November 2006 Results skewed nationwide in favor of Republicans by 4 percent, 3 million votes.​A major undercount of Democratic votes and an overcount of Republican votes in US House and Senate races across the country is indicated by an analysis of national exit polling data, by the Election Defense Alliance (EDA), a national election integrity organization. 

These findings have led EDA to issue an urgent call for further investigation into the 2006 election results and a moratorium on deployment of all electronic election equipment. 

"We see evidence of pervasive fraud, but apparently calibrated to political conditions existing before recent developments shifted the political landscape," said attorney Jonathan Simon, co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, "so 'the fix' turned out not to be sufficient for the actual circumstances." Explained Simon, "When you set out to rig an election, you want to do just enough to win. The greater the shift from expectations, (from exit polling, pre-election polling, demographics) the greater the risk of exposure - of provoking investigation. What was plenty to win on October 1 fell short on November 7. 

"The findings raise urgent questions about the electoral machinery and vote counting systems used in the United States," according to Sally Castleman, National Chair of EDA. "This is nothing less than a national indictment of the vote counting process in the United States!"  
"The numbers tell us there absolutely was hacking going on, just not enough to overcome the size of the actual turnout. The tide turned so much in the last few weeks before the election. It looks for all the world that they'd already figured out the percentage they needed to rig, when the programming of the vote rigging software was distributed weeks before the election, and it wasn't enough," Castleman commented.
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 20, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> The Florida 13th House Seat has officially been contested today. A period of time was required to pass before the election could be certified. Once certified, the challenge could be issued.
> 
> http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/005583.html
> 
> Watching this closely, for the sake of our nation.




And to further make Michael's point, there was an election that had not even finished counting all the absentee ballots and it was delayed to begin until after the U of Mich and OSU game last Saturday. So there could be another one in contention once an official result is annouced and certified.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 25, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> What I find interesting is the complete lack of concern about "stolen elections". Seems like that was a big worry a few weeks ago, what with those new-fangled polling machines, but I guess all those fears must have dissipated somehow. There's no mention of it anywhere. How on earth did they manage to reassure so many people in so little time. It's amazing.


 
The 13th District of Florida continues to present unusual questions. There has been some speculation that because the balance of power is not in question, this disputed election is off the radar screens.

This article indicates numerous questions of elections. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/u...&en=dc3b865295470398&ei=5094&partner=homepage



> Tens of thousands of voters in more than 25 states encountered serious problems at the polls, including failures in sophisticated voting machines and confusion over identification rules, according to interviews with election experts and officials.





> In Colorado, as many as 20,000 people gave up trying to vote, officials say, as online systems for verifying voter registrations crashed repeatedly. And in Arkansas, officials tallied votes three times in one county, and each time the number of ballots cast changed by more than 30,000.


----------

