Talk Elections

Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Gubernatorial/State Elections => Topic started by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:46:30 AM



Title: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:46:30 AM
Post all exit poll data and election results here.

As many of you now there are 5 major races in 2005.  The Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial Race.  NYC Mayoral Race. The Ohio and California Speical Proposition Election.

Side note:  There are some other smaller elections like the special election in Maine and the Annapolis mayoral race.  Post those results here, too.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 11:53:32 AM
You forgot about NYC.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:55:28 AM

NYC is a hell hole and not worthy of this thread.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: tarheel-leftist85 on November 08, 2005, 02:13:29 PM
Does anybody know when they'll release exit polls?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: WalterMitty on November 08, 2005, 02:20:14 PM
should we really trust any exit poll data that may leak out?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: tarheel-leftist85 on November 08, 2005, 02:24:22 PM
should we really trust any exit poll data that may leak out?
probably not, but... :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: memphis on November 08, 2005, 02:52:47 PM

They don't even need to do an election in NYC. Bloomberg is going to win by 101 points.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 03:09:27 PM
should we really trust any exit poll data that may leak out?

No, but it's fun regardless.  I doubt that any data will leak in such unimportant races nationally.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 03:10:51 PM
Isn't it technically illegal to release exit polls until all precincts are closed to voting?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Kevin on November 08, 2005, 04:26:41 PM
    I just heard there is a big GOP turn out in for kilgore in the solidly conservative areas of west Richmond and Ronoke as well as the rural parts of the state. Also more bad news for Kanie there is a low Democratic turn out in NOVA.   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 04:33:03 PM
    I just heard there is a big GOP turn out in for kilgore in the solidly conservative areas of west Richmond and Ronoke as well as the rural parts of the state. Also more bad news for Kanie there is a low Democratic turn out in NOVA.   

Source?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 04:39:27 PM
Kilgore has this one in the bag. It's over!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 04:44:17 PM
My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 04:44:55 PM

Are you being sarcastic or serious?  Ive been out of the loop all day so I have no idea whats going on with turnout and sh**t.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 04:46:57 PM
VA results provided by the AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_politics/va_election05/index.html?SITE=VAHAR&SECTION=POLITICS)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben Meyers on November 08, 2005, 04:47:17 PM
Go Kaine, Forrester and Bloomberg! :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 04:48:04 PM

Are you being sarcastic or serious?  Ive been out of the loop all day so I have no idea whats going on with turnout and sh**t.

Scoonie's acting "strange," to say the least. Just ignore him.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 04:48:09 PM
Cool! According to C-SPAN's website they will be broadcasting the election results:

"On Tuesday night, C-SPAN will report the results of the few elections that are being held around the country today. Expect results and victory speeches from the New Jersey and Virginia governor races, plus news on the the New York City and Detroit mayoral races. All will air on
C-SPAN after the House adjourns."


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 04:50:11 PM
    I just heard there is a big GOP turn out in for kilgore in the solidly conservative areas of west Richmond and Ronoke as well as the rural parts of the state. Also more bad news for Kanie there is a low Democratic turn out in NOVA.   

My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.

hahaha . . . take your pick.  :)  Scanning the various news sites, there hasn't been anything released yet one way or the other regarding turnout.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 04:52:39 PM

Are you being sarcastic or serious?  Ive been out of the loop all day so I have no idea whats going on with turnout and sh**t.

Scoonie's acting "strange," to say the least. Just ignore him.

Scoonie decided at some point that he would do his best to emulate a Republican partisan hack.  I don't quite know why.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 04:59:24 PM
My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker. 

How does a 15 year old have a friend who's a poll worker in a different state? Smells like crap to me. Kilgore has this one in the bag.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 05:10:27 PM
Scoonie decided at some point that he would do his best to emulate a Republican partisan hack.  I don't quite know why.

hahaha . . . Either that, or his second personallity has come to the surface.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 05:12:31 PM
Either that, or his second personallity has come to the surface.  :)

I knew you would approve, MODU! Now on to a Kilgore victory!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 05:15:12 PM
Im reading politicsnj's live blog and they're reporting turnout is very low in Camden.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben Meyers on November 08, 2005, 05:17:30 PM
Im reading politicsnj's live blog and they're reporting turnout is very low in Camden.

Who is that good for?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 05:21:18 PM
Im reading politicsnj's live blog and they're reporting turnout is very low in Camden.

Who is that good for?

Camden was McGreevey's best county in 2001.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 05:23:21 PM
Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 05:25:34 PM
Either that, or his second personallity has come to the surface.  :)

I knew you would approve, MODU! Now on to a Kilgore victory!

I got your back.  hahaha


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 05:31:06 PM
    I just heard there is a big GOP turn out in for kilgore in the solidly conservative areas of west Richmond and Ronoke as well as the rural parts of the state. Also more bad news for Kanie there is a low Democratic turn out in NOVA.   

My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.

hahaha . . . take your pick.  :)  Scanning the various news sites, there hasn't been anything released yet one way or the other regarding turnout.

I made mine up.  I'm trying to point out that we can't trust this insider information.  I'm not saying Kevin trumped his up, but I really don't see any reason to believe it's accurate.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2005, 05:32:30 PM
Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.

True, but a very low turnout in a close election would probably spell serious trouble for him


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 05:34:38 PM
I made mine up.  I'm trying to point out that we can't trust this insider information.  I'm not saying Kevin trumped his up, but I really don't see any reason to believe it's accurate.

Yeah.  One of my bosses and I were discussing the "accuracy" of exit polling last year.  She was trying to find some info on how the election was going.  I told her just to wait till 9pm, and there should be a fairly decent trend showing, one way or the other.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MAS117 on November 08, 2005, 05:51:08 PM
Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Camden is crammed with rediculously Democratic urban ghetto crud, heavily Republican suburbs, and Democratic everywhere else.  It's not all ghettos.  Camden plays a significant role in NJ politics.

That's my county, and it will go heavy Corzine. I'm not sure about turnout, I was unable to work on the campaign today.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: YRABNNRM on November 08, 2005, 05:53:15 PM
I was unable to work on the campaign today.

Crap. Now the Democrats have a bigger advantage.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 05:59:29 PM
Post all exit poll data and election results here.

As many of you now there are 5 major races in 2005.  The Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial Race.  NYC Mayoral Race. The Ohio and California Speical Proposition Election.

Side note:  There are some other smaller elections like the special election in Maine and the Annapolis mayoral race.  Post those results here, too.

I declare Bloomberg the winner. Now onto the other 4.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: YRABNNRM on November 08, 2005, 06:01:09 PM
Post all exit poll data and election results here.

As many of you now there are 5 major races in 2005.  The Virginia and New Jersey Gubernatorial Race.  NYC Mayoral Race. The Ohio and California Speical Proposition Election.

Side note:  There are some other smaller elections like the special election in Maine and the Annapolis mayoral race.  Post those results here, too.

I declare Bloomberg the winner. Now onto the other 4.

Crap. Now the Democrats have the advantage.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Cashcow on November 08, 2005, 06:04:40 PM
Well, Camden is basically a depopulated ghetto... % wise Corzine will dominate but I don't think high turnout there is particularly important to him.

If you're talking about Camden County (as the post before yours would indicate), that isn't even remotely true. What?

@Fezzy: One town in Camden County with a population greater than 100 voted for Bush. The rest were Kerry


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 06:13:36 PM
$262 million spent on this special election that Arnold created.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/13110470.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 06:23:05 PM
Poll Closing Times and Results...

• Virginia: 7pm Eastern | Results (http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/)

• Ohio: 7:30pm Eastern | Results (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/Results/RaceSummary.aspx)

• New Jersey: 8pm Eastern | Results (http://www.nj.com/elections/)

• New York: 9pm Eastern | Results (http://www.ny1.com/)

• California: 11pm Eastern | Results (http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/)

Hoteline is reporting there will be no exit polls, anywhere...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 08, 2005, 06:25:55 PM
You guys forgot about the St Petersburg Mayoral Race. :P It's of national importance o/c. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 08, 2005, 06:33:50 PM
My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.

I have a feeling your friend is more correct than what Kevin is posting. 

Also ignore Republican Apologist, everyone, he's a troll who has no clue.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 08, 2005, 06:38:07 PM
Kilgore - 49
Kaine   -  47
Potts    -  4


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 06:39:48 PM

Kilgore - 49
Kaine   -  47
Potts    -  4


I'm assuming/hoping  that's a prediction.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 06:41:46 PM
My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.

I have a feeling your friend is more correct than what Kevin is posting. 

Also ignore Republican Apologist, everyone, he's a troll who has no clue.


I made mine up.  I'm trying to point out that we can't trust this insider information.  I'm not saying Kevin trumped his up, but I really don't see any reason to believe it's accurate.

Also, 'Republican Apologist' is just Scoonie trying to act right-wing.  He's being sarcastic, of course, and the act is getting a tad old. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 08, 2005, 06:47:03 PM
What's this?

Wolf Blitzer just predicted a Forrester win by 3%?

Wow!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 06:47:31 PM
    I just heard there is a big GOP turn out in for kilgore in the solidly conservative areas of west Richmond and Ronoke as well as the rural parts of the state. Also more bad news for Kanie there is a low Democratic turn out in NOVA.   

My friend in Fairfax County just called me.  He's a poll worker.  He said that he's never seen turnout like this in NOVA -- not even in 2001 with Warner.  He's also getting word that turnout in the southern, rural parts of the state -- where the solid GOP base is located -- is as low as he can remember.  Kaine looks to be well positioned.

hahaha . . . take your pick.  :)  Scanning the various news sites, there hasn't been anything released yet one way or the other regarding turnout.

Looks so familiar, doesn't it?  Poll workers claiming a heavy turnout in one direction or the other.  Deja vu all over again!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 06:50:41 PM
"Exit Polls Show Democrat Corzine Is Decisive Winner In NJ Governors' Race...Wants To Appoint Codey To Fill His Senate Seat... "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/08/exit-polls-show-democrat-_n_10324.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 06:52:01 PM
"Exit Polls Show Democrat Corzine Is Decisive Winner In NJ Governors' Race...Wants To Appoint Codey To Fill His Senate Seat... "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/08/exit-polls-show-democrat-_n_10324.html

As far as I know there were no exit polls in any of the races.  Maybe a couple Corzine staffer with clipboards.  Be patient the results will be in shortly. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 06:53:57 PM
Kos is reporting that the exit polls are fake.  Even the Corzine campaign says there were no exit polls in NJ.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 06:59:54 PM
Polls closed in VA.  Let the fun begin  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 07:03:47 PM

What's this?

Wolf Blitzer just predicted a Forrester win by 3%?

Wow!


Kaine winning in VA, and Forrester in NJ sits very well with me i should add :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:06:44 PM
Come on Kaine and Cozine.... Dont let me down now. *Bites Fingernails*


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 07:08:26 PM
What's this?

Wolf Blitzer just predicted a Forrester win by 3%?

Wow!

You do know that Wolf Blitzer is a Republican hack?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:09:35 PM
J W Kilgore  Republican 0 0.00%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 0 0.00%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 0 0.00%
  Write Ins    0 0.00%
  Vote Totals: 0   
from the official site


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 07:10:08 PM
J W Kilgore  Republican 0 0.00%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 0 0.00%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 0 0.00%
  Write Ins    0 0.00%
  Vote Totals: 0   
from the official site


wow, low turnout.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:13:19 PM
hehe with one precinct in:
J W Kilgore  Republican 240 60.30%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 151 37.94%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 7 1.76%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:14:09 PM
hehe with one precinct in:
J W Kilgore  Republican 240 60.30%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 151 37.94%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 7 1.76%


Well, thats not the start I was looking for.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:14:52 PM
hehe with one precinct in:
J W Kilgore  Republican 240 60.30%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 151 37.94%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 7 1.76%


What precint was it


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:18:49 PM
 J W Kilgore     Republican    3,913    56.20%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    2,887    41.46%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    153    2.20%
  Write Ins          10    0.14%
     
Vote Totals:
   6,963    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:18:57 PM
J W Kilgore  Republican 3,913 56.20%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 2,887 41.46%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 153 2.20%
  Write Ins    10 0.14%
Precincts Reporting: 12 of 2426 (0.49%)
It doesn't say which precincts.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 07:20:20 PM
"Exit Polls Show Democrat Corzine Is Decisive Winner In NJ Governors' Race...Wants To Appoint Codey To Fill His Senate Seat... "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/11/08/exit-polls-show-democrat-_n_10324.html

As far as I know there were no exit polls in any of the races.  Maybe a couple Corzine staffer with clipboards.  Be patient the results will be in shortly. 

Washington Post says there aren't any exit polls in either NJ, VA or CA. Well, VA is done voting. We'll see soon.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:23:49 PM
J W Kilgore     Republican    8,460    51.96%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    7,423    45.59%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    381    2.34%
  Write Ins          17    0.10%
     
Vote Totals:
   16,281    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 07:25:42 PM
not that anyone cares but there's no results out for the Detroit Mayor race yet polls don't  close till  8pm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:27:24 PM
not that anyone cares but there's no results out for the Detroit Mayor race yet polls don't  close till  8pm

Fox News said this race tightend up


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:27:45 PM
not that anyone cares but there's no results out for the Detroit Mayor race yet polls don't  close till  8pm

Keep us updated.  This thread is for every race from VA to Maine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:28:37 PM
T M Kaine     Democratic    25,590    54.28%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    20,230    42.91%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    1,271    2.70%
  Write Ins          57    0.12%
     
Vote Totals:
   47,148    

 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 07:28:45 PM
KAINE TAKES THE LEAD!!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:29:10 PM
LOL, be easy.  Still 2000+ precincts to go.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 07:30:40 PM

LOL, be easy.  Still 2000+ precincts to go.


:(


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:30:53 PM
Id really like to know where these results are comming from?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Lincoln Republican on November 08, 2005, 07:31:40 PM
hehe with one precinct in:
J W Kilgore  Republican 240 60.30%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 151 37.94%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 7 1.76%


What precint was it

A heavily Democratic one.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 07:32:51 PM
Id really like to know where these results are comming from?

Also, how are Kilgore and Kaine running vis-a-vis Lt. Gov and AG candidates?

I can't view the sites because I'm on sort of a slow computer right now, so I'm really only just taking in the info.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 07:33:33 PM
I think Kilgore will pull it out.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:33:51 PM
J W Kilgore  Republican 64,387 49.58%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 63,335 48.77%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 1,997 1.54%
  Write Ins    145 0.11%
http://www.sbe.vipnet.org/


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:34:17 PM
Id really like to know where these results are comming from?

Also, how are Kilgore and Kaine running vis-a-vis Lt. Gov and AG candidates?

I can't view the sites because I'm on sort of a slow computer right now, so I'm really only just taking in the info.

Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  J W Kilgore     Republican    64,387    49.58%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    63,335    48.77%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    1,997    1.54%
  Write Ins          145    0.11%
     
Vote Totals:
   129,864    

Office: Lieutenant Governor
Precincts Reporting: 109 of 2426 (4.49%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,062   Total Voting: 109,850   Voter Turnout: 2.47 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  W T Bolling     Republican    63,002    57.35%
  L L Byrne     Democratic    46,652    42.47%
  Write Ins          196    0.18%
     
Vote Totals:
   109,850    

Office: Attorney General
Precincts Reporting: 95 of 2426 (3.92%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,062   Total Voting: 103,109   Voter Turnout: 2.32 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  R F McDonnell     Republican    54,956    53.30%
  R C Deeds     Democratic    48,005    46.56%
  Write Ins          148    0.14%
     
Vote Totals:
   103,109    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:34:19 PM
Im looking at the interactive site and Kaine is leading 53 - 45, but the Dem Lt. Gov. and AG are getting crushed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 07:34:24 PM
the last poll for Detroit mayor race had  Hendrix 43%  Kilpatrick 41%  

hopefully Hendrix will pull it off


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 07:34:46 PM
LOL, be easy.  Still 2000+ precincts to go.

Listen, this is like basketball: everybody knows that a two-pointer in second 15 means nothing, but it is still fun. At this stage it is just that, so for politics fans there is no more shame in shouting stupid things about something insignificant than for sports fans it is to shout "go!" for the stupid ball. It's just innocent fun, that's all.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 07:38:17 PM

Virginia is looking very good for Kaine right now.

Not so much because he is up by 6 in the absolute number, but because he is running 24 points ahead of his party's Lt. Gov candidate.   This must indicate a bunch of right-leaning voters ticket-splitting in Kaine's favor.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 07:39:57 PM

Virginia is looking very good for Kaine right now.

Not so much because he is up by 6 in the absolute number, but because he is running 24 points ahead of his party's Lt. Gov candidate.   This must indicate a bunch of right-leaning voters ticket-splitting in Kaine's favor.

The Gov's race has more precincts reporting than the other 2 races.  That's why Kaine is so far ahead of them.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:40:03 PM
 J W Kilgore     Republican    174,724    63.90%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    95,086    34.78%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    3,433    1.26%
  Write Ins          185    0.07%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 07:41:13 PM
J W Kilgore     Republican    174,724    63.90%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    95,086    34.78%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    3,433    1.26%
  Write Ins          185    0.07%

Big jump for Kilgore there.  Where were those votes coming in from?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 07:41:18 PM
i have been following this campaign for months with my american politics class. i am predicting a kaine victory of somewhere around 50-46.

-wbecker


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:41:31 PM
J W Kilgore     Republican    174,724    63.90%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    95,086    34.78%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    3,433    1.26%
  Write Ins          185    0.07%

Damn, musta been  heavy republican precincts


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:43:15 PM
I have no idea, but that jump doesnt look good.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 07:43:31 PM
J W Kilgore     Republican    174,724    63.90%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    95,086    34.78%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    3,433    1.26%
  Write Ins          185    0.07%

Damn, musta been  heavy republican precincts

Yes but when those good Kaine numbers come in that means we have some swing precincts reporting, right?  :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 07:44:37 PM
CNN is reporting 64-36 Kilgore with 9% of precincts reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:44:55 PM
 J W Kilgore     Republican    236,588    55.65%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    182,053    42.82%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    6,235    1.47%

Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  L L Byrne     Democratic    155,618    50.95%
  W T Bolling     Republican    149,167    48.84%

 R C Deeds     Democratic    150,715    52.60%
  R F McDonnell     Republican    135,480    47.29%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 07:44:58 PM
Where are you getting those numbers from?  I find that last update difficult to believe: It has >80% of the vote going to Kilgore since the last update.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 07:45:53 PM
http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 07:46:13 PM
CNN is reporting 64-36 Kilgore with 9% of precincts reporting.

Is CNN doing all night coverage? Must be a slow news day. Better get to my TV right now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 07:46:57 PM
56-43 Kilgore with 16% reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 07:47:00 PM
Potts is sucking bad so far.

Kaine just closed the gap a little too.  LETS GO NOVA


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 07:47:42 PM
Just as an early observation:  Potts seems to be underproducing the numbers that he got in the polling data.

I overcounted him at 2.3%, I think.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:48:22 PM
J W Kilgore  Republican 275,590 55.17%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 215,394 43.12%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 8,111 1.62%
  Write Ins    397 0.08%
  Vote Totals: 499,492   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 07:48:24 PM
http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm

Their result are really weird...Byrne is running 12 points AHEAD of Kaine right now, although it's 16% reporting vs. 20%.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 07:49:29 PM
55-44 Kilgore with 20%, mostly (by anecdote) in southern Virginia.

10 minutes until New Jersey.

EDIT:  Did anyone else see how VA is listed as 9% turnout with 16% precincts reporting?  What's with that?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Erc on November 08, 2005, 07:52:04 PM
Who's expected to win in the Lt. Governor & Atty General races in Virginia?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 07:52:17 PM
kaine will soon close his gap. the new jersey results will be interesting to see. many predict a last-minute comeback for doug forrester.

-wbecker


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:52:48 PM
Who's expected to win in the Lt. Governor & Atty General races in Virginia?

The Republican Lt. Gov is suppose to win big.  The AG race is a sligh lean to the Republican.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 07:52:48 PM
55-44 Kilgore with 20%, mostly (by anecdote) in southern Virginia.

10 minutes until New Jersey.

EDIT:  Did anyone else see how VA is listed as 9% turnout with 16% precincts reporting?  What's with that?

If it is in Southern Virginia, then it is good news for kaine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 07:53:00 PM
Who's expected to win in the Lt. Governor & Atty General races in Virginia?

Bolling for Lt. Governor
AG will be close


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 07:53:26 PM
Who's expected to win in the Lt. Governor & Atty General races in Virginia?

I think the GOP is expected to win both rather easily.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:53:41 PM
Precincts Reporting: 596 of 2426 (24.57%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 565,860   Voter Turnout: 12.71 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  J W Kilgore     Republican    309,193    54.64%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    246,111    43.49%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    10,123    1.79%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Erc on November 08, 2005, 07:54:12 PM
Considering that Bolling is now down in the Lt. Governor's race, this doesn't exactly bode well for Kaine if conventional wisdom is right about that race and the same precincts are reporting for each race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 07:55:02 PM
CNN: "John Ashcroft, blabla.  We'll be back."

Virginia numbers are really strange.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:55:25 PM
T M Kaine  Democratic 274,553 51.19%
  J W Kilgore  Republican 250,031 46.61%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 11,321 2.11%
  Write Ins    474 0.09%
  Vote Totals: 536,379   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 07:55:38 PM
Some very nice election fraud going on in Brunswick County by my Republicans!!!

Check out these results!

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/025.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MAS117 on November 08, 2005, 07:55:42 PM
How quickly things change...

Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 669 of 2426 (27.58%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 536,379   Voter Turnout: 12.05 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    274,553    51.19%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    250,031    46.61%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    11,321    2.11%
  Write Ins          474    0.09%
     
Vote Totals:
   536,379    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 07:55:57 PM
Potts is picking up steam.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 07:56:31 PM
Don't pay too much attention to these early results, please, it'll drive you insane.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 07:57:18 PM
Precincts Reporting: 596 of 2426 (24.57%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 565,860   Voter Turnout: 12.71 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  J W Kilgore     Republican    309,193    54.64%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    246,111    43.49%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    10,123    1.79%

Gerry Daly (nickshepDem/Alcon alert) is saying that the race in Virginia will be a nailbiter as Kilgore is overperforming Earley and underperforming Bush 2004 in the precincts he has examined.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 07:58:14 PM
Yeah, I knew something was fishy in those "official" results. 

I'm following the Washington Post cite, which I trust more, quite frankly, although it only has 10% reporting right now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 07:59:06 PM
Thanks Sam.

But I really dont understand what Gerry is trying to say.  Kilgore is overperforming, but underperforming in relation to Bush's numbers.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing for Kilgore?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 07:59:26 PM
Precincts Reporting: 596 of 2426 (24.57%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 565,860   Voter Turnout: 12.71 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  J W Kilgore     Republican    309,193    54.64%
  T M Kaine     Democratic    246,111    43.49%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    10,123    1.79%

Gerry Daly (nickshepDem/Alcon alert) is saying that the race in Virginia will be a nailbiter as Kilgore is overperforming Earley and underperforming Bush 2004 in the precincts he has examined.

was Earley Warner's oppostion in 2001?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:00:00 PM
Thanks Sam.

But I really dont understand what Gerry is trying to say.  Kilgore is overperforming, but underperforming in relation to Bush's numbers.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing for Kilgore?

Kilgore is outperforming a Republican who lost, but underperforming Bush.  In other words, it's not a surprise landslide either way.

New numbers with 28%, 51-47.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 08:00:12 PM
Where do you get the numbers?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 08:00:34 PM
Thanks Sam.

But I really dont understand what Gerry is trying to say.  Kilgore is overperforming, but underperforming in relation to Bush's numbers.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing for Kilgore?

He's saying that Kilgore is overperforming compared to Earley 2001, Wa'rner's opposition.

Still early, of course. (no pun intended)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:00:39 PM
Polls closed in NJ.  Ill jump on those numbers in a sec.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 08:00:45 PM
kilgore is likely to underperform bush's 54-45 win here in 2004.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:01:05 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 750 of 2426 (30.92%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 604,862   Voter Turnout: 13.59 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    315,678    52.19%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    276,094    45.65%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    12,563    2.08%
  Write Ins          527    0.09%
     
Vote Totals:
   604,862    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 08, 2005, 08:01:26 PM
Generally speaking....

The best way to get an early track on these thngs is go apples to apples...

Compare the same precienct from 2001 to the same precienct in 2005...

Pay aparticulat attention to the relative turnout beyween the years also....


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:01:56 PM
The reason Kilgore was ahead earlier is because the results from Brunswick County were off, they had Kilgore getting 98% of the vote with 844% turnout.

The results have now been correct and Kaine is up by 6.5% overall:

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/025.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:02:42 PM

CNN, which is echoing the Virginia SoS's site and some other source (they are getting numbers early it seems).

52-46 Kaine with 31% in.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 08:03:10 PM
The reason Kilgore was ahead earlier is because the results from Brunswick County were off, they had Kilgore getting 98% of the vote with 844% turnout.

The results have now been correct and Kaine is up by 6.5% overall:

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/025.htm

Thanks for the clarification.  I was sort of confused.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 08:03:54 PM

CNN, which is echoing the Virginia SoS's site and some other source (they are getting numbers early it seems).

52-46 Kaine with 31% in.

Can I get a link?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:04:18 PM
Thanks for the clarification.  I was sort of confused.

Yep, I knew something was up when Kilgore all of a sudden went from 44% to 65% overall with 85,000 new votes for him.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:04:40 PM
Some very nice election fraud going on in Brunswick County by my Republicans!!!

Check out these results!

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/025.htm

These numbers have since been corrected.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 08:05:20 PM
Going to have to go out now.  Oh well, we'll probably know the results for sure when I get back.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:05:24 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:06:05 PM
These numbers have since been corrected.

Too bad, thought we could get away with it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:06:57 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 

If urban areas have reported but not suburban Fairfax County, that would make sense.

I can't imagine this will be a landslide, and so far everything I have been hearing "trendwise" from either side other than precinct analysis indicates one.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:07:07 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 

My friend who works in a Berger County polling station has said the urban areas have been flooded with voters.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 08:07:32 PM
Link?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:07:58 PM
My friend who works in a Berger County polling station has said the urban areas have been flooded with voters.

Another made up story by Mr. Tweed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 08:08:11 PM
True to form, Matt Drudge currently has the VA numbers reversed.

CORRECTION: Well, he just switched them.
But before, he proclaimed GOP LEADING!
And now he just gives the numbers without comment.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:09:17 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 

My friend who works in a Berger County polling station has said the urban areas have been flooded with voters.

Um...I'm reasonably sure that there is no Berger County in Virginia?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:09:41 PM
Philip -- here you go: http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:10:03 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 

My friend who works in a Berger County polling station has said the urban areas have been flooded with voters.

Um...I'm reasonably sure that there is no Berger County in Virginia?

I meant to say Bergen.  It's a fake story anyway.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:10:11 PM
The Virginia elections return site isn't working real well.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 08:11:01 PM
CN8 is reporting high turnout in Republican areas of New Jersey.  Low turnout in Democratic areas. 

My friend who works in a Berger County polling station has said the urban areas have been flooded with voters.

Um...I'm reasonably sure that there is no Berger County in Virginia?
I think he meant Bergen county in N.J.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:11:12 PM
The Virginia elections return site isn't working real well.

Nope, it's real slow, they can't handle all the traffic I guess.  The british lady on CNN even says it takes a while to load up.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:11:28 PM
The Virginia elections return site isn't working real well.

It's a little slow, but I imagine they're swamped.  It updates every three minutes, though, and has worked fine for me so far.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:11:40 PM
Kaine up by 6.4% with 40% of precincts counted.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 08:12:17 PM
Philip -- here you go: http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm

Thanks :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 08:12:43 PM
I'm surprised the Lt.Gov race is still so close.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:13:05 PM
I'm getting news that Kaine is up 1.7% with 65% of precincts reporting, but I am highly suspect and would not trust these numbers (even though ti is a generally accurate source.)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:13:49 PM
Kaine up by 6.4% with 40% of precincts counted.

Any idea what strong Kilgore areas have yet to be counted?  I can imagine that parts of Northern Virginia haven't posted results yet, but are there any areas where Kilgore can count on a major boost?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 08:14:28 PM
Don't know J-Mann.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:14:38 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 957 of 2426 (39.45%)
Registered Voters: 4,452,012   Total Voting: 756,782   Voter Turnout: 17.00 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    394,570    52.14%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    346,182    45.74%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    15,403    2.04%
  Write Ins          627    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   756,782    



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:14:57 PM
I'm getting news that Kaine is up 1.7% with 65% of precincts reporting, but I am highly suspect and would not trust these numbers (even though ti is a generally accurate source.)

Wow -- what source?  If true, the race has tightened significantly.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:15:12 PM
Kaine up by 6.4% with 40% of precincts counted.

Any idea what strong Kilgore areas have yet to be counted?  I can imagine that parts of Northern Virginia haven't posted results yet, but are there any areas where Kilgore can count on a major boost?

Counties generally leak in results in a way that - once you have checked which areas are reporting and which aren't - the information isn't useful anymore.

I think it is safe to say that parts of NOVA have not yet reported.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:15:19 PM
I'm getting news that Kaine is up 1.7% with 65% of precincts reporting, but I am highly suspect and would not trust these numbers (even though ti is a generally accurate source.)

Is that a fake story or a real story?  And if it is real, what is the source?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:15:27 PM
Ohio has a fast site, but slow vote counters.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 08:15:41 PM
http://news.nbc12.com/returns/

To watch live coverage!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:16:25 PM
I'm getting news that Kaine is up 1.7% with 65% of precincts reporting, but I am highly suspect and would not trust these numbers (even though ti is a generally accurate source.)

Wow -- what source?  If true, the race has tightened significantly.

I have a fellow who is getting information from the campaigns, who seem to have direct access to updating numbers.  But, he says, it is not from his usual sources.  He is not sure if it not just an estimation, but it's from a relatively authoritative source.  I'd disregard it for now.

The Attorney General race is close, too!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:17:55 PM
Any Joisey returns coming in?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:18:08 PM
Results have not been updated in ten minutes...normally every three.  They may be working on a big batch right now.

No Joisey results so far.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 08:18:47 PM
I think this will in fact come down to the wire....Kaine up by 5.3% with almost 50% reporting, but the Lt. Gov race is suspiciously close.  Kaine's got to be the favorite though.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:18:54 PM
Results have not been updated in ten minutes...normally every three.  They may be working on a big batch right now.

No Joisey results so far.

Where are you getting the VA returns?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:19:11 PM
48% reporting

51.6-46.3 Kaine

EDIT: jfern - http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:19:35 PM
Ah, the web site always times out!!!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 08:19:50 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    471    79.97%  
Doug Forrester    Rep    118    20.03%  


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:20:01 PM
Anyone have any idea when polls close in California?  That'll be an interesting one, too.  I'm expecting Sanders to win in San Diego, but most Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives to fail.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:20:14 PM
I think this will in fact come down to the wire....Kaine up by 5.3% with almost 50% reporting, but the Lt. Gov race is suspiciously close.  Kaine's got to be the favorite though.

There is a precinct discrepancy between races; one has 50% reporting, the other with 45%, and the other with 40%, so I wouldn't pay attention to parallels drawn between races just yet.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 08:20:30 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    471    79.97%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    118    20.03% 


Well, landlside Corzine.  Time for bed.

:D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 08:21:02 PM
T M Kaine  Democratic 477,878 51.55%
  J W Kilgore  Republican 429,086 46.29%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 19,226 2.07%
  Write Ins    743 0.08%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 08:21:09 PM

The Attorney General race is close, too!


The Dems where meant to be winning that, our candidate is endorsed by the NRA after all ;) , surprised at the closeness of Lt.Gov race... the Kilgore/Kaine face off close as a badger's wetsuit :D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:21:13 PM
Anyone have any idea when polls close in California?  That'll be an interesting one, too.  I'm expecting Sanders to win in San Diego, but most Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives to fail.

8 Pacific


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:21:28 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    471    79.97%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    118    20.03% 


Where are u getting those?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 08:21:46 PM
Kaine up by 6.4% with 40% of precincts counted.

Any idea what strong Kilgore areas have yet to be counted?  I can imagine that parts of Northern Virginia haven't posted results yet, but are there any areas where Kilgore can count on a major boost?

Not yet.  It's taking too long for the site to load the individual county/city numbers.  Richmond City has numbers reported (obviously for Kaine), but no numbers for Richmond County yet . . . for example.  Prince WIlliam is going for Kilgore at the moment.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:21:55 PM
Anyone have any idea when polls close in California?  That'll be an interesting one, too.  I'm expecting Sanders to win in San Diego, but most Schwarzenegger's ballot initiatives to fail.

11pm EST


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:22:08 PM
48% reporting

51.6-46.3 Kaine

EDIT: jfern - http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm

Kaine has stayed 48,000 votes ahead pretty steadily over the last 10% reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:22:23 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1169 of 2426 (48.19%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,999   Total Voting: 926,933   Voter Turnout: 20.82 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    477,878    51.55%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    429,086    46.29%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    19,226    2.07%
  Write Ins          743    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   926,933    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: patrick1 on November 08, 2005, 08:23:47 PM
Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:24:14 PM
Thanks jfern and Boss Tweed. 

I'm in Fairfax county...haven't heard any results for here yet, and I don't know the political landscape well enough to predict which way it'll go. Kilgore would be my best guess, though.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 08:25:11 PM

How many times can we post the exact same results?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 08, 2005, 08:25:26 PM
Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.

Corzine is truly a slime, but I still find it hard to believe he could lose in Jersey...

Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:25:47 PM
J-Mann:  Fairfax County voted Kerry, and is even more Dem on local level.  Wealthy libertarian Washington suburbs.  It'll go Kaine unless this is a landslide.

And we can stop posting the 5:17 results, folks. :D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:26:28 PM
Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.

Corzine is truly a slime, but I still find it hard to believe he could lose in Jersey...

Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

Well, the guy he's running against is definitely even more of a slime.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:26:53 PM
Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

I'm looking for those as well.  Anyone surprised by the low projected voter turnout in Virginia?  SoS's site has it sitting at 20% -- granted, that could change, but seems awful low for a gubernatorial election.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:27:44 PM
Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.

Corzine is truly a slime, but I still find it hard to believe he could lose in Jersey...

Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

Well, the guy he's running against is definitely even more of a slime.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

It's true. BTW the slimer guy is up 51-47 with 358 precincts.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/5223530/detail.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:28:00 PM
Thanks jfern and Boss Tweed. 

I'm in Fairfax county...haven't heard any results for here yet, and I don't know the political landscape well enough to predict which way it'll go. Kilgore would be my best guess, though.

Fairfax Co. will vote for Kaine as will Arlington County.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on November 08, 2005, 08:28:52 PM
Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

I'm looking for those as well.  Anyone surprised by the low projected voter turnout in Virginia?  SoS's site has it sitting at 20% -- granted, that could change, but seems awful low for a gubernatorial election.

That's not a projected turnout...that the actual number of votes they have counted so far...which would project to about a 43% turnout when all votes are counted.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 08:29:02 PM
Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

I'm looking for those as well.  Anyone surprised by the low projected voter turnout in Virginia?  SoS's site has it sitting at 20% -- granted, that could change, but seems awful low for a gubernatorial election.

20% is not the turnout estimate, but proportion of the registerred voters already counted. So, it is looking like something around 40-45% - I'd say it's high for an off-year (nationally) election.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:29:33 PM
Precincts Reporting: 1348 of 2426 (55.56%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,969   Total Voting: 1,073,496   Voter Turnout: 24.11 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    549,457    51.18%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    499,922    46.57%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    23,157    2.16%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:29:38 PM
Kaine remains up by a similar margin as before with 56% reporting...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:29:43 PM
WA is hitting 60% and the biggest race we have is King County Executive.  It will be higher.  Absentees haven't even started to be counted, I imagine.

51.2-46.6 Kaine with 55.6%.  Seems an update every 10 minutes.

ag, that can't be high.  If WA is supposed to hit 60%, I imagine VA would hit at least 65-70%...?

Forrester is up 51-47 with 6% reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 08, 2005, 08:30:36 PM

It's true. BTW the slimer guy is up 51-47 with 358 precincts.

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/5223530/detail.html

Thank-you for the link :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 08:30:45 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    2,012    67.84%  
Doug Forrester    Rep    954    32.16%  
Wesley Bell    Ind    0    .00%  
Hector Castillo    Ind    0    .00%  
Edward Forchion    LMj    0    .00%  
Angela Lariscy    Soc    0    .00%  
Michael Latigona    Ind    0    .00%  
Jeffrey Pawlowski    Lib    0    .00%  
Costantino Rozzo    SPU    0    .00%  
Matthew Thieke    Grn    0    .00%  


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 08:31:13 PM
Precincts Reporting: 1348 of 2426 (55.56%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,969   Total Voting: 1,073,496   Voter Turnout: 24.11 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    549,457    51.18%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    499,922    46.57%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    23,157    2.16%
  Write Ins          960    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:31:21 PM
Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?

I'm looking for those as well.  Anyone surprised by the low projected voter turnout in Virginia?  SoS's site has it sitting at 20% -- granted, that could change, but seems awful low for a gubernatorial election.

That's not a projected turnout...that the actual number of votes they have counted so far...which would project to about a 43% turnout when all votes are counted.

Ah, makes much more sense.  Thanks NickG and ag.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 08:32:22 PM
J-Mann

Fairfax County with 73% reporting

T M Kaine  Democratic 113,320 60.26%
  J W Kilgore  Republican 71,205 37.86%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 3,382 1.80%


Fairfax City with 0% reporting

J W Kilgore  Republican 0 0.00%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 0 0.00%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 0 0.00%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 08:33:29 PM
WA is hitting 60% and the biggest race we have is King County Executive.  It will be higher.  Absentees haven't even started to be counted, I imagine.

51.2-46.6 Kaine with 55.6%.  Seems an update every 10 minutes.

ag, that can't be high.  If WA is supposed to hit 60%, I imagine VA would hit at least 65-70%...?

Forrester is up 51-47 with 6% reporting.

I guess you are right, it's not high as a proportion of registered voters. What are VA registration rules (i.e., how big is the gap between the number of registered voters and the voting age population)?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 08:33:51 PM




Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.


Corzine is truly a slime, but I still find it hard to believe he could lose in Jersey...

Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?


Well, the guy he's running against is definitely even more of a slime.


Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.


In NJ I’d take a mediocre republican who seems to have the right idea against a machine politician, without any idea where to start cleaning up the state.

Along with Forrester, I hope (don’t expect, but still I hope) Arnie does well on his propositions all of which are fairly moderate and would do a lot to help the state end its decade long run as some basket case (!)    
 
Meanwhile the one race I really care about is here in VA, just hope Kaine pulls it off.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:34:58 PM
J-Mann

Fairfax County with 73% reporting

T M Kaine  Democratic 113,320 60.26%
  J W Kilgore  Republican 71,205 37.86%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 3,382 1.80%


Fairfax City with 0% reporting

J W Kilgore  Republican 0 0.00%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 0 0.00%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 0 0.00%


The fact that Fairfax County is almost done is good for Kilgore.
The fact that Fairfax City hasn't started counting is good for Kaine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:35:29 PM




Jersey NJN has it 51-47 Forrester- No precint and number of votes- very, very early going.


Corzine is truly a slime, but I still find it hard to believe he could lose in Jersey...

Do you have a good link to Jersey results...?


Well, the guy he's running against is definitely even more of a slime.


Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.


In NJ I’d take a mediocre republican who seems to have the right idea against a machine politician, without any idea where to start cleaning up the state.

Along with Forrester, I hope (don’t expect, but still I hope) Arnie does well on his propositions all of which are fairly moderate and would do a lot to help the state end its decade long run as some basket case (!)    
 
Meanwhile the one race I really care about is here in VA, just hope Kaine pulls it off.


Cutting education in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite their very high cost of living, is not moderate.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:35:33 PM
OHIO RESULTS

State Issue 1
Yes       46,541    55.26%
No       37,688    44.74%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    84,229    
 

State Issue 2
No       49,169    56.90%
Yes       37,246    43.10%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    86,415    

State Issue 3
No       51,268    60.16%
Yes       33,945    39.84%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    85,213    
 

State Issue 4
No       55,365    66.40%
Yes       28,010    33.60%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    83,375    
 

State Issue 5
No       54,257    65.73%
Yes       28,287    34.27%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    82,544    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 08:35:41 PM
The NYC NBC link has been posted but here is Philly's  -  http://www.nbc10.com/politics/5224075/detail.html (http://www.nbc10.com/politics/5224075/detail.html)


Forrester - 51%
Corzine - 47%
Other - 2%

6% reporting


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:36:13 PM
J-Mann

Fairfax County with 73% reporting

T M Kaine  Democratic 113,320 60.26%
  J W Kilgore  Republican 71,205 37.86%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 3,382 1.80%


Fairfax City with 0% reporting

J W Kilgore  Republican 0 0.00%
  T M Kaine  Democratic 0 0.00%
  H R Potts Jr  Independent 0 0.00%


Damn, I was way off.  I guess I live in a Republican area...must be an anomoly :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jaichind on November 08, 2005, 08:36:25 PM
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR
(As of 8:31 p.m.)
45 of 6,310 (1 %) reporting.  
Candidate  Votes  
Jon D. Corzine (D) 10,346  
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 7,185  

NY times


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 08:36:55 PM
The fact that Fairfax County is almost done is good for Kilgore.
The fact that Fairfax City hasn't started counting is good for Kaine.

As long as PWC comes through for Bolling, I'll be happy.  :)  I like him.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 08:37:19 PM
Why is the Republican lt. governor candidate winning?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: patrick1 on November 08, 2005, 08:38:09 PM
Corzine just surged to 56-43.  Looks like a city result coming through



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:38:20 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1540 of 2426 (63.48%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,969   Total Voting: 1,221,738   Voter Turnout: 27.44 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    624,912    51.15%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    569,051    46.58%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    26,703    2.19%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:38:30 PM
OHIO RESULTS

State Issue 1
Yes       46,541    55.26%
No       37,688    44.74%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    84,229    
 

State Issue 2
No       49,169    56.90%
Yes       37,246    43.10%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    86,415    

State Issue 3
No       51,268    60.16%
Yes       33,945    39.84%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    85,213    
 

State Issue 4
No       55,365    66.40%
Yes       28,010    33.60%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    83,375    
 

State Issue 5
No       54,257    65.73%
Yes       28,287    34.27%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    82,544    

Sad that all of the RON amendments are currently failing.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 08:38:39 PM
Why is the Republican lt. governor candidate winning?

Because he's better than Byrne (commie in leftist clothing).  hehehe


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 08:38:54 PM
McDonnell has taken the lead from Deeds. Bolling retains lead. Kilgore doneski.

At least the Dems won't be able to build a bench for 2009.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 08:38:57 PM
Detroit mayor election EXIT POLL

Hendrix  52%
Kilpatrick  48%

-/+  4.5


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Erc on November 08, 2005, 08:39:37 PM
All we need to do to get 5000 posts in a month is have an election, obviously.  7 new replies while I'm reading the last page of this....


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 08:39:40 PM
Nobody seems to check the most obvious: NYTimes front page:

Jon D. Corzine (D) 10,346  
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 7,185  




Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:40:03 PM

It aint over yet.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:40:45 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1540 of 2426 (63.48%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,969   Total Voting: 1,221,738   Voter Turnout: 27.44 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    624,912    51.15%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    569,051    46.58%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    26,703    2.19%

No change in percentages....Does anybody know if any national News Network is following these races right now?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:40:58 PM
Nobody seems to check the most obvious: NYTimes front page:

Jon D. Corzine (D) 10,346  
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 7,185  



Weird, they have fewer precincts and more votes reporting than NBC. They definitely have differences sources of information.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jaichind on November 08, 2005, 08:41:10 PM
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR
(As of 8:36 p.m.)
182 of 6,310 (3 %) reporting. 
Candidate  Votes 
Jon D. Corzine (D) 59,121 
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 43,506 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on November 08, 2005, 08:41:18 PM
Those 368 precints are probably out of NW Jersey if I'm a Democrat i'm not worried at all about this election.  

Nice to see Kaine up in VA.  Dems get 60% in Fairfax and the city hasn't even started counting yet?  Good omen for the future of Dems in VA.  Like to see some results out of Appalachia before I get too excited about Virginia.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:41:29 PM
51.2-46.6 Kaine with 63% reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:41:53 PM
Detroit mayor election EXIT POLL

Hendrix  52%
Kilpatrick  48%

-/+  4.5

It looks like the young voters turned out for kilpatrick.....damn


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:42:01 PM
Kaine leads Kilgore 51.15%-46.58% with 63.48% reporting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:42:07 PM
Nobody seems to check the most obvious: NYTimes front page:

Jon D. Corzine (D) 10,346 
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 7,185 


But they're reporting only 3% in -- the WNBC site reported 6%...they haven't consolidated results yet.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 08:42:16 PM
it looks like the 60 or so percent of my students who predicted a kaine victory will be getting the extra 5 points on their quiz tomorrow.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 08:43:45 PM
This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:44:46 PM
This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/

Those are the NY Times numbers.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:44:56 PM
Wow.  The Virginia AG race is close!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:45:42 PM
This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/

Thanks man.  Ive been looking for one with up to date results.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:45:52 PM
Wow.  The Virginia AG race is close!

AG and Lt. Gov. both.  I can't call it quits on the Gov. race yet, but it looks like Kaine is headed towards a victory.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 08:46:12 PM
This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/

Those are the NY Times numbers.

Actually, they are the results. No one owns the numbers, idiot. Thanks for the link with percentages (something your NY Times doesn't have, jfern), AuH2O.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:46:50 PM
As long as Potts keeps that 2-3% buffer between Kaine and kilgore I think kaine will win.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:47:27 PM

Actually, they are the results. No one owns the numbers, idiot. Thanks for the link with percentages (something your NY Times doesn't have, jfern), AuH2O.

Partisanship in full bloom! :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:47:32 PM
This NJ site is good:

http://www.nj.com/elections/electioncoverage/

Those are the NY Times numbers.

Actually, they are the results. No one owns the numbers, idiot. Thanks for the link with percentages (something your NY Times doesn't have, jfern), AuH2O.

The NY Times numbers are currently more up to date.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:47:41 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1634 of 2426 (67.35%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,968   Total Voting: 1,281,318   Voter Turnout: 28.78 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    649,957    50.73%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    602,443    47.02%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    27,840    2.17%
  Write Ins          1,078    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,281,318    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 08:48:53 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1634 of 2426 (67.35%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,968   Total Voting: 1,281,318   Voter Turnout: 28.78 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    649,957    50.73%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    602,443    47.02%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    27,840    2.17%
  Write Ins          1,078    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,281,318    

Gap closed with the latest update.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 08:49:15 PM
the gap is closing slightly, but if kaine stays at least 3 points above kilgore until 80% of precincts are reporting, he is golden.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:49:32 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1634 of 2426 (67.35%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,968   Total Voting: 1,281,318   Voter Turnout: 28.78 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    649,957    50.73%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    602,443    47.02%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    27,840    2.17%
  Write Ins          1,078    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,281,318    

Hmmm, perhaps I spoke too soon regarding confidence in Kaine.  He's still 47,000 ahead, which is consistent with what it has been for an hour now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 08:49:55 PM
Something strong for Kilgore came in.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:50:16 PM
Kilgore is going to win.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 08:50:54 PM
Maybe Va Beach?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: 2952-0-0 on November 08, 2005, 08:50:57 PM
Do you have a link? Was there suddenly a surge from the western VA??


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:51:12 PM

What's the logic behind this?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 08:51:39 PM

Why?



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 08:51:42 PM
Do you have a link? Was there suddenly a surge from the western VA??

It's a prediction and not a fact.  He's been making small gains over the past half hour or so.  He may run out of time here, but I think he'll win in the end by <1%.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:51:59 PM
My source indicates Virginia Beach just reported, accounting for the GOP jump.

CNN: "Cognitive behavioural Cathy...blablabla..."


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:52:07 PM

I noticed before that Henrico had only reported 15%. I would think that would be a strong point for Kilgore when it comes in, right?

EDIT: For those who don't know, Henrico is Richmond suburbia.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:52:17 PM
 259 of 6,310 Precincts Reporting

                                                Jon Corzine   Dem   69,123   52.22%    
                                             Doug Forrester   Rep   60,300   45.55%    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:52:25 PM
This NJ site has weird results.

With  358 precincts, Forrester is leading 3743-3443 (51%-47%)
AND
With  399 precincts, Corzine is leading 92442-82160 (52%-46%)

WTF?

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/5223530/detail.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: memphis on November 08, 2005, 08:53:46 PM

I noticed before that Henrico had only reported 15%. I would think that would be a strong point for Kilgore when it comes in, right?

EDIT: For those who don't know, Henrico is Richmond suburbia.

Henrico went for Warner in 2001


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:54:29 PM
This NJ site has weird results.

With  358 precincts, Forrester is leading 3743-3443 (51%-47%)
AND
With  399 precincts, Corzine is leading 92442-82160 (52%-46%)

WTF?

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/5223530/detail.html


In early results, oftentimes in a rush someone will double precincts, put in the wrong number.  It happened just about an hour ago, and sometimes goes unnoticed for a while.

A good example is Grays Harbor County in the 2004 WA race - it was going for Rossi until someone noticed they have doubled the eastern part of the county.  They probably would not have noticed for even longer if that hadn't given the county 92% turnout!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:55:13 PM
NY Times has different NJ numbers, Corzine up 91895 (51%) to Forresters 82150 (46%) with 259 precincts.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 08:55:57 PM
I've looked at some counties and cities and cross-checked them with 2004 and 2001. I don't think Kilgore can win, regardless of a good performance in the SW.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:56:08 PM
how is the detroit race goin


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 08:56:12 PM
Why is the Washington Post showing different numbers with the same amount of votes in?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2005/va/index.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 08:56:25 PM

I noticed before that Henrico had only reported 15%. I would think that would be a strong point for Kilgore when it comes in, right?

EDIT: For those who don't know, Henrico is Richmond suburbia.

Henrico went for Warner in 2001

You are right, I guess I was basing it off Bush's performance in 04 (won by 8%)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: memphis on November 08, 2005, 08:56:37 PM
I've looked at some counties and cities and cross-checked them with 2004 and 2001. I don't think Kilgore can win, regardless of a good performance in the SW.
sweet


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 08:57:32 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1754 of 2426 (72.30%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,952   Total Voting: 1,374,938   Voter Turnout: 30.88 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    698,426    50.80%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    645,552    46.95%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    29,841    2.17%
  Write Ins          1,119    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,374,938    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:57:37 PM
Reform Ohio Now is getting blown out..

State Issue 1
Yes       98,168    53.27%
No       86,123    46.73%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    184,291    

State Issue 2
No       123,174    63.91%
Yes       69,560    36.09%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    192,734    

State Issue 3
No       127,602    67.13%
Yes       62,479    32.87%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    190,081    

State Issue 4
No       134,625    71.79%
Yes       52,902    28.21%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    187,527    

State Issue 5
No       133,032    71.39%
Yes       53,312    28.61%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 08:57:59 PM

EXIT POLL

hendrix   52%
kilpatrick 48%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 08:58:31 PM
Jtfdem, you're damn fast.

BTW, nickshep, can you provide the names are the issues too?  I'd like to know what is being pounded so badly.

52-48 Hendrix?  No wonder I hate exit polls.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 08:58:50 PM
Anyone have a link to where I can watch live results from VA?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:58:56 PM
Reform Ohio Now is getting blown out..

State Issue 1
Yes       98,168    53.27%
No       86,123    46.73%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    184,291    

State Issue 2
No       123,174    63.91%
Yes       69,560    36.09%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    192,734    

State Issue 3
No       127,602    67.13%
Yes       62,479    32.87%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    190,081    

State Issue 4
No       134,625    71.79%
Yes       52,902    28.21%
Breakdown By County    Total Votes    187,527    

State Issue 5
No       133,032    71.39%
Yes       53,312    28.61%

Ohio likes curroption, obviously. Why else would they vote for people like Gov. Taft and Bush that they disapprove of. It's too much of a 1 party state to actually think for itself.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 08:59:15 PM
Kilgore looked as if he was catching up (slowly) for a time, but he's back to being 4% roughly behind, and back by 53,000 now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 08:59:32 PM
I call VA for Kaine. He's up 50.80%-46.95% with 72.30% reporting.

Republicans are leading for Lt Governor and Attorney General.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:00:28 PM
CNN's Larry King Live: "Jennifer Aniston elected Governor of Virginia"


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 09:00:41 PM
C-SPAN according to their website is suppose to be covering these races but all I see is Arlen Specter in a committee meeting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:00:56 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    238,063    52.19%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    204,388    44.80% 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:01:04 PM
Corzine - 52%
Forrester - 44%
Other - 3%

22% reporting

http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm (http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 08, 2005, 09:01:10 PM
I call VA for Kaine. He's up 50.80%-46.95% with 72.30% reporting.

Republicans are leading for Lt Governor and Attorney General.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm

Great, we were all waiting on your "call."

I'll go ahead and call the Lt. Gov race for Bolling, and AG race for McDonnell, though the AG race is razor tight.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:01:14 PM
Jon Corzine Dem 91,895   51.40%    
Doug Forrester   Rep   82,150   45.95%    
   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 09:01:17 PM
I call VA for Kaine. He's up 50.80%-46.95% with 72.30% reporting.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm

The impatience in my blood is willing to make the same call.  Catching up over 50,000 votes with less than 30% to go would take a lot for Kilgore.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Reaganfan on November 08, 2005, 09:02:06 PM
Hannity and Colmes will have updated results this hour


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:02:17 PM
Any idea if SW Virginia is in yet?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:02:33 PM
I call VA for Kaine. He's up 50.80%-46.95% with 72.30% reporting.

Republicans are leading for Lt Governor and Attorney General.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm

Great, we were all waiting on your "call."

I'll go ahead and call the Lt. Gov race for Bolling, and AG race for McDonnell, though the AG race is razor tight.


The AG race is too close to call.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jaichind on November 08, 2005, 09:02:59 PM
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR
(As of 9:00 p.m.)
1,252 of 6,310 (20 %) reporting. 
Candidate  Votes 
Jon D. Corzine (D) 238,063
(52%)
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 204,388
(45%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 09:03:05 PM
Kilgore's done, with 95% certainty.

Only interesting thing now is the lt. governor race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 09:03:12 PM
CNN's Larry King Live: "Jennifer Aniston elected Governor of Virginia"

LOL!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 09:04:05 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1773 of 2426 (73.08%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,866   Total Voting: 1,390,592   Voter Turnout: 31.24 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    705,775    50.75%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    653,339    46.98%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    30,342    2.18%
  Write Ins          1,136    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,390,592    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:04:16 PM
Jon Corzine Dem 91,895   51.40%    
Doug Forrester   Rep   82,150   45.95%    
   

Stop looking at whatever you are looking at.


Jon Corzine  Dem   258,298 52%
 Doug Forrester  GOP   218,659 44%
 Others  Others   15,372 3%


http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm (http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:04:23 PM
I don't know i we will get detroit election results the FBI is investigating the city clerk for mishandling and use of absentee ballots


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on November 08, 2005, 09:04:39 PM
Ohio likes curroption, obviously. Why else would they vote for people like Gov. Taft and Bush that they disapprove of. It's too much of a 1 party state to actually think for itself.

Shut the fuck up.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 09:05:11 PM
Just look at Fairfax County:

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/nov2005/059.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on November 08, 2005, 09:05:28 PM
52-45 Corzine

23% reporting


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:05:55 PM
Jon Corzine Dem 91,895   51.40%    
Doug Forrester   Rep   82,150   45.95%    
   

Stop looking at whatever you are looking at.


Jon Corzine  Dem   258,298 52%
 Doug Forrester  GOP   218,659 44%
 Others  Others   15,372 3%


http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm (http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm)

Thanks.  Damn my link is way out of date.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:08:01 PM
Heh, looks like MAS pegged the Other vote after all 3%.  I know its early...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:08:14 PM
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 1805 of 2426 (74.40%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,835   Total Voting: 1,419,678   Voter Turnout: 31.89 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    718,541    50.61%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    669,100    47.13%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    30,887    2.18%
  Write Ins          1,150    0.08%
     
Vote Totals:
   1,419,678    


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 09:08:42 PM
Ap just projected Kaine the winner.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:08:49 PM
After taking a quick look at the county-by-county results it appears SW VA has already reported for the most part.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:09:11 PM
Jon Corzine Dem 91,895   51.40%    
Doug Forrester   Rep   82,150   45.95%    
   

Stop looking at whatever you are looking at.


Jon Corzine  Dem   258,298 52%
 Doug Forrester  GOP   218,659 44%
 Others  Others   15,372 3%


http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm (http://www.kywonline.com/election/race101.htm)

Thanks.  Damn my link is way out of date.

NY Times now has better numbers.

1415 precincts

Jon D. Corzine (D) 268,980
(52%)
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 232,052
(45%)


http://www.nytimes.com

Oh, and this one looks a little better.
http://www.wnbc.com/politics/5223530/detail.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:11:03 PM
J-Mann just pointed out (and Jtfdem as well) that the Associated Press has called Virginia for Kaine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:11:16 PM
Drduge is calling VA for Kaine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:11:38 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    268,980    51.97%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    232,052    44.84%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:11:52 PM

Before only the AP had called it. I'm glad that someone reliable called it now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:12:33 PM

Before only the AP had called it. I'm glad that someone reliable called it now.

Drudge likely called it based on the AP.  He rarely does things on his own.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:13:20 PM
I hate these premature calls.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 09:13:31 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    268,980    51.97%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    232,052    44.84%


GO FORRESTER!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:13:55 PM

Before only the AP had called it. I'm glad that someone reliable called it now.

Drudge likely called it based on the AP.  He rarely does things on his own.

Indeed, Drudge has spent his entire career rephrasing other people's sentences.  And he does it damn well.

The AP call is way premature though.  I'm pretty sure Kaine will win, but this was way too early.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:15:00 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    268,980    51.97%   
Doug Forrester    Rep    232,052    44.84%


GO FORRESTER!

   Jon Corzine   Dem    363,172   53.56%    
   Doug Forrester   Rep   295,456      43.57%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:15:05 PM
1826 precints reporting

Jon D. Corzine (D) 363,172 (54%)
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 295,456  (44%)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 09:15:34 PM
God I hate Hannity. Trying to spin the results..


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:15:59 PM
1826 precints reporting

Jon D. Corzine (D) 363,172 (54%)
Douglas R. Forrester (R) 295,456  (44%)

And...........Matthew Thieke    Grn    2,758    .53% 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:16:19 PM
Governor  -- 1,815 of 2,395 precincts reporting (76%)
   Timothy M. Kaine   743,526   51%   
   Jerry W. Kilgore   675,748   47%   
   H. Russell Potts Jr.   32,836   2%   

According to CBS 6, Richmond

http://www.wtvr.com/Global/link.asp?L=171578


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 09:17:02 PM
God I hate Hannity. Trying to spin the results..

What is he saying?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:17:07 PM
Drudge now with a call on NJ for Corzine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:17:29 PM
Bloomberg up 81%-17% (must be Staten Island) with 1 precinct.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:17:35 PM
Precincts Reporting: 1889 of 2426 (77.86%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,795   Total Voting: 1,491,113   Voter Turnout: 33.49 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    755,750    50.68%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    701,867    47.07%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    32,316    2.17%
  Write Ins          1,180    0.08%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:17:52 PM
Fox (local) and WJR radio show

Hendrix 48%
Kilpatrick 52%

this is actual results but it did not say what % of precints


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:18:06 PM
Fox is in full damage control.  Corzine won be acting conservative.  Bush is not dragging Republicans...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:18:19 PM
Corzine could end up doing better than Kerry in NJ.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 08, 2005, 09:18:26 PM

Before only the AP had called it. I'm glad that someone reliable called it now.

Drudge likely called it based on the AP.  He rarely does things on his own.

Indeed, Drudge has spent his entire career rephrasing other people's sentences.  And he does it damn well.

The AP call is way premature though.  I'm pretty sure Kaine will win, but this was way too early.

Fox News just called it as well.


So did HGTV.  *dies laughin*


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:18:44 PM
Governor  -- 1,949 of 2,395 precincts reporting (81%)
   Timothy M. Kaine   810,464   51%   (X)
   Jerry W. Kilgore   736,530   47%   
   H. Russell Potts Jr.   35,758   2%   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:19:21 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 09:19:34 PM

Before only the AP had called it. I'm glad that someone reliable called it now.

Drudge likely called it based on the AP.  He rarely does things on his own.

Indeed, Drudge has spent his entire career rephrasing other people's sentences.  And he does it damn well.

The AP call is way premature though.  I'm pretty sure Kaine will win, but this was way too early.

Fox News just called it as well.


So did HGTV.  *dies laughin*

LOL! And Oxygen? They're the final word, ya know.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: A18 on November 08, 2005, 09:19:39 PM
Fox is in full damage control.  Corzine won be acting conservative.  Bush is not dragging Republicans...

Fox or Hannity?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:19:57 PM
I call Bolling for VA Lt. Governor. McDonnel will likely win the AG race, but still too close to call.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:20:16 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    378,549    52.48%  
Doug Forrester    Rep    321,243    44.53%
Matthew Thieke    Grn    3,630    .50%  


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:20:28 PM
Larry Sabato's hair looks like my grandmother's.

Someone needs to food Alan Colmes a sandwich.  He looks like he is about to collapse.

Someone's cell phone just rang on Fox News.

I don't have numbers but I'm being reminded of why I hate the television.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: wbecker on November 08, 2005, 09:20:45 PM
unless kilgore receives all remaining votes, this election has been won by tim kaine. this is a big win for the democratic party.

-wbecker


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:20:51 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


With VA wrapping up and early calls on NJ, interest in the lower card matches should pick up.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:20:56 PM
Fox is in full damage control.  Corzine won be acting conservative.  Bush is not dragging Republicans...

Fox or Hannity?

Dick Morris.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:21:44 PM
Sabato said, Warners 2008 stock is about to skyrocket.  Allens will drop because Kilgore was Allens protege.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 08, 2005, 09:22:00 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


I cant believe Kilpatrick is leading. What are the people of detroit smoking, I thought this would be a cake walk for Hendrix


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: patrick1 on November 08, 2005, 09:22:17 PM
Forrester will make up votes in his areas but I don;t think he can close the 80,000 vote gap with 36% reporting


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 09:23:05 PM
What is Hannity saying?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:23:18 PM
with the Detroit election so close we may not know the result tonight

like I said earlier but no one cared,  the FBI is after the city clerk she is banned from counting the absentee ballots


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 09:23:54 PM
Colmes just said "New Jersey has been neck and neck for weeks." :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:24:01 PM
with the Detroit election so close we may not know the result tonight

like I said earlier but no one cared,  the FBI is after the city clerk she is banned from counting the absentee ballots

I had no idea Mrs. Logan lived in Detroit.  :D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:24:04 PM
Wow, in LA county, people's polling places were changed at 10PM last night, too late to notify them. What BS.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:24:42 PM
 Question: Create Lt Governor Office
 1,411 of 6,310 Precincts Reporti

Yes    172,881    55.53%   
No    138,441    44.47% 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 09:25:10 PM
Governor Tim Kaine :D

And my argument, that I’ve been making since the early part of the summer that Kaine would close the gap and gain a “second wind” during the final week or two is proved devastatingly accurate… smug is an understatement ;)    

…still think Deeds will win AG race, he’s endorsed by the NRA and he’s a well liked candidate, if Kaine’s won I’d be surprised if Deeds didn’t. Kinda glad we Byrne got beat, not that there was any real prospect of her ever winning in the first place.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:25:17 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


I cant believe Kilpatrick is leading. What are the people of detroit smoking, I thought this would be a cake walk for Hendrix

kilpatrick is a very good campaigner

he and his supporters have used the race card and Detroit vs. the suburbs to divide and win.  Kilpatrick's a dirty scumbag


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:25:44 PM
I suppose no hope for RON? Issue 2 is the closest, it's only going down 37.6%-62.4% right now.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/Results/RaceSummary.aspx


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:26:35 PM
Question: Create Lt Governor Office
 1,411 of 6,310 Precincts Reporti

Yes    172,881    55.53%   
No    138,441    44.47% 

¿Qué estado es?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:26:47 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


I cant believe Kilpatrick is leading. What are the people of detroit smoking, I thought this would be a cake walk for Hendrix

kilpatrick is a very good campaigner

he and his supporters have used the race card and Detroit vs. the suburbs to divide and win.  Kilpatrick's a dirty scumbag
The lynching ad was disgusting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:27:01 PM
Sabato pretty much said that Corzine has the race won.
Question: Create Lt Governor Office
 1,411 of 6,310 Precincts Reporti

Yes    172,881    55.53%  
No    138,441    44.47% 

¿Qué estado es?

NJ


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:27:20 PM
Question: Create Lt Governor Office
 1,411 of 6,310 Precincts Reporti

Yes    172,881    55.53%   
No    138,441    44.47% 

¿Qué estado es?
Nuevo Joisey


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:27:37 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


I cant believe Kilpatrick is leading. What are the people of detroit smoking, I thought this would be a cake walk for Hendrix

kilpatrick is a very good campaigner

he and his supporters have used the race card and Detroit vs. the suburbs to divide and win.  Kilpatrick's a dirty scumbag
The lynching ad was disgusting.

 wow you heard about that ad


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jokerman on November 08, 2005, 09:27:54 PM
I would think that Potts would perform strongest in the DC suburbs.  Instead, he is getting a uniform 2% from all across the state.  My guess his support is comming from chiefly name recognition.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:28:05 PM
I suppose no hope for RON? Issue 2 is the closest, it's only going down 37.6%-62.4% right now.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/Results/RaceSummary.aspx

What were each of them again?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:28:08 PM
yeah no one really cares about Detroit election


I cant believe Kilpatrick is leading. What are the people of detroit smoking, I thought this would be a cake walk for Hendrix

kilpatrick is a very good campaigner

he and his supporters have used the race card and Detroit vs. the suburbs to divide and win.  Kilpatrick's a dirty scumbag
The lynching ad was disgusting.

 wow you heard about that ad
Ya i did


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:28:23 PM
Kaine has a good sized lead now. 51.31%-46.44% with 88.13% reporting. Deeds might still have a chance, he's down only 49.62%-50.30% now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 09:29:37 PM
Warner's stock for the 2008 nomination has gone up 1% today.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:29:50 PM
I suppose no hope for RON? Issue 2 is the closest, it's only going down 37.6%-62.4% right now.

http://www.sos.state.oh.us/Results/RaceSummary.aspx

What were each of them again?

2 -  Making it easier to vote by allowing all Ohioans to vote by mail.

3 -  Helping stop the influence of big money in elections by greatly reducing campaign contributions.

4 -  Stopping the politicians from drawing their own legislative districts and putting an Independent Commission in charge of this process.

5 - Placing a bi-partisan Board of Supervisors in charge of Ohio's elections, instead of a partisan official who backs candidates and takes sides in elections.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 09:30:07 PM
Deeds down by less than 11,000 votes with 83% reporting. Let's go Deeds!!

Bolling has pretty much won it.

Kaine is the next governor of Virginia!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:30:14 PM
I know this is a bit premature, but does anyone know where I can find a link to a VA tv station covering the election??


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 09:30:27 PM

Kaine has a good sized lead now. 51.31%-46.44% with 88.13% reporting. Deeds might still have a chance, he's down only 49.62%-50.30% now.


Where’s left to count?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:30:41 PM
Warner's stock for the 2008 nomination has gone up 1% today.

I see that Kilgore victory really helped him a lot. ;)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 08, 2005, 09:31:02 PM

Deeds down by less than 11,000 votes with 83% reporting. Let's go Deeds!!


The mask slips ;)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:31:10 PM
()
Stick a fork in him!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on November 08, 2005, 09:31:26 PM
2 -  Making it easier to vote by allowing all Ohioans to vote by mail.

And making it easier for fraud, voter manipulation and intimidation to take place.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 09:31:34 PM
And other good news, traitor Randy Kelly has been booted from office:

70% In

Coleman 70%
Kelly       30%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:32:04 PM
Fox News is now reporting that Tim Kaine has defeated Tim Kaine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:32:19 PM
And other good news, traitor Randy Kelly has been booted from office:

70% In

Coleman 70%
Kelly       30%
YAY!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:32:49 PM
2 -  Making it easier to vote by allowing all Ohioans to vote by mail.

And making it easier for fraud, voter manipulation and intimidation to take place.

I find it unacceptable that Ohio has neither no excuse absentee voting or early voting. In California you can sign up for permanent absentee voting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on November 08, 2005, 09:32:59 PM
Fox News is now reporting that Tim Kaine has defeated Tim Kaine.

That's quite an upset.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 09:33:06 PM
Associated Press projects Corzine the winner!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 09:33:14 PM
Looks like Deeds will probably come up just short. He is now down 13,000 votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:33:35 PM
Jon Corzine    Dem    514,326    53.34%  
Doug Forrester    Rep    420,463    43.61%  
Hector Castillo    Ind    10,246    1.06%  
Jeffrey Pawlowski    Lib    6,215    .64%  
Matthew Thieke    Grn    4,649    .48%  


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:33:42 PM
based on an TELEPHONE EXIT POLL  

Local 4 (NBC)  has called the race for Hendrix

this race is all over the place  I doubt this is true  there are lots of absentee ballots

http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5282644/detail.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 09:33:53 PM
Fox News is now reporting that Tim Kaine has defeated Tim Kaine.

Yeah, I heard that.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:34:09 PM
Fox News is now reporting that Tim Kaine has defeated Tim Kaine.

LOL

Associated Press projects Corzine the winner!!

Obviously Kaine and Bolling have already won in VA, and Corzine in NJ. Only close race now is VA AG.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on November 08, 2005, 09:34:13 PM
AP calls it for Corzine


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:34:44 PM
There are still afew holdouts with hope for Kilgore.  Some of them are doing some number crunching.  Unless everything left is heavily Republican, I have a hard tome seeing how this result changes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:35:11 PM
When does Corzine appoint his replacement?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:36:05 PM
Poor New Jersey.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on November 08, 2005, 09:36:17 PM
Latest from NJ:

Edward Forchion      LMj   3,752   0.39%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:36:50 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 08, 2005, 09:38:01 PM
What's with FOX using music during people are speaking to make them stop?  This isn't the Academy Awards.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:38:10 PM
Latest from NJ:

Edward Forchion      LMj   3,752   0.39%
WeedMan!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:38:13 PM
RON is toast, not even leading in Cuyahago county.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:38:21 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:38:55 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Kilgore was supposed to win this one, and people were claiming that the NJ race was close.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:39:34 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P
You know what i mean.
Corzine didn't win by so and so percentage.......


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:39:41 PM
If Bolling wins and McDonnell holds on, then the Republicans pick up an office in VA.

There's your spin for you :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:39:52 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Well, a traditionally deomcrat state at the state level went for a democrat and a close state at the state level went democrat when their candidate proved a strong finisher and the republican had an ad backfire.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: patrick1 on November 08, 2005, 09:40:04 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Exactly what I was thinking.  The Republicans own NYC.  All kind of a non sequitor.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:40:50 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P
You know what i mean.
Corzine didn't win by so and so percentage.......

If he wins by less than five points than he won't be happy. Remember that he had this locked up? Remember how it would be a landslide?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 08, 2005, 09:41:25 PM
NJ Gov Race

Socialist Angela Lariscy-625; .07%

Yay!....i think. ;) ;D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:41:33 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P
You know what i mean.
Corzine didn't win by so and so percentage.......

If he wins by less than five points than he won't be happy. Remember that he had this locked up? Remember how it would be a landslide?

So far his margin of victory is better than Kerry's.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: King on November 08, 2005, 09:41:50 PM
Why are they calling a race with a 10 point difference at 40% precincts reporting?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:42:10 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P
You know what i mean.
Corzine didn't win by so and so percentage.......

If he wins by less than five points than he won't be happy. Remember that he had this locked up? Remember how it would be a landslide?

Remember what a wise man said about NJ voters breaking late and hard? 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:42:26 PM
Why are they calling a race with a 10 point difference at 40% precincts reporting?

You can look at the other 60%, and if they're not too much more conservative, you call it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 09:42:29 PM
This is another example of SUSA going seriously wacky.

Kaine is HIGHLY unlikely to get more that 48% of the vote, and Kilgore is HIGHLY unlikely to get less than 45% of the vote.

Potts is likely to get between 2% to 5% of the vote.

Hmmm...

89% precincts reporting

  T M Kaine     Democratic    882,671    51.33%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    798,104    46.41%

Interestingly enough, that last SUSA poll seemed to be almost dead on for how much Kaine is looking to get.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:42:44 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Phil,

You are right, of course. However, let the Leftists have their moment of glory tonight. If they want to get this excited about RETAINING two Governorships, then it gives you a pretty good idea just how bad off they have been in recent years. So let the Dems and their fellatio partners in the Mainstream Media have their day in the sun, and let's put our focus back on keeping the nation strong and vital.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 08, 2005, 09:43:05 PM
http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5280766/detail.html (http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5280766/detail.html)

actual results


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: WalterMitty on November 08, 2005, 09:43:21 PM
new jersey has no shame.

maybe one day theyll elect a decent governor.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Kevinstat on November 08, 2005, 09:43:25 PM
In Maine, an attempt to repeal a recently enacted Gay rights law is losing by 14 points with 18% of precincts reporting.  Maine voters had twice voted the other way by narrow margins.

I'm happy with that result, although I was a little uneasy that the law covered the transgendered.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:44:27 PM
Office: Lieutenant Governor
Precincts Reporting: 2171 of 2426 (89.49%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,723   Total Voting: 1,692,399   Voter Turnout: 38.02 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  W T Bolling     Republican    859,903    50.81%
  L L Byrne     Democratic    829,317    49.00%

Office: Attorney General
Precincts Reporting: 2170 of 2426 (89.45%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,723   Total Voting: 1,689,284   Voter Turnout: 37.95 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  R F McDonnell     Republican    845,890    50.07%
  R C Deeds     Democratic    841,974    49.84%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 09:44:48 PM
Less than 4000 gap for VA AG with 89.45% reporting. What are the recount rules?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on November 08, 2005, 09:45:22 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Phil,

You are right, of course. However, let the Leftists have their moment of glory tonight. If they want to get this excited about RETAINING two Governorships, then it gives you a pretty good idea just how bad off they have been in recent years. So let the Dems and their fellatio partners in the Mainstream Media have their day in the sun, and let's put our focus back on keeping the nation strong and vital.

::) ::) ::)  If it looks like spin, and it sounds like spin....


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Speed of Sound on November 08, 2005, 09:46:06 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Phil,

You are right, of course. However, let the Leftists have their moment of glory tonight. If they want to get this excited about RETAINING two Governorships, then it gives you a pretty good idea just how bad off they have been in recent years. So let the Dems and their fellatio partners in the Mainstream Media have their day in the sun, and let's put our focus back on keeping the nation strong and vital.

I agree that it is sad that other Dems are getting so cocky. Naturally, you celebrate over any victory, but this is getting a bit ridiculous. I will to disagree with the rest of your statement, however.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:46:33 PM
Spin it baby, spin it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 08, 2005, 09:47:53 PM
I don't see anyone sucking anyones dick or gloating.
Sounds like sour grapes to me.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 09:49:11 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Phil,

You are right, of course. However, let the Leftists have their moment of glory tonight. If they want to get this excited about RETAINING two Governorships, then it gives you a pretty good idea just how bad off they have been in recent years. So let the Dems and their fellatio partners in the Mainstream Media have their day in the sun, and let's put our focus back on keeping the nation strong and vital.

A Democrat is looking to win with a majority of the vote in Virginia, in which, originally, Kilgore was by far and away the favorite, and which is a state that is not exactly known for its Democratic streak.

If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:49:35 PM

Spin NYC.  :P

NJ is not a big deal, machine politics stay in place.

VA could be big if Kaine can move the state leftward in presidential elections.  Or if they sweep all the top 3 offices.  Retaining a gubenatorial swing state is good for the dems, though.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:50:38 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:51:32 PM


If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

When the GOP retained the RI Governor spot, I wasn't going crazy.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:51:55 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

The Democrats won two potentially close races.  What, they are not supposed to be happy about that?  If they were saying that this is a big chance toward Democratic leadership, I would disagree strongly, but being happy about victories is fine.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 09:52:10 PM
VA AG is coming down to a photo finish.

WIth 89.65% reporting, McDonnell leads 50.08%-49.84%. That's 4151 votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:52:31 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

I wasnt pointing you out in particular.  I just find it funny that when Democrats celebrate two solid victories you and others point out how desperate we are.  Let us celebrate, it was a good night for us.  And if we win big CA, it will have been a great night.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Cashcow on November 08, 2005, 09:52:43 PM
Kilpatrick is human scum.

Here's hoping for a blowout.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:52:48 PM
I can't wait for the conservatives to spin this one.

Democrats keep Democratic Gubernatorial offices. Spin or fact?  :P

Phil,

You are right, of course. However, let the Leftists have their moment of glory tonight. If they want to get this excited about RETAINING two Governorships, then it gives you a pretty good idea just how bad off they have been in recent years. So let the Dems and their fellatio partners in the Mainstream Media have their day in the sun, and let's put our focus back on keeping the nation strong and vital.

A Democrat is looking to win with a majority of the vote in Virginia, in which, originally, Kilgore was by far and away the favorite, and which is a state that is not exactly known for its Democratic streak.

If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

Gabu,

A Republican DID win in New York, which is far more Democratic than Virginia is Republican. Also, Virginia was held by a very effective and very popular Democratic Governor, who was pretty much given the free hand to appoint his successor. This victory in Virginia is more about the sound government of the Warner Administration than it is a repudiation of George Bush as Dems are trying to spin.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 09:53:44 PM
Deeds could still win, he is only behind by 4000 votes with precincts still to come in from Richmond and Fairfax County.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 09:54:21 PM
Bob Menendez is already sending his best wishes to Corzine. Senator Menendez, anyone? I am really starting to get sick with NJ.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:54:48 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

I wasnt pointing you out in particular.  I just find it funny that when Democrats celebrate two solid victories you and others point out how desperate we are.  Let us celebrate, it was a good night for us.  And if we win big CA, it will have been a great night.

That's a fair point Nick. My point though is that many Democrats are turning the Virginia election into a referendum on Bush, and that's just ridiculous.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on November 08, 2005, 09:55:04 PM
VA is a very good win for the Democrats.  Kilgore was ahead by 10% at midsummer!  NJ is nothing special, but VA can be bragged about.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:55:18 PM
Mark,

Democrat wins a close win in a weakly Republican state in a race where the Republican was, for a long time, heavily favoured.

Republican wins an expeccted landslide in a heavily Democratic city.

Which is more immediately exciting?  The first, because it is not expected.  It is natural human emotion to be excited about competitive races.  I don't see why it surprises you that Democrats are exciting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:55:25 PM
Winner     Candidate     Party      Incumbent     Votes     Vote %
X    Jon Corzine    Dem       657,887    54%
   Doug Forrester    GOP       521,655    42%
   Others    Others       37,299    3%

Looks like MAS' 'Other' number will hold.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 09:55:28 PM


If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

When the GOP retained the RI Governor spot, I wasn't going crazy.

I don't see anyone "going crazy".  There are a lot of Democrats who are happy to see these results, for sure, but I don't see anything abnormal in taking pleasure in a victory for one's own team.  Are we supposed to be going "ho hum, Kaine won, big deal"?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:56:06 PM
Precincts Reporting: 2204 of 2426 (90.85%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,724   Total Voting: 1,722,869   Voter Turnout: 38.70 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  R F McDonnell     Republican    864,912    50.20%
  R C Deeds     Democratic    856,502    49.71%
  Write Ins          1,455    0.08%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:56:46 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

I wasnt pointing you out in particular.  I just find it funny that when Democrats celebrate two solid victories you and others point out how desperate we are.  Let us celebrate, it was a good night for us.  And if we win big CA, it will have been a great night.

That's a fair point Nick. My point though is that many Democrats are turning the Virginia election into a referendum on Bush, and that's just ridiculous.

I don't think VA was a referendum on Bush, as much as a combination of a referendum on Warner and a less than spectacular candidate in Kilgore.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:56:54 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

The Democrats won two potentially close races.  What, they are not supposed to be happy about that?  If they were saying that this is a big chance toward Democratic leadership, I would disagree strongly, but being happy about victories is fine.

Alcon, I essentially agree with what you said. My comments are aimed at the gleeful Dems who are viewing these races as a "proxy battle" between Bush and the Dems in general.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:56:59 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

I wasnt pointing you out in particular.  I just find it funny that when Democrats celebrate two solid victories you and others point out how desperate we are.  Let us celebrate, it was a good night for us.  And if we win big CA, it will have been a great night.

That's a fair point Nick. My point though is that many Democrats are turning the Virginia election into a referendum on Bush, and that's just ridiculous.

Well, we knew that was going to happen.  Had Kilgore won the right would have glorified Bush for saving him.  I knew it was going to be spun regardless of the winner.

The midterms are still a long way off.  Trust me, I am definitely not counting my chickens a year out.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 09:57:22 PM
A Republican DID win in New York, which is far more Democratic than Virginia is Republican. Also, Virginia was held by a very effective and very popular Democratic Governor, who was pretty much given the free hand to appoint his successor. This victory in Virginia is more about the sound government of the Warner Administration than it is a repudiation of George Bush as Dems are trying to spin.

Yeah, but everyone already knew that Bloomburg was going to win.  To my knowledge, he had no serious opposition.

Kaine, on the other hand, is somewhat of an underdog, since, as I said, Kilgore was by far the favorite to win early on in the race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 08, 2005, 09:57:27 PM
Um, could someone point me to results for these races. I don't feel like paging through what looks like a 28 page bitchfest.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 09:58:34 PM
Um, could someone point me to results for these races. I don't feel like paging through what looks like a 28 page bitchfest.

VA: Kaine wins, Lt. Gov: Bolling (R), slightly up, AG: too close to call
NJ: Corzine declared winner


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 09:59:14 PM
Um, could someone point me to results for these races. I don't feel like paging through what looks like a 28 page bitchfest.

Jake,

Precincts Reporting:    3813     Of    6310     60%

X    Jon Corzine    Dem       680,646    54%
   Doug Forrester    GOP       538,669    42%
   Others    Others       38,757    3%

T M Kaine     Democratic    942,020    51.55%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    843,897    46.18%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    39,921    2.18%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 09:59:21 PM
Um, could someone point me to results for these races. I don't feel like paging through what looks like a 28 page bitchfest.
Office: Governor
Precincts Reporting: 2284 of 2426 (94.15%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,724   Total Voting: 1,827,425   Voter Turnout: 41.05 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  T M Kaine     Democratic    942,020    51.55%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    843,897    46.18%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    39,921    2.18%
  Write Ins          1,587    0.09%
 View Results by  District   Locality    Total:    1,827,425   

Office: Lieutenant Governor
Precincts Reporting: 2225 of 2426 (91.71%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,724   Total Voting: 1,739,569   Voter Turnout: 39.08 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  W T Bolling     Republican    884,422    50.84%
  L L Byrne     Democratic    851,844    48.97%
  Write Ins          3,303    0.19%
 View Results by  District   Locality    Total:    1,739,569   

Office: Attorney General
Precincts Reporting: 2206 of 2426 (90.93%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,724   Total Voting: 1,725,260   Voter Turnout: 38.75 %
 Candidates     Party    Vote Totals    Percentage
  R F McDonnell     Republican    866,261    50.21%
  R C Deeds     Democratic    857,544    49.71%
  Write Ins          1,455    0.08%
 View Results by  District   Locality    Total:    1,725,260   

VA  (http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/)

NEW YORK MAYOR
(As of 9:48 p.m.)
623 of 6,063 (10 %) reporting.
Candidate    Votes
Michael R. Bloomberg (R)    70,361
(57%)
Fernando Ferrer (D)    49,532
(40%)
NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR
(As of 9:51 p.m.)
3,680 of 6,310 (58 %) reporting.
Candidate    Votes
Jon D. Corzine (D)    657,887
(54%)
Douglas R. Forrester (R)    521,655
(43%)

NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 09:59:32 PM

Nick,

That's spin???? New Jersey is a staunch Democratic state and Virginia is a close Republican state that is coming off a tremendous 4-year run by one of the most popular and effective Democratic Governors in recent memory. Where is it at ALL surprising that the Dems would win both of these races???

The real SPIN has come in the past few weeks as the mainstream media has made these races into so-called "proxy battles" between Bush and the Democratic Party.

The Democrats won two potentially close races.  What, they are not supposed to be happy about that?  If they were saying that this is a big chance toward Democratic leadership, I would disagree strongly, but being happy about victories is fine.

Alcon, I essentially agree with what you said. My comments are aimed at the gleeful Dems who are viewing these races as a "proxy battle" between Bush and the Dems in general.

I don't even see jfern having done that.  If you're going to hold us (the  Dems on the forum in general, or the less partisan ones in general) responsible for the idiots on television, feel free, but there's no use in it...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MarkDel on November 08, 2005, 09:59:51 PM
Mark,

Democrat wins a close win in a weakly Republican state in a race where the Republican was, for a long time, heavily favoured.

Republican wins an expeccted landslide in a heavily Democratic city.

Which is more immediately exciting?  The first, because it is not expected.  It is natural human emotion to be excited about competitive races.  I don't see why it surprises you that Democrats are exciting.

Alcon, I see your point, but all the polls I saw in the last week showed that Kaine was EXPECTED to win. Sure he was way behind in the early stages of the race, but this is not a huge upset. I do agree that this is a race Republicans SHOULD have won, but it's not the "drive to realignment" that the media types are spinning.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 10:00:46 PM
Um, could someone point me to results for these races. I don't feel like paging through what looks like a 28 page bitchfest.

Virginia

Precincts Reporting: 2284 of 2426 (94.15%)
Registered Voters: 4,451,724   Total Voting: 1,827,425   Voter Turnout: 41.05 %

  T M Kaine     Democratic    942,020    51.55%
  J W Kilgore     Republican    843,897    46.18%
  H R Potts Jr     Independent    39,921    2.18%
  Write Ins          1,587    0.09%

New Jersey

3,680 of 6,310 Precincts Reporting
      
Jon Corzine  Dem  657,887  54.07%
Doug Forrester  Rep  521,655  42.87%

I'm too lazy to post the others.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: patrick1 on November 08, 2005, 10:01:50 PM
I'm surprised Corzine is winning by such a large margin.  I expected him to win by like 4% but not near this bad.  Furthemore, I don't think Bloomberg is going to win by nearly as much as some have predicted.  Dems still have a good base and I can't see Bloomberg cracking 60%.  I of course will probably be wrong.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 10:02:08 PM
Any info on Virginia an Jersey legislaures?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 10:02:27 PM
In St. Paul mayor race, real Democrat defeats faux Democrat.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5715831.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:02:50 PM


If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

When the GOP retained the RI Governor spot, I wasn't going crazy.

I don't see anyone "going crazy".  There are a lot of Democrats who are happy to see these results, for sure, but I don't see anything abnormal in taking pleasure in a victory for one's own team.  Are we supposed to be going "ho hum, Kaine won, big deal"?

Not only did we refrain from celebration of our MA and RI Gubernatorial victories, we didn't even mention it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 10:02:59 PM
I think Jake has been adequately brought up to speed.

Oh, the Ohio Reform props all look to be going down.

Detroit Mayor
Candidate   Votes   Percent   Winner
Freman Hendrix    24,277   59%   
Kwame Kilpatrick    16,514   40%   
Precincts Reporting - 99 out of 720 - 13%

And Detroit mayor is underway too. (http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5280766/detail.html)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 10:03:30 PM


If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

When the GOP retained the RI Governor spot, I wasn't going crazy.

I don't see anyone "going crazy".  There are a lot of Democrats who are happy to see these results, for sure, but I don't see anything abnormal in taking pleasure in a victory for one's own team.  Are we supposed to be going "ho hum, Kaine won, big deal"?

Not only did we refrain from celebration of our MA and RI Gubernatorial victories, we didn't even mention it.

Well, there were other races at the same time.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:03:48 PM
Good, well it at least appears my predictions were close to correct.

The standard deviation that the Democrats should be counting to the anti-Bush vote is probably the plus margin to the Democrats from my expected totals in NJ/VA.

I know there's nothing scientific about it, but it feels about right to me.

I am also not surprised the Ohio ballot measures are going down.  I read through the actual language of the initiatives yesterday and I swear it made no sense to me.  If it makes no sense to me, then it certainly makes no sense to anyone else and people vote against what they don't understand.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Storebought on November 08, 2005, 10:04:35 PM
About New Jersey: It's as though, every two years, New Jersey voters collect 200 pound samples of its toxic sludge, dollops the sludge into dark blue business suits, then mail the sludge to Washington, D.C. and Trenton.

In more important (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/3446405) electoral news

In White Settlement, a suburb of Fort Worth, voters rejected a proposal to change the town's name to West Settlement. Some citizens said the name taken in the 1800s for the city's white pioneers was politically incorrect and hindered economic development, but others believed the city should hang on to its heritage.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 08, 2005, 10:06:00 PM
Looks like a solid ass whooping all around. I'll give props to Kaine for coming back over the past month. Hopefully, he'll be Warner rather than Kaine the next four years. On Corzine, I really hope New Jersey slides deeper into the hole they're in. Thank god Detroit's voted that piece of slime out of office. As an aside, Doherty has declared victory in Scranton with 57%.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:08:31 PM
Anyone know where I can find a live feed of Kaine and Corzines annoucnement speech?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 10:09:16 PM
Not only did we refrain from celebration of our MA and RI Gubernatorial victories, we didn't even mention it.

But the big difference is that, up until, like, a week or so ago, the race had been completely neck-and-neck with a slight Kilgore edge.  Having Kaine prevail in the end is at least somewhat of a victory for the Democratic Party.

I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:09:43 PM
The state of New Jersey will now be called...New Detroit.

No. We'll just start calling it Camden. Yeah, all of it will be called Camden...





If a Republican won in the heart of New England, would you not consider this a very good thing?

When the GOP retained the RI Governor spot, I wasn't going crazy.

I don't see anyone "going crazy".  There are a lot of Democrats who are happy to see these results, for sure, but I don't see anything abnormal in taking pleasure in a victory for one's own team.  Are we supposed to be going "ho hum, Kaine won, big deal"?

Not only did we refrain from celebration of our MA and RI Gubernatorial victories, we didn't even mention it.

Well, there were other races at the same time.

Your point? Shouldn't we have been celebrating about those "huge" wins, too?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Storebought on November 08, 2005, 10:10:15 PM
I think Jake has been adequately brought up to speed.

Oh, the Ohio Reform props all look to be going down.

Detroit Mayor
Candidate   Votes   Percent   Winner
Freman Hendrix    24,277   59%   
Kwame Kilpatrick    16,514   40%   
Precincts Reporting - 99 out of 720 - 13%

And Detroit mayor is underway too. (http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5280766/detail.html)

Serious question: Have Detroit's ghettoes been counted yet, or are those results from the *ordinary* townships that are shared between the city and the county?

In New Orleans, the project vote was always, conveniently, last to be counted.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 08, 2005, 10:10:56 PM
I think Jake has been adequately brought up to speed.

Oh, the Ohio Reform props all look to be going down.

Detroit Mayor
Candidate   Votes   Percent   Winner
Freman Hendrix    24,277   59%   
Kwame Kilpatrick    16,514   40%   
Precincts Reporting - 99 out of 720 - 13%

And Detroit mayor is underway too. (http://www.clickondetroit.com/politics/5280766/detail.html)

Serious question: Have Detroit's ghettoes been counted yet, or are those results from townships that are shared between the city and the county?

In New Orleans, the project vote was always, conveniently, last to be counted.

I have no freaking clue.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:14:08 PM


I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.

It's not just being happy. Just wait until the blogs start going crazy, saying that this will completely destroy the GOP in 2006.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 10:17:32 PM
AP site with some county by county results for VA: click on "View By County" (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_politics/va_election05/index.html?SITE=VAHAR&SECTION=POLITICS)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:17:50 PM


I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.

It's not just being happy. Just wait until the blogs start going crazy, saying that this will completely destroy the GOP in 2006.

Phil, what else do you expect them to say?

You need to grow thicker skin than that.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 10:19:47 PM


I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.

It's not just being happy. Just wait until the blogs start going crazy, saying that this will completely destroy the GOP in 2006.

Okay... but we aren't "the blogs", so I'm not sure what your point exactly is or what you want us to do.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:20:50 PM
Live feed from NJ:

http://www.njn.net/television/webcast/livestreaming.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 10:23:27 PM
Bolling (R) declared Lt. Gov. winner in VA


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 10:23:45 PM
http://news.nbc12.com/returns/

Live feed from Kilgore Headquarters


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 10:24:26 PM
Forrester is at the podium


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:25:03 PM
Live feed from NJ:

http://www.njn.net/television/webcast/livestreaming.html

Forrester speaking now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: YRABNNRM on November 08, 2005, 10:25:46 PM
People of New Jersey...You have voted unwisely.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:26:13 PM
Texas results are coming in.

Needless to say, the banning same-sex marriage initiative will get about 75%-80% and Houston's incumbent mayor Bill White (who was a crappy chair of the state Democratic party, but an extremely good mayor) will get about 90%.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: WalterMitty on November 08, 2005, 10:26:52 PM
were the state legislatures up for election in nj and va?

if so, how did they turn out?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AkSaber on November 08, 2005, 10:27:18 PM
I don't know why, but I'm always excited on election nights. :P

Does anyone know how some of the state ballot measures are doing, like the S.F. handgun ban?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:27:59 PM
The only real major races left to decide are the AG race in Virginia and the California ballot propositions.  When do the polls close out in California? (a jfern question)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: YRABNNRM on November 08, 2005, 10:28:41 PM
The only real major races left to decide are the AG race in Virginia and the California ballot propositions.  When do the polls close out in California? (a jfern question)

11 or 12 I believe.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 10:29:36 PM
Looks like Deeds will lose by a few thousand (less than 1%), but a recount could be in order in such a close race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Storebought on November 08, 2005, 10:30:18 PM
AP site with some county by county results for VA: click on "View By County" (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/interactives/_politics/va_election05/index.html?SITE=VAHAR&SECTION=POLITICS)

It looks as though the GOP had better come up with a "Missouri Plan*" for VA in the next 2 years

*For decades in MO, the strongest GOP county in the state was St Louis Co. Often, winning the state in the old days (before 1988) meant little more than winning that county by a convincing margin. But, little by little, the GOP margins there shrank, so that, by 1992, it had become a Democrat base. Now, St Louis Co. is among the three most liberal and Democrat counties/cities in the state. Fortunately for the GOP, they expanded into the Ozarks, which had just enough country voters to compensate for the loss.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 08, 2005, 10:30:27 PM
were the state legislatures up for election in nj and va?

if so, how did they turn out?

House of Delegates up in VA, not sure what the final totals will be.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 10:33:24 PM
Kilgore is also conceding the race right now as he speaks at the podium.
http://news.nbc12.com/returns/


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 10:33:42 PM
The only real major races left to decide are the AG race in Virginia and the California ballot propositions.  When do the polls close out in California? (a jfern question)

8 PT, 11 ET


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben Meyers on November 08, 2005, 10:34:29 PM
Where is the video of Kilgore conceding?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:35:12 PM
The only real major races left to decide are the AG race in Virginia and the California ballot propositions.  When do the polls close out in California? (a jfern question)

8 PT, 11 ET

Thanks, fern, fezzy and andrew.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:36:00 PM


I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.

It's not just being happy. Just wait until the blogs start going crazy, saying that this will completely destroy the GOP in 2006.

Okay... but we aren't "the blogs", so I'm not sure what your point exactly is or what you want us to do.


Uh...if you don't think that some of the people on this forum fit into that area then you are really, really foolish.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 10:37:02 PM
The only real major races left to decide are the AG race in Virginia and the California ballot propositions.  When do the polls close out in California? (a jfern question)

8 PT, 11 ET

Thanks, fern, fezzy and andrew.  :)

8 PM, 11 ET

8 PM, 11 ET

8 PM, 11 ET!!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 10:37:46 PM
I got some yes on Prop 78 thing AFTER I already voted. Something tells me that stuff recieved on election day isn't that effective.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:37:58 PM


I really don't see what the big deal is with being happy over this victory in the face of uncertainty.

It's not just being happy. Just wait until the blogs start going crazy, saying that this will completely destroy the GOP in 2006.

Phil, what else do you expect them to say?

You need to grow thicker skin than that.

I expected it but I'm just complaining about it.

Also, please don't lecture me about growing thicker skin with this stuff. I'm a conservative Republican in Philadelphia, Sam. I've dealt with much worse before. Thanks.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 10:39:10 PM
Phil, you truly are a survivor.  Keep up the fight!

Black power salute.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 10:40:22 PM
Phil, you truly are a survivor.  Keep up the fight!

Black power salute.

When you campaign in an area that's very difficult to win, give me a call and mock me.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 10:45:27 PM
Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the NJ state house.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 10:47:11 PM
Phil, you truly are a survivor.  Keep up the fight!

Black power salute.

lol


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:48:03 PM
Corzine on stage giving his victory speech.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 08, 2005, 10:50:15 PM
Link?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:50:58 PM
http://www.njn.net/television/webcast/livestreaming.html


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 08, 2005, 10:51:38 PM
Phil, you truly are a survivor.  Keep up the fight!

Black power salute.

When you campaign in an area that's very difficult to win, give me a call and mock me.

I was out yesterday for a Republican in my neighbourhood.  What's your phone number?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 10:51:41 PM
Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the NJ state house.

Just looking at the (still very provisional) data on incumbents, looks like 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats are loosing. This still may change and I have no clue about the open seats.

Also, just randomly glancing through results, Republicans might loose a seat in VA - still, no problem for them (half the seats aren't really contested, anyway).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 08, 2005, 10:51:58 PM
The fact remains that we have a Dem Governor in NJ and a Dem Governor in VA, just like we did before.  Wake me up when something actually changes hands.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: tarheel-leftist85 on November 08, 2005, 10:54:37 PM
Just a caveat to my Democratic friends:  I think that the win in VA was due less to Bush's unpopularity than Mark Warner's popularity and Tim Kaine's likability.  But still, isn't this a great result?!?!?  Two more points and we would've martched Bush in 2004.  This model should be applied throughout the country.  David Brooks puts it best when he tells Democrats "Just forget Bush."  There isn't any advice friendlier than that.  After all, he'll be in Kennebunckport doing whatever he does in about two years.  Ten points behind to five points ahead, that's how a (relatively) positive campaign works! I'll probably infuriate some in my party by saying all of this, but it's what I think.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Storebought on November 08, 2005, 10:55:12 PM
Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the NJ state house.

Just looking at the (still very provisional) data on incumbents, looks like 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats are loosing. This still may change and I have no clue about the open seats.

Also, just randomly glancing through results, Republicans might loose a seat in VA - still, no problem for them (half the seats aren't really contested, anyway).

Not quite: In VA

GOP picks up Dem House Seat (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768028483)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 10:57:24 PM
Question 1 Veto Gay Rights
216 of 634 precincts - 34 percent

Yes, 61,022 - 43 percent
No, 80,125 - 57 percent


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 10:57:35 PM
The fact remains that we have a Dem Governor in NJ and a Dem Governor in VA, just like we did before.  Wake me up when something actually changes hands.

If you don't give two hoots about these races, why do you have banners for each of them in your signature? :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 08, 2005, 10:57:57 PM
Having Kaine prevail in the end is at least somewhat of a victory for the Democratic Party.

Ya'll kept a seat in a close election where you had a wildly popular incumbent.  You want a cookie? :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 08, 2005, 10:59:12 PM
The fact remains that we have a Dem Governor in NJ and a Dem Governor in VA, just like we did before.  Wake me up when something actually changes hands.

If you don't give two hoots about these races, why do you have banners for each of them in your signature? :P

I care deeply about them.  I am proud of their accomplishments.  Kilgore almost beat a guy running on the coattails of a popular incumbent, and Forrester came from way behind to be only somewhat behind :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 08, 2005, 11:00:26 PM
Having Kaine prevail in the end is at least somewhat of a victory for the Democratic Party.

Ya'll kept a seat in a close election where you had a wildly popular incumbent.  You want a cookie? :P

Oh, come off it, you know very well that we'd never hear the end of it from you about how well the GOP is doing if the percentages were reversed. :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:00:53 PM
POLLS CLOSED IN CALI.

Let the games begin.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:03:07 PM
Warner and Kaine on state now.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 08, 2005, 11:03:14 PM
Having Kaine prevail in the end is at least somewhat of a victory for the Democratic Party.

Ya'll kept a seat in a close election where you had a wildly popular incumbent.  You want a cookie? :P

Oh, come off it, you know very well that we'd never hear the end of it from you about how well the GOP is doing if the percentages were reversed. :P

Hmmph.  See if I ever root for BC Liberals again.

Oh, there isn't another choice.  Damn. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 08, 2005, 11:04:35 PM
Phil, you truly are a survivor.  Keep up the fight!

Black power salute.

When you campaign in an area that's very difficult to win, give me a call and mock me.

I was out yesterday for a Republican in my neighbourhood.  What's your phone number?

I said very difficult to win. Work in an area of your town that is 60% of the other party.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:05:18 PM
Arnold's Props all have 0 votes. Oh wait.... :)

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 11:05:57 PM
Democrats are expected to pick up seats in the NJ state house.

Just looking at the (still very provisional) data on incumbents, looks like 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats are loosing. This still may change and I have no clue about the open seats.

Also, just randomly glancing through results, Republicans might loose a seat in VA - still, no problem for them (half the seats aren't really contested, anyway).

Not quite: In VA

GOP picks up Dem House Seat (http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1128768028483)

Sure. But there are also some other seats to change hands. The last time I checked Democrats were leading in 38 seats (same as before), Independents in 3 (+1), meaning Reps would loose a seat. Still, this might change 10 times by tomorrow.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 11:07:54 PM
Deeds is actually closing the gap.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:09:26 PM
In CA, the first areas to report tend Republican, as you can see here.

http://www.sdvote.org/election/SANDIEGO110805.xml


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 08, 2005, 11:09:44 PM
I'm very confused about the results in the VA Attorney General's race.  I mean there are two different TV stations posting two different results with 97%  of the precincts counted statewide.

On these two stations they have

On ABC's WRIC in Richmond they are reporting:

Deeds (D)              926,264  50%
McDonnell (R)         913,764  49%

While on CBS's WDBJ in Roanoke they are reporting:

McDonnell (R)        935,448  50%
Deeds (D)             923,983  49%

Can someone give me some more accurate results for this race and maybe explain to me why these two stations are so different with the numbers?   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: King on November 08, 2005, 11:11:02 PM
Arnold's Props all have 0 votes. Oh wait.... :)

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

Bad news for you guys.  Mostly the Bay Area is reporting and all of the races are close.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 11:11:50 PM
With only some 50 precincts left to report the gap in VA AG race is back under 5000 votes (.25%). Looking at what's left to report, it is likely that the gap will be smaller - but very unlikely it will be overcome. What are the recount and absentee rules?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:12:14 PM
Ferrar may have broken 40%. A lot of people were predicting he'd do much worse.

As for those VA results, looks like they have different precincts that they're missing.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 08, 2005, 11:12:20 PM
In CA, the first areas to report tend Republican, as you can see here.

http://www.sdvote.org/election/SANDIEGO110805.xml

But that's with only 10% of the vote or less, I'll hold off on being upset or happy until much later.  Maybe I'll go to bed and get back up say around 2 or 3 am.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 08, 2005, 11:13:32 PM
Under Virginia law: If an election is within .5% a recount is automatic.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 08, 2005, 11:13:52 PM
In CA, the first areas to report tend Republican, as you can see here.

http://www.sdvote.org/election/SANDIEGO110805.xml

But that's with only 10% of the vote or less, I'll hold off on being upset or happy until much later.  Maybe I'll go to bed and get back up say around 2 or 3 am.

Do ya'll really know/care what these resolutions are for or do you just want to screw Arnold?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 11:15:00 PM
Ferrar may have broken 40%. A lot of people were predicting he'd do much worse.

I know I was one who did.  :)

However, the turnout today was ridiculously light, maybe the lowest ever for a mayoral race.  Whenever turnout is unexpectedly low, it can screw up polling for the results.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 08, 2005, 11:15:17 PM
I'm very confused about the results in the VA Attorney General's race.  I mean there are two different TV stations posting two different results with 97%  of the precincts counted statewide.

On these two stations they have

On ABC's WRIC in Richmond they are reporting:

Deeds (D)              926,264  50%
McDonnell (R)         913,764  49%

While on CBS's WDBJ in Roanoke they are reporting:

McDonnell (R)        935,448  50%
Deeds (D)             923,983  49%

Can someone give me some more accurate results for this race and maybe explain to me why these two stations are so different with the numbers?   

One station accidentally reversed the tallies. The real result (with about 50 precincts to go) is 940,815 (McDonnell R) to 936,162 (Deeds D).  Looking at what's left to report it will be even closer, but it is still unlikelyto reverse, so Dems only real chance is a recount.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 11:15:29 PM
Thanks jfern, for posting the link to San Diego.  Sanders should carry this one; that's not a surprise.  I've been following this race very closely for the last six weeks...but it doesn't matter who would win, it's not an enviable job.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:17:30 PM
Arnold's Props all have 0 votes. Oh wait.... :)

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

Bad news for you guys.  Mostly the Bay Area is reporting and all of the races are close.

What? Top counties by precincts are
Kern 150
San Diego 161
Ventura 217
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/status.htm


Despite that, Props 76 and 77 are still going down.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: 2952-0-0 on November 08, 2005, 11:25:10 PM
73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80 all passing now, but only 6.2% reporting so far

Propositions                      Yes Votes   Pct.   No Votes   Pct.
 
  73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy            459,324  52.1     423,129  47.9  Map

 
  74 Y    Teacher Tenure               458,207  51.5     432,738  48.5  Map

 
  75 Y    Public Union Dues            498,170  56.0     392,459  44.0  Map

 
  76 N    Spending/Funding             390,171  43.8     498,614  56.2  Map

 
  77 N    Redistricting                411,035  46.7     468,361  53.3  Map

 
  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts            373,130  42.5     502,810  57.5  Map

 
  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              331,141  37.9     541,328  62.1  Map

 
  80 N    Electric Regulation          305,231  35.5     552,283  64.5  Map


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 08, 2005, 11:25:32 PM
I'm very confused about the results in the VA Attorney General's race.  I mean there are two different TV stations posting two different results with 97%  of the precincts counted statewide.

On these two stations they have

On ABC's WRIC in Richmond they are reporting:

Deeds (D)              926,264  50%
McDonnell (R)         913,764  49%

While on CBS's WDBJ in Roanoke they are reporting:

McDonnell (R)        935,448  50%
Deeds (D)             923,983  49%

Can someone give me some more accurate results for this race and maybe explain to me why these two stations are so different with the numbers?   

One station accidentally reversed the tallies. The real result (with about 50 precincts to go) is 940,815 (McDonnell R) to 936,162 (Deeds D).  Looking at what's left to report it will be even closer, but it is still unlikelyto reverse, so Dems only real chance is a recount.

Okay that explains that.

I just went back to WDBJ's website and it looks like McDonnell (R) is the winner.

This is with 99% of the precincts reporting, just a few minutes ago:

McDonnell (R)         960,055   50%
Deeds (D)               951,200   49%

I would say with only 1% of precincts reporting it would be highly difficult for Deeds (D) to make up about a 9000 vote deficit anywhere in the state, unless there were still alot of votes outstanding in either the city of Richmond or the city of Arlington that haven't been counted.  So I'm going to bed for now, with an assumption that McDonnell is the next Attorney General of Virginia.  I'm not surprised. 

And I wouldn't be a Democrat crowing about the wins of the Governorship in New Jersey (although it is pretty amazing that Democrats seem to be gaining seats in the NJ Assembly) and Virginia, because not every race seemed to gel for the Democrats.

And keep this in mind, even if Kaine the Democrat won the Governorship in Virginia, his former office the Lt. Governorship went Republican.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on November 08, 2005, 11:26:56 PM
I can't confirm it yet, but I've heard that the results have Kaine winning VIRGINIA BEACH. Enough said.

I can't wait to see Goldie show up. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:28:00 PM
I can't confirm it yet, but I've heard that the results have Kaine winning VIRGINIA BEACH. Enough said.

I can't wait to see Goldie show up. :)

I saw that. One precinct wasn't reporting, but it looks like it'll hold even with that precinct.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:29:06 PM
  73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy            694,164  52.9     619,174  47.1 

  74 Y    Teacher Tenure               691,852  52.2     633,693  47.8 

  75 Y    Public Union Dues            747,761  56.7     573,102  43.3 

  76 N    Spending/Funding             589,768  44.6     732,241  55.4 

  77 N    Redistricting                622,278  47.5     686,485  52.5 

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts            566,593  43.4     737,059  56.6 

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              483,672  37.2     814,174  62.8 

  80 N    Electric Regulation          440,928  34.5     834,078 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 08, 2005, 11:29:40 PM
Things are looking pretty good for Arnold in CA.  If he defeats the Teachers and the Unions it will be a major win for him.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 08, 2005, 11:30:59 PM
In CA, the first areas to report tend Republican, as you can see here.

http://www.sdvote.org/election/SANDIEGO110805.xml

But that's with only 10% of the vote or less, I'll hold off on being upset or happy until much later.  Maybe I'll go to bed and get back up say around 2 or 3 am.

Do ya'll really know/care what these resolutions are for or do you just want to screw Arnold?

I care what they are for, and I disagree with all of them and would want them all to fail.   But I know I won't get everything I want, will I.

I don't want to expand on this right now, I have had a long day today, and I'm expecting a long day for the next two days -- so I'm going to bed now.

So this is my short answer.

And yes I wouldn't mind the Governor Terminator being screwed.  (And so what if I want him to?)  He wasn't that great as an actor (a matter of fact he never had any formal training to be an actor, he just was actually never more than a star), and he has made a lousy politician in my opinion!     


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 08, 2005, 11:32:04 PM
Things are looking pretty good for Arnold in CA.  If he defeats the Teachers and the Unions it will be a major win for him.

These preliminary results are surprising.  I expected all measures except redistricting to fail.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:33:10 PM
Things are looking pretty good for Arnold in CA.  If he defeats the Teachers and the Unions it will be a major win for him.

"Pretty good" is that half his Props are passing in early returns? LOL. We're California, we still have another few million votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:35:23 PM
Props 76-80 will go down hard.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on November 08, 2005, 11:36:12 PM
I had a pretty awful day at work, so I was really hoping once I got home I would see that Kaine pulled an upset and I would feel better. I do. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 08, 2005, 11:38:46 PM
The GOP ground game in Virginia is indeed much better, but they are also a tad disspirited right now taking much of that edge away. - Kaine, by perhaps a bit more than expected - will not be a blowout, but margin of victory might creep up to maybe 5% or so.  

Corzine will successfully purchase a Governors seat, to match the Senate seat he purchased previously.  The GOP always over polls in Jersey, so I'll say Corzine by 7. - If "None of the above" was on the ballot in Jersey it would win in a walk.


Candidates  Party Percentage

  T M Kaine  Democratic  - 51.64%
  J W Kilgore  - 46.08%

Margin = 5.56%

Missed Jersey pretty badly however.  Expect 7, got 11.




Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: 2952-0-0 on November 08, 2005, 11:39:05 PM
What do you think will happen to the other 3 (and I'm looking for what will HAPPEN, as opposed to what you WANT, jfern)?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:41:38 PM
What do you think will happen to the other 3 (and I'm looking for what will HAPPEN, as opposed to what you WANT, jfern)?

Prop 74 should go down.  Prop 73 is hard to say. Prop 75 looks like it could pass. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 11:42:34 PM
The GOP ground game in Virginia is indeed much better, but they are also a tad disspirited right now taking much of that edge away. - Kaine, by perhaps a bit more than expected - will not be a blowout, but margin of victory might creep up to maybe 5% or so.  

Corzine will successfully purchase a Governors seat, to match the Senate seat he purchased previously.  The GOP always over polls in Jersey, so I'll say Corzine by 7. - If "None of the above" was on the ballot in Jersey it would win in a walk.


Candidates  Party Percentage

  T M Kaine  Democratic  - 51.64%
  J W Kilgore  - 46.08%

Margin = 5.56%

Missed Jersey pretty badly however.  Expect 7, got 11.

You win some, you lose some.  At least you got the winners right, as did I.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 11:44:04 PM
I had a pretty awful day at work, so I was really hoping once I got home I would see that Kaine pulled an upset and I would feel better. I do. :)

Kaine winning was not really an upset, considering the last two weeks of polling in which every poll showed him ahead, albeit not by great margins.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 08, 2005, 11:45:47 PM
None of the precincts in Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, Alameda  and San Francisco have been reported yet. All of these propositions are going to be defeated.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 08, 2005, 11:48:20 PM
None of the precincts in Los Angeles and San Francisco have been reported yet. All of these propositions are going to be defeated.

Gore vs. Bush 2004

Honestly, I don't think it would have even been close. Instead of the election being about Kerry and gay marriage, it would have been about the poor state of the economy compared to the late 90s, and the war in Iraq. I think we would have seen a very surprising landslide much like 1980:

()

Good calls on both


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 08, 2005, 11:48:36 PM
The GOP ground game in Virginia is indeed much better, but they are also a tad disspirited right now taking much of that edge away. - Kaine, by perhaps a bit more than expected - will not be a blowout, but margin of victory might creep up to maybe 5% or so.  

Corzine will successfully purchase a Governors seat, to match the Senate seat he purchased previously.  The GOP always over polls in Jersey, so I'll say Corzine by 7. - If "None of the above" was on the ballot in Jersey it would win in a walk.


Candidates  Party Percentage

  T M Kaine  Democratic  - 51.64%
  J W Kilgore  - 46.08%

Margin = 5.56%

Missed Jersey pretty badly however.  Expect 7, got 11.

You win some, you lose some.  At least you got the winners right, as did I.  :)

Jersey is always a bugger to read the polls in - I never get that state dead on.  Polls never work right in New mexico and Wiscionsin either.

Virginia on the other hand polls really really well.  

Just one of those quirky things.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 08, 2005, 11:49:39 PM
None of the precincts in Los Angeles and San Francisco have been reported yet. All of these propositions are going to be defeated.

Prop 75 is the most worrisome, but you're right it doesn't look so bad when we look at the counties.

()

We can afford almost a 10 point swing from the 2004 Presidential result.
()


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 08, 2005, 11:53:58 PM
None of the precincts in Los Angeles and San Francisco have been reported yet. All of these propositions are going to be defeated.

Gore vs. Bush 2004

Honestly, I don't think it would have even been close. Instead of the election being about Kerry and gay marriage, it would have been about the poor state of the economy compared to the late 90s, and the war in Iraq. I think we would have seen a very surprising landslide much like 1980:

()

Good calls on both

Ignore my first prediction, my final predictions on election eve are:

Virginia

Kilgore....50
Kaine......48

New Jersey

Corzine......51
Forrester....48


Good calls.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 08, 2005, 11:58:38 PM
Things are looking pretty good for Arnold in CA.  If he defeats the Teachers and the Unions it will be a major win for him.

These preliminary results are surprising.  I expected all measures except redistricting to fail.

The early results tend to trend very conservative. (as far as I can remember from the past decade or so of statewide elections)  I am cautiously optimistic that things will change by nights end.

Still, I do have a horse in this race - as I'm going into teaching and our schools are already getting reamed badly enough by the bureaucrats.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 08, 2005, 11:59:19 PM
Early opinion on the Cali Props:

76-80 will obviously be defeated.

75 will be tight.

74 looks like a possibility to pass now, but will fail.

73 is iffy, but won't predict right now, because of the Hispanic vote.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Smash255 on November 09, 2005, 12:02:00 AM
Big night for Long Island Dems

Nassau County Exec wins re-election easily 20% or so

DA  30 year veteran Republican Dennis Dillon gets upset by Democrat Kathleen Rice

Dems hold their 10-9 majority in the nassau leeg ( looked like they would pick up a seat by Ciotti looks like he held off Ali Mirza

Suffolk County with term limits facing 6 incumbents was really up in the air.  The GOP held an 11-7 majority in the county leg & its now 10-8 Dem

Town of Brookhaven which was hit by scandal after scandal (called Crookhaven) GOP was in trouble, but the town is overwelmingly Republican.  However that goes Dem as well both on Supervisor & town board level


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 09, 2005, 12:06:11 AM
Does anyone know what happened in San Diego for the mayoral race?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:06:41 AM
Here's how Arnold's Props are doing

The ones that were his:

74 : teacher tenure - probably fail
75: union political one - hard to say
76: education spending - getting spanked
77: redistricting - definitely going down

Other's he supported:

73 : abortion - should fail
78: big pharma - getting spanked


77 was his main one.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on November 09, 2005, 12:08:57 AM
Has anyone said anything about CA - 48 ? How is that race going?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 12:10:01 AM
Is there anyway I can see where the results are comming from in CA?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:11:19 AM
Has anyone said anything about CA - 48 ? How is that race going?

I don't think that's tonight.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 12:11:44 AM
http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 09, 2005, 12:12:20 AM
Does anyone know what happened in San Diego for the mayoral race?

Sanders is beating Frye about 59-40 with 10% counted. Last count I've seen was an hour ago :P

CA-48 is in December


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AkSaber on November 09, 2005, 12:13:35 AM
Are there any results for the San Francisco handgun bill?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Hatman 🍁 on November 09, 2005, 12:16:30 AM
Has anyone said anything about CA - 48 ? How is that race going?

I don't think that's tonight.

Wikipedia must be wrong then:

A special election will be held in the 48th Congressional District of California to choose a United States Representative to replace Republican Chris Cox, who resigned effective August 2, 2005, to become Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A primary election was held on October 4, and the general election will take place on November 8.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 09, 2005, 12:18:34 AM
And again the nail-biter of the night: with all but 29 precincts counted in the VA AG race the gap is just 0.12% percentage points, or just 2,294 votes: 947,455 (R) vs 945,161 (D).  Still, it looks like most remaining precincts should be Rep leaning (though 3 precincts in Arlington county are also pending!).  


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:19:09 AM
Has anyone said anything about CA - 48 ? How is that race going?

I don't think that's tonight.

Wikipedia must be wrong then:

A special election will be held in the 48th Congressional District of California to choose a United States Representative to replace Republican Chris Cox, who resigned effective August 2, 2005, to become Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A primary election was held on October 4, and the general election will take place on November 8.


Yep, it's wrong.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 12:20:25 AM
And again the nail-biter of the night: with all but 29 precincts counted in the VA AG race the gap is just 0.12% percentage points, or just 2,294 votes: 947,455 (R) vs 945,161 (D).  Still, it looks like most remaining precincts should be Rep leaning (though 3 precincts in Arlington county are also pending!).  

Obviously, a recount will be occurring then.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 12:25:18 AM
73,74,75 are getting closer and closer.

  73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy          1,154,794  51.2   1,101,061  48.8  Map

  74 Y    Teacher Tenure             1,141,370  50.2   1,134,089  49.8  Map

  75 Y    Public Union Dues          1,224,055  53.9   1,047,255  46.1  Map

  76 N    Spending/Funding             966,882  42.6   1,302,433  57.4  Map

  77 N    Redistricting              1,026,741  45.6   1,221,869  54.4  Map

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts            960,745  42.9   1,278,166  57.1  Map

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              848,879  38.1   1,376,016  61.9  Map

  80 N    Electric Regulation          761,345  34.8   1,423,324  65.2


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:26:28 AM
73,74,75 are getting closer and closer.

  73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy          1,154,794  51.2   1,101,061  48.8  Map

  74 Y    Teacher Tenure             1,141,370  50.2   1,134,089  49.8  Map

  75 Y    Public Union Dues          1,224,055  53.9   1,047,255  46.1  Map

  76 N    Spending/Funding             966,882  42.6   1,302,433  57.4  Map

  77 N    Redistricting              1,026,741  45.6   1,221,869  54.4  Map

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts            960,745  42.9   1,278,166  57.1  Map

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              848,879  38.1   1,376,016  61.9  Map

  80 N    Electric Regulation          761,345  34.8   1,423,324  65.2

Not really a surprise if you look at what was reporting. I expect 73 and 74 to go down, leaving only 1 of the 6 Propositions Arnold supported, Prop 75,  with a chance of passing.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 12:27:02 AM
For AKSaber.

San Francisco

Proposition H Firearm Ban
Requires a simple majority.

 Choice Votes %
 Yes 21,147 58.67%
 No 14,889 41.33%

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/election/2005nov/sanfrancisco.shtml

This is still absentee ballots.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 09, 2005, 12:27:17 AM
The Virginia AG race will not be decided tonight!

Creigh Deeds has pulled to within 1,435 votes (.12%) with 99.05% precincts reporting. I also read that 15,000 absentee ballots need to still be counted.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 12:32:11 AM
73,74,75 are getting closer and closer.

  73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy          1,154,794  51.2   1,101,061  48.8  Map

  74 Y    Teacher Tenure             1,141,370  50.2   1,134,089  49.8  Map

  75 Y    Public Union Dues          1,224,055  53.9   1,047,255  46.1  Map

  76 N    Spending/Funding             966,882  42.6   1,302,433  57.4  Map

  77 N    Redistricting              1,026,741  45.6   1,221,869  54.4  Map

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts            960,745  42.9   1,278,166  57.1  Map

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              848,879  38.1   1,376,016  61.9  Map

  80 N    Electric Regulation          761,345  34.8   1,423,324  65.2

Not really a surprise if you look at what was reporting. I expect 73 and 74 to go down, leaving only 1 of the 6 Propositions Arnold supported, Prop 75,  with a chance of passing.

I agree with you, except that I want to see how Prop. 73 fares in Los Angeles County before declaring it going down.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 12:33:08 AM
I just did a VA Gov map - let me know if there are inaccuracies:

()


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:35:28 AM
Virginia update:

Kaine won by almost 6 points.
Deed takes narrow lead in AG race.

http://sbe.virginiainteractive.org/index.htm




Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: J-Mann on November 09, 2005, 12:36:09 AM
Has anyone said anything about CA - 48 ? How is that race going?

I don't think that's tonight.

Wikipedia must be wrong then:

A special election will be held in the 48th Congressional District of California to choose a United States Representative to replace Republican Chris Cox, who resigned effective August 2, 2005, to become Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A primary election was held on October 4, and the general election will take place on November 8.


December 6 I believe is the correct date for the runoff between Campbell and Gilchrist.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 12:36:25 AM
  74 just flipped

73 Y    Minor's Pregnancy          1,250,983  51.2   1,195,697  48.8  Map

  74 N    Teacher Tenure             1,230,442  49.8   1,237,532  50.2  Map

  75 Y    Public Union Dues          1,316,797  53.5   1,146,910  46.5  Map

  76 N    Spending/Funding           1,042,694  42.3   1,418,421  57.7  Map

  77 N    Redistricting              1,109,169  45.4   1,329,829  54.6  Map

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts          1,038,512  42.7   1,389,131  57.3  Map

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates              919,717  38.1   1,491,857  61.9  Map

  80 N    Electric Regulation          824,390  34.8   1,542,965  65.2


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 09, 2005, 12:36:39 AM
Scratch my last statement, it is Creigh Deeds who now has a 1,435 vote lead in the Virginia Attorney General race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:37:47 AM
Latest California update.

With 22.7% of the precincts (plus most absentee votes) reporting:

Prop 74 - teacher tenure NOW TRAILING
Prop 73 stays about the same at 51.2%
Prop 75 at 53.5%

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 12:38:18 AM
I just did a VA Gov map - let me know if there are inaccuracies:

()

Kilgore really underperformed in SE Virginia (Virginia Beach, Norfolk), the Richmond suburbs and NoVA.  He did pretty well in SW Virginia, but since he's from there, I'm not surprised.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AkSaber on November 09, 2005, 12:38:46 AM
For AKSaber.

San Francisco

Proposition H Firearm Ban
Requires a simple majority.

 Choice Votes %
 Yes 21,147 58.67%
 No 14,889 41.33%

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/election/2005nov/sanfrancisco.shtml

This is still absentee ballots.


Thank you Sam!!!! :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 12:40:33 AM
I just did a VA Gov map - let me know if there are inaccuracies:

()

Kilgore really underperformed in SE Virginia (Virginia Beach, Norfolk), the Richmond suburbs and NoVA.  He did pretty well in SW Virginia, but since he's from there, I'm not surprised.

He got totally slammed in SE Virginia.  How did that happen?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MHS2002 on November 09, 2005, 12:42:07 AM
Scratch my last statement, it is Creigh Deeds who now has a 1,435 vote lead in the Virginia Attorney General race.

Of the 23 precincts remaining, 22 are in counties/cities where McDonnell is currently leading. Should be a very interesting and close race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 12:45:59 AM
Sweet. The 3 closest Props are down to

73: 50.2% - the abortion Prop is close to flipping
74: 48.8% - the teach tenure Prop is looking toast
75: 52.4% - the union polical Prop has tightened, too close to call yet


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 12:51:02 AM
Anyone who is so interested can get a regularly updated java 'ticker' for the CA props  here (http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/DecJava/Java_intro.html)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Nation on November 09, 2005, 12:59:41 AM
Some extremely interesting and surprising races --- I've been keeping close tabs on the Buffalo mayoral race (not that it matters), and Byron Brown has become the first black mayor of Buffalo (ever), defeating the extremely smart and more qualified Republican candidate, Kevin Helfer.

63% to 27%. Ugh.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 01:00:10 AM
Prop 73 just flipped

  73 N    Minor's Pregnancy          1,371,085  49.8   1,376,947  50.2  Map

  74 N    Teacher Tenure             1,349,583  48.7   1,420,952  51.3  Map

  75 Y    Public Union Dues          1,437,923  52.0   1,327,422  48.0  Map

  76 N    Spending/Funding           1,137,341  41.1   1,625,224  58.9  Map

  77 N    Redistricting              1,213,049  44.3   1,525,104  55.7  Map

  78 N    Rx Drug Discounts          1,148,328  42.1   1,575,183  57.9  Map

  79 N    Rx Drug Rebates            1,053,564  38.9   1,650,656  61.1  Map

  80 N    Electric Regulation          932,228  35.1   1,722,886  64.9  Map


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 01:01:23 AM
Looks like the only one that will pass is the Union Dues.  That really too bad, the Unions nearly bankrupted themselves trying to defeat this prop, but it looks like that wont happen.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AkSaber on November 09, 2005, 01:03:02 AM
()

What's with San Bernardino County?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:04:31 AM
73 has flipped!

73 - parental notification for abortion at 49.8%
74 - teach tenure requiring 5 years at 48.7%

Only Prop now leading is
75 - union's have to get permission to use money for political campaigns at 52.0%

Good to see that Props 73,74,76,77, and 78 got some Arnoldmentum.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 01:06:03 AM
This election is now all about LA.

73 and 75 are the ones that still stand a chance of passing (75 more).  I need to see the Hispanic impact on 73 in LA before I make a prediction.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:07:46 AM
It keeps getting better

Here's how Arnold's Props are doing:

73: 49.3%
74: 48.0%
75: 51.3%
76: 40.5%
77: 43.7%
78: 41.8%

Stick a fork in 74, and 73 looks like it's going down as well.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 01:08:35 AM
Jfern, do you think 75 will flip?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 01:16:05 AM
Hmm...  well, mostly good news for the major races, particularly Virginia.  I'm hoping parental notification passes, and the San Francisco handgun ban fails, but I expect the opposite to happen for both.  Otherwise the California results are looking good.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:21:26 AM

Hopefully it will, but I can't say for sure.

Interestly, the Props have been somewhat non-linear. Prop 74 was doing 0.8% better than Prop 73 for a while, now that they've both flipped, Prop 74 is doing 1.5% better.

Hmm...  well, mostly good news for the major races, particularly Virginia.  I'm hoping parental notification passes, and the San Francisco handgun ban fails, but I expect the opposite to happen for both.  Otherwise the California results are looking good.

We like our unrestricted abortion on demand.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:25:19 AM
Fliers received in the mail count: 7

Glossies: 5

Breakdown:
Democratic: 3
Big Pharma pretending to be Democrat: 1
Big Pharma: 2
Arnold (strangely enough the only place it mentions him is "Paid for by Governor Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team"): 1


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 01:25:44 AM
We like our unrestricted abortion on demand.

Indeed.

"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion." -- CA Congresswoman Maxine Waters at a pro-choice march


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 01:29:10 AM
Well, a lot could still go either way.  I am hoping 74 stays down, but LA has just barely started counting, and for some reason the supposedly liberal LA times endorsed the darn thing. 

75 will probably be a nail biter til midnight or so, then gradually slip out of range.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:33:52 AM
Well, a lot could still go either way.  I am hoping 74 stays down, but LA has just barely started counting, and for some reason the supposedly liberal LA times endorsed the darn thing. 

75 will probably be a nail biter til midnight or so, then gradually slip out of range.

Prop 74 should be going down. Prop 73 could concievably come back from behind, and obviously Prop 75 is the most likely to pass. LA Times said No to 73, but Yes to Prop 75. If Prop 75 passes, you can blame one of the most liberal media organizations in the country. Goes to show you how far right the media is.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Vorlon on November 09, 2005, 01:34:59 AM
We like our unrestricted abortion on demand.

Indeed.

"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion." -- CA Congresswoman Maxine Waters at a pro-choice march

Im am pro-choice anyway... but in the case of Maxine Waters I really really wish we could somehow grant her mother abortion rights retro-actiovely.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 09, 2005, 01:36:26 AM
Well, a lot could still go either way.  I am hoping 74 stays down, but LA has just barely started counting, and for some reason the supposedly liberal LA times endorsed the darn thing. 

75 will probably be a nail biter til midnight or so, then gradually slip out of range.

Prop 74 should be going down. Prop 73 could concievably come back from behind, and obviously Prop 75 is the most likely to pass. LA Times said No to 73, but Yes to Prop 75. If Prop 75 passes, you can blame one of the most liberal media organizations in the country. Goes to show you how far right the media is.

Newspapers will tend to be anti-union, even if they are normally very left/liberal.  The teamsters union has screwed with them too many times for papers to actually support them anymore.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: 2952-0-0 on November 09, 2005, 01:37:57 AM
Prop 75:

()


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 09, 2005, 01:45:48 AM
California is a disgrace to ever good person in this country.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 01:47:35 AM
Prop 75 now closer than 73 or 74.

73: 49.1%
74: 47.4%
75: 50.5%

California is a disgrace to ever good person in this country.

Yeah, we're all extremists because we vote 60% no on Propositions like one that would cut education spending, which is already less than the national average, despite our high cost of living.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 09, 2005, 02:02:15 AM
Prop 75 now closer than 73 or 74.

73: 49.1%
74: 47.4%
75: 50.5%

California is a disgrace to ever good person in this country.

Yeah, we're all extremists because we vote 60% no on Propositions like one that would cut education spending, which is already less than the national average, despite our high cost of living.

I'm referring mostly to prop 73.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 02:05:23 AM
I wonder what California's laws are on minors getting tattoos.  New Jersey bans any girl under 18 from getting a tattoo, but you don't need parental consent to get an abortion.  Just amazing.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 09, 2005, 02:06:51 AM
Simple effect of 32 years of lies and deceptions Ebowed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:07:21 AM
Prop 75 now closer than 73 or 74.

73: 49.1%
74: 47.4%
75: 50.5%

California is a disgrace to ever good person in this country.

Yeah, we're all extremists because we vote 60% no on Propositions like one that would cut education spending, which is already less than the national average, despite our high cost of living.

I'm referring mostly to prop 73.
Yes, we remain in the same catagory as fellow extremist states ID, NM, and AK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USMinorAbortionLawsMap.png


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 02:09:55 AM
Mississippi and North Dakota have it right, though it would preferable if the consent of the fetus/embryo about to be killed were also necessary.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:10:33 AM
YES! ALL GOING DOWN!!!!

Props 73 (49.3%) and 75 (49.9%) are still close.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:13:53 AM
Mississippi and North Dakota have it right, though it would preferable if the consent of the fetus/embryo about to be killed were also necessary.
Great, why don't you read some about your utopian world where abortion is illegal here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/31/19619/824


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 02:16:18 AM
75 just flipped.  73 remains on the no side of the razors edge.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:16:49 AM
Prop 75 was really close for a bit 1,979,365 to 1,979,524. That was 49.998% yes. Now it's down to 49.7% yes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:18:49 AM
Interestingly, Democrats got pasted in VA state house races. With the GOP also taking the Lt Gov and AG race (though the latter will feature a recount), Kilgore's loss looks like a failure on his part, not some kind of massive anti-GOP groundswell.

Though the CA initiatives are struggling, the leftist efforts in Ohio were blasted.

Democrats are going to spin these various votes rather vigorously, but there is no "there" there. Heck, in VA the GOP did better in 2005 than in 2001, and in NJ Corzine was never expected to lose and not widely expected to face a close race. The props in CA are doing better than many polls indicated, though losing is losing.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:19:23 AM
Wow, if everything fails, this will have been quite an election. 8 Propositions, which fail, and 0 Candidates. Thanks for wasting $60 million of our money, Arnold.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:21:05 AM
Interestingly, Democrats got pasted in VA state house races. With the GOP also taking the Lt Gov and AG race (though the latter will feature a recount), Kilgore's loss looks like a failure on his part, not some kind of massive anti-GOP groundswell.

Though the CA initiatives are struggling, the leftist efforts in Ohio were blasted.

Democrats are going to spin these various votes rather vigorously, but there is no "there" there. Heck, in VA the GOP did better in 2005 than in 2001, and in NJ Corzine was never expected to lose and not widely expected to face a close race. The props in CA are doing better than many polls indicated, though losing is losing.

Prop 73 was up in basically every poll, and Props 74 and 75 had been up in most. If only 1 of Arnold's 6 Propositions he supported pass, that'll be pretty bad. 0 would be even worse.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:24:32 AM
But some are more important politically than others.

Also, bad news for Arnold does not equal some wider political meaning. Arnold is just one Governor, and he can't even run for President.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 09, 2005, 02:25:25 AM
Can someone quantify how pasted the Dems were in the VA and NJ state legislative races (if they were in NJ)?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 02:26:00 AM
Mississippi and North Dakota have it right, though it would preferable if the consent of the fetus/embryo about to be killed were also necessary.
Great, why don't you read some about your utopian world where abortion is illegal here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/31/19619/824

Quote
I met a guy I 'wanted', so went to get the pill so I'd have some freedom.  My doctor told me I was a sinner, and since he had no time for sinners, I did not leave with even a prescription.  (Remember here:  those who use moral objections to even filling a prescription for the morning after pill.)

This sounds more like an argument for the morning after pill, though there are also forms of contraception that take effect before sex to prevent a pregnancy in the first place-- I don't understand why they didn't use condoms?

Quote
You guessed it.  I got pregnant.  Before abortion was legal in my state, there I was. 

Do you know what it's like to be single, pregnant, and alone?

I thought she had this boyfriend, so she wouldn't be "alone."  Anyway, she could have used contraception or not had sex in the first place.  I'm not sympathetic with this character at all.  I am feeling more pain for the kid that was the production of this irresponsible woman's behavior, who never had a chance to live past his birth.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:29:54 AM
But some are more important politically than others.

Also, bad news for Arnold does not equal some wider political meaning. Arnold is just one Governor, and he can't even run for President.

So if the 5th -7th largest economy in the world doesn't matter to you (depends on exchange rate), then why the hell are you posting about California?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:31:35 AM
Can someone quantify how pasted the Dems were in the VA and NJ state legislative races (if they were in NJ)?

I may have spoken too soon. I guess the GOP had so many seats already that, though they won a lot of close races, some of them shouldn't have been close.

Right now it looks like Dems are +1 in VA.

note: an independent defeated a GOP incumbent by 44 votes, though that could change with a recount or absentees.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 02:36:57 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.

Given the right opponent and circumstances, I can see Gore carrying VA and TN in '08. Edwards and Warner would also most likely be competitive in both states.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:39:42 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the most likely southern state (excluding Florida) to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.


If Warner is the nominee it might be the most winnable.
However, if he isn't, Missouri might be more winnable.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 02:41:09 AM
Very weird, for a while Prop 75 was running about 4 points better than 73. Now they're almost equal, 49.4% and 49.6%. They could end up with almost the same vote totals.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 02:42:27 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:43:06 AM
OK, NJ has some kind of weird assembly election system, where each party has 2 candidates and there's a runoff with the top 2. We won't know much until the runoff in a month, then.

In VA, basically the House of Delegates was a wash, with Kaine probably responsible for the Dems picking up 1 seat (there are 100 total). A Kilgore win probably meant GOP +1 or 2.

In local NH elections, the GOP apparently did very well, but I have no numbers.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Jake on November 09, 2005, 02:43:20 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.


How so? Warner's victory in 2001 and further successes and high approval ratings still kept Virginia solidly Republican on both the state, national, and presidential levels. Winning one of three elections this time around, combined with zero of two Senate seats, puts you nowhere near winning Virginia, except with the current Governor at the top of the ticket.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 09, 2005, 02:48:58 AM
Any info on Virginia an Jersey legislaures?
House of Delegates:

R 58 (-3), D 39 (+2), I 3 (+1)

GOP Gains:
6 - SW along WV border west of Radford.  Democrat incombent had very narrow lead in 2003.
99 East, Lower Potomac - Cheasapeake.  About 30% gain in seat where Democrat incumbent did not defend, so assume rural seat with longtime conservative Dem retiring.

Dem Gains:
32 N, NE Loudon.  In 2003, 52% GOP with independent 12%, 47% in 2005.
41 N, SC Fairfax.  In 2003, this was GOP vs 2 independents.  It appears that losing independent in 2003 was GOP candidate in 2005.
67 N, E Loudon, W Fairfax.   GOP uncontested in in 2003.  D 56%, R 41% (not incumbent) in 2005.
87 SE, N Norfolk city.  GOP uncontested in 2003.  2005: D 50, R 38 (non-incumbent), I 12.

Independent Gains:
68 Central.  W Richmond city, N Chesterfield, roughly equal parts in and out of Richmond, with 2400 vote margins cancelling out to produce 44 vote margin out of 27,000 margin.  Republican incumbent was unopposed in 2003.

The other two Independent seats are in rural C Virginia, one between Charlottesville and Lynchburg and areas to the east; the other between Lynchburg and Roanoke (probably includes suburbs of both).  They were not contested in 2005;  In 2003 both candidates drew a Democrat opponent.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:51:41 AM
I thought 87 had a Dem incumbent, Paula Miller? I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Also... Kaine straight up won Virginia Beach. Wow. Bolling and McDonnell, however, won solidly-- which was critical to their statewide wins (especially McDonnell).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 02:52:22 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.


How so? Warner's victory in 2001 and further successes and high approval ratings still kept Virginia solidly Republican on both the state, national, and presidential levels. Winning one of three elections this time around, combined with zero of two Senate seats, puts you nowhere near winning Virginia, except with the current Governor at the top of the ticket.

Let's not forget that Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal, managed to get 46% of the vote in VA last year without spending a dollar or a minute in the state. Unless Allen is the GOP's nominee, it's going to be a battleground state in '08.

Kaine, a Democrat who opposes the death penalty, wasn't supposed to win. Kilgore had a ten point lead on him just a couple of months ago. Kaine managed to pull off a nearly sixteen point swing in two months, and you're trying to tell me that Democrats can't be competitive in the state at the national level? There's no doubt about it: VA is a purple state now, and its Democrats know how to get out the vote.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 02:53:54 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 02:55:58 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.


How so? Warner's victory in 2001 and further successes and high approval ratings still kept Virginia solidly Republican on both the state, national, and presidential levels. Winning one of three elections this time around, combined with zero of two Senate seats, puts you nowhere near winning Virginia, except with the current Governor at the top of the ticket.

Let's not forget that Kerry managed to get 46% of the vote in VA last year without spending a dollar or a minute in the state. Unless Allen is the GOP's nominee, it's going to be a battleground state in '08.

Kaine, a Democrat who opposes the death penalty, wasn't supposed to win. Kilgore had a ten point lead on him just a couple of months ago. Kaine managed to pull off a nearly sixteen point swing in two months, and you're trying to tell me that Democrats can't be competitive in the state at the national level? There's no doubt about it: VA is a purple state now, and its Democrats know how to get out the vote.

A lot less purple than PA, WI, MN, and other states Democrats rely on.

A Democrat will only win VA in 2008 if it's not a real close race... unless Warner is the nominee, in which case its hard to say.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 02:56:31 AM
Kaine's victory backs up the argument that VA is probably the southern state, excluding Florida, that's most likely to go to the Democrats in the '08 presidential election.


How so? Warner's victory in 2001 and further successes and high approval ratings still kept Virginia solidly Republican on both the state, national, and presidential levels. Winning one of three elections this time around, combined with zero of two Senate seats, puts you nowhere near winning Virginia, except with the current Governor at the top of the ticket.

Let's not forget that Kerry managed to get 46% of the vote in VA last year without spending a dollar or a minute in the state. Unless Allen is the GOP's nominee, it's going to be a battleground state in '08.

Kaine, a Democrat who opposes the death penalty, wasn't supposed to win. Kilgore had a ten point lead on him just a couple of months ago. Kaine managed to pull off a nearly sixteen point swing in two months, and you're trying to tell me that Democrats can't be competitive in the state at the national level? There's no doubt about it: VA is a purple state now, and its Democrats know how to get out the vote.

Virginia has had plenty of Democrat Governors before who won by higher margins than what happened tonight.

Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 02:59:33 AM
Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.


That's funny you'd say that the Democrats "barely held on to the seat" after all of the talk you Republicans gave the nation about Bush having a mandate after he was re-elected by a much slimmer margin.

Kaine won by nearly 6 points in a race he shouldn't have won.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 03:00:07 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

Arnold's rejected propositions were about giving him and his corporate masters more power, not improving California.

So putting redistricting in the hands of an independent group of judges to prevent political bias is giving power to supposed "corporate masters"?  Puhleeeze....


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:01:57 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

It's looking like there's a good chance that will happen. With 71.1% reporting, Prop 73 has 49.2%, Prop 75 has 49.5%, and the others are doing much worse.

We just need returns yet to come in from Los Angeles county to cancel out returns from more conservative areas. Los Angeles county has 21.4% reporting, and is currently going 47.5% for Prop 73 and 43.6% for Prop 75.


Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

No, Arnold's Props would have been very bad for California, particularly Props 73-76.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 03:09:19 AM
No, Arnold's Props would have been very bad for California, particularly Props 73-76.

Uh.. yeah... as ya'll are doing so well financially now.   You were offered reform  and failed to accept it.  It is your state's fate, and I guess we'll just have to leave you to your own demise.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:10:33 AM
Counties with a lot of outstanding ballots:

Count / not reporting / Reg. voters / Prop 73 / Prop 75
Alameda 70% of 704k / 32% / 32%
Contra Costa 45% of 492k / 41% / 45%
Los Angeles 73% of 3,842k / 47.5% / 43.6%
Orange 24.6% of 1,491k / 60% / 64%
Riverside 18% of 776k / 60% / 54%
San Bernaardino 36.2% of 753k / 58% / 50%
San Diego 12.8% of 1,383k / 55% / 58%
Santa Clara 14.3% of 762k/ 38% / 42%

Statewide 24.9% of 15,891k / 49.2% / 49.1%


I think we took them all down.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 09, 2005, 03:10:56 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

Arnold's rejected propositions were about giving him and his corporate masters more power, not improving California.

So putting redistricting in the hands of an independent group of judges to prevent political bias is giving power to supposed "corporate masters"?  Puhleeeze....

Putting redistricting in the hands of retired judges who were mostly appointed by Republicans would have had the same effect on CA as the recent redistricting in TX. It would have helped Tom "Scandal of the Day" DeLay maintain control of the House in '06. So, yes, it would have helped Arnold's "corporate masters."

You do know that the DeLay thing was done in the state legislature, right?
See - that's the way ya'll redistrict now.  You do it the Delay way.  Arnold offered you reform.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:12:20 AM
No, Arnold's Props would have been very bad for California, particularly Props 73-76.

Uh.. yeah... as ya'll are doing so well financially now.   You were offered reform  and failed to accept it.  It is your state's fate, and I guess we'll just have to leave you to your own demise.
Why don't we "reform" your state by nuking it? You can't reject it, it's "reform".

Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

Arnold's rejected propositions were about giving him and his corporate masters more power, not improving California.

So putting redistricting in the hands of an independent group of judges to prevent political bias is giving power to supposed "corporate masters"?  Puhleeeze....

Putting redistricting in the hands of retired judges who were mostly appointed by Republicans would have had the same effect on CA as the recent redistricting in TX. It would have helped Tom "Scandal of the Day" DeLay maintain control of the House in '06. So, yes, it would have helped Arnold's "corporate masters."

You do know that the DeLay thing was done in the state legislature, right?
See - that's the way ya'll redistrict now.  You do it the Delay way.  Arnold offered you reform.

Clearly a mid-decade redistricting in California would have eliminated Texas's mid-decade redistricting gerrymander.


All  of Arnold's Props are under 49%!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:16:32 AM
It's over, all of Arnold's Props have lost. Maybe he can refund the $60 million he wasted by calling this worthless election.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 03:18:30 AM
Arnold is toast if none of these pass. Tonight may cause him to pull a Ventura and opt not to run for re-election. Democrats certainly do not want to see Arnold make another prime time speech at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

Once again, we see what your position is really about.

Arnold tries to save California.  All you can think of is politics.

Very sad.

Arnold's rejected propositions were about giving him and his corporate masters more power, not improving California.

So putting redistricting in the hands of an independent group of judges to prevent political bias is giving power to supposed "corporate masters"?  Puhleeeze....

Putting redistricting in the hands of retired judges who were mostly appointed by Republicans would have had the same effect on CA as the recent redistricting in TX. It would have helped Tom "Scandal of the Day" DeLay maintain control of the House in '06. So, yes, it would have helped Arnold's "corporate masters."

You do know that the DeLay thing was done in the state legislature, right?
See - that's the way ya'll redistrict now.  You do it the Delay way.  Arnold offered you reform.

You do know that DeLay has basically been accused of breaking TX's campaign finance laws, which may be ultimately how the Republicans gained control of the State Legislature in '02, right? It has been alleged that without DeLay's illegal activities, the GOP would have never gained control of TX's House and therefore we wouldn't have had the redistricting debacle there.

There is a culture of corruption in the GOP, and it has even managed to infect Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thankfully, California's voters now see through the facade.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 03:22:12 AM
At least Sanders torched Frye in San Diego.

All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Cubby on November 09, 2005, 03:22:54 AM
After nearly 2 hours I have made it through all 41 pages of this thread (it had 38 when I started). Here is my reaction:

Politico: Welcome to the Forums! Don't let the conservative heckling get to you, after awhile I learned not to take it personally.

Republicans: (Especially that Mark guy w/ from GA ::)): Stop being so hysterical about hype, you all are the ones who are so worried about it, its paranoia, just calm down. Let us have our moment in the sun, you know, the one you guys have been hogging since 1994.

I am offended by all the mean comments directed at New Jersey by sore loser GOP boosters here, the voters of that state have made a choice, it should be respected. You look really childish and insulting with all your talk
of "200 pounds of toxic sludge" and "New Detroit"

Blue Avatar from Michigan (name?): We do care about the results from Detroit, I read conflicting posts and right now I still don't know who won.

I am going to bed now, I was working at the polls in my town as a machine tender (We still use lever machines in CT (woot!)) and I am muy muy tired.

Things I am happy about:

Kaine Winning

Corzine Winning

Ferrer breaking 40% (I was a Bloomberg Supporter until this past week, when his $ spending became obscene and I liked Ferrer in the debate)

All of Arnold's stealth amendments failing, I don't care what they proposed, if he's so adamant about them, then they must be crafted to help the GOP.

All in all a great night for the Democrats! (Relatively speaking in an off year like this)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:28:06 AM
At least Sanders torched Frye in San Diego.

All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.



It is clearly relevant to the 2006 California governor race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Politico on November 09, 2005, 03:30:47 AM
All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.



I think this year's elections ultimately show that Democratic-held seats, even ones in southern states like Virginia, are relatively safe. Of course, that may change. On the other hand, today's elections show that Republican incumbents, including even the mighty Arnold Schwarzenegger (Who, BTW, is up for re-election next year, but may decide not to run after tonight's embarrassing losses), MAY be vulnerable next year (Yeah, big surprise! I know haha)

Obviously I think all of this also shows that Bush MAY be a liability for Republican incumbents across the nation, even in "red states" (Blue states on here, I guess) like Virginia. For all we know, he may have cost Kilgore three or four points. He certainly didn't help Kilgore. It seems quite clear that Bush is not likely to be of any help to the vast majority of Republican incumbents in '06.

All in all, 2005 was a Democratic Year. Obviously '06 may be a GOP year, but nobody knows how it's going to turn out. If you're a Republican, I suggest letting the Democrats enjoy their day in the sun, but make sure to prepare yourself for some hard fought battles next year.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 03:47:56 AM
Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.

"Barely"?  Well, we were supposed to be losing by a small margin until recently.  Instead our candidate broke 50%.

Also, honestly, it's not about holding onto the seat.  Let's look at it this way:  if a Republican held the governorship, and he was retiring, his Lt. Governor runs, and is in a dead heat against a Democratic opponent.  Do you consider it an acheivement if the Republican Lt. Governor wins, or would you just scoff at it like you're doing for Kaine?  It's not about which party holds onto the seat, it's about which candidate wins, regardless of who held office before.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 03:56:59 AM
Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.

"Barely"?  Well, we were supposed to be losing by a small margin until recently.  Instead our candidate broke 50%.

Also, honestly, it's not about holding onto the seat.  Let's look at it this way:  if a Republican held the governorship, and he was retiring, his Lt. Governor runs, and is in a dead heat against a Democratic opponent.  Do you consider it an acheivement if the Republican Lt. Governor wins, or would you just scoff at it like you're doing for Kaine?  It's not about which party holds onto the seat, it's about which candidate wins, regardless of who held office before.

I seem to recall a number of republicans claiming that breaking 50% was a mandate a few years ago.

WOOHOO!!! We got a mandate!!!

</Sarcasm>


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:59:56 AM
Public service announcement for our Democratic friends:
YALL HAD THIS SEAT BEFORE.  THIS IS NOT A PICK-UP FOR YOU.  YOU BARELY HELD ON TO A SEAT YOU ALEADY HAD.  END TRANSMISSION.

"Barely"?  Well, we were supposed to be losing by a small margin until recently.  Instead our candidate broke 50%.

Also, honestly, it's not about holding onto the seat.  Let's look at it this way:  if a Republican held the governorship, and he was retiring, his Lt. Governor runs, and is in a dead heat against a Democratic opponent.  Do you consider it an acheivement if the Republican Lt. Governor wins, or would you just scoff at it like you're doing for Kaine?  It's not about which party holds onto the seat, it's about which candidate wins, regardless of who held office before.

I seem to recall a number of republicans claiming that breaking 50% was a mandate a few years ago.

WOOHOO!!! We got a mandate!!!

</Sarcasm>

Don't you know that only 2.47 point wins are mandates? If you do any better than that, it's not a mandate any more.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 09, 2005, 04:08:53 AM
I thought 87 had a Dem incumbent, Paula Miller? I'm pretty sure that's the case.
You're right.  I was going through the results and looking at races that seemed competitive (30-70%) and comparing with the 2003 results.

Miller narrowly won a special election in December 2004.  In 2003, it was an uncontested GOP seat.  This year, the two candidates from 2004 ran again, but there was also an independent.  Miller won 50-38-12.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 04:09:33 AM
I got up from bed just to see what was happening on the Cali props.

Looks like they're all going to be defeated.  75 got killed in LA county, as I thought might happen, and the non-linear shift of Hispanics in LA County weren't strong enough behind 73 to save it.

Other than that, this thread has turned into partisan pointless from both sides now.

It was fun until then countin' the numbers.  :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 04:11:04 AM
Why did the status quo win every election in spite of overwhelming polling that says people think we're on the wrong track?

Why did an incumbent Mayor win in NYC when people say we're on the wrong track?  Why did an incumbent party win the Governorship in VA when people say we're on the wrong track?

Why did New Jersey spend a whole campaing ranting about corruption, only to ratify corruption by popular vote?

Why did the majority party win both House Special Elections this year (OH-2, CA-48), in spite of horrible ratings for Congressional job performance?

Why did the "outsider" get obliterated in the SD Mayor's race, in spite of overwhelming desire for change?

Why did all of the reform propositions fail in Ohio and California fail (apparently) to change the status quo, while a proposition in Texas that protects the status quo on gay marriage passes easily?

I'm not putting up sour grapes here.  I'm thrilled the GOP won the two House special elections this year, thrilled Bloomberg and Sanders won for Mayor, and sort of agree with the Texas marriage initiative.  What I don't get is why did the status quo sweep the whole night (and the whole year so far) when the status quo should be getting run all over?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 04:12:41 AM
Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then ;)

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:19:01 AM
I thought 87 had a Dem incumbent, Paula Miller? I'm pretty sure that's the case.
You're right.  I was going the results and looking at races that seemed competitive (30-70%) and comparing with the 2003 results.

Miller narrowly won a special election in December 2004.  In 2003, it was an uncontested GOP seat.  This year, the two candidates from 2004 ran again, but there was also an independent.  Miller won 50-38-12.



Also... Kaine straight up won Virginia Beach. Wow. Bolling and McDonnell, however, won solidly-- which was critical to their statewide wins (especially McDonnell).
[/quote]

McDonnel won solidly? LOL, 50.05%-49.87% is NOT a solid win.

http://sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sam Spade on November 09, 2005, 04:22:16 AM
SF Gun Ban updated results from SF Chronicle:

Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.

The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.

I think the obvious joke should be to call it the Preparation H Gun Ban. 

Describes San Francisco so well in so many ways.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:22:36 AM
Why did the status quo win every election in spite of overwhelming polling that says people think we're on the wrong track?

Why did an incumbent Mayor win in NYC when people say we're on the wrong track?  Why did an incumbent party win the Governorship in VA when people say we're on the wrong track?
Maybe it's the feds that they're mad at?

Quote
Why did New Jersey spend a whole campaing ranting about corruption, only to ratify corruption by popular vote?
So Forrester isn't curropt now?

Quote
Why did the majority party win both House Special Elections this year (OH-2, CA-48), in spite of horrible ratings for Congressional job performance?
2 elections in very Republican districts, 1 of which HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

Quote
Why did the "outsider" get obliterated in the SD Mayor's race, in spite of overwhelming desire for change?
It's San Diego.

Quote
Why did all of the reform propositions fail in Ohio and California fail (apparently) to change the status quo, while a proposition in Texas that protects the status quo on gay marriage passes easily?
The California ones failed because they were flawed and were backed by a flawed governor. Actually flawed is the best way to describe Props 77 and 78. Props 73-76 were even worse.

Quote
I'm not putting up sour grapes here.  I'm thrilled the GOP won the two House special elections this year, thrilled Bloomberg and Sanders won for Mayor, and sort of agree with the Texas marriage initiative.  What I don't get is why did the status quo sweep the whole night (and the whole year so far) when the status quo should be getting run all over?

So you're sort of anti-civil unions?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:25:55 AM
Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then ;)

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

Prop 77 would have done much better if

1. It didn't put all the power into the hands of 3 retired judges. California has actually had Republican governors appointing judges for all but 5 of the last 23 years.

2. If someone less divisive than Arnold was promoting it. Arnold is not very popular.

Some liberals voted for Prop 77 anyways, but the flaws in Prop 77 and the man behind it doomed it.

Prop 77 did make for some interesting splits in endorsements. Against it were Democratic and Republican Congressman, the Democratic party, and the Green party. For it were the Republican party and Common Cause.

I was considering voting for it, before I realized the flaws.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ebowed on November 09, 2005, 04:29:07 AM
Proposition H, which requires city residents who already own guns to turn them in to police by April 1, was winning 58 percent to 42 percent with 98 percent of precincts counted.

The measure also makes it illegal to buy, sell, distribute and manufacture firearms and ammunition in the city.

Disgusting.

Although it is interesting that the most liberal city in America passed this with only 58%.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 04:31:11 AM
Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then ;)

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

Prop 77 would have done much better if

1. It didn't put all the power into the hands of 3 retired judges. California has actually had Republican governors appointing judges for all but 5 of the last 23 years.

2. If someone less divisive than Arnold was promoting it. Arnold is not very popular.

Some liberals voted for Prop 77 anyways, but the flaws in Prop 77 and the man behind it doomed it.

Prop 77 did make for some interesting splits in endorsements. Against it were Democratic and Republican Congressman, the Democratic party, and the Green party. For it were the Republican party and Common Cause.

I was considering voting for it, before I realized the flaws.

If you'd actually read the proposition, you'd know that the Democratic legislative leadership can block judges they think are partisan under the provisions of 77.  I'm guessing you didn't read the proposition, did you?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:38:01 AM
Some interesting results; shame to see the redistricting proposal fail in California. It would seem that a majority of CA voters either think that bi-partisan gerrymandering is fine or that they just vote in the way that their Master's Voice tells them to...

VA county results are really weird; especially in NOVA and the SW (compare the Gubernatorial results in both to the results in the other Statewide elections there). Would seem that sometimes voters do vote for people over parties then ;)

Hang on a minute... does anyone know why Kilgore did so badly in the Southeast?

Prop 77 would have done much better if

1. It didn't put all the power into the hands of 3 retired judges. California has actually had Republican governors appointing judges for all but 5 of the last 23 years.

2. If someone less divisive than Arnold was promoting it. Arnold is not very popular.

Some liberals voted for Prop 77 anyways, but the flaws in Prop 77 and the man behind it doomed it.

Prop 77 did make for some interesting splits in endorsements. Against it were Democratic and Republican Congressman, the Democratic party, and the Green party. For it were the Republican party and Common Cause.

I was considering voting for it, before I realized the flaws.

If you'd actually read the proposition, you'd know that the Democratic legislative leadership can block judges they think are partisan under the provisions of 77.  I'm guessing you didn't read the proposition, did you?

Actually I had read it. The point is that these judges would likely lean Republican in a Democratic state.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 09, 2005, 05:01:59 AM
Why did the status quo win every election in spite of overwhelming polling that says people think we're on the wrong track?

Intuitively, I feel it's for the same reason that polls say that way more people would prefer a Democratic Congress to a Republican one, and yet approval of almost every person in Congress is relatively good.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 09, 2005, 05:10:53 AM
At least Sanders torched Frye in San Diego.

All in all... a status quo election. Ballot measures defeated in CA and OH, NJ and VA retain Dem Govs and by similar margins as 2001 (though the GOP only got the AG in '01, this time Lt Gov and AG).

Totally meaningless with regard to 2006. Totally. Anyone suggesting otherwise on either side is just not rational.



Now, now, I'm not so sure you are right about that.

The main reason why I think that, is a result of one of the Mayor's elections I was really watching and went exactly as I predicted it would.

This Mayor's race was in Asheville, NC (not known to be the hotbed of liberal or Democratic activism).   Asheville African-American city Councilwoman Terry M. Bellamy (although running in a non-partisan race, but known to be the Democrat) beat soundly the Republican candidate Dr. Joe Dunn to replace a Republican incumbent (since 1991, who was defeated in the primary in October), Charles Worley (who had spent $1.2 million in 2001 to keep the mayor's office).

The nearly final results (with only a handful of votes to be counted) in the ASHEVILLE, NC MAYOR'S RACE:

Terry M. Bellamy        10,534  56.8%
Dr. Joe Dunn                8004  43.2%

Bellamy will be the first African-American woman mayor in North Carolina and has won in both a very heavily Republican area of that state, as well as being one of the few African-American women mayor's across the south.

I would say this election does give some creedence (since Dunn outspent Bellamy; and add how well Kaine did in VA & Dems picking up seats in VA House -- although I will agree it is tempered somewhat by the GOP wins in the Lt. Governor & AG races -- and then add the convincing wins of the Dems both in NJ Gov & House races + the defeat of CA, Arnold endorsed Props -- yes, again tempered somewhat by the results in the San Diego mayor's race -- but then also factor in the results in some of the outlying areas from New York City and I haven't heard the final results in St. Paul, MN -- but I would assume right now that incumbent mayor Kelly -- who endorsed Bush in '04) that Democrats do have some momentum going into 2006, it will depend on if the Dems are able to read correctly these results.

Of course now comes news that Bush is going to go really negative over the "allegations" by Dems that the Bush administration lied about the reasonings for going to war in Iraq in 2003.  I don't know how these are lies, when's it's being proven that they were lying.  Yeah, I would say the GOP and Bush are worried about these election results and well they should be.

Hopefully the Dems will majorly kick some GOP butt next year, though.   

And yeah,

Kelly goes down in defeat (that awful turncoat of a Democrat in '04) in St. Paul, MN and with the exact numbers I predicted:

Coleman   70%
Kelly         30%

Good riddance to Kelly who turned against his party and endorsed G.W. Bush in 2004!

Yeah, I would say the big MO (momentum) is going towards the Democrats and away from the administration and the GOP for 2006!!!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 09, 2005, 05:24:48 AM
which may be ultimately how the Republicans gained control of the State Legislature in '02, right?
In the 2001 Texas House of Representatives, Republicans represented a majority of Texans, yet did not have a majority of the seats.  This was because the districts were based on 11-year old census data, and did not reflect population growth in Republican-leaning areas.  In addition, the 1990 redistricting had undersized Democrat seats and oversized Republican seats in Harris County.   Simply drawing equal population districts resulted in a Republican majority in 2002.  Imagine a district with twice the population of the statewide average that is 65% Republican.   Divide it into two districts, and both will elect Republicans.  Or imagine 3 districts with the population of two average districts that are 65% Democrat.  Redraw them into 2 average sized districts, and one Democrat will have lost his seat.  

In other areas. redistricting inevitably results in drastic changes in boundaries, so that the power of incumbency is reduced.  You're not the incumbent if you didn't represent most of the voters in your new district.  Some incumbents retire, creating open seats.  Most such seats are going to choose a Republican.

It was inevitable after the 2001 House redistricting that Republicans would have majority control.

Republicans already controlled the Texas Senate in 2001.  The 2001 senate districts mostly just unkinked the boundaries that the Democrats had drawns and redrawn and redrawn and redrawn (different Senate boundaries were used in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, and 1998).  The Republicans picked up another senate seat in 2002.

Quote
It has been alleged that without DeLay's illegal activities, the GOP would have never gained control of TX's House and therefore we wouldn't have had the redistricting debacle there.
These allegations are not based in fact.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 09, 2005, 08:08:16 AM


Over all, it doesn't look like anything has really changed across the country in regards to the who controls what.  Democrats retain the Governor seats in VA and NJ (though the Republicans pick up the Lt Gov seat), and most if not all incumbants in Maryland won re-election.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: afleitch on November 09, 2005, 09:24:44 AM
Don't know if it's been mentioned, but the incumbent intelligent design supporters have been voted out of the Dover Area School Board. A small victory, but a victory none the less.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 09, 2005, 09:28:24 AM
By, this thread took some reading ;)

Dave


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 09:30:50 AM
OK, Arnold is in trouble. Who cares. Personally, I think Commando alone is reason to vote for him, but if CA voters disagree, it's not a big deal.

Republicans don't need to score major victories... they just need to hold the line. That's how it works when you're a majority. I see no evidence Democrats are any stronger now then they have been in the last 5 years.

Dems will add some Governorships in '06, but won't retake either House of Congress-- the status quo will win there as well. Considering Bush's troubles, such an outcome is a loss for Democrats.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 10:02:27 AM
Personally I think it was a good night for the Democrats and some of the conservative bloggers agree.  I think we have the momentum heading into 2006 and the political breeze is at our backs. Will we win back the house and senate?  No, but we could make small gains in the senate and decent gains in the house.  Ill take that.  Especially heading into 2008 when it looks like Democrats will have an advantage in the Senate seats up for grabs. Here is what David Wissing had to say:

Quote
Rough Night For The GOP
Hard to put it any other way. It has been a while since the Republicans were so thoroughly thrashed in one night the way they were last night. You would probably have to go back to 1998 to remember a night when the GOP did as bad as they did last night. I’m sure the Democrats will crow a little bit, as they should seeing that they managed to win the two most high-profile races.

Obviously the big winner (besides Kaine and Corzine) is Mark Warner. By helping Tim Kaine win in Virginia, he immediately makes himself top tier candidate in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary fight. At a minimum, he becomes a frontrunner to be Hillary’s running mate if she gets the nomination.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ballot referendum question went down to a massive defeat as well.

The only bright spot for the GOP from last night has to be the huge defeat of the Democratic backed Ohio election reform ballot questions. They were pushed hard by the far left in a state that is supposed to show the GOP in trouble. The GOP did manage to win the Lt. Governor race in VA and currently leads the Attorney General race. The GOP also won mayoral races in New York City and San Diego. Other than that, it is hard to say that much went well for the GOP.

Do the results from last night’s off-year elections mean anything for 2006? In 2001, the Democrats also swept the VA and NJ aces only to lose their Senate majority in 2002. In 2003, the GOP managed to pick up gubernatorial seats in Mississippi, Kentucky and California, which lead to President Bush’s and the GOP’s big night in November 2004. However, the most apt comparison would be to 1993 and 1994. At that time, the Democratic Party was as lowin the polls as the GOP is right now. In 1993, the GOP won the NYC and Los Angeles mayoral races for the first time in a long time as well as the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. We all know what happened in 1994. Only time will tell whethe 2006 will be for the Democrats what 1994 was for the Republicans or be another dud for the Democrats like 2002.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 09, 2005, 10:09:48 AM
Personally I think it was a good night for the Democrats and some of the conservative bloggers agree


I agree. Kaine and Corzine had better margins of victory that had been anticipated

Dave


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 09, 2005, 10:11:28 AM
I was not expecting Kaine to win by nearly 6% or Corzine to win by 9%!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 10:14:22 AM
Damn, I was hoping for some comment from Carl Hayden in this thread.
Oh well, not to be...Ah hey, 1 out of 3's not bad. :)
What's the NY result? The last figure mentioned is with 10% counted.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MissCatholic on November 09, 2005, 10:33:00 AM
this thread is unbelievable.

i have consumed two hot chocolate donuts, a yogurt, a banana, two cups of coffee and a cigarette read every post and its 9.31 NOW. oh my 1 hr 21mins unbelievable.

but great results last night. Warner must be really giving Allen nightmares now. So its Warner 1 Allen 0.

Edmonton lost last night but i dont feel to disappointed. I wonder how Arnold is sleeping at the moment - take a good long hot shower. thanks for mobilizing the democratic base arnold.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: True Democrat on November 09, 2005, 10:39:54 AM
Damn, I was hoping for some comment from Carl Hayden in this thread.
Oh well, not to be...Ah hey, 1 out of 3's not bad. :)
What's the NY result? The last figure mentioned is with 10% counted.


NY Times says Bloomberg got 59% or so.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 10:43:46 AM
Comparing Governor's race with Presidential race... Bold is Kaine either more than ten points better, or worse than Kerry.
ACCOMACK COUNTY Dem +8.2
ALBEMARLE COUNTY Dem +10.7
ALLEGHANY COUNTY Dem +9.5
AMELIA COUNTY Dem +2.5
AMHERST COUNTY Dem +5.3
APPOMATTOX COUNTY Dem +6.6
ARLINGTON COUNTY Dem +6.6
AUGUSTA COUNTY Dem +9.5
BATH COUNTY Dem +8.8
BEDFORD COUNTY Dem +8.1
BLAND COUNTY Dem +7.4
BOTETOURT COUNTY Dem +9.0
BRUNSWICK COUNTY Dem +0.7 - one precinct missing though
BUCHANAN COUNTY Dem -2.3
BUCKINGHAM COUNTY Dem +1.6
CAMPBELL COUNTY Dem +7.0
CAROLINE COUNTY Dem +4.7
CARROLL COUNTY Dem +6.9
CHARLES CITY COUNTY Dem +6.4
CHARLOTTE COUNTY Dem +2.4
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Dem +8.2
CLARKE COUNTY Dem +3.5
CRAIG COUNTY Dem +7.9
CULPEPER COUNTY Dem +2.9
CUMBERLAND COUNTY Dem +2.1
DICKENSON COUNTY Dem -2.9
DINWIDDIE COUNTY Dem +3.5
ESSEX COUNTY Dem +2.5
FAIRFAX COUNTY Dem +7.0
FAUQUIER COUNTY Dem +7.6
FLOYD COUNTY Dem +7.5
FLUVANNA COUNTY Dem +9.5
FRANKLIN COUNTY Dem +8.9
FREDERICK COUNTY Dem +2.7
GILES COUNTY Dem +8.7
GLOUCESTER COUNTY Dem +8.3
GOOCHLAND COUNTY Dem +7.8
GRAYSON COUNTY Dem +6.6
GREENE COUNTY Dem +8.8
GREENSVILLE COUNTY Dem -3.2
HALIFAX COUNTY Dem +1.4
HANOVER COUNTY Dem +8.2
HENRICO COUNTY Dem +8.0 - three precincts missing though
HENRY COUNTY Dem +8.9
HIGHLAND COUNTY Dem +5.3
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY Dem +8.6
JAMES CITY COUNTY Dem +10.1 - two precincts missing though
KING & QUEEN COUNTY Dem +8.6
KING GEORGE COUNTY Dem +8.4
KING WILLIAM COUNTY Dem +7.3
LANCASTER COUNTY Dem +4.4
LEE COUNTY Dem -5.7
LOUDOUN COUNTY Dem +7.7
LOUISA COUNTY Dem +5.8
LUNENBURG COUNTY Dem -0.1
MADISON COUNTY Dem +5.5
MATHEWS COUNTY Dem +9.7
MECKLENBURG COUNTY Dem +1.5
MIDDLESEX COUNTY Dem +4.6
MONTGOMERY COUNTY Dem +10.5
NELSON COUNTY Dem +5.8
NEW KENT COUNTY Dem +9.7
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY Dem +9.6
NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY Dem +4.5
NOTTOWAY COUNTY Dem +6.2
ORANGE COUNTY Dem +6.7
PAGE COUNTY Dem +4.4
PATRICK COUNTY Dem +10.4
PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY Dem +3.9
POWHATAN COUNTY Dem +6.7
PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY Dem +2.7
PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY Dem +2.5
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY Dem +3.6
PULASKI COUNTY Dem +9.1
RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY Dem +5.7
RICHMOND COUNTY Dem +2.3
ROANOKE COUNTY Dem +10.5
ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY Dem +6.6
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY Dem +7.3
RUSSELL COUNTY Dem -1.3
SCOTT COUNTY Dem -7.4

SHENANDOAH COUNTY Dem +2.2
SMYTH COUNTY Dem +3.2
SOUTHAMPTON COUNTY Dem +4.0
SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY Dem +7.2
STAFFORD COUNTY Dem +6.2
SURRY COUNTY Dem +5.2
SUSSEX COUNTY Dem -1.2
TAZEWELL COUNTY Dem -0.3

WARREN COUNTY Dem +3.4
WASHINGTON COUNTY Dem +2.2
WESTMORELAND COUNTY Dem +3.2
WISE COUNTY Dem -2.3
WYTHE COUNTY Dem +6.8
YORK COUNTY Dem +10.0
ALEXANDRIA CITY Dem +5.1
BEDFORD CITY Dem +8.1
BRISTOL CITY Dem +2.1
BUENA VISTA CITY Dem +12.7
CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY Dem +7.6
CHESAPEAKE CITY Dem +8.2
COLONIAL HEIGHTS CITY Dem +4.4
COVINGTON CITY Dem +10.2
DANVILLE CITY Dem +3.9
EMPORIA CITY Dem -7.6
FAIRFAX CITY Dem +6.0
FALLS CHURCH CITY Dem +7.8
FRANKLIN CITY Dem +3.8
FREDERICKSBURG CITY Dem +6.6
GALAX CITY Dem +7.7
HAMPTON CITY Dem +6.4
HARRISONBURG CITY Dem +7.3
HOPEWELL CITY Dem +0.1
LEXINGTON CITY Dem +7.6
LYNCHBURG CITY Dem +6.4
MANASSAS CITY Dem +3.1
MANASSAS PARK CITY Dem +0.7
MARTINSVILLE CITY Dem +8.3
NEWPORT NEWS CITY Dem +5.4
NORFOLK CITY Dem +4.3
NORTON CITY Dem -3.3
PETERSBURG CITY Dem -0.6 - one precinct missing though
POQUOSON CITY Dem +12.2
PORTSMOUTH CITY Dem +4.7
RADFORD CITY Dem +7.8
RICHMOND CITY Dem +5.7 - one precinct missing though
ROANOKE CITY Dem +9.4
SALEM CITY Dem +10.1
STAUNTON CITY Dem +10.2

SUFFOLK CITY Dem +6.6
VIRGINIA BEACH CITY Dem +8.6
WAYNESBORO CITY Dem +9.4
WILLIAMSBURG CITY Dem +9.2
WINCHESTER CITY Dem +2.6


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 11:04:44 AM
By the way, gays may have 'lost' last night in Texas, but they won big in Maine. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2005/11/09/maine_voters_keep_gay_rights_law_on_the_books/)

AUGUSTA, Maine --Maine voters decided Tuesday to keep the state's gay rights law on the books, making Maine the last New England state to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

With returns from 84 percent of the state's 634 precincts, votes supporting the gay rights law were ahead 55 percent to 45 percent over those seeking to overturn the law that was approved by the Legislature. The count was 189,535 to 153,674.

The vote "reaffirms the basic values that are intrinsic in Maine," said Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the law earlier this year before it was put on hold by the pending referendum. "Mainers don't like discrimination ... if it happens to one person it happens to all of us."

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, calls the outcome "a much-needed victory in our national movement" after a string of losses in other states on gay marriage issues. "We needed to show we can win."

Paul Madore of the Maine Grassroots Coalition, which wanted to repeal the law, did not immediately return a phone message. But the pro-repeal side, hoping for a turnaround as votes were counted in small towns, refused to throw in the towel even as the other side claimed victory.

The issue, which was put to a statewide vote for the third time since 1998, pitted a coalition of mainstream religious and business groups and politicians against a network of Christian church groups that viewed gay rights as an assault on traditional marriage.

Tuesday's vote was a referendum on the law, enacted earlier this year, to amend the Maine Human Rights Act by making discrimination illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 11:08:59 AM
Damn, I was hoping for some comment from Carl Hayden in this thread.
Oh well, not to be...Ah hey, 1 out of 3's not bad. :)
What's the NY result? The last figure mentioned is with 10% counted.


NY Times says Bloomberg got 59% or so.
Yeah, I read that too...there seem to be no official data anywhere though...I was looking for local breakup.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: MODU on November 09, 2005, 11:13:27 AM


No one can deny that Kaine was much more popular than Kerry.  hehehe


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 11:13:47 AM
Well, here's by Borough. Hey, Ferrer won the Bronx. :)
()


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 09, 2005, 12:07:53 PM
OK, Arnold is in trouble. Who cares. Personally, I think Commando alone is reason to vote for him, but if CA voters disagree, it's not a big deal.

Republicans don't need to score major victories... they just need to hold the line. That's how it works when you're a majority. I see no evidence Democrats are any stronger now then they have been in the last 5 years.

Dems will add some Governorships in '06, but won't retake either House of Congress-- the status quo will win there as well. Considering Bush's troubles, such an outcome is a loss for Democrats.



You obviously haven't examined all the results across the country?  Including the mayor's race in St. Paul, MN & Asheville, NC.  (Okay, I might concede your point a tiny bit in regards to the results in San Diego, CA). 

As far as I'm concern, I have a feeling that Governor Arnold will not run for a second term, and well he probably shouldn't from yesterday's outcome.  Hollywood will probably not welcome him back very well, either. 

Don't forget as well that Democrats picked up seats in both the Virginia House of Delegates and the New Jersey Assembly.

And Republicans better not crow, yet, about the VERY CLOSE wins in the Virginia Lt. Governor and especially in the Attorney General race.  This is the latest results posted on the Attorney General's race in Virginia with 99.91% of the vote counted (from WDBI in Roanoke, VA):

McDonnell (R)        966,275  50%
Deeds (D)              962,812  49%

That's a difference of only 3463 votes, and unlike last night, before I went to bed, when Deeds was behind by about 9000 votes that kind of deficit could be overcome by enough votes still outstanding being counted in the Arlington County, Fairfax County and in the City of Richmond, which I suspect is where many of those votes not counted are from.  And of course this closeness if it holds will lead to I do believe an automatic recount. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 09, 2005, 12:21:03 PM
The VA results page has the AG race at:

McDonnell 969,174
Deeds       967,156

with 99.88% of precincts counted. I'm not sure what the deal is with the absentee ballots.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 12:28:18 PM
McDonnell will be ahead on 100.0% of precincts, but yeah, automatic recount to follow. (So Carl might actually pull through on 2 out of 3 yet.)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: mddem2004 on November 09, 2005, 12:42:34 PM
Personally I think it was a good night for the Democrats and some of the conservative bloggers agree.  I think we have the momentum heading into 2006 and the political breeze is at our backs. Will we win back the house and senate?  No, but we could make small gains in the senate and decent gains in the house.  Ill take that.  Especially heading into 2008 when it looks like Democrats will have an advantage in the Senate seats up for grabs. Here is what David Wissing had to say:

Quote
Rough Night For The GOP
Hard to put it any other way. It has been a while since the Republicans were so thoroughly thrashed in one night the way they were last night. You would probably have to go back to 1998 to remember a night when the GOP did as bad as they did last night. I’m sure the Democrats will crow a little bit, as they should seeing that they managed to win the two most high-profile races.

Obviously the big winner (besides Kaine and Corzine) is Mark Warner. By helping Tim Kaine win in Virginia, he immediately makes himself top tier candidate in the 2008 Democratic Presidential primary fight. At a minimum, he becomes a frontrunner to be Hillary’s running mate if she gets the nomination.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ballot referendum question went down to a massive defeat as well.

The only bright spot for the GOP from last night has to be the huge defeat of the Democratic backed Ohio election reform ballot questions. They were pushed hard by the far left in a state that is supposed to show the GOP in trouble. The GOP did manage to win the Lt. Governor race in VA and currently leads the Attorney General race. The GOP also won mayoral races in New York City and San Diego. Other than that, it is hard to say that much went well for the GOP.

Do the results from last night’s off-year elections mean anything for 2006? In 2001, the Democrats also swept the VA and NJ aces only to lose their Senate majority in 2002. In 2003, the GOP managed to pick up gubernatorial seats in Mississippi, Kentucky and California, which lead to President Bush’s and the GOP’s big night in November 2004. However, the most apt comparison would be to 1993 and 1994. At that time, the Democratic Party was as lowin the polls as the GOP is right now. In 1993, the GOP won the NYC and Los Angeles mayoral races for the first time in a long time as well as the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races. We all know what happened in 1994. Only time will tell whethe 2006 will be for the Democrats what 1994 was for the Republicans or be another dud for the Democrats like 2002.
On the point of whether 2006 will be a dud like 2002 was for the Dems in light of these very similar victories in 2001, one very important point must be made I think.

If you will recall in the fall of 2002 the Republicans shamelessly politicized the question of use of force in Iraq by calling for the vote to give Bush the authorization. I recall the likes of Andy Card saying "you dont introduce new products (ie War) in August". It became a campaign issue whether you would support Bush in a post 9-11 world and our troops in the field in Afghanistan or not (unlike his father who in 1990 had a similar vote put off until after the mid term elections so the question would not be politcized). It consumed all other issues and drowned the Democrats domestic message.

I doubt in 2006 we'll hear much "On To Bagdad" talk from their side...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 09, 2005, 01:02:48 PM
OK, NJ has some kind of weird assembly election system, where each party has 2 candidates and there's a runoff with the top 2. We won't know much until the runoff in a month, then.


Actually, if I remember it right, NJ election system is a bit different: indeed, each party has 2 candidates in each district, but the reason is that each voter gets two votes and each district elects to members. I might be wrong on details , but there is no run-off and we don't have to wait.

In fact, the (almost) final results (according to Star-Ledger) seem to be that the Democratic 47-33 seat majority will become either a 48-32 or 49-31: 2 Dem seats went Rep, 3 Rep seats went Dem and in 1 Rep seat Dems still hope for an absentee ballot turnaround.

Actually, apparently the Dem victories happened in Republican-leaning districts. In contrast, the Republicans ousted 2 Dems that were viewed as surprise winners last time in a normally solidly Rep district, so that these are more of a return to normal service. So Dems are quite happy. As the Assembly majority leader noted, before election it has been the largest majority they had since 1979, and now it grew even more.  Likewise, Rep leader seems to be unhappy about the outcome.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 01:13:44 PM
Oh, thanks.



Final point: there is an intrinsic flaw in the Democrats current approach, one that victimized Boris Yeltsin, among others. Their campaigns are totally devoid of real ideas, and mainly criticize Republican failings (often perceived versus real).

The problem with this strategy is that, once in power, voters expect results. Without ideas, it's pretty hard to produce results through anything other than dumb luck (i.e. the economy happens to be growing, and the media covers it as such rather than sayings its bad when it is, in fact, solid).

Now, this is the case with the national party, not necessarily state and local officials (though NJ Democrats are not only insanely corrupt but totally worthless on policy as well). For 2006, when there are a lot of races going on, national message will matter... in 2005 it was mutually non-existent for empirically obvious reasons.

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 01:27:06 PM

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

Lose as in... Lose seats?  Or lose as in fail to capitalize on an opportunity to make big gains?

Regardless of your answer I agree the Democrats need a clear and nationally unified message in 2006 if they plan on making gains.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 01:38:04 PM
Actually I had read it. The point is that these judges would likely lean Republican in a Democratic state.

So Fabian Nunez will be picking people like Janice Brown?  You obviously didn't read the proposition, or simply don't wish to accurately represent it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 09, 2005, 01:39:07 PM

Final point: there is an intrinsic flaw in the Democrats current approach, one that victimized Boris Yeltsin, among others. Their campaigns are totally devoid of real ideas, and mainly criticize Republican failings (often perceived versus real).

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

I'm minded to agree with that

Even if, and it's a big if, the Democrats do win control of Congress in 2006, without a coherent (moderate-cum-liberal-cum populist) agenda, they'll be back out on their arses in 2008. It is simply not good enough for Democrats to fight and win elections on the back of popular discontent with Bush and the GOP.

The problem is for Democrats is that even if they do with a majority in the House, it's unlikely they'd have the numbers to push through any strong liberal agenda. For the Democrats to gain control, they'll need a stronger 'Blue Dog' contingent. They can't rely on the same level of ideological cohesion as the GOP [the Gypsy Moths are virtually, if not already, extinct]. In the Senate, however, it's possible for them to have liberal/populist majority of sorts

I'm more confident of Democrats making more significant progress in the 36 gubnatorial races

Dave


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Virginian87 on November 09, 2005, 01:40:26 PM

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

Lose as in... Lose seats?  Or lose as in fail to capitalize on an opportunity to make big gains?

Regardless of your answer I agree the Democrats need a clear and nationally unified message in 2006 if they plan on making gains.

As do I.  Offering new ideas is the only way we can hope to regain control of Congress next year.  But I must tell the Republican Virginians here: Kilgore had no bright ideas either.  At least Kaine wants to continue Warner's excellent transportation and education policies.  

Now maybe we'll get the funding to implement the TransDominion Express and Southeast Corridor rail projects to Southside and Southwest Virginia.  Hopefully we can emulate the excellent transportation system in North Carolina


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 09, 2005, 01:43:30 PM

But I must tell the Republican Virginians here: Kilgore had no bright ideas either.  At least Kaine wants to continue Warner's excellent transportation and education policies.  


Which, in no small part, is why Kaine won :)

Dave


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 01:50:40 PM
Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 01:55:05 PM

If the Democratic plan is to attack Bush in place of proposing real, workable ideas (and workable is key-- mostly Democrats propose even greater spending), they will lose in 2006.

Lose as in... Lose seats?  Or lose as in fail to capitalize on an opportunity to make big gains?

Regardless of your answer I agree the Democrats need a clear and nationally unified message in 2006 if they plan on making gains.

"Lose" is sort of subjective. I would say that failing to make clear gains in the House and Senate, along with Gov pickups, would historically constitute a "loss" for the opposition party.

In the current environment, I might describe these as the "break even" points:

Senate: Dems +2
House: Dems +4
Gov's: Dems +2

Those demarcations are arbitrary. But, I mean, if Democrats gain 1 House seat and no Senate seats, I'm sorry, that's a loss in the current environment. And if they lose seats... that's a crushing blow.

Keep in mind, Bush is more or less gone come 2008, because he isn't running, his Veep isn't running, and I doubt Iraq will be as serious an issue by then (it may even turn in the GOP's favor).

The Democrats have one chance to take advantage of Bush's unpopularity: 2006. Let me repeat: that is their only opportunity. If Dems blow it... well, that's all she wrote.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: TheresNoMoney on November 09, 2005, 01:57:53 PM
But I must tell the Republican Virginians here: Kilgore had no bright ideas either.  

Yep, his campaign was all about negative attack ads and peripheral issues like the death penalty and his opponent being a "liberal" (lmao). Kilgore really didn't present any clear agenda.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 02:17:20 PM
Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you'd be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 
"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."
"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 02:30:18 PM
Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you would be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 

"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."

"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."

Of course I'd be much happier if we'd broken the unions forever, but the fact is Nick, the state is in exactly the same shape today it was in yesterday.  The election was about change, but nothing changed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 02:31:29 PM
Prop 78 recieved 41%.  Prop 79 recieved 38%.  In the only relative head-to-head matchup between Schwarzenegger and Democrats, Schwarzenegger won.  The rest is just anti-special election attitude and this bizarre clinging to the status quo.

Again, why did the status quo win everything when 61% of Americans think we're on the wrong track?

Why do I get this feeling had 73-77 passed you would be singing a different tune today?

By the way, were you on FOX news last night around 1am est?  You sound an awful lot like the Arnolds press guy.  This guy was good. 

"Arnolds not in trouble." 

"Low numbers?  What low numbers? Our internals have the Governor sitting at a little over 50% approval."

"This is no big deal.  All this means is the Governor will have to go to Sacramento and get things done himself."

Of course I'd be much happier if we'd broken the unions forever, but the fact is Nick, the state is in exactly the same shape today it was in yesterday.  The election was about change, but nothing changed.

I guess your right.  I really didnt have a horse in this race so I cant say whether I think the change would have been good or bad.  Ill leave that debate to you Cali residents.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 02:35:37 PM
John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 02:41:00 PM
John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

That's pretty much what this was.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 02:42:12 PM
Oh, and another reason that nothing passed in the special election is that over 50% were opposed to the idea of a special election, most saying that they thought it cost to much money.

Our 50th ranked education system pays off again, $50 million is nothing to a government with a $120 billion budget.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 02:44:45 PM
John; would a proposal to have an opt-out option for political donations on Union dues forms have passed?

That's pretty much what this was.

Was it? Interesting; have you got a link to the proposal?

In the long run, that's the sort of restriction that ends up making the labour movement as a whole stronger (it did here) but makes certain parts a lot weaker.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 02:47:01 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 02:57:48 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:03:56 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Umm, that's a YES. You're just spinning.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Moooooo on November 09, 2005, 03:06:45 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

Do you think a majority would choose to opt out had 75 passed?

Thats pretty sad that the unions would strip members of healh care and other benefits simply because they chose to opt out of giving political contributions.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 03:10:55 PM
Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:13:09 PM
Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions. Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions. Meanwhile he has broken records for taking money from large corporations. Arnold wanted it so that corporations could easily give money, but unions couldn't. Why do you hate the unions, Al?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 03:17:35 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

No.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Umm, that's a YES. You're just spinning.

No, I'm telling the whole truth instead of just the parts that benefit me.  The world is more complex that a DKos post.

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions. Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions. Meanwhile he has broken records for taking money from large corporations. Arnold wanted it so that corporations could easily give money, but unions couldn't. Why do you hate the unions, Al?

Arnold endorsed shareholder protection laws during the campaign, actually.  So yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about.

From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

Do you think a majority would choose to opt out had 75 passed?

Thats pretty sad that the unions would strip members of healh care and other benefits simply because they chose to opt out of giving political contributions.

I don't know that it would weaken the unions, but it would change them dramatically.  First, it would sever the link between Democratic state politicians and service unions, making both more independent of one another.  Second, it would shift the union's focus away from political activities and towards organizing workers.

And yes, its sad that the unions did this.  The really sad thing is that they're all bankrupt now.  They got loan extensions from the banks to keep spending on TV ads, and now they're up to their neck in red ink.  The members are going to paying for this campaign for years in the form of higher dues (They're already greatly elevated).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 03:18:36 PM
LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.




Just Scoones and Beet Red Though Dumb?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 03:19:41 PM
Umm, no it would have weakened the unions.

In the short-term, yes. Absolutely. In the long term... no. Quite the reverse.
The main result would be the unions becoming more respectable (union membership is comically low everywhere in the U.S, bar New York) and everything (more members and all that) flows from there.

Quote
Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions.

So? "Special Interest Group" is little more than a mild term of abuse for political opponents these days.

Quote
Why do you hate the unions, Al?

Excuse me?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:29:49 PM
From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

No.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Umm, that's a YES. You're just spinning.

No, I'm telling the whole truth instead of just the parts that benefit me.  The world is more complex that a DKos post.

If you weaken the unions, it'll be harder for them to provide health and pension benefits.  Anyways, why can't the employers or government provide those?
Quote

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

The union leadership at any rate. As a whole (unless California is on a different planet to the U.K) the effect would have been some initial damage to the unions as a whole but in the longterm they'd gain out of it. And become much more assertive (especially come election endorsements).

Umm, no it would have weakened the unions. Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions. Meanwhile he has broken records for taking money from large corporations. Arnold wanted it so that corporations could easily give money, but unions couldn't. Why do you hate the unions, Al?

Arnold endorsed shareholder protection laws during the campaign, actually.  So yeah, you have no clue what you're talking about.
Desperate spinning by someone who works for Arnold. Face it, your boss has taken many millions of special interest money from corporations that he has tried to get favorable laws for. You can quit spinning for your curropt child molesting One-Term-inator boss.

Quote

From what I understand the Unions already have an 'opt out option'.  So basically what 75 would have done is made it optional to put in rather than optional to opt out.  Am I reading that correctly?

NO.  The current status allows members t opt out of donations to politics if and only if they are willing to opt out of union health and pension programs as well.  They would then be represented by the union for collective bargaining purposes only.  They would also have to specifically seek out that their dues not be used for political campaigns.  What 75 does is it allows workers to opt out of political contributions without losing health and pension benefits and makes the choice to opt out more accessible.

Seems to me like it would help indivdual union members, but hurt the unions as whole.

Do you think a majority would choose to opt out had 75 passed?

Thats pretty sad that the unions would strip members of healh care and other benefits simply because they chose to opt out of giving political contributions.
Corporations don't have to get permission from every single shareholder or worker to be involved in a political campaign. Why should it be harder for unions?

Quote

I don't know that it would weaken the unions, but it would change them dramatically.  First, it would sever the link between Democratic state politicians and service unions, making both more independent of one another.  Second, it would shift the union's focus away from political activities and towards organizing workers.

And yes, its sad that the unions did this.  The really sad thing is that they're all bankrupt now.  They got loan extensions from the banks to keep spending on TV ads, and now they're up to their neck in red ink.  The members are going to paying for this campaign for years in the form of higher dues (They're already greatly elevated).

I don't think you're sad at all that they are low on cash now. You're just sad that the anti-union Prop 75 didn't pass.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:33:47 PM
Umm, no it would have weakened the unions.

In the short-term, yes. Absolutely. In the long term... no. Quite the reverse.
The main result would be the unions becoming more respectable (union membership is comically low everywhere in the U.S, bar New York) and everything (more members and all that) flows from there.
More respectable? How come this logic doesn't apply to the companies that have given millions to Arnold in exchange for his trying to get special stuff for them? No, we need the unions to stand up to Arnold. Arnold is not respectable. Neither are the corporations that give him millions. If you want it to be hard for unions to stand up to Arnold, I question how why you even have a red avatar.


[qupte]
Quote
Arnold has continually called unions "special interest groups", whether they are teachers, firefighters, nurses, or some other unions.

So? "Special Interest Group" is little more than a mild term of abuse for political opponents these days.
[/quote]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?

Quote

Quote
Why do you hate the unions, Al?

Excuse me?

You support a Proposition that would weaken the unions, and was soundly defeated by union members. You'd rather have the child Molestinator get through his right-wing anti-union agenda.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:37:35 PM
Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 03:37:51 PM
Quote
Quote
Why do you hate the unions, Al?

Excuse me?

You support a Proposition that would weaken the unions, and was soundly defeated by union members. You'd rather have the child Molestinator get through his right-wing anti-union agenda.
No, he's disagreeing with you (and the Cali unions) on what the best pro-Union course is. Not the same although it may look it at points.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 03:39:44 PM
Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 03:42:16 PM
Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 03:47:59 PM
Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.

"Endorsed an effort"? What does that mean? It hasn't qualified. Anyways, I would have to read said measure. Anyways, it doesn't make sense to vote for anti-union Arnold's anti-union Prop 75 just in the hypothetical case that he decides to make it harder for himself to take millions from corporations sometime in the future.

If you count Big Pharma and Big Energy on Arnold's side, the right may have outspent the left in this election.


Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.

Well, if they aren't teaching well, then don't give them tenure. Some teachers will burn out after 10-15 years, a problem that obviously Prop 74 doesn't do anything to address. The fact is that tenured teachers command a higher salary, so Prop 74 was going to encourage some penny wise pound-foolish districts to save money by avoding tenured teachers by firing them after 5 years.

It should be noted that California spents around $1000 below the national average per pupil per year, despite its high cost of living. CA=$6k, national average=$7k, the state of NY=$11k. Prop 76 revealed Arnold's agenda for what it was, a very right-wing anti-eduction agenda.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 03:55:01 PM

I think that should be fairly obvious. The allegations that certain unions are little more than fundraisers for the Democratic party would obviously not work anymore. And so on.
More respectable=more members=more money=more political clout and so on.

Quote
How come this logic doesn't apply to the companies that have given millions to Arnold in exchange for his trying to get special stuff for them?

Not the issue here

Quote
No, we need the unions to stand up to Arnold.

I thought unions were supposed to represent their members. If something that Governer Sczh Arnie proposes works against the interest of their members, then of course the unions should oppose it. If not... why should they blow their money on something that doesn't effect them or their members?

Quote
Arnold is not respectable. Neither are the corporations that give him millions.

So?

Quote
If you want it to be hard for unions to stand up to Arnold, I question how why you even have a red avatar.

Wtf?

[qupte]
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?[/quote]

Excuse me? I think that restrictions on donations by all groups is needed. And I don't think that the proposal would weaken the labour movement in the long run.

Quote

Quote
You support a Proposition that would weaken the unions,

Er... what? Shall I run through my arguement again, because you don't seem to have taken the trouble to read it.

Quote
and was soundly defeated by union members.

Not that there are many of those in California (% terms anyway). Have a wild guess why.

Quote
You'd rather have the child Molestinator get through his right-wing anti-union agenda.

Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:01:29 PM

I think that should be fairly obvious. The allegations that certain unions are little more than fundraisers for the Democratic party would obviously not work anymore. And so on.
More respectable=more members=more money=more political clout and so on.
Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

Quote
Quote
How come this logic doesn't apply to the companies that have given millions to Arnold in exchange for his trying to get special stuff for them?

Not the issue here

You can't isolate the 2 issues. The fact is that Arnold wanted to make it harder for his opponents to raise money, but not harder for himself to raise money.  I think Ford is lying when he says Arnold supports the same for corporations.

Quote
Quote
No, we need the unions to stand up to Arnold.

I thought unions were supposed to represent their members. If something that Governer Sczh Arnie proposes works against the interest of their members, then of course the unions should oppose it. If not... why should they blow their money on something that doesn't effect them or their members?

Ot course they represent their members, and union members overwhelming rejected Prop 75. I suppose you'd like to make it hard for the teachers union to stand up to right-wing anti-education Props like Prop 76? Huh? Because a vote for Prop 75 is a vote for Prop 76.


Quote
Quote
Arnold is not respectable. Neither are the corporations that give him millions.

So?
An uneven playing field is bad.


Quote

Quote
If you want it to be hard for unions to stand up to Arnold, I question how why you even have a red avatar.

Wtf?

Arnold is extremely anti-union. Why should it be harder for the unions to stand up to him?

Quote
Quote
So we should only weaken who Arnold calls special interest groups?

Excuse me? I think that restrictions on donations by all groups is needed. And I don't think that the proposal would weaken the labour movement in the long run.

Quote

Quote
You support a Proposition that would weaken the unions,

Er... what? Shall I run through my arguement again, because you don't seem to have taken the trouble to read it.

Quote
and was soundly defeated by union members.

Not that there are many of those in California (% terms anyway). Have a wild guess why.
Not that many? I'm actually sort of in a union, although I never heard from them on Prop 75, I guess they weren't involved.

Quote

Quote
You'd rather have the child Molestinator get through his right-wing anti-union agenda.

Here's a tip; don't post shortly after drinking

Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 04:04:14 PM
Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.
And I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 26. So?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:08:50 PM
Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.
And I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 26. So?

The age of consent is 18 in California. Arnold committed a felony there.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 09, 2005, 04:12:13 PM
Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.
And I had sex with a 19 year old when I was 26. So?

The age of consent is 18 in California. Arnold committed a felony there.
Not one I disapprove of, though.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 04:14:57 PM
Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Quote
You can't isolate the 2 issues.

What does the future of the labour movement have to do with corperate fundraising?
 
[/quote]
Ot course they represent their members,[/quote]

Really? What have California unions done for Californian trade unionists recently?

Quote
and union members overwhelming rejected Prop 75. I suppose you'd like to make it hard for the teachers union to stand up to right-wing anti-education Props like Prop 76? Huh? Because a vote for Prop 75 is a vote for Prop 76.

You're babbling now

Quote
Arnold is extremely anti-union. Why should it be harder for the unions to stand up to him?

Have you actually been reading my posts?

Quote
Not that many?

Union density in California is either 16% or 17% (I forget which). That's pathetic (union densities in all U.S states with about four exceptions are pathetic).

Quote
I'm actually sort of in a union, although I never heard from them on Prop 75, I guess they weren't involved.

What's the organisation you're in?

Quote
Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.

And? That's hardly child molestation.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:26:24 PM
Unions have endorsed Pataki, Bloomberg, Specter, and so on.

So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Quote
You can't isolate the 2 issues.

What does the future of the labour movement have to do with corperate fundraising?
 
Ot course they represent their members,[/quote]

Really? What have California unions done for Californian trade unionists recently?
[/quote]
Not sure in general, but they helped defeat Props 74-76 this election. Last year there was some health care Prop that almost passed that they might have helped with. It broke 49%.

Quote
Quote
and union members overwhelming rejected Prop 75. I suppose you'd like to make it hard for the teachers union to stand up to right-wing anti-education Props like Prop 76? Huh? Because a vote for Prop 75 is a vote for Prop 76.

You're babbling now
Don't you see how they're related?
Quote

Quote
Arnold is extremely anti-union. Why should it be harder for the unions to stand up to him?

Have you actually been reading my posts?

Yes, and you would make it harder if Prop 75 had passed.

Quote
Quote
Not that many?

Union density in California is either 16% or 17% (I forget which). That's pathetic (union densities in all U.S states with about four exceptions are pathetic).
Welcome to America. California is probably the most worker friendly state. There are more workplace safety prosecutions in California than the other 49 states combined. Alaska is the only red state with a higher union rate than California.
Quote
http://img.infoplease.com/images/06alm_labormap.gif

Quote
I'm actually sort of in a union, although I never heard from them on Prop 75, I guess they weren't involved.

What's the organisation you're in?
[/quote]
UAW
Quote

Quote
Arnold had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28, dumbass.

And? That's hardly child molestation.

Whatever you call it, it was a felony.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 04:27:51 PM
Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.

"Endorsed an effort"? What does that mean? It hasn't qualified. Anyways, I would have to read said measure. Anyways, it doesn't make sense to vote for anti-union Arnold's anti-union Prop 75 just in the hypothetical case that he decides to make it harder for himself to take millions from corporations sometime in the future.

If you count Big Pharma and Big Energy on Arnold's side, the right may have outspent the left in this election.

I didn't say the measure qualified, I said he had endorsed the measure.  Whether the measure qualifies or not is irrelevant to Arnold's position on said measure.

I don't count Big Pharma when we're talking about the four core Arnold iniatives because Big Pharma's spending was not on those initatives.  Pharma's spending was on defeating Prop 79, not advancing Arnold's agenda.

Saying that Big Pharma's spending on anti-79 ads is equivalent to pro-Arnold ads is like saying that we should count Doug Forrester's campaign spending as pro-Arnold spending.

Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.

Well, if they aren't teaching well, then don't give them tenure. Some teachers will burn out after 10-15 years, a problem that obviously Prop 74 doesn't do anything to address. The fact is that tenured teachers command a higher salary, so Prop 74 was going to encourage some penny wise pound-foolish districts to save money by avoding tenured teachers by firing them after 5 years.

It should be noted that California spents around $1000 below the national average per pupil per year, despite its high cost of living. CA=$6k, national average=$7k, the state of NY=$11k. Prop 76 revealed Arnold's agenda for what it was, a very right-wing anti-eduction agenda.

You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 04:29:23 PM
LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.



Raises hand halfway.

Compared to you, he's a model of sanity.

Compared to a more 'normal' poster :shrug:


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:31:07 PM
Actually, I am sad that the union bosses have frittered away their employees pensions on political campaigns.  And jfern, the government already provides and additiona pension for all state employees, its called CalPers (and its bankrupt, too).

As for me "spinning", you said Arnold didn't favor shareholder protection laws.  I pointed out that he did favor such laws.  In fact, he has endorsed an effort to get exactly such a measure on the June primary ballot.  How is that spin?  I suppose in jfernworld, facts are spin and spin are facts and people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people.

As for Arnold taking so much money from corporations, it should be noted that he was outspent 3-1 in this campaign.

"Endorsed an effort"? What does that mean? It hasn't qualified. Anyways, I would have to read said measure. Anyways, it doesn't make sense to vote for anti-union Arnold's anti-union Prop 75 just in the hypothetical case that he decides to make it harder for himself to take millions from corporations sometime in the future.

If you count Big Pharma and Big Energy on Arnold's side, the right may have outspent the left in this election.

I didn't say the measure qualified, I said he had endorsed the measure.  Whether the measure qualifies or not is irrelevant to Arnold's position on said measure.

I don't count Big Pharma when we're talking about the four core Arnold iniatives because Big Pharma's spending was not on those initatives.  Pharma's spending was on defeating Prop 79, not advancing Arnold's agenda.

Saying that Big Pharma's spending on anti-79 ads is equivalent to pro-Arnold ads is like saying that we should count Doug Forrester's campaign spending as pro-Arnold spending.

Remember, the harder it is for unions to spend money, the harder it is to defeat Propositions like Arnold's 74 that would increase the waiting period for teacher's tenure to 5 years, and the very right-wing 76 that would cut education spending in a state that already spends less than the national average, despite its very high cost of living. A vote for Prop 75 was a vote to make it easier to get the next Prop 74 and 76 through.

Teacher tenure is a horrible idea anyway, and should be gotten rid of.  Teaching is a noble profession, sure, but not all teachers teach well.  With tenure they can't be fired, and while that may be in the best interest of certain members of the union, it isn't in the best interest of children, and the whole point of public education isn't to help teachers, its to help children.

And the idea that 76 cuts education spending is just  ablatant lie.  It ends education autopilot spending, which is neither an increase nor a decrease.

Well, if they aren't teaching well, then don't give them tenure. Some teachers will burn out after 10-15 years, a problem that obviously Prop 74 doesn't do anything to address. The fact is that tenured teachers command a higher salary, so Prop 74 was going to encourage some penny wise pound-foolish districts to save money by avoding tenured teachers by firing them after 5 years.

It should be noted that California spents around $1000 below the national average per pupil per year, despite its high cost of living. CA=$6k, national average=$7k, the state of NY=$11k. Prop 76 revealed Arnold's agenda for what it was, a very right-wing anti-eduction agenda.

You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

So even your "experts" didn't come up for a reason for it to be FIVE YEARS. Arnold's support of Prop 76 is one of the many things that has made it clear that he is anti-education. No wonder,in the recall,  he did best with people with little education, and worst with people with graduate degrees.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:31:38 PM
LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.



Raises hand halfway.

Compared to you, he's a model of sanity.

Compared to a more 'normal' poster :shrug:

Define 'normal' poster. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 04:38:00 PM
LoL

Quick, raise your hand if you think jfern isn't crazy.



Raises hand halfway.

Compared to you, he's a model of sanity.

Compared to a more 'normal' poster :shrug:

ha haha


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2005, 04:39:35 PM
So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Don't. Dodge. The. Question.

Quote
Not sure in general, but they helped defeat Props 74-76 this election. Last year there was some health care Prop that almost passed that they might have helped with. It broke 49%.

So nothing then?

Quote
Don't you see how they're related?

I can see why you think they are

Quote
Welcome to America.

And? 16% is pathetic no matter where you are.

Once upon a time America used to have decent union densities. It doesn't anymore. Have you got any idea why?

Quote
California is probably the most worker friendly state. There are more workplace safety prosecutions in California than the other 49 states combined.

One does not equal tuther

Quote
Alaska is the only red state with a higher union rate than California.
Quote
http://img.infoplease.com/images/06alm_labormap.gif

And? Union density in all U.S states (with a few exceptions where it's merely poor) is pathetic.
I have a nicer map, btw:

()

Quote
UAW

Uh huh. And what exactly is you're job?

Quote
Whatever you call it, it was a felony.

You sir, need to stop drinking


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 04:43:05 PM
So even your "experts" didn't come up for a reason for it to be FIVE YEARS. Arnold's support of Prop 76 is one of the many things that has made it clear that he is anti-education. No wonder,in the recall,  he did best with people with little education, and worst with people with graduate degrees.

I just gave you the reason for it being five years, idiot.  It's so you can observe and evaluate a teacher after they've reached their peak performance (Year 4).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Defarge on November 09, 2005, 04:44:09 PM
Excellent.  Now on to 2006. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Citizen James on November 09, 2005, 04:45:49 PM
You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

What experts are those?  Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?

Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years.  And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.

Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas.   And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.

And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court.  It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 04:50:12 PM
So? If not Democratic fundraisers, the arguement can be made that too many are just fundraisers who don't have the interests of the membership at heart. This is where the special interest charge comes from.

Don't. Dodge. The. Question.

You messed up the quotes.

Quote

Quote
Not sure in general, but they helped defeat Props 74-76 this election. Last year there was some health care Prop that almost passed that they might have helped with. It broke 49%.

So nothing then?

I checked and they almost got that passed. It would have been very good. Win a few, lose a few.


Quote
Quote
Don't you see how they're related?

I can see why you think they are

Quote
Welcome to America.

And? 16% is pathetic no matter where you are.

Once upon a time America used to have decent union densities. It doesn't anymore. Have you got any idea why?
Walmart?

Quote
Quote
California is probably the most worker friendly state. There are more workplace safety prosecutions in California than the other 49 states combined.

One does not equal tuther

Quote
Alaska is the only red state with a higher union rate than California.
Quote
http://img.infoplease.com/images/06alm_labormap.gif

And? Union density in all U.S states (with a few exceptions where it's merely poor) is pathetic.
I have a nicer map, btw:

()

Quote
UAW

Uh huh. And what exactly is you're job?
Grad student
Quote
Quote
Whatever you call it, it was a felony.

You sir, need to stop drinking

In any case, if our insults of Arnold sound inane, that's because everything about him is inane. I wonder if he calls his father-in law an economic girllie man for being McGovern's running mate.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Keystone Phil on November 09, 2005, 04:53:38 PM
In school today, two of the most extreme left wing teachers started bragging about the VA and NJ races. I, of course, argued back but here's the one line I had to laugh at (and then counter): "America has spoken!" said the one teacher. See what I mean? America has spoken? Two states voted for Governor and this is the end of the President and the GOP Congress? Give it up, people.

"Bush won VA by eight points!" Yeah, ok. I understand that. Kaine won by about the same margin as Warner in '01 and Bush was very, very popular back then. People need to snap the hell out of it. VA is not going to suddenly become a tossup state (unless Warner is the nominee and yes, that is still unlikely to happen).


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 05:19:44 PM
You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

What experts are those?  Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?

Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years.  And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.

Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas.   And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.

And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court.  It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.

I agree with AL.  You need to stop drinking.

And teachers aren't underpaid, they only work 9 months out of the year for goodness sake.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ATFFL on November 09, 2005, 05:32:36 PM
You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

What experts are those?  Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?

Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years.  And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.

Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas.   And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.

And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court.  It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.

I agree with AL.  You need to stop drinking.

And teachers aren't underpaid, they only work 9 months out of the year for goodness sake.

If teachers are underpaid varies by state.  Having looked into the matter, and compared state salaries to cost of living, many states do slightly underpay new teachers.  Some (notably Florida) are good for new teachers, but horrid for experienced teachers.

The screaming you hear from my union member colleagues is, in part, because those wonderful unions take a good chunk in dues and have done jack to improve teacher pay in many years.  This makes teh money crunch in some areas worse.

Keep in mind that while the school year is only 10 months and you get an additional month off in holidays and vacation time, many teachers work more than 8 hours per day for that time.

Of course, teachers can supplement their income over the summer, which can help a lot with the money.  They can also get an advanced degree or get National Board certified, which also brings in more money.

Finally, the time it takes to properly evaluate a teacher is actually three years, not 4, John.  Some say 4, but three is becomign a more widely held position.  Articles supporting such can be found in any decent teaching professional journal.  I an look some up next week, if anyone wants.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 09, 2005, 06:08:11 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: WMS on November 09, 2005, 06:13:10 PM
Well, a mixed bag of results.

Yay for Kaine!
Boo for Corzine!
Yay for Bloomberg!

Gigantic F***ing BOO for Kilpatrick in Detroit! >:( Detroit sucks, no doubt about it. ::) Thank God Albuquerque voted for someone sane and not for our version of Kilpatrick!

BOO for the fall of the California Redistricting Proposal! I do not want to hear a single California Democrat EVER complain about gerrymandering again - how hypocritical can you get? I haven't heard a single good argument on why Cali Dems voted against it, whereas jimrtex DID present good arguments against the Ohio Redistricting Proposal.

Boo on the failure of parental notification, but then again, this is CA, where every damned California Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. To be expected, I guess. ::)

As for the other ballot issues, eh. Good for Maine, and as for Texas...didn't they already ban gay marriage two years ago? Oh, and good for San Diego, from what little I know about it.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 06:25:16 PM
I cna't believe kilpatrick one pathetic  Hopefully the city will go bankurpt and the people will regret there choice.  All i have to say if  Detroit


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Cashcow on November 09, 2005, 06:27:04 PM
I cna't believe kilpatrick one pathetic  Hopefully the city will go bankurpt and the people will regret there choice.  All i have to say if  Detroit

Congratulations on inventing your own language.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 06:27:54 PM
I cna't believe kilpatrick one pathetic  Hopefully the city will go bankurpt and the people will regret there choice.  All i have to say if  Detroit

Congratulations on inventing your own language.

I'm too mad to type


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 09, 2005, 06:29:15 PM
November 8 2005: Detroit slips deeper into hell................


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 06:32:03 PM
at least the city clerk who was mishandling absentee ballots and the commiting other election fraud lost reelection


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 09, 2005, 06:33:26 PM
at least the city clerk who was mishandling absentee ballots and the commiting other election fraud lost reelection

Good


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 09, 2005, 06:35:16 PM
at least the city clerk who was mishandling absentee ballots and the commiting other election fraud lost reelection

Good

Hopefully they fired the head of the Public schools as well. ;)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 09, 2005, 06:36:58 PM
Hendrix would have won if the 18-25 age group didnt turn out for Kilpatrick.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: phk on November 09, 2005, 06:38:20 PM
Thank god all those stupid propositions failed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 06:38:25 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 06:47:15 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Kilpatrick is a horrible mayor who while the city has a big deficit bought a SUV for his wife with city money and has charged 200,000 on city credit cards and spend 120,000 of petty cash.  There also is the party at the mayor's residence that got way out of control, also a stripper who was at the party turned up dead.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Duke on November 09, 2005, 06:50:29 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Kilpatrick is a horrible mayor who while the city has a big deficit bought a SUV for his wife with city money and has charged 200,000 on city credit cards and spend 120,000 of petty cash.  There also is the party at the mayor's residence that got way out of control, also a stripper who was at the party turned up dead.

My theme in this thread is that in spite of demands for "change", people voted for the status quo.  Kilpatrick's re-election makes no logical sense, and cna only be understood I think, as can many of these races, if we accept that some factor is preventing people from changing course at a time when they seem to desire a change in course.

Perhaps this is an effect of radical polarization?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: AuH2O on November 09, 2005, 06:55:11 PM
What polarization? There ARE no Republicans in Detroit... it was D vs. D, and super dirty D beat competent D.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 06:56:28 PM
Kilpatrick stole a page out of the coleman young playbook and used the race card and us (Detroit)  vs. them (suburbs) to win


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 07:02:07 PM
What polarization? There ARE no Republicans in Detroit... it was D vs. D, and super dirty D beat competent D.

true if anything it would be white vs black but not really because Detroit's only 12% white but according to the polls they voted like over 80% for Hendrix

any real polarization would be city vs. suburbs  of course suburban residents  can't vote


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on November 09, 2005, 07:08:49 PM
You can't evalate a teacher in the first two years.  Experts say it takes 4 years to evaluate a teacher's performance adequately, which means that incompetent teachers would not get tenured in the first place.

Its interesting that you defend the status quo against Arnold's school funding reforms by complaining that schools here don't get enough money.  Illogical, but interesting.

What experts are those?  Can you cite a reputable source - a professional study done by an impartial university researcher, something from the US department of education, even some half-witted right wing think tank?

Most folks who aren't cut out to teach remove themselves within the first two years.  And the burnouts have far more than five years experience, and many of them are burnt out not from the kids, but from ideologues who prefer to see the budget only in terms of short term gain rather than long term results (it takes years, even decades, for the impact of quailty eduction - or lack thereof - to be felt in the economy.), and short-shrift the schools because the results won't be seen until far after the next election.

Teachers are underpaid given the requirements they have to fufill, given lip service by the same politicans who ream them over and over again; then people wonder why we have a critical shortage of teachers in key areas.   And the teachers end up getting the blame for low test scores even though a lack of people in the profession makes it difficult to have enough teachers to meet the students needs.

And tenure is not a lifetime appointment like a seat on the supreme court.  It only guarenetees that a teacher who has achieved it gets a hearing to show that the firing was 'for cause', rather than for endorsing a candidate for the school board on their own time that the principal dislikes, or blowing the whistle on waste in the administration.

I agree with AL.  You need to stop drinking.

And teachers aren't underpaid, they only work 9 months out of the year for goodness sake.

LOL, another person makes the "California can only have 1 Democrat" mistake.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Virginian87 on November 09, 2005, 07:26:52 PM
In school today, two of the most extreme left wing teachers started bragging about the VA and NJ races. I, of course, argued back but here's the one line I had to laugh at (and then counter): "America has spoken!" said the one teacher. See what I mean? America has spoken? Two states voted for Governor and this is the end of the President and the GOP Congress? Give it up, people.

"Bush won VA by eight points!" Yeah, ok. I understand that. Kaine won by about the same margin as Warner in '01 and Bush was very, very popular back then. People need to snap the hell out of it. VA is not going to suddenly become a tossup state (unless Warner is the nominee and yes, that is still unlikely to happen).

Jeez, where do you go to school?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Virginian87 on November 09, 2005, 07:29:02 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Kilpatrick is a horrible mayor who while the city has a big deficit bought a SUV for his wife with city money and has charged 200,000 on city credit cards and spend 120,000 of petty cash.  There also is the party at the mayor's residence that got way out of control, also a stripper who was at the party turned up dead.

Kilpatrick is a moral wasteland.  If there is one city with massive corruption (and I've heard a lot from the Philadelphians here), it's got to be Detroit.  Wonder how bad the schools are there.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: King on November 09, 2005, 07:41:07 PM
The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Good thing San Diego is too corrupt to have an incumbent to re-elect.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Dave from Michigan on November 09, 2005, 07:41:50 PM
Detroit
Kilpatrick 53% X
Hendrix   47%

Im speechless........................

The status quo is unstoppable.  What is going on here?

Kilpatrick is a horrible mayor who while the city has a big deficit bought a SUV for his wife with city money and has charged 200,000 on city credit cards and spend 120,000 of petty cash.  There also is the party at the mayor's residence that got way out of control, also a stripper who was at the party turned up dead.

Kilpatrick is a moral wasteland.  If there is one city with massive corruption (and I've heard a lot from the Philadelphians here), it's got to be Detroit.  Wonder how bad the schools are there.

schools are horrible the state actually took them over in 1999 but Detroit got control back last november i believe


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Flying Dog on November 10, 2005, 03:50:16 PM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 10, 2005, 06:49:07 PM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: King on November 10, 2005, 06:56:45 PM
http://sbe.vipnet.org/


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 10, 2005, 06:57:40 PM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?
 

I just went to WDBI -- CBS TV in Roanoke, VA's website and it appears that the lead of McDonnell's has shrunk even further, although not a lot, but it's down to 963.

Here are the results as of now:

McDonnell (R)             969,976  50.02%
Deeds (D)                  969,013  49.98%

This is almost like the 2004 Washington state Governors race, but almost in reverse.     


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 10, 2005, 07:02:28 PM

Well if I assume somewhat that vipnet is correct on the current vote total for Deeds (D) and WDBI is correct on McDonnell (R)'s vote total, than the new results are:

McDonnell (R)   969,976   50.02%
Deeds (D)        969,021    49.98%

Now a difference of 955 votes.   Yep this is sounding more and more like the 2004 Washington state Governor's race (but again, in reverse).

And this is a case for the saying:   "Every vote counts."   is correct.   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 11, 2005, 12:37:56 AM
I've captured the current result by locality (county and independent city) so we can see where the changes are occuring.

On Wednesday there was a regular precinct out for Richmond city and James City county.  They are now included, but with a double entry (one still showing 0 votes, and one with the actual vote totals).  These two together were a +159 for Deeds.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 11, 2005, 12:55:00 AM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?
 
This is almost like the 2004 Washington state Governors race, but almost in reverse.     

Except for this one won't be stolen.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 11, 2005, 01:53:48 AM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?
 
This is almost like the 2004 Washington state Governors race, but almost in reverse.     

Except for this one won't be stolen.

Of course, if the Democrats end up winning, it will be, right?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 11, 2005, 01:55:24 AM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?
 
This is almost like the 2004 Washington state Governors race, but almost in reverse.     

Except for this one won't be stolen.

Of course, if the Democrats end up winning, it will be, right?

Of course. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 11, 2005, 05:18:51 AM
I've captured the current result by locality (county and independent city) so we can see where the changes are occuring.

On Wednesday there was a regular precinct out for Richmond city and James City county.  They are now included, but with a double entry (one still showing 0 votes, and one with the actual vote totals).  These two together were a +159 for Deeds.

Thank you for that jimrtex.  I know that might not have been necessarily easy for you to have read or reported on.

Boy this is close.  I'm glad Deeds is in the lead like I thought he would be. 

Now I am glad I didn't get that job and move to Virginia, earlier this fall.   These results and the continuing not sure about the outcome  (plus how close all three races, were throughout the fall) plus I'm sure McDonnell calling for a recount  -- I'm sure would have made me either piss my pants all over the place or made it where I couldn't sleep at night.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 11, 2005, 05:23:57 AM
The republican has a 980 vote lead in the AG race.

Boy that shrank from this morning.  Any link to these results?  And did they count all the provisional ballotts, yet?
 
This is almost like the 2004 Washington state Governors race, but almost in reverse.     

Except for this one won't be stolen.

Of course, if the Democrats end up winning, it will be, right?

Of course. :)

Of course.  :)

But with Deeds ahead, now, but 159 votes.  (I did get it right that one of the precincts needing to be counted was in the city of Richmond, I still know much of my Virginia geography, don't I?  Just a question for myself, sometimes I amaze myself, I don't know why, I just do).   Wondering about the provisional ballotts though?   And of course now it will be McDonnell who will probably call for a recount, and we will have to see if Deeds lead holds.  Can someone remind me when the Attorney General, as well the Governor and Lt. Governor, on what date the AG is inaugurated in Virginia?  I'm wondering if there will be an AG inaugurated on this date?   Again shades of the Washington state Governor elections from 2004.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 11, 2005, 06:19:41 AM
But with Deeds ahead, now, but 159 votes.  (I did get it right that one of the precincts needing to be counted was in the city of Richmond, I still know much of my Virginia geography, don't I?  Just a question for myself, sometimes I amaze myself, I don't know why, I just do).   Wondering about the provisional ballotts though?   And of course now it will be McDonnell who will probably call for a recount, and we will have to see if Deeds lead holds.  Can someone remind me when the Attorney General, as well the Governor and Lt. Governor, on what date the AG is inaugurated in Virginia?  I'm wondering if there will be an AG inaugurated on this date?   Again shades of the Washington state Governor elections from 2004.
Kaine asks Kilgore to stay on as AG until the election is settled?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2005, 06:21:12 AM
Is there some unwritten law that requires there to be an insanely close election every U.S electoral year? :P ;D


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 11, 2005, 06:41:08 AM
Is there some unwritten law that requires there to be an insanely close election every U.S electoral year? :P ;D

Yes, it's called the law of unforseen consequences. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 11, 2005, 12:25:49 PM
Is there some unwritten law that requires there to be an insanely close election every U.S electoral year? :P ;D

Close elections make things more fun. :) Republican landslides get boring after a bit. :P


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 11, 2005, 06:09:37 PM
I've captured the current result by locality (county and independent city) so we can see where the changes are occuring.
Correction.  Margin should be 619 rather than 579

Between 9:42 PM Thursday and 4:32 PM Friday the updates were:

Alexandria city
+1 Write In

Richmond city
+187 McDonnell
+472 Deeds
+4 Write-in

Margin is now 619

I don't know where the votes were from.  All precincts are shown as reporting, and Absentee votes are listed as two separate precincts.  Provisionals?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2005, 06:19:18 PM

Who to?

Quote
Provisionals?

Most likely


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 12, 2005, 03:05:16 AM
McDonnell over Deeds (but see correction and additional posts)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 12, 2005, 03:11:13 AM
Between 9:42 PM Thursday and 4:32 PM Friday the updates were:

Margin is now 619
Between 4:32 PM and 6:52 PM Friday (last report on Virginia State Board of lections site for Friday) an additional 21 votes were received from Richmond city.

McDonnell  +11
Deeds       +10

McDonnell over Deeds by 620 (0.032%)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 12, 2005, 11:58:56 AM
The margin is now 513 votes in favor of McDonnell.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 12, 2005, 03:20:09 PM
This is still the first count, right?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 12, 2005, 05:23:53 PM
This is still the first count, right?
Yep


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Frodo on November 12, 2005, 06:04:10 PM

I hate to be anal about this, but it's McDonnell, not McDowell.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 12, 2005, 07:02:08 PM
Update to Saturday  9:17 AM

Margin is now 513

139 net additional votes reported from Norfolk city.

McDonnell  +19
Deeds      +126
Write-in        -6

McDonnell over Deeds by 513 (0.026%)

The State Board of Elections certifies the state results on November 28, after which a candidate has 10 days to request a recount (Deeds has already indicated that he will seek a recount).

It appears that most larger jurisdictions use some sort of DRE (direct recording electronic) so that there aren't ballots to be recounted.   Notable exceptions are Virginia Beach city which uses a punch card system that allows voter screening at the polling place for overvotes/undervotes, and Loudon county which uses mark sense ballots.

 Voting Systems in Virginia  (http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Voting_Systems_Ballots/Index.html)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 12, 2005, 07:54:46 PM
Come on Deeds! :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 12, 2005, 08:41:58 PM
Well as of 7:07 pm, Saturday, McDonnell is ahead by only 410 votes.

Results as of 7:07 pm:

McDonnell (R)  970,635  49.96%
Deeds (D)       970,225  49.94%
write-ins             1793       .09%

Come on Deeds!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Max Power on November 12, 2005, 08:51:21 PM
This thread is becoming one of the largest threads (in terms of replies) on the board.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 12, 2005, 10:07:32 PM
This thread is becoming one of the largest threads (in terms of replies) on the board.

So, what's your point?

This is just become a large thread because of the fact that this year's Virginia Attorney General's race has gone into huge overtime.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 12, 2005, 10:32:41 PM
Update to Saturday  6:57 PM

Margin is now 410

Another 178 votes reported from Norfolk city.

McDonnell  +33
Deeds      +136
Write-in        +9

McDonnell over Deeds by 410 (0.021%)

The two bunches from Norfolk were 85% Deeds, vs. 61% overall.  I still don't know where the votes are trickling in from.  The Fairfax County web site indicates a total of 48 provisional votes among 262 thousand votes (Fairfax County is by far the largest jurisdiction in the state, with about 5 times the Richmond vote and 6 times the Norfolk vote.  If the Norfolk additions were from provisionals, the provisional rate would be roughly 40 times that of Fairfax County.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 12, 2005, 10:40:48 PM
Results of Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Governor/Lt Governor race:


Fitiali & Villagomez (Covenant)      3497 28.3%
Hofschneider & Apatang (Independent) 3371 27.3%
Babauta & Benavente (Republican)     3228 26.1%
Tenorio & Santos (Democrat)          2256 18.3%


Roughly 1600 absentee ballots to be counted on November 16.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Max Power on November 12, 2005, 10:46:00 PM
This thread is becoming one of the largest threads (in terms of replies) on the board.

So, what's your point?

This is just become a large thread because of the fact that this year's Virginia Attorney General's race has gone into huge overtime.
No point, I just thought that was interesting. :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 13, 2005, 12:19:30 AM
This thread is becoming one of the largest threads (in terms of replies) on the board.

So, what's your point?

This is just become a large thread because of the fact that this year's Virginia Attorney General's race has gone into huge overtime.
No point, I just thought that was interesting. :)

Okay, just was making sure.  Because I had plans to check the vote totals one more time, before I go to bed, in the Virginia AG race, and if there was some update maybe post it back here.   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: socaldem on November 13, 2005, 12:57:30 AM
Update to Saturday  6:57 PM

Margin is now 410

Another 178 votes reported from Norfolk city.

McDonnell  +33
Deeds      +136
Write-in        +9

McDonnell over Deeds by 410 (0.021%)

The two bunches from Norfolk were 85% Deeds, vs. 61% overall.  I still don't know where the votes are trickling in from.  The Fairfax County web site indicates a total of 48 provisional votes among 262 thousand votes (Fairfax County is by far the largest jurisdiction in the state, with about 5 times the Richmond vote and 6 times the Norfolk vote.  If the Norfolk additions were from provisionals, the provisional rate would be roughly 40 times that of Fairfax County.


So does this mean that there are still a lot of Fairfax County provisional ballots to be counted?

That, it seems to me, would suggest that Deeds would likely have enough votes to pull into the lead.

In a recount, though, you point out that the large county voting machines make it impossible to recount.  Does that mean the recount would focus on GOP-heavy counties, and, hence, counties where McDonnell would have a better chance to make up votes?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 13, 2005, 02:36:20 PM
McDonnell over Deeds by 410 (0.021%)

The two bunches from Norfolk were 85% Deeds, vs. 61% overall.  I still don't know where the votes are trickling in from.  The Fairfax County web site indicates a total of 48 provisional votes among 262 thousand votes (Fairfax County is by far the largest jurisdiction in the state, with about 5 times the Richmond vote and 6 times the Norfolk vote.  If the Norfolk additions were from provisionals, the provisional rate would be roughly 40 times that of Fairfax County.
So does this mean that there are still a lot of Fairfax County provisional ballots to be counted?
My impression is that the there were a total of 48 provisional votes in Fairfax County and that they have been counted.  Maybe their voter rolls are computerized so if someone goes to wrong polling place most can be resolved quickly, and other places they just take the ballot and let the central office resolve the vote later on.

 Fairfax County canvass  (http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/webreports/RESU0507.pdf)

Quote
In a recount, though, you point out that the large county voting machines make it impossible to recount.  Does that mean the recount would focus on GOP-heavy counties, and, hence, counties where McDonnell would have a better chance to make up votes?
Some of the DREs may keep a record of individual ballots, but I'd be amazed if these were being mistabulated.  I suppose you could dump the individual voters and count them.  Absentee ballots have to be on paper.  The absentee vote appears to be within a few percent of the total vote in the few cities I checked.  With the margin as thin as it is, even a tiny bias towards Democrats in messing up their ballots could be crucial.  A quick sample shows that absentees are around 5%, or 100,000 statewide, presumably with about 50,000  for each candidate.  If Democrats mess up 3% of the time, and Republicans 2% of the time in a manner that the intent can be determined, that is equivalent to the current margin.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 14, 2005, 01:30:19 PM
McDonnell is back up over Deeds, 446 votes.

The current total as of 12:57 pm, today, is:

McDonnell (R)   970,793   49.97%
Deeds (D)        970,347   49.94%
write-ins              1793        .09%


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ?????????? on November 14, 2005, 01:41:46 PM
McDonnell is back up over Deeds, 446 votes.

The current total as of 12:57 pm, today, is:

McDonnell (R)   970,793   49.97%
Deeds (D)        970,347   49.94%
write-ins              1793        .09%

Deeds and his type are trying to steal this thing. Thankfully they are falling flat on their faces.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: WMS on November 14, 2005, 02:17:47 PM
Results of Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Governor/Lt Governor race:


Fitiali & Villagomez (Covenant)      3497 28.3%
Hofschneider & Apatang (Independent) 3371 27.3%
Babauta & Benavente (Republican)     3228 26.1%
Tenorio & Santos (Democrat)          2256 18.3%


Roughly 1600 absentee ballots to be counted on November 16.

Ah, the Dems and Reps are running behind a third party and an independent...I love it. 8)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 14, 2005, 04:47:57 PM
Lol.
Quote
Candidate Says Bush Troubles Became His Mon Nov 14,12:51 AM ET
 
NEWARK, N.J. - The Republican who lost New Jersey's bitter gubernatorial race said he would have won had     President Bush's popularity not been sagging.

Doug Forrester, who lost to Democrat Jon Corzine by about 9 percentage points last week, told The Sunday Star-Ledger of Newark that dissatisfaction with Bush made it impossible for him to overcome the Democrats' advantages.

"If Bush's numbers were where they were a year ago, or even six months ago, I think we would have won on Tuesday," Forrester said.

(...)

    Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz, however, said that the local races have always been about local issues. Forrester was fighting an uphill battle in a state leaning toward Democrats, he said.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: The Dowager Mod on November 14, 2005, 04:49:50 PM
Forrester may be right.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 14, 2005, 05:37:28 PM
McDonnell is back up over Deeds, 446 votes.

The current total as of 12:57 pm, today, is:

McDonnell (R)   970,793   49.97%
Deeds (D)        970,347   49.94%
write-ins              1793        .09%

Deeds and his type are trying to steal this thing. Thankfully they are falling flat on their faces.

Yeah, whatever.   Perhaps the Republicans rigged those machines, again.  Glad Kaine was far enough ahead he didn't have to put up with that crap.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 14, 2005, 05:38:41 PM

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.  What is Forrester and the Republicans going to blame everyone except for their and the candidate's  ineptness for Forrester's defeat?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 14, 2005, 06:02:26 PM
McDonnell is back up over Deeds, 446 votes.

The current total as of 12:57 pm, today, is:

McDonnell (R)   970,793   49.97%
Deeds (D)        970,347   49.94%
write-ins              1793        .09%
Monday's additions are from Louisa county (midway between Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, and Richmond).

McDonnell     +158
Deeds           +122
Write-ins             0

The 280 added votes represent about 3.6% votes beyond the original vote totals.  If this were repeated statewide, we would see around 70,000 votes trickling in.

The 158:122 is within 1% of the other votes, so perhaps these are late counted absentees.  Many jurisdiction have one or more "Absentee Vote" precinct swhich appear to correspond to congressional districts.  Louisa county does not have the special precinct.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 15, 2005, 05:57:28 AM
This thread is already the 8th largest of all time.  Nice.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Ben. on November 15, 2005, 06:32:12 AM

Deeds and his type are trying to steal this thing. Thankfully they are falling flat on their faces.


Hardly, it's an automatic state recount... if there is one demanded by the Dems then it'll be nothing more than what the GOP did in the Washington Gov race last year. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 15, 2005, 06:38:24 AM

Deeds and his type are trying to steal this thing. Thankfully they are falling flat on their faces.


Hardly, it's an automatic state recount... if there is one demanded by the Dems then it'll be nothing more than what the GOP did in the Washington Gov race last year. 

To be fair, it would be what the Dems did.

Actually, to be fair, it would be what no one did.

It's Washington state law, in fact - at least the first recount was.  The second one was agreed to by both parties.  If the Republicans want to cry foul, they should have done so before they agreed to that recount.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 15, 2005, 11:46:29 AM
Well as of 11:37 am today, McDonnell is back down to a 393 vote lead in the VA Attorney General's race.

Current results as of 11:37 am:

McDonnell (R)   970,816  49.96%
Deeds (D)        970,423   49.94%
write-ins               1793       .09%

Does anyone know if this is part of an automatic recount or is Virginia stilll counting absentee and provisional ballotts?

Also jimrtrex (I have some difficulty doing this, but you seem to be better at it), can you do your figuring from where McDonnell and Deeds are getting the new votes that have been added?   Thanks.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ag on November 15, 2005, 01:15:10 PM
A couple of hours later:

R F McDonnell  Republican 970,889 49.96%
  R C Deeds  Democratic 970,532 49.94%
  Write Ins    1,793 0.09%
Total:    1,943,214   

The margin is 357 votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: I spent the winter writing songs about getting better on November 15, 2005, 01:58:29 PM
Deeds should run for Governor in 2009.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 15, 2005, 03:11:33 PM
Uh, I think he's to the right of Kaine (but maybe I just think that because of that NRA endorsement?) and he loses (or not) while Kaine wins. Don't think he makes that sexy a candidate.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 15, 2005, 03:12:06 PM
A couple of hours later:

R F McDonnell  Republican 970,889 49.96%
  R C Deeds  Democratic 970,532 49.94%
  Write Ins    1,793 0.09%
Total:    1,943,214   

The margin is 357 votes.
The most noteworthy changes are at the bottom, I have bolded the highlights.


Since yesterday:
   McDonnell    +99
   Deeds        +185

   Margin        357 McDonnell (0.018%)



The SBE site has added a precinct (or precincts) called "Conditional Votes" to each locality.  Fairfax County includes the 47 provisional votes that I had noted from the Fairfax County's web site (actually 48 ballots, one person skipped the AG race).

There were updates from 32 localities, many ones and twos that corresponded to the conditional votes (I didn't check mosy to confirm that these were conditional votes).  There were a few more in larger localities:

Norfolk city       12: 4 M, 8 D
Charlottesville    8: 3 M 5 D
Alexandria city  14: 7 M, 8 D
Prince William     7: 4 M, 3 D
Loudoun           11: 7 M, 4 D
Henrico             19: 8 M, 11 D
Fairfax              47: 19 m, 28 D
Chesterfield      14: 7 M, 7 D
Arlington           13: 3 M, 10 D

Overall conditionals broke:

McDonnell     73
Deeds          107


There are many localities that did not (or have not) reported conditional votes.  In the localities that did report them, they were typically on the order of 1 in 3,000 to 5,000 votes, so it is possible that many smaller counties simply didn't have any.  Localities with more than 10,000 total votes that have not reported conditional votes are: Danville, Hampton, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Virginia Beach cities, and York, Washington, Stafford, Rockingham, Roanoke, Pittsylvania, Isle of Wight, Campbell, Botetourt, Bedford, and Augusta counties.  It would be surprising that Virginia Beach with 96,000 votes had no conditional votes, so I would expect some more conditional votes to show up in the next few days, including additional
votes in some localities that have already reported some.

There were two counties that reported other additional votes:

Henrico County (Richmond suburbs):
  +31 McDonnell
  +30 Deeds

This includes 19 conditional votes notes above, so there were
42 additional vote that were:
   +23 McDonnell
   +19 Deeds


Accomack County (Eastern Shore):
  +0 McDonnell
  +56 Deeds

No conditional votes here, and there are only 7,605 votes in the county, which McDonnell carried with 54.5% of the vote.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Sarnstrom on November 15, 2005, 06:05:12 PM
The margin is now 347 votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: socaldem on November 15, 2005, 07:23:41 PM
The Lege races of 2005 also were interesting, imo...

I've been watching the central NJ 13th state assembly district where Republicans seemed poised to knock off the two Democratic incumbents.  Aided by a pair of Green party spoilers,  Dem. Robert Morgan was defeated by top vote-getter Jennifer Beck.  Dem Mike Panter, however, has apparently defeated his opponent Declan O'Scanlan by ONE VOTE! (according to politicsnj.com)  He had been trailing for weeks and the outcome will likely be challenged by a recount and, perhaps, in court.

If Panter wins, that means the legislative races in 2005 have the following results:

NJ:
GOP wins 1 Dem-held seat
Dems win 3 GOP-held seats
Outcome: + 2 D

VA:
GOP wins 2 Dem-held seats
Dems win 3 GOP-held seats
Indy wins 1 GOP-held seat
Outcome: +1 D, +1I

MO:
Dems win 1 GOP-held seat
GOP wins 1 Dem-held seat

outcome: no change

I think its also notable that NJ had a number of women enter the legislature with four more women in the state assembly and one more in the state senate.  Because NJ politics is so controlled by machines on both sides, it has often been hard for women to gain political office there.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 15, 2005, 09:43:38 PM
AuH2O posted that the Democrats got whupped in the Virginia state legislature.  Am I missing something, or was he just incorrect?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Virginian87 on November 15, 2005, 10:01:56 PM
AuH2O posted that the Democrats got whupped in the Virginia state legislature.  Am I missing something, or was he just incorrect?

I think he meant that although the Dems picked up one seat, the Dems still face a huge difference in the House of Delegates, something like 60-40


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 15, 2005, 10:26:28 PM
As of 5:07 pm Tuesday

Margin McDonnell +347

Changes:

Botetourt (+2)
    Write-in +2

Fluvanna (-54)
    McDonnell  -32
    Deeds        -22



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 15, 2005, 11:13:18 PM
AuH2O posted that the Democrats got whupped in the Virginia state legislature.  Am I missing something, or was he just incorrect?

He said that, but then he corrected himself when he realized that the Democrats were actually up one seat.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: socaldem on November 16, 2005, 03:28:42 AM
AuH2O posted that the Democrats got whupped in the Virginia state legislature.  Am I missing something, or was he just incorrect?

Well, given that there was a Democratic breeze strong enough to give Leslie Byrne over 49% of the vote--significantly more than Jerry Kilgore received, Democrats did not pick up as many seats as might have been hoped.  They did lose a number of northern virginia squeakers (though they blew away hated GOP incumbent Black and right-wing loony candidate Craddick).  While Dems made gains in Northern Virginia, they lost a couple outstate seats--seeing Southwest VA incumbent Keister lose out in the only region in which Kilgore overperformed.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 16, 2005, 08:24:18 AM
IIRC he'd cursorily looked at results, noticed that Reps won most close races, and took it from there. He retracted it a couple of posts later. Of course the real reason is that Virginia's legislature is a Republican gerrymander.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 16, 2005, 04:46:19 PM
Edit: Left some stuff in from previous message.

As of 4:07 Wednesday

Margin McDonnell +353

Changes:

McDonnell +1 (Fluvanna +1)
Deeds       -5  (Louisa -2; Rockbridge -3)
Write-In    +1 (Albermarles +1)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: minionofmidas on November 16, 2005, 04:50:58 PM
What's going on in Fluvanna County? ???


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 16, 2005, 05:29:36 PM
What's going on in Fluvanna County? ???

I assume someone transposed digits or hit the wrong key while entering the data for some precinct.  It happens, I suppose.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 16, 2005, 06:47:27 PM
What's going on in Fluvanna County? ???
The -54 votes was actually yesterday's episode that didn't get edited out.  Today was just the extra vote for McDonnell.



Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 16, 2005, 06:52:01 PM
As of 5:27 Wednesday

Margin McDonnell +352

Changes (since 4:07)

All in Tazewell county
McDonnell  0
Deeds       +1
Write-In    +3


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 17, 2005, 05:43:32 PM
As of 3:12 Thursday

Margin McDonnell +340

Changes (since Wednesday 5)

McDonnell  -10 (Fauquier -10)
Deeds        +1 (Nottoway +1, Tazewell -1, Radford city +1)
Write-in      +1 (Suffolk city +1)

My understanding is that the State Board of Elections does their canvass on November 28, after which Deeds has 10 days to file for a recount.

The recount is conducted by a recount court consisting of the chief judge of the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (because it is a statewide election), and two judges appointed by the Chief Justice of Virginia.  It appears that the general intent is that recounts would be conducted in each locality under oversight of the recount court, but if they found it necessary they could get everything trucked down to Richmond. 

Voter eligiblity is not an issue in a recount.  Optical scan and punch card ballots are not hand counted unless they are write-ins, overvotes, undervotes, or write-ins.  There are currently 1800 write-in votes.  Write-in votes are ordinarily not tabulated in Virginia unless over 5% of all votes, or more than apparent winner, so there might be write-in votes for Deeds and McDonnell.

A contest of the election would be conducted by the General Assembly, with a final determination made by a joint session.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 18, 2005, 02:43:28 PM
As of 4:47 Friday

Margin McDonnell +345

Changes (since Thursday 3:23)

McDonnell  +2 (Fauquier +4, Carroll -2)
Deeds        -2  (Carroll -2)
Write-in     +1 (Fauquier +1)

Edited to add 1 Write-in vote.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 19, 2005, 04:39:54 AM
Northern Mariana Islands Governor

Count with off-island absentee votes counted:


Governor&Lt Governor    Party        E-Day Abs  Total Pct
Fitial & Villagomez     Covenant     3497  312  3809 28.1%
Hofschneider & Apatang  Independent  3371  339  3710 27.3%
Babauta & Benevente     Republican   3228  382  3610 26.6%
Tenorio & Santos        Democrat     2256  186  2442 18.0%


The Covenant party appears to be a reform offshoot of the Republican Party.  For example, the campaign site of Benigno Fitial includes among his political activities the Republican Party and Bush for President  in addition to founder of the Covenant Party.  Heinz Hofschneider, the independent gubernatorial candidate is a Republican member of legislature.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 19, 2005, 09:47:08 AM
Northern Mariana Islands Governor

Count with off-island absentee votes counted:


Governor&Lt Governor    Party        E-Day Abs  Total Pct
Fitial & Villagomez     Covenant     3497  312  3809 28.1%
Hofschneider & Apatang  Independent  3371  339  3710 27.3%
Babauta & Benevente     Republican   3228  382  3610 26.6%
Tenorio & Santos        Democrat     2256  186  2442 18.0%


The Covenant party appears to be a reform offshoot of the Republican Party.  For example, the campaign site of Benigno Fitial includes among his political activities the Republican Party and Bush for President  in addition to founder of the Covenant Party.  Heinz Hofschneider, the independent gubernatorial candidate is a Republican member of legislature.

I always saw Republicans as being in a Covenant.  ;)   Shades of "Rosemary's Baby".   Tannis anyone? :)   


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 20, 2005, 02:49:05 AM
I always saw Republicans as being in a Covenant. 
I believe the agreement defining the relationship between the US and the CNMI is called a Covenant.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Alcon on November 20, 2005, 03:28:05 AM
Why is this area so Republican?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: socaldem on November 21, 2005, 09:09:20 AM
As of 4:47 Friday

Margin McDonnell +345

Changes (since Thursday 3:23)

McDonnell  +2 (Fauquier +4, Carroll -2)
Deeds        -2  (Carroll -2)
Write-in     +1 (Fauquier +1)

Edited to add 1 Write-in vote.

I'm addicted to watching these election returns trickle in...

McDonnell 970,883 49.96
Deeds       970,561 49.95
Write ins     1,801

McDonnell is now up +322...


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Blank Slate on November 21, 2005, 10:34:33 AM
The Virginia Attorney General's race/count as of 8:47 am this morning (Monday, November 21, 2005):

McDonnell + 322

McDonnell (R)                  970,883   49.96%
Deeds (D)                        970,561   49.95%
write-ins                              1801        .09%

This is still not the final or the recount that may be expected to start next week if this stays close. 


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Gabu on November 22, 2005, 02:43:05 AM
Where would this topic have been without the VA Attorney-General race? :)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Frodo on November 28, 2005, 11:07:13 PM
The Virginia Attorney General's race has now been certified (http://sbe.vipnet.org/) (pending a recount), with Republican Del. Bob McDonnell as the winner by a margin of 323 votes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McDonnell wins Va. vote, pending recount

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RICHMOND, Va. -- The closest statewide election in modern Virginia history headed for a recount Monday after Republican Bob McDonnell was certified as the winner of the attorney general's race by 323 votes out of more than 1.9 million cast.

Democrat Creigh Deeds, a state senator, said he will petition for a recount Tuesday in Richmond Circuit Court. A three-judge panel will preside over the recount, which is expected to take at least until mid-December.

Deeds had 970,563 votes to 970,886 for McDonnell in the Nov. 8 balloting, according to the State Board of Elections.

source (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1135AP_BRF_Close_Election.html)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Democratic Hawk on November 29, 2005, 01:56:00 PM
The Virginia Attorney General's race has now been certified (http://sbe.vipnet.org/) (pending a recount), with Republican Del. Bob McDonnell as the winner by a margin of 323 votes

Heartbreakingly close. What's the chances of it going the other way?

Dave


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 29, 2005, 02:14:13 PM
Certified Result

Margin McDonnell +323

Changes (since November 18)

Chesapeake city (+89)
   +33 McDonnell
   +56 Deeds

Suffolk city (+5)
   +3 McDonnell
   +2 Deeds


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on November 29, 2005, 05:05:02 PM
Heartbreakingly close. What's the chances of it going the other way?
The article mentioned the previous statewide recount when Doug Wilder was elected governor.  In that case, 113 votes were trimmed off a 7000 vote margin.

It might be possible that because of the closeness of the election that the recount will be more closely contested (eg in the previous recount, even if 50 times as many votes were found, Wilder would have won).

Virginia election law provides that machine-countable ballots be recounted by machine, with only overvotes, undervotes, and write-in ballots visually examined.  There are at least 40,000 undervotes (difference between Governor's race and AG race), but many of those are likely to be deliberate.  There are also 1801 write-in ballots (which have not been counted other than as being write-ins).

Typically, recovered undervotes (ballots where a voter choice is determinable, break pretty much the same way as regular ballots.  But this rule of thumb works because of the typical margins of close elections.  If there is a 1% margin in an election 50.5% to 49.5%, and another 1% of ballots are added that split 40-60, the margin of victory is only cut to 50.4% to 49.6%.  But with the margin under 0.02%, Deeds would only need about 1/10 of 1% all votes cast splitting 60-40 in his favor.  1/10 of 1%, is around 2000 ballots, or about 5% of the undervotes, or slightly more than the total number of write-ins.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on December 02, 2005, 06:54:03 PM
The Virginia State Board of Elections has added some files to their web site apparently related to the impending AG recount.  I assume these will be treated as recommendations to the recount court, rather than necessarily binding.

 Updated Recount Standards  (http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Misc/Election_Laws.html)

Lots of examples of valid/invalid ballot markings.  One curiousity is that a write-in vote for a candidate on the ballot is not considered valid.

 Virginia Recount & Handcount Ballot Examples (Appendix A to Recount Standards)  (http://www2.sbe.state.va.us/easd/_Election_Processing/GR-EB-Manual/VARecount&HandcountExamplesJuly2002.pdf)


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: Joe Republic on December 12, 2005, 09:15:58 PM
I don't know if somebody has already posted this somewhere, but it seems the NJ GOP website has pulled a 'Dewey defeats Truman', but forgotten to rectify it.

http://www.njgop.org/


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 12, 2005, 09:41:05 PM
I don't know if somebody has already posted this somewhere, but it seems the NJ GOP website has pulled a 'Dewey defeats Truman', but forgotten to rectify it.

http://www.njgop.org/

LOL!


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: © tweed on December 12, 2005, 09:42:14 PM
Who ended up winning McDonnell v. Deeds?


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: nini2287 on December 12, 2005, 09:58:10 PM
Who ended up winning McDonnell v. Deeds?

The recount is starting in around a week so.  McDonnell's currently leading by around 300 votes.


Title: Re: *Official Election 2005 Results Thread*
Post by: jimrtex on December 14, 2005, 04:31:07 PM
Who ended up winning McDonnell v. Deeds?
The recount is (begins) on December 20.  In Virginia, a recount is done under the auspices of a specially convened recount court, with the elections officials acting on behalf of the court.  That is, it is a judicial proceeding from the beginning, rather than an administrative procedure that is pushed into the state.

The court has ruled that optically scanned ballots will not be rescanned unless there is some reason for doing so in a particular county.  Deeds had hoped to get undervotes checked by hand, to determine if they were mismarked.