I give my approval that this goes to a vote!

AYE

Without a doubt one of the most dishonest people whom I've met, online or IRL. HP. Anyone who votes 'FF' is deluded.

Very, very true. There existed not a single person who did he did not trash behind his or her back, no matter how they treated him. I put up with his nonsense for a huge period of time, and looking back, I was pretty stupid to do so, as his hypocrisy and lack of any integrity was evident the whole time.

I'm very happy to see you're doing better, Clarence. We missed you!

Clark's now trailing in her own electorate.

47-28-2-2.

The NDP is down about 4% overall on their 2009 result, and are trailing in every region, with swings against them.

Also John Cummins, the Conservative leader, has lost his bid to unseat Liberal Mary Polak in Langley.

Not really; results are more from Liberal areas than NDP ones. Almost all the seats with no results are NDP-held. Early numbers mean nothing; Clark at 70% is lol.

Yeah, it's tightened significantly to 54% in Clark's electorate, although the Liberals are now at 43 seats, enough for a simple majority, although it's very early as you said...

40-22-1-1.

Still early...but eerily similar to Alberta.

Clark's on 70% right now in Vancouver-Point Grey and overall results show NDP with a net loss of -4, and Liberals at +2, with Independents and Greens up 1 each.

CBC says Richmond East.

The incumbent Linda Reid got 58% here in 2009, and it is one of the Liberals' safest seats.

I greatly prefer him to the most mentioned 2016 potentials (i.e. O'Malley and Cuomo), but it's very doubtful he'll run, and as Averroes mentioned earlier, it's very unclear how his style would play out in Washington... perhaps some time in the Senate will enlighten us on that mystery.

I think this might be the right time to issue an apology for an unintentional but irregardless harmful action on my part. Speaking with a member of the Federalist Party a few hours to the end of the election, I mentioned that Hagrid and Matt were safe (this is what tabulated results were showing at the time and I assumed Federalist firepower was still on the way, going off of the previous two national elections and the party's performance in the August and December elections), and made a statement encouraging them to go for someone else. However, this turned out to be a WHOLLY incorrect statement, and I was pretty stunned when I woke up the next morning to see that Matt had fallen just short to Kalwejt for the last seat. Turns out it was a premature call on my part which may have improperly influenced a potential voter.

Therefore, I am quite sorry for my role in this scenario and I will make sure I get my facts straight before making any all-encompassing statement of such a magnitude in the future.

Awful... I hope he's recovering well and I'll keep him in my prayers.

I'd still like to see a 2/3 majority be necessary to ratify an amendment, but I'd be willing to let it go to 7 days voting.  Is that something that people are open to?

I think the main concern was the 2/3 majority, so that's doubtful. I'm fine with 3 days, with a simple majority I suppose, but since that just failed, I'm fine just maintaining the status quo (which this amendment aims to do).

AYE

AYE

AYE

AYE

Wasserman said he isn't seeing a path to victory for her either.

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict 1m
Berkeley County reports 60.4% for Sanford to 39% for ECB with 75% reporting. Don't see how ECB makes up this gap now.

With close to half the district it and Colbert consistently underperforming, without any clear spoiler effect for either candidate, I feel comfortable calling this one for Mark Sanford. A remarkable comeback if the results stand firm, and a personal disappointment for me.

Damn...down to 51% ECB in Charleston. 51-48 Sanford.

With 20% more in, that means she's underperforming by 2% again, but Wasserman says he forgot to add some of the votes she got on the "Working Families" line, so she may be doing a little bit better.

Dave Wasserman ‏@Redistrict 52s
St. Andrews #27: Obama 570, Romney 561. ECB 404, Sanford 284. Only 8% overperformance, Colbert Busch needs ~10% to win. Not seeing so far.

Looks like the absentees are done, but he still doesn't see Colbert Busch gaining enough on Obama to win.

As for Beaufort County, with 81% in, Colbert Busch has less than 47% of the vote, meaning she's underperforming DKE's benchmark by 2%, and consistently across the district if Wasserman is to be believed.

The votes from Charleston are just absentees, according to Dave Wasserman, so they may not be representative of the county as a whole.

A little bit of Dorchester County just came in- Colbert Busch leads there with 56.6%, which is above the benchmark set by DKE, but since we have no idea where in the area that's from, I don't think we can make too much out of it. Looks like she's underperforming what she needs to get in Berkeley, but outperforming in Charleston as well.

I think of the independents, Wilkie is the safest, Oakeshott has no chance, and Windsor if in between, but I expect him to lose.

How does Windsor have a chance at all when the most recent poll (albeit conducted last year, when Richard Torbay was the candidate, instead of Barnaby Joyce) had his primary vote at 25% and his TPP vote at 34%? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me, even though he's been there for ages.

AYE

[Abigail Adams]

Abigail Adams vs. Dolley Madison
Louise Catherine Adams vs. Rachel Jackson
Anna Tuthill Symmes Harrison vs. Sarah Childress Polk
Margaret Mackall Smith Taylor vs. Mary Todd Lincoln
Julia Dent Grant vs. Lucretia Rudolph Garfield
Frances Folsom Cleveland vs. Frances Folsom Cleveland
Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt vs. Helen Herron Taft
Edith Bolling Galt Wilson vs. Lou Henry Hoover
Eleanor Roosevelt vs. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Betty Ford vs. Nancy Reagan
Hillary Rodham Clinton vs. Michelle Obama