*Official Election 2005 Results Thread*

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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%!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's over, all of Arnold's Props have lost. Maybe he can refund the $60 million he wasted by calling this worthless election.

[Politico]

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.

[AuH2O]

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.

[Cubby]

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)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Politico]

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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Citizen James]

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>

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[jimrtex]

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.

[Sam Spade]

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.  

[The Duke]

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?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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

[Sam Spade]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Forrester isn't curropt now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2 elections in very Republican districts, 1 of which HASN'T HAPPENED YET.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's San Diego.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you're sort of anti-civil unions?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Ebowed]

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%.

[The Duke]

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?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Gabu]

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.

[Blank Slate]

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!!!

[jimrtex]

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These allegations are not based in fact.

[MODU]

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.