NATIONAL GOVERNOR/OTHER RESULTS THREAD (LATE RESULTS/POSTMORTEM)

[Mr.Phips]

Kitzhaber now has a 6,000 vote lead and local newspapers are projecting him the winner.

[cinyc]

The CT-GOV race is going to be nasty -- I just don't see Malloy pulling within the 2000 votes needed to instigate a recount.  The only way I see Malloy winning is if there was some discrepancy in the results that the SoS recorded.

You have that backwards.  The SoS claims Malloy won.  Foley claims he won.  Malloy claims his lead is bigger than what the SoS claims.  The SoS is speaking out of turn about whether there will be a recount before receiving certified results from the towns.  There always can be transcription errors.

Meanwhile, across the border in New York, Westchester County stopped counting votes because the machines were impounded.  One Assembly race (AD-91) and at least one State Senate race is close (SD-37).  The Republican in another Westchester SD, SD-35, is behind by about 10 with 70% of the vote in, but refuses to concede because the uncounted impounded precincts are supposedly favorable to him.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

California voted for non-partisan redistricting yesterday. It's terrible.

Why?

Democrats could create a very, very, very nice map out of California.

[Joe Republic]

You should maybe get that cough looked at, you know.  That terrible hacking noise doesn't sound good.

[Joe Republic]

Meanwhile, Republicans easily won the governor's race and picked up NV-03. So.

NV-03, one seat in the state Senate, and two seats in the Assembly are all the Republicans picked up.  They failed to win any of the statewide contests except Gov. and Lt. Gov. (which they already held), and are still in the minority in the legislature.  They didn't even pick up Rory Reid's seat on the Clark County Commission, which means that that body remains 100% Democratic.  All told, the Dems had a pretty decent night in Nevada.

He's probably going to lose.  It has closed to less than a 5000 vote lead for Dudley with 4% of the vote still out and almost all of it in Multnomah County.  Every Dudley county except for one is at 100% reporting, and that one is already at 99%.

Ok.

[Badger]

The votes left in Florida to count are less than Scott's margin (or almost there), so he will win by a margin beyond lawsuit potential. That means the Pubbies can gerrymander the sh*t out of the state, like last time, which is the major national significance of this race to my mind. Scott in totals tracked Rubio pretty closely, suggesting that if Crist had been a moderate Dem from day one as governor, he might have run a skin tight race against Rubio.

I wish.  Even though Scott is (maybe, appears) victorious and Republicans obtained veto proof majorities in both the state house and senate, the fair districting amendment passed.  Unless Republicans can come up with a way to keep it from going into effect, the Republican state domination days are over.

And yes, Republicans tried to get the amendments kicked off the ballot before the election.  I wonder what argument they could use now to keep them from going into effect.

I'm assuming you voted against that garbage.

You better believe I voted no on both of them.  Yeah 'fair districts' sponsored by a ton of northeastern unions and out of state liberal special interest groups.  Talk about a hidden power grab.

And Badger, stop being self righteous.  Gerrymandering has always been a part of this country.  I don't complain about the gerrymandered districts in California or Massachusetts.  To the victor goes the spoils that's what I say.  The pure pure swing states can worry about switching between conservative and liberal gerrymandering schemes every 10 years.  Really if you think about it, the liberal and conservative gerrymanders balance themselves out while the dominant party has a substantial, but not insurmountable, advantage.

"Gerrymandering has always been a part of this country"? That's really your justification?? Like vote fraud, influence peddling, poll taxes (though I assume you and States probably miss those), these are not exactly good parts of our electoral history either. These are not things we should want to continue, let alone admire.

But hey, a fairly representative democracy here isn't your goal, is it? After all, "To the victor goes the spoils"? So simply you're upset the FL GOP can't stack the deck to ensure it gets more representatives despite earning fewer voters. At least though you're completely up front about being unapologetically evil. Kudos!

Speaking of which...

And Badger, stop being self righteous.  

Sky, stop being blue!

Southern CW reenactors, stop being racist asshats!

Hmm where to begin.

Comparing gerrymandering to vote fraud?  You really are a bleeding heart liberal aren't you?  That comparison is a huge stretch at best and entirely false at worst.

Am I upfront about supporting gerrymandering?  Yeah sure!  So if I'm evil, am I to assume Massachusetts and California are evil for gerrymandering?  What about all the Democrats on the cable news channels last night crying 'Oh no! Now DEMOCRATS won't get to gerrymander!'  You cannot have it both ways!  You're the one who should be upfront about how you truly feel about gerrymandering (psst...you support it!).  I can only imagine your reaction if Conservative groups like American Crossroads put a 'fair districts' amendment on the California ballot.  You should also be upfront about who bankrolled this entire operation.  This was a liberal agenda item.

Finally, did you seriously just call me a southerner and racist?  lol.  I can only smile at that.  Literally I'm smiling at that.  Is that your best stereotypical liberal condescension attack point?  I have never wrote a racist or confederate thing here-in fact, you know nothing about my background at all.

I wonder how many times I'm going to be called a racist confederate supporting jerk on this forum even though I've never written any such thing.  Well when far left liberals such as yourself have nothing else left to throw, playing the race card may be your only hope.  

Where to begin indeed?

First off, your examples are weak at best. MA? Please! As has been noted by natives in other threads the MA GOP is so anemic throughout the state (yes, yes--"Scott Brown" duly noted before anyone mentions it ) that it would be difficult to cobble together more than one competitive in normal non-60 year level wave elections district. CA? Their districting has always traditionally been a mutually agreed incumbent protection plan than a gerrymander. This has weakened over the last decade or two due to increased hispanic immigration and an increasingly southern conservative dominated GOP made much the state outside the OC and Inland Empire toxic for Republicans, but still. Most importantly, doesn't the fact Cali ALSO passed non-partisan redistricting kind of weaken your argument here?

So take away CA and MA and what does that leave in terms of "liberal gerrymanders"? NC maybe? And.... Against that I'll stack OH, PA, FL, Texas. All of which already are horrid gerrymanders and will only get worse after this election. Face it---your side isn't the one that needs to worry about unilateral disarmament in the gerrymandering wars.

Next, um, yes, gerrymandering is an odious way to undermine the fundamental "one person, one vote" fairness of democracy. There's nothing "bleeding heart liberal" about opposing gerrymandering, or at least there shouldn't be to any self respecting conservative. This is non-partisan civics textbook ideals here, ECR. Your defense of it is litterally indefensible.

The racist crack was directed at States, not you. Are you a CW reenactor too?

Look, now that CA---the great right wing bogeyman/justification for gerrymandering---is going non-partisan, don't you think its acceptable that FL stop the games and sacrifice unfair boundaries to ensure GOP dominance of the state in favor of a genuinely fair non-partisan system? If you'd actually support an amendment like S & C proposes (and I do too, though ironically I'd actually support compactness being at least equal with competitiveness for drawing boundaries), isn't Florida's vote actually a positive step in this direction? Our is it simply, sadly, a matter of supporting fair non-partisan districting in principle, but "just not in my state" in practice?

[Badger]

Considered putting this in its own thread, but not sure on whether that would fall within/without the rules. Not actually sure that this hasn't been noted yet either, anyway...

In Iowa, Voters Oust Judges Over Marriage Issue - New York Times

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was noted by me, although I haven't posted about it.  Actually, it is widely noted hereabouts.  The local public radio station, KUNI, has been talking about this issue all day long.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted NO on all of the retentions of all current justices.  I think I posted that in another thread.

I disagree with the assertion that is widely being made, by NPR, the New York Times, and apparently by Senator Franzl.  I, for one, did not vote NO because of the gay marriage issue, and I am not aware of any polling data that supports the conclusion that anyone else did either.

Then why did you vote no for retention. Baring a majorly unpopular decision (e.g. legalizing gay marriage), a no vote is usually reserved if the judge is caught in a scandal, or general contrariness.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

They are saying it was about gay marriage because there was a huge movement led by Vander Platts or whatever his name was to get Social Conservatives to vote no on judge retention because of the gay marriage ruling.

[cinyc]

And the AP has rescinded its projection of Democrat Malloy as the CT-Gov winner.

Confusion.  Which usually brings lawsuits.

[Eraserhead]

Thanks goodness Quinn has defeated that slimeball Brady. Definitely one of the best results of the night.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Dudley has conceded, apparently.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

If CNN's numbers are to be believed, Bridgeport is 60% in (and everything else is 100% in), and Malloy is still down by about 8,500. If the remaining 40% comes in at the same margin and proportion, it'd be pretty much a tie. So who the hell knows.

[Eraserhead]

Dudley has conceded, apparently.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Ugh, stupid networks calling it getting my hopes up and then un-calling it.

The CT Attorney General looks like she screwed up pretty badly here.

[Ronnie]

The CT-GOV race is going to be nasty -- I just don't see Malloy pulling within the 2000 votes needed to instigate a recount.  The only way I see Malloy winning is if there was some discrepancy in the results that the SoS recorded.

You have that backwards.  The SoS claims Malloy won.  Foley claims he won.  Malloy claims his lead is bigger than what the SoS claims.  The SoS is speaking out of turn about whether there will be a recount before receiving certified results from the towns.  There always can be transcription errors.

Oh!  I was looking at the New York Times results, and they project that Foley is ahead with 99% of the precincts in.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

COLORADO: 70% Counted
62: Defining Personhood as Concepcion No 70%
63: No Compulsory Health Insurance No 52%

Would have thought the 2nd would have passed easily. Guess not.

[Mr.Phips]

If trends hold, Malloy should pull ahead by about 2700 votes after the final 40% of Bridgeport comes in.

[cinyc]

Ugh, stupid networks calling it getting my hopes up and then un-calling it.

The CT Attorney General looks like she screwed up pretty badly here.

This is not Blumenthal's doing.  The CT Secretary of State is responsible for running CT elections, though she blames it all on Bridgeport.  That's partially true, I guess, since towns run elections in Connecticut - but she's supposed to supervise elections and never asked them if they had enough ballots.  Trusting Bridgeport to run fair, smooth elections isn't very smart, given their past history.

This is the same Secretary of State who was told by the state's Supreme Court that she couldn't run for AG because she didn't have the necessary legal experience (need to be a practicing attorney for at least 10 years - she claimed she was practicing while supervising SoS lawyers, even though she went on inactive status to avoid paying license fees), and the same Secretary of State who was rebuked by the courts after she claimed voters couldn't wear WWE-related shirts to the polls.  

So, basically, I don't trust anything the CT SoS says unless she can back it up.  And she refuses to release her by-town tally right now.

[Capitan Zapp Brannigan]

Yeah, meant SoS

[cinyc]

The "retention system" is obviously better than competitive elections....or even worse....partisan competitive elections, but this case shows what really shouldn't be happening.

People fired the judges because they don't like gay marriage....not because they know or care about the law.

When judges just make up the law to suit their political agenda, discovering "rights" that heretofore have never existed, they deserve to be fired.

[Lunar]

Thanks a lot AP.  Now we have a headache

[cinyc]

Thanks a lot AP.  Now we have a headache

The SoS' reported numbers in New Haven and Bridgeport are plausible.  However, I simply don't trust her without additional proof.

This afternoon, Foley was on a CT radio program that happened to have the SoS in-studio at the time.  He asked for her town-by-town tally.  She promised it "right away".  She still hasn't released the town-by-town tally.

[bgwah]

Welcome back, Governor Kitzhaber! I always knew you could pull it off.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

     Wow, the voters of California voted the same way as me on five out of nine propositions.

     Bizarre side note: the Libertarians received the highest third-party share in four out of eight partisan statewide races in California (including Senator) (Greens got three & AIP got one). Curiously, the Libertarian candidate for Lt. Governor received almost 6% of the vote.

You must be doing something wrong if a majority of Californians vote with you on a majority of the Propositions. For me, it was 2 out of 9 this election.  I once had a 0 out of 4.

[cinyc]

Dont know if this was reported or not, but AP just switched and called gov race for Foley.

That's only half right.  The AP retracted its CT-Gov call for Malloy.  But it did NOT switch and call the race for Foley.  They're waiting for the final results to come in.