A Few More Election Results

Here are some late-breaking election results, as of 1:00 am MT:

  • No final results on Prop. 8 in California which would ban gay marriage.


  • Al Franken and Norm Coleman are 1,000 votes apart in Minnesota.
  • North Carolina, Montana and Missouri haven't been called yet.

What a historical, great election night. In Colorado, five of our seven Congresspersons will be Democrats -- one of whom will be our state's first openly gay member of Congress-- and both of our Senators will be Democrats. We already have a Democratic Governor and three of our large Republican counties voted for Obama.

Thanks to C.L., our man in Hollywood, for our election day graphics, to Big Tent Democrat and TChris for choosing TalkLeft to share their thoughts and analysis, to the TL Kid for joining our live-blogs and to you readers for stopping by to read us and comment.

See you all tomorrow.

< Obama's Victory Speech Live Blog | Day After Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    whatever, prop 8 shouldn't be a question (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by boredmpa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:57:42 AM EST
    It wouldn't be if we hadn't played minority politics in the primary or if our selected dem candidate had gone beyond Prop 8 being "Unnecessary"

    No leadership, but real change. He, his supporters, and the blind cheerleading as we crashed towards the center are significant change and a disgrace to all the dems fought for back in the 90s.

    A landslide for change? Good change? You honestly believe that? Look around at your party.  I can hear mine.  I have 200+ privileged obama voters screaming outside my house for 4+ hours while Prop 8 has been inching past 52%. In San Francisco, no surprise, people are too caught up in "history" to care that they elected a politician that plays to the center.

    Gays aren't important enough to warrant support apparently.  Hell, for all my ranting I thought I was safe from the idiocy of throwing people under the bus here in CA and the lack of leadership, but boy was I wrong; this poor election cycle has a long arm.

    Yes we can? Can what? Get out the vote of enough of the socially conservative libs that haven't voted in years to actually take away gay marriage?  Refuse to provide leadership on gay rights?  

    Because that is exactly what happened.

    And I will pray that I eat crow tomorrow because Prop 8 goes down, but I don't see that happening.

    and before i get flamed (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by boredmpa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:03:15 AM EST
    I'd like to point out that the democrat party and its leadership has repeatedly dissuaded people from giving to anyone but them during this cycle.

    As a result, you have lack of support for nonprofits and PACs that focus on key issues, that develop plans and prove their effectiveness(like healthcare for all and the lewin group report), that pressure democrats and that track results.  Instead the money goes directly to politicians; people with competing interests that are free to ignore any specific issue because they only other option is to vote for the other party.


    I understand your anger... (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:10:22 AM EST
    believe me I do, but if someone had told me 10 years, or even 2 years ago that a black man could be elected president I would have absolutely disagreed.  But now I know this country is capable of getting passed prejudice, and while, unfortunately, it will take awhile, I know gay marriage will be equal and legal.

    But yes it sucks badly and it makes me sad and angry that it doesnt look like that step in CA will be taken, for now.


    Obama's position (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:01:12 AM EST
    On gay rights advancement has always been that this is an issue that has to be dealt with by grass root advancements, state by state. I wonder how the racial advancements would be in this country today if the same principles had been applied?

    A Bold Principled Stand! (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:24:42 AM EST
    for state's rights?  So I suppose he'd be all in favor of Prop 8s for all fifty states?

    Which part of "he opposed prop 8" do (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    you not understand?  If he opposed prop 8 in California, how do you extrapolate that to him supporting prop 8 type measures in all 50 states?

    "let the states decide" (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:16:53 AM EST
    And if the states decide to write it into their constitution then Obama's okay with that because he wants the states to decide.

    Grassroots activism doesn't run in just one direction.  


    Or, an alternative quote being . . . (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:32:22 AM EST
    As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.



    Prop 8 ads (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:33:24 AM EST
    were featuring Obama saying that he thought marriage should be between a man and a woman.

    I'm sure that helped people to understand where he stood.  


    Baby steps. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    Lets be realistic, he was playing it safe at the end and coming out vehemently against prop 8 could have been risky.  Now, as they say, hindsight is 20/20 and we now know that he could have taken the shot and still won, but no one knew that at the time.

    You know, Obama also wasnt ranting at how this land was stolen from my fellow NAs and how it should be given back, but I still voted for him knowing full well he absolutely wasnt going to do that.  So at least the gay marriage issue will be resolved in a positive way.  The stolen land will stay stolen for perpetuity.


    Stolen land? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    You should be howling for that audit of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to finally get released.  I forget when that was supposedly begun, courtesy of a lawsuit I think.  Bush 1?  Ages and ages ago, at any rate.  Apparently, the government has been less than honest for a few decades and probably owes millions or billions of dollars to the BIA.

    Might want to tell Obama to get on that.


    Cobell is the lawsuit (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    Im most familiar with and we're all over it... though the Osage chief is on the same level of bush, so there are some problems.

    Yup. He opposed. The voters voted. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:43:56 AM EST
    The voters decided.  

    Now if I can only get gay marriage legalized in Ohio (fat chance!) we can get an influx of disenchanted West Coasters!  Ohio is like California in having very gay friendly urban areas surrounded by conservative, rural areas.  Only with twice the rainfall and much cheaper cost of living!


    Or Vermont (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:16:43 AM EST
    where we're moving rapidly from civil unions to gay marriage, and even the rural areas -- most of the state -- are gay-friendly.  My small agricultural community elected a married (in Mass.) gay man with two adopted AA little girls to the school committee with no controversy.

    And property is at least as inexpensive as Ohio.


    Go Vermont! (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:35:45 AM EST
    Taking part in the gay revolution!  First the original thirteen colonies, then the nation.

    Obama 61.3% McCain 31.9% (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:04:18 AM EST
    And Prop 8?

    51.9% Yes  
    48.1% No

    It's roughly a 9% difference.  (Don't have total vote tallies yet.)

    So...either a lot of Obama voters didn't vote on Prop 8, or a significant percentage of the ones that did, voted to deny gays their civil rights.


    The question is... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:55:03 AM EST
    A black man has been elected president. In our country, if you have one parent (or a grandparent or a great-grandparent or a great-great grandparent) who hailed from Africa, and the other parent was white, you're black. Everyone's cool with that. Black and white.

    So - a black man, albeit one whose ancestors did not experience the indignity of slavery in this country, has been elected.

    Now what?

    All we can do is cross our fingers that his and his running mate's bellicose statements vis a vis Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia and Iran were so much flapdoodle.

    All we can do is hope that they will work to undo the damage done to our civil rights by the patriot act - for which both of them voted.

    All we can do is hope that both of their idiotic statements in defense of the "traditional" view of marriage being between a man and a woman was so much hot air.

    So - all I know for the moment is that a man has been elected whose name and background are off the beaten track. If he is to be more than a different face on the same product remains to be seen.

    As and for "understanding your anger", I'm not sure that you do.
    Would you say the same thing if a gay politician had been elected who was on record as saying that his he opposed the right of white and black people to marry each other because of his religious beliefs?



    Being an Native American... (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:34:05 AM EST
    I have quite the tradition of voting for local democrats that were against my self interests, yet I voted for them because the other side would have been worse.  So dont play that card with me.  Also, who says Im 100% "straight"?

    Cards (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    I not playing any card with you.

    I just don't see why different minorities, including - and maybe especially - Native Americans, should be expected to wait in line to receive their rights.


    I'd love it... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    if we could wake up tomorrow and have all of the sociological problems of our country solved, but that just is not going to happen.  I mean, how long did it take for us to elect a non white president?  Lets remember how many people suffered, some dying, before minorities and women could vote.  

    Change worth having is never easy nor quick, but it does happen.  So will you or I live to see the first openly gay president?  I seriously doubt it, but I can say with a measure of confidence that I will see gay marriage become legal nationally.

    Time may be against us but inevitability is on our side.


    Fine (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
    But until equal rights are provided to all Americans, those denied their rights should not have to pay taxes.

    As Malcolm X said - he wasn't going to sit at a table surrounded by people eating, and him with an empty plate, and consider himself a diner.

    I will also add this caveat.

    I am not impressed with the fact that an African-American has been elected president. I'm just not.

    I will be impressed if Obama, an African-American, does progressive things for the citizens of this country. If he helps get people out of poverty. If he does something to provide the kind of health care that is available to all the citizens of progressive countries. If he ends the war in Iraq and does not start or accelerate others.

    Malcolm X spoke long ago about not being impressed with black people who were put in a position of power by white interests.
    We will only find out about Obama by his actions - by his works.


    Theres room enough in my heart... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM EST
    to be impressed by both his election and actions, works.

    Is the term "Democrat Party" not a GOP (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:04:26 AM EST
    derogotary term for the Democratic Party?

    Yes Joe A (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:15:43 AM EST
    it is a derogatory term used by the GOP and anyone who uses itshould be troll rated.

    actually (none / 0) (#79)
    by boredmpa on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:57:40 PM EST
    your comment is a troll that steals a term i came up with and rebrands it as GOP.

    But if that's what you want to do, go right ahead.  Just be aware that most people won't follow your lead.  

    There are plenty of people on this blog that respect dissent and legitimate reframing.


    You Came Up With? (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:10:53 PM EST
    lol... Don't get out much? Sorry that slur is taken.

    It has been a favorite wingnut troll term here for years. It is used to wind up, annoy and provoke.


    I'm with you. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:51:25 AM EST
    I was looking over the Ohio congressional results map and there's no appreciable coat tails effect from Obama.  The Kilroy/Stivers race is worth examining in detail - I'll try to find a good analysis.  Other than that, Ohio is the same old Ohio, which is to say we slammed yet another gambling proposal!  (I love that about us.)

    My suspicion is thatas it became more and more (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:44:01 AM EST
    clear that Obama was going to win the Presidential election, and it was obvious that Dems  would have an expanded majority in both houses then there has been a trend of people splitting tickets along a more divided government line.  I suspect people were prioritising the presidential race and potentially decided they didnt want to give Obama too huge a majority to work with in cramming through his "socialist agenda".

    I never cease to be amazed though at the rump Puma's over at NoQuarter etc. who seem to lurch back and forth between being disgruntled liberals thrown under the bus by Obama campaigning as such a centrist, and complaining about how he is a marxist/socialist who is going to ruin the country. The incoherence is remarkable.  


    Frightened by President McCain (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    but also afraid of a super majority Dem Congress?

    Maybe they just don't trust either party?  


    That's the divided government argument though. (none / 0) (#47)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:52:42 AM EST
    Checks and balances.

    That's the theory. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:55:18 AM EST
    The actual practice....eh.

    And it's (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    a huge mistake to split tickets on the foolish notion that all will be well with a Congress and a President of two different parties.

    No way that any meaningful change can take place when there is no dominant political force.


    Does corruption count (none / 0) (#62)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:25:23 AM EST
    as a "dominant political force"?

    And Payday lending. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by liminal on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:13:22 AM EST
    Y'all voted to keep the limits on interest rates, despite the fact that the opposition was  outspent by the loan sharks (er, payday lenders) 60-1.  I was really happy to see that.

    There should be a (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:19:39 AM EST
    federal bill to reign in payday lending.  Those loan sharks have no shame.  

    Oh, they cried, they wailed (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:30:47 AM EST
    they gnashed their teeth, they closed their storefronts  (they did!) and we said "Tough.".

    I helped someone once who used one of those places.  I had no idea how much they can milk their clients for.  I got a quick education and just gaped.  I've been minimum wage Maggie and those places wouldn't have helped except to make me poorer!


    You didn't . . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by dcaster on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:56:15 AM EST
    look far enough south.  Steve Driehas (D) beat the incumbent Steve Chabot in the First District (central/western Cincinnati and its western suburbs).  Vote totals were almost identical to the Obama-McCain totals in the district.

    and Jean Schmidt re-elected. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:06:52 AM EST
    I'm stuck in a red district, but at least I'm not down there.

    I was very sorry Kilroy lost again. (none / 0) (#68)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:00:32 AM EST
    Stivers - meh. Tiberi - neh. etc.

    They made it official? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    D@mn!  That district includes the gays and the hippies and other wonderful people.  And they get represented by a [expletive deleted] Republican.  Freaking former bank lobbyist, to boot!

    I am truly sad (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:59:04 AM EST
    about Prop 8, which looks like it will pass.  A real bummer on an otherwise happy night.  But equality always wins in the end, and I know that we, as a people, will get there.

    Some people are concerned that the victory wasn't as broad as it could have been, that some House and Senate seats got left on the table.  The simple truth is that the Democrats have not really earned anything as a party, aside from the honor of not being as horrible as the Republicans.  The challenge now is to govern competently, and if they can do that, continued electoral success will follow.  Put up or shut up.

    I feel like tonight we are incrementally closer to a better future for the next generation, which is what I really care about.  Still a whole lot of work left to be done.

    The anti-gay vote (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:11:57 AM EST
    Is a vote I trully don't understand.  It just seems so vile.  I understand (disagree with) being against choice, but being against someone marrying seems evil.  It is like being against love.

    Question: Is the way to win this fight to step back from marriage and get states into the civil union biz, and individual churches can do the marrying thing if you want it?  Is that defeatist?


    Yup, get the state out of the marrying business. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    Issue Civil Partnership licences to anyone gay or straight, and if they want a religious ceremony and to call it a marriage then they can do it at a church of their own choosing.  Some liberal churches will offer them to everyone, some will restrict it to heterosexual couples only.  That's their business and basically the state should not give the religious ceremony any recognition or force of law.

    Then basically take the state out of recognising marriages one way or the other.  Democrats are losing the framing war on this with the likes of Gavin Newsome in San Francisco doing  the anti-prop 8 forces no good at all with some tone deaf comments, and the scary ads about everyones kids being indoctrinated with homosexuality at school if prop 8 failed.  


    From a feminist perspective (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:35:50 AM EST
    I can agree with dismantling marriage altogether.  I think the odds of that happening are the same as women as a group attaining the same social & economic standing as men.  

    No. There are two ways. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM EST
    One is federal - likely once a majority of states have official universal civil unions.  (Same rights as marriage.)

    The other is to pass proposals or constitutional amendments state by state that creates full and equal rights civil unions.  Repeal and replace.

    Those are the only options I see.  Ohio isn't likely to pass a civil union by state wide ballot issue.  I looked at the results map this morning and Ohio is still very reddish.


    Tribalism, the squick factor (none / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:38:34 AM EST
    And a good dose of old time religion.  The squick factor can be overcome.  Tribalism is more difficult and old time religion is nigh intractable.

    All the good that comes tonight (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:52:34 AM EST
    is washed out by the probably passing of Prop 8...  I'm glad for Obama and the increased majority of the democrats, but I can't celebrate tonight.  My years in California were spent in the liberal shelter that is the bay area, and from an academic standpoint, I knew that much of the state was very much conservative...but this result brings me more sorrow than I can express.  I left behind many friends that I worried would never have the opportunity to marry the person they loved.  For a few short months this year, I was given an enormous amount of hope that that particular era had come to an end.

    I got married this past summer, in July, and the happiness that I felt because of that is accompanied by a bitter guilt that I am partaking in a practice denied some of my closest friends.  I'm drinking from the "WHITES ONLY" fountain, so to speak.  This guilt is accompanied by the disgusting feeling that our marriage isn't recognized because of our love for each other, or our undying commitment, but only because my part, and her part, fit together.

    So, I apologize if I can't find it in my heart to celebrate with you all tonight.

    Can you imagine 2010? 2012? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:19:24 AM EST
    I imagine we'll see more props in states that doesn't already have one on the books.

    There is a reason to promote progressive principles, no matter what office you are running for.  If you don't do it and the next candidate doesn't and the next and the next...who will be leading on these issues?  

    If you accept the premise that every politician is always running for re-election, then any politician who shies away from taking firm stands on the official campaign trail is unlikely to do it while serving because they are still in an unofficial campaign mode.

    IOW - I do not believe in secret super progressives.  WYSIWYG


    Yes, A very sad and tragic (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:25:18 AM EST
    commentary on an otherwise jubilant occasion  The Democratic party seems to have felt that god, guns and gays were the cause of their past downfalls, and resurrected god, once again, aimed gun control in another direction and left gay marriage at the altar, for, hopefully, another day.  Mr Obama did, to his great credit, include gays and straights (and in that order) in his Chicago acceptance speech. Just words, true, but words from a president-elect, and words that can support the attitudes necessary to defeat the ill-informed and the  downright bigoted and homophobic.  Florida, Arizona and California, new blots on human rights; the next step, if these resolutions are to appear on ballots, is to get them disqualified, at the starting gate, if they are not worded in some manner that indicates that the proposed constitutional amendment  codifies in the state's constitution, discrimination and takes away rights. No more seemingly "apple pie" stuff like for a man and woman, and maintaining a religious sacrament.

    Gay Rights (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 04:45:45 AM EST
    Will have to wait for at least 8 years. Obama has shown consistantly throughout this election cycle, that he doesn't want any part of it. I expect the Democrat's will take a note from Rove and begin positioning for the next election from day one. There isn't going to be anything on their agenda that could jeopardize this.  

    Obama played it so safe (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:29:47 AM EST
    that he could be a spokesman for security systems.  Not until the Bush Economy was circling the drain did he finally find the courage to mention the Clinton Economy.

    This was not a brilliant campaign.  It was a safe, cautious, even tepid campaign after you peel away all the emotional rhetoric.  Fund raising is an entirely different topic.  If I was going to hire Obama for anything, it would be raking in the cash but definitely not marketing.


    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:50:46 AM EST
    Has always been a very cautious and calculating politician. This has been a fact that many in the progressive community have never accepted. Time will tell if he chooses to rise to the occasion. For my money, I don't see it happening. I expect a  conservative administration that will refuse to rock the boat. The progressive agenda was the real loser in this election. But even a bad Obama admin is better than McCain, so I guess we did win. But we should have had so much more. This was our time.

    For sure. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:06:38 AM EST
    Frankly, McCain/Bush was so bad that John Q Milquetoast could have beaten them if he had a good campaign.  (Not sure about Jane Q Milquetoast.)

    I'm totally curious as to how many people really bought all the Hopey Changey hype and how many know or at least suspect that it is all just a gimmick.

    The good news is that I'm over believing that women have made real progress.  Like I told my friend, it was the 1950s all over again.  


    i agree that obama (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sancho on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:04:07 AM EST
    is not terribly progressive and that his coat-tails may not have been that long. prop 8 result is devastating and does cast a shadow for me over the night. on the other hand, i think he will be shrewd about getting re-elected. and so that would be "not-republican" for 8 years and in some ways the demogaphics of the country seem to be shifting more to dems. i was surprised how happy i was obama won but i also think we could have had so much more. i hate the meme that obama's job is now to keep the liberals at bay. i fear we're at a moment where formerly progressive sites (not tl!)  "grow up" by ceasing to advocate strongly for progressive causes and "defend" obama's practicality. but as i say for now i will hope for better than what i expect.



    Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:20:05 AM EST
    So said NPR this morning.  I didn't call that one at all.  He seems like much more of a firebrand than Obama.  I like him though, so I hope it works out.  Seems like the riskiest decision Obama has made in this whole process.

    Clarification (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:21:46 AM EST
    I meant firebrand in terms of a more open and emotional personality, not in terms of liberal policies. I think he is a mixed bag on that, but I will refresh my memory this week!

    Analysis I read, which seems spot on (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:49:07 AM EST
    pointed out something similar to yourself.  i.e. that Emmanuel goes against the "No Drama Obama" tendencies, however Obama went for him based on his ability to crack heads together in congress and help him get his agenda past congressional democrats.  Rahm is definitely very switched on and he doesn't take any prisoners.  I think Obama will be consultative and try to get Republicans on board,  but if there are Democrats or Republicans blocking things then I think Emmanuel will be the character behind Obama carrying the big stick and ready to play hardball.

    All of the above is good imho.


    Yes, and the entire punditocracy (none / 0) (#70)
    by sallywally on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 09:29:16 AM EST
    is celebrating how Obama will HAVE TO GOVERN TO THE "CENTER" - in real terms, be a Republican.  Carl (ick) Bernstein saying Nancy Pelosi won't dictate to Obama, he will dictate to her (with a schadenfreude smile), portraying her as a far left nut - what a joke that is!

    Obama did say he'd reach out to the Repubs, and be the president of all those wingnuts too.... scary.

    I hope this is more bringing the moderate Repubs into focus and bringing the Repubs (and himself?) back to the necessary role of government in securing the safety net for the vulnerable.  

    I hope circumstances force him to some level of progressivity, but we will have to see.

    Very happy Ohio went blue, though!!! I doubt it's a real switch.


    Coleman ahead of Franken by less than 700 (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:42:19 AM EST
    with 99% of precincts counted.   Oh man, I really really want that one.

    This will go to a recount (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by themomcat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 05:54:48 AM EST
    and all the absentee ballots will be counted. And, YES, I really wanted this one, too, for Weldon. Blessed Be.

    and Saxbe Chabliss (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by cpa1 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:08:53 AM EST
    9300 votes can there the race into a runoff.  With all the crap that went on there, I hope the DNC lawyers get their asses to Georgia and check out those votes.  It has been rumored that Chabliss got in the first time only because of shenanigans and that difference should not be ignored.

    Gordon Smith in Oregon, that one is still pretty close too, as there are many votes to count in some Democratic areas.  Eugene with Obama 58 to 38% only has 33% reported and that 33% is almost 67,000 votes.  There is hope here.

    So, with a little luck, we can still get Franken and Merkley in Oregon and with a lot of luck and some investigation we can get rid of Chabliss which would give us 59 + Sanders and that means the end of Lieberman.  What a bastard he is.

    I lost a bet to lvngstn because I thought Obama wouldn't make it.  It's a bet I am happy to lose!

    Even though I still wanted Hillary, I can see the opportunity here and what a wonderful thing for America and every black person on the face of the earth.  What a great day for liberals who should never be afraid of that name again.  


    correction (none / 0) (#55)
    by cpa1 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:05:02 AM EST
    my bet was with Jlvngstn and it has happily been paid to Talk Left

    Anybody know (none / 0) (#36)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:32:30 AM EST
    the chances of Franken overtaking Coleman's little over 700 vote lead?  How many absentee ballots are there that needs/could be counted?

    According to K-Lo over at the corner (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:39:22 AM EST
    AP have called this for Coleman.  Heres hoping they have jumped the gun on this.

    Recount (none / 0) (#43)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:46:00 AM EST
    There's the recount but I don't know if we can pull it out.  Hopefully there's lots of provisional ballots to be counted in MN.  

    In OR, someone mentioned that KPTV called it for Merkley based on Tim HIbbits of the Hibbit's poll projection.  Apparently, the 100% Portland vote is wrong and is only a fraction of that but we'll see what happens today.    


    CNN still have it within 762 votes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by JoeA on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:55:07 AM EST
    so I cannot see how it can be called without including the provisional ballots and a recount.  Here's hoping.

    Recount (none / 0) (#44)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:46:13 AM EST
    There's the recount but I don't know if we can pull it out.  Hopefully there's lots of provisional ballots to be counted in MN.  

    In OR, someone mentioned that KPTV called it for Merkley based on Tim HIbbits of the Hibbit's poll projection.  Apparently, the 100% Portland vote is wrong and is only a fraction of that but we'll see what happens today.    


    A thought about Lieberman (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by themomcat on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 06:00:42 AM EST
    before I go to bed. The Democratic leadership needs to wash their hands of this hypocrite. Beginning Jan. 1, let him sink with his Republican friends. Because, and I firmly believe this, if Connecticut voters dumped Shays, they will dump Lieberman in 2010. Goddess willing the recount goes in our favor in MN and we will have Franken to replace him. Have a good morning all, we have fought the good fight and prevailed.

    Lieberman (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by WS on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:58:29 AM EST
    really screwed up supporting McCain in such a prominent manner.  He'll be problem in foreign policy but since Obama is in charge of that, his antics should be less of a problem.  

    On Domestic policy, he is better than some conservative Democrats, and I hope he continues to vote for our initiatives in this area.  


    now, (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:19:32 AM EST
    the hard work begins. it's going to take time to clean up the carnage of 8 years of bush, and 6 years of bush/republican congress.

    it didn't get screwed up overnight, it won't get repaired overnight.

    i haven't found any current tallies for prop. 8, still hoping it fails. also hoping franken beats coleman.

    va did it's part, electing warner to replace warner.

    Go Michigan! (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by shoulin4 on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM EST
    I'm proud of you/us :)

    My final thoughts for the night (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:27:44 AM EST
    Prop 8 appears to pass. BLEH.

    Senator Stevens is reelected, and so is Don Young. Stevens won't be seated, though. This is one of the shockers of the night.

    Franken looks to pull out a very narrow victory. YAY!

    NY Dems take the State Senate, making way for real progressive change.

    PA Dems APPEAR to not only hold, but build on their majority in the State House.

    Other stuff I can't think of now tomorrow.

    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:39:19 AM EST
    we shouldnt have been surprised the state that elected Gov. palin would reelect a convicted fellon.

    Palin and Senator Felon (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by Ellis on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 03:40:31 AM EST
    Apparently, Alaskans didn't feel that Palin made them look ridiculous enough...they decided to go all out. In the special election, word is they're going to go for either a walrus or a narwhal to replace Stevens.

    But then, Alaskans, not actually being Americans, don't recognize American courts so I guess than means Stevens' conviction is null and void.

    Maybe Alaska and Texas could be persuaded to secede and form the Kingdom of Buffoons with Palin as the Queen Bee. Imagine what such a move would do for the average IQ of the US. Why, it would probably jump 10-15 points.

    I'd feel sorry for Austin. Maybe we could work out territorial status for them, but it would only be a matter of time before the Texans started to blockade the poor Austinians. That could spark a war between the Buffoons and the US and Obama would have to go toe to toe with Sarah, who we know would never blink. With the Queen Bee's extraordinary foreign policy and military experience, she'd outsmart Obama at every turn and the next thing you know Sarah would crush the US and we'd all be bowing down to Queen Palin.

    Someone please leak this delusional scenario to Sarah. I'd say there's a decent chance she'll go for it.


    Georgia is still possible... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Thanin on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 02:33:29 AM EST
    600,000 early votes have yet to be counted (AP hasn't called Georgia yet) and theyre in Dem areas.  I think Atlanta.

    What chance woudl the personhood (none / 0) (#33)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 07:27:27 AM EST
    amendment have had in the courts?  NPR had a proponent who wanted it to go all the way to the Supreme Court because she thought it stood a chance of over throwing Roe v. Wade.  I'm fascinated with the idea of judicial rulings on "personhood" because I think it has a good chance of just being tossed out and because I really want someone to argue how one can attribute personhood to something that can't even be detected using the best medical tests!

    The woman's body does not respond until successful implantation.  Between "conception" ("conception" is difficult to define precisely) and implantation, there is no way to determine if this "person" actually exists!  (In vitro "conception" is a bit different, but those are a tiny minority.)

    either one would be (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    an improvement.

    In the special election, word is they're going to go for either a walrus or a narwhal to replace Stevens.