Live 2008 Non-presidential election thread

[waspy]

Georgia apparently has a whole swag of absentee/early ballots outstanding. When/if these come in, expect Chambliss to drop below the magic 50 mark. It probably won't matter as Ted Stevens looks like winning Alaska in one of the most ridiculous results in history. The guy is a convicted felon.

Only in Alaska I suppose.

 

[waspy]

Urgh. Michelle Bachmann was re-elected.

Urgh indeed. I dislike her almost as much as Palin. She couldn't have handled herself any worse over the last month, yet still wins. Amazing.

 

[medusala]

Pretty amazing about Prop 8 in California....

if they can't get it right there, what hope for the rest of America?

Doesn't California have one of the highest gay rates per capita in the US?

Does anyone know could Obama introduce this via stacking the Supreme Court?

 

[DaveW]

Well the Senate has proved to be a bit of a disappointment.

Minnesota - Coleman (R-inc) leads by 762(!) votes with 99% reporting

Oregon - Smith (R-inc) leads by 13,000 votes with 75% reporting (what's the hold up?)

Alaska - Stevens (R-inc) ahead by 3,000+ with 99% reporting (have they just re-elected a convicted felon?)

Georgia - Chamblis (R-inc) 50% with 99% reporting

 

[Galactic]

Well the Senate has proved to be a bit of a disappointment.

Minnesota - Coleman (R-inc) leads by 762(!) votes with 99% reporting

Oregon - Smith (R-inc) leads by 13,000 votes with 75% reporting (what's the hold up?)

Alaska - Stevens (R-inc) ahead by 3,000+ with 99% reporting (have they just re-elected a convicted felon?)

Georgia - Chamblis (R-inc) 50% with 99% reporting

Not if your a republican I take they still have the power of filibuster?

 

[DaveW]

Good grief. It looks like Rep. Don Young (R-inc) was re-elected in Alaska too.

Either the pollsters don't know how to poll the state, or there's some sort of "shy tory" effect.

 

[DaveW]

Not if your a republican I take they still have the power of filibuster?

If they win just one of those four races, they will have the necessary 41 seats.

Of course, how effective the Republicans are with the filibuster depends on how strong party discipline is.

 

[Galactic]

If they win just one of those four races, they will have the necessary 41 seats.

Of course, how effective the Republicans are with the filibuster depends on how strong party discipline is.

True, got some regrouping to do by the looks for them.I wonder if a rep will ever utter the words G.W Bush again

 

[DaveW]

Minnesota now says 100% of precincts reporting.

Coleman leads by 571 votes.

 

[DaveW]

There'll be a recount:

http://www.startribune.com/politics...yqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

Sen. Norm Coleman is leading Democratic challenger Al Franken in one of the most bitter U.S. Senate races in Minnesota history.

With 100 percent of the 4,130 precincts reporting, Coleman had an unofficial margin of 601 votes out of nearly 2.9 million cast. Recounts are required in races with a winning margin of less than one half of 1 percent.

Franken said this morning that he intends to exercise his right to a recount.​

 

[DaveW]

I failed to grasp the fact that CNN's 50% figure for Chambliss is a round-off. He's actually on 49.9%. How unfortunate. Looks like it's headed for a run-off.

Merkley now has his nose in front in Oregon. And the remaining votes are expected to favour him.

I think Ted Stevens has been re-elected by Alaska, even if no networks are prepared to call it yet. But it's likely that the Senate will turf him out. In which case - according to electoral-vote.com - there'll be an immediate special election held. Electoral-vote.com reckons it'll be Begich v Palin. I hope not: against anyone else Begich would be the warm favourite.

I mentioned the Minnesota recount above. Though I can't say I feel terribly confident about it overturning Coleman's margin.

Nonetheless, there's still an outside possibility of 60 Democratic seats in the new Senate.

 

[waspy]

I failed to grasp the fact that CNN's 50% figure for Chambliss is a round-off. He's actually on 49.9%. How unfortunate. Looks like it's headed for a run-off.

Merkley now has his nose in front in Oregon. And the remaining votes are expected to favour him.

I think Ted Stevens has been re-elected by Alaska, even if no networks are prepared to call it yet. But it's likely that the Senate will turf him out. In which case - according to electoral-vote.com - there'll be an immediate special election held. Electoral-vote.com reckons it'll be Begich v Palin. I hope not: against anyone else Begich would be the warm favourite.

I mentioned the Minnesota recount above. Though I can't say I feel terribly confident about it overturning Coleman's margin.

Nonetheless, there's still an outside possibility of 60 Democratic seats in the new Senate.

Merkley should scrape home in OR, will be called later today i'd say.

Georgia will definitely go to a run off in December now that Chambliss is sitting at 49.83% of the vote.

477 votes in Minnesota! Has to be a recount.

Alaska...apparently the outstanding votes are from Anchorage. I don't think it will be enough to give Begich a lead but maybe a recount. In any case, there will be special election 60 days after Stevens resigns (presuming he does resign) which would become very important if the Dems have shored up the other 3 seats (unlikely).

 

[waspy]

Looking into Alaska more, there may be upwards of 100,000 early and absentee votes still to count. So it's far from over if that's the case.

 

[DaveW]

Virgil Goode (R-inc) 80 votes behind in VA-05.

Let's hope it stays that way.

 

[DaveW]

Good grief. It looks like Rep. Don Young (R-inc) was re-elected in Alaska too.

Either the pollsters don't know how to poll the state, or there's some sort of "shy tory" effect.

There's a good piece on this by the always readable Nate Silver. He rules out the latter hypothesis, because the polling in Alaska lowballed the GOP not just in the Senate race, but also the House and presidential contests. As to why that happened, he offers a few theories:

There are three plausible explanations I can think of to explain this discrepancy. The first and most likely is that the Democratic vote became complacent and did not bother to turn out. The outcome of the presidential contest was not going to be close in Alaska, and Barack Obama's victory in the Electoral College was apparent as of about 4 PM local time. Begich supporters, moreover, may have looked at the polls and concluded that their candidate was far enough ahead that they didn't have to bother to vote. Meanwhile, the Republican base was going to turn out no matter what because of their enthusiasm for Sarah Palin. There seems to be a sort of danger zone at about 10 points wherein a candidate is far enough ahead that many of his supporters assume the race is in the bag, but not so far ahead that he is immune to poor turnout (a similar dynamic affected then-Governor Jim Blanchard of Michigan in his 1990 race against John Engler).

The second possibility is that a substantial percentage of the Democratic vote is tied up in the early and absentee ballots that have yet to be counted. We know that Barack Obama overperformed among early voters in many states, and Alaska may be no exception. (Although, I would guess that the absentee vote is predominately rural, whereas Begich's base is in Anchorage).

The third possibility is that a lot of those "questionable" ballots are Democratic ones, and that there have been irregularities in the voting tally. Although this is the least likely possibility, Alaska is a provincial state with some history of corruption, and Democrats ought to be making sure that too many of their ballots haven't been disqualified.​

 

[midorigreenwood]

Doesn't California have one of the highest gay rates per capita in the US?

Does anyone know could Obama introduce this via stacking the Supreme Court?

The irony is that it was the african american vote that helped the initiative pass through

45 percent of whites voted Yes

48 percent of Hispanics voted Yes

70 percent of blacks voted yes

african americans made up about 7 percent of the voting turnout so they basically pushed the measure over the line.


as for stacking the supreme court.....most of the likely replacements will be from the liberal wing anyways....so unless there is a new golden age of democratic rule, the status quo is likely to stay the same.

 

[DaveW]

Projection: Jeff Merkley will defeat Gordon Smith in Oregon's U.S. Senate race
by Harry Esteve, The Oregonian
Wednesday November 05, 2008, 5:55 PM

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/jeff_merkley_defeats_gordon_sm.html

Democrat Jeff Merkley has ousted Republican Gordon Smith from his U.S. Senate seat, The Oregonian projects.

Merkley, a five-term state lawmaker and former Habitat for Humanity director, took advantage of a surge of Democratic support to win a close, bitterly fought battle with Smith, who has served 12 years in Washington.

Neither candidate, however was willing to rule the race over until more votes are tallied.

"More good news," said Matt Canter, spokesman for Merkley, "but we'll just continue to watch the ballots come in and wait to claim victory."

Smith's campaign argued vigorously that the race isn't over. The projection is based on a mathematical analysis of the remaining 340,000 votes still being counted out of a total 1.8 million vote cast statewide.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

as for stacking the supreme court.....most of the likely replacements will be from the liberal wing anyways....so unless there is a new golden age of democratic rule, the status quo is likely to stay the same.

Obama will find it difficult to appoint Supreme Court judges, at least in his first term. Bush appointed a number of relatively young judges to the Supreme Court bench and given the length of their tenure (effectively until the justice dies, resigns or is impeached (happened once in 1805 and was overturned by the Senate in any event)), I suspect we'll be seeing quite a few conservative opinions being issued in the future.

The current bench consists of:

* Chief Justice John G. Roberts (aged 53) - G.W. Bush;
* John Paul Stevens (88) - Ford;
* Antonin Scalia (72) - Reagan;
* Anthony Kennedy (72) - Reagan;
* David Souter (69) - G.H.W. Bush;
* Clarence Thomas (60) - G.H.W. Bush;
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75) - Clinton;
* Stephen Breyer (70) - Clinton
* Samuel Alito (58) - G.W. Bush

Looking at it simplistically, only two current appointees are likely to be sympathetic to Obama's stance whereas the remaining justices are far more likely to be conservative. Indeed, the Chief Justice is an extremely conservative judge in terms of his political views and has been prepared to overturn precedents in order to give effect to his conservative political views.

 

[waspy]

Obama will find it difficult to appoint Supreme Court judges, at least in his first term. Bush appointed a number of relatively young judges to the Supreme Court bench and given the length of their tenure (effectively until the justice dies, resigns or is impeached (happened once in 1805 and was overturned by the Senate in any event)), I suspect we'll be seeing quite a few conservative opinions being issued in the future.

The current bench consists of:

* Chief Justice John G. Roberts (aged 53) - G.W. Bush;
* John Paul Stevens (88) - Ford;
* Antonin Scalia (72) - Reagan;
* Anthony Kennedy (72) - Reagan;
* David Souter (69) - G.H.W. Bush;
* Clarence Thomas (60) - G.H.W. Bush;
* Ruth Bader Ginsburg (75) - Clinton;
* Stephen Breyer (70) - Clinton
* Samuel Alito (58) - G.W. Bush

Looking at it simplistically, only two current appointees are likely to be sympathetic to Obama's stance whereas the remaining justices are far more likely to be conservative. Indeed, the Chief Justice is an extremely conservative judge in terms of his political views and has been prepared to overturn precedents in order to give effect to his conservative political views.

Funnily enough, Souter and Stevens are considered by some experts to be even more liberal than Ginsberg and Breyer. That leaves Kennedy as the middle vote in most contentious cases. A McCain victory (with a Democratic Senate) coupled with one of the left-leaners leaving the court (ie. dying) would have meant another judge sitting in centre-right territory, which is dangerous territory if you ask me. If Obama gets the chance to replace one of the conservative four, it will take the swing vote away from Kennedy.

 

[DaveW]

Yeah Stevens and Souter, along with Ginsberg and Breyer, are part of the moderate faction.

Kennedy is the centre-right swing vote.

The most likely retirements are Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter. So midorigreenwood is correct.

 

[medusala]

70 percent of blacks voted yes

african americans made up about 7 percent of the voting turnout so they basically pushed the measure over the line.

Looking at the voting by "race" today it struck me that Hispanics must be an extremely important block now (and probably quite a bit more so in the future)

It would seem the Dems have no hope at all of getting a white majority (lost by 12% margin) and have the black vote completely locked up.

Thus it would appear the Hispanic vote seems to be the big swinging vote.

If you were the Dems you would think it would be in your interest to allow mass immigration and hand out citizenship to all illegals (Blair and Rudd seem to have worked this out as well)

 

[waspy]

Looking at the voting by "race" today it struck me that Hispanics must be an extremely important block now (and probably quite a bit more so in the future)

It would seem the Dems have no hope at all of getting a white majority (lost by 12% margin) and have the black vote completely locked up.

Thus it would appear the Hispanic vote seems to be the big swinging vote.

If you were the Dems you would think it would be in your interest to allow mass immigration and hand out citizenship to all illegals (Blair and Rudd seem to have worked this out as well)

Texas is no longer a lock down GOP state now due to the Hispanic population growth, so there will have to be a dramatic shift in policy from the GOP if they want to win back the presidency.

 

[DaveW]

Updates...

Minnesota

Most 'undervotes' cast in counties won by Obama

An analysis of ballots that had a vote for president but no vote for U.S. senator could have recount implications.

By BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press Writer, Associated Press

Last update: November 7, 2008 - 11:36 PM

trailbay, the reason all 100 were for franken was because the election person wrote down 421 instead of 521, or something. it was human … read more error, not extra votes. regardless of this particular race, i am very disaappointed to learn that despite all the computer ballots, and optical ballots, and technology of the 21st C, the "official" number is apparently *written down* on napkin after being reported over a telephone from hundreds of miles away. i mean for pete's sake, at least have a "papertrail" of email with multiple reviewers. this is embarrassing.

An Associated Press analysis of the nearly 25,000-vote difference in Minnesota presidential and U.S. Senate race tallies shows that most ballots lacking a recorded Senate vote were cast in counties won by Democrat Barack Obama.

The finding could have implications for Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and DFLer Al Franken, who are headed for a recount separated by the thinnest of margins -- 221 votes as of Friday, or about 0.01 percent.

Though some voters may have intentionally bypassed the race, others may have mismarked their ballot or optical scanning machines may have misread them. A recount to begin Nov. 19 will use manual inspection to detect such ballots.

Three counties -- Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis -- account for 10,540 votes in the dropoff. Each saw Obama win with 63 percent or more.

Ballots that showed a presidential vote but no Senate vote are called the "undervote." Statewide, more than 18,000 of those ballots came from counties won by Obama with more than half the vote. About 6,100 were in counties won by Republican John McCain with at least 50 percent.

In 13 counties, the two ran about even; in all, those counties combined for 707 ballots without a Senate preference.

The largest of the pro-McCain counties were Anoka, where 1,189 ballots didn't choose a Senate candidate, and Stearns, where 681 did not.

There's one more critical statistic: About 8,900 people weren't recorded as voting for president, according to county-by-county turnout estimates kept by the Secretary of State's Office.

OK. So the ballot papers that didn't register a vote for the Senate race came disproportionately from Obama voters. But it's not clear to me why those voters should have marked their Senate vote more haphazardly than their Presidential vote. Frankly, the best explanation is the one provided further on in that article: that the extra voters Obama turned out to the polls simply ignored the Senate contest. It's not that their Senate vote wasn't counted, it's that they simply didn't cast a Senate vote.

Now, in response to my objection here, there is the last point raised in that Star Tribune article above: there was also a Presidential undervote. However, it's not explained where that undervote came from. Were they just randomly missed votes or did they also come disproportionately from Dem-leaning counties? There is every reason to think it's simply a random thing unless optical vote scanning is more commonly implemented in Dem-leaning counties.

But without knowing that information, I'm inclined to think this is a bit of a beat-up. Whilst the race is close enough that a recount could overturn it, I see no convincing reason yet why a recount should work in Franken's favour.

OK, onto Alaska...

Nate Silver has done a thorough analysis of the Stevens v Begich contest. His finds that the early and absentee votes have broken in Begich's favour. And with all the remaining votes to be counted being early, absentee or "questioned" ballots, Stevens's margin will erode somewhat. His modelling actually gives Begich a ~3,000 vote win. But there are assumptions made and caveats that apply. His conclusion? "[T]he race should probably be regarded as a toss-up."

Finally, Georgia...

November 7, 2008, 5:46 pm
Runoff Certain in Georgia Senate Race
By Sarah Wheaton

There are 433 votes left to be counted in the Georgia Senate race. But no matter which way they go, the Fulton County Elections Board said, there would not be enough votes to give either Senator Saxby Chambliss or his Democratic challenger, Jim Martin, 50 percent of the total vote. That means a runoff will be held on Dec. 2.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

The Georgia senate run-off is gonna be the Mother of All Battles. The GOP have already got Palin scheduled to make some campaign appearances, and you'd have to assume that Obama and Biden will do some campaigning for Martin too. If I were Martin, I'd be chasing the Clintons as well. Basically any big Dem who can draw crowds, raise dollars, and galvanise volunteers should swing through Georgia over the next few weeks. The other side will be doing the same.

It'll be fascinating to see what turnout is relative to the general election. This may be more of a base turnout operation.

 

[Mr Q]

OK, onto Alaska...

I still think the best line I've seen on Alaska is that the election results there show that the rest of the country should take the Alaskan Independence Party up on their offer.