The mid-terms
Nov. 8th, 2006 12:24 pmI cannot take the damn tension.
All but two of the states with Senate races this year have called the results. The remaining two seats are still too close to call, but the Democrats are winning by very slim margins in both. If the Democrats with both of them, they control the Senate; if the Republicans win even one, they get the Senate since they control the casting vote. The party that wins the Senate gets to chair the committees that write the legislation.
Virginia looks to be in the bag; even though the margin is only 0.33%, nearly all the votes are in, and it would take an unprecedented upset for the remaining votes to change the outcome. There will be a recount, but there's no reason to think it will change the result.
In Montana, on the other hand, the margin is only 0.5% and 9% of precincts have yet to report. The Republicans have been gaining on the Democrats for quite a while; they don't need to gain much more in this final sprint to win it. I keep reloading Montana instead of working. Aargh!
Oh well, the House of Representatives is in the bag for the Democrats for the first time in twelve years either way. But both houses would be nice.
Update: More precincts have reported in Montana, and the margin has shrunk to 0.41% with 4% yet to report. However, there is good news; before, the GOP needed to win just 6% more of the remaining votes to take the seat; that's now gone up to 0.41% / 4% = 10% (assuming remaining votes is roughly proportional to remaining precincts). In Virginia the "upset margin" is 0.33% / 1% = 33%, which is why I'm more confident there.
Update: Montana Dem lead is still 0.41% with all but 1% of precincts reporting; starting to look like that's in the bag too.
All but two of the states with Senate races this year have called the results. The remaining two seats are still too close to call, but the Democrats are winning by very slim margins in both. If the Democrats with both of them, they control the Senate; if the Republicans win even one, they get the Senate since they control the casting vote. The party that wins the Senate gets to chair the committees that write the legislation.
Virginia looks to be in the bag; even though the margin is only 0.33%, nearly all the votes are in, and it would take an unprecedented upset for the remaining votes to change the outcome. There will be a recount, but there's no reason to think it will change the result.
In Montana, on the other hand, the margin is only 0.5% and 9% of precincts have yet to report. The Republicans have been gaining on the Democrats for quite a while; they don't need to gain much more in this final sprint to win it. I keep reloading Montana instead of working. Aargh!
Oh well, the House of Representatives is in the bag for the Democrats for the first time in twelve years either way. But both houses would be nice.
Update: More precincts have reported in Montana, and the margin has shrunk to 0.41% with 4% yet to report. However, there is good news; before, the GOP needed to win just 6% more of the remaining votes to take the seat; that's now gone up to 0.41% / 4% = 10% (assuming remaining votes is roughly proportional to remaining precincts). In Virginia the "upset margin" is 0.33% / 1% = 33%, which is why I'm more confident there.
Update: Montana Dem lead is still 0.41% with all but 1% of precincts reporting; starting to look like that's in the bag too.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 12:26 pm (UTC)Yes. Yes it would :D
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 12:32 pm (UTC)If the 2008 Presidential election goes the way of the Democrats, I think it'd be very healthy to have the White House and the House of Representatives being Democrat controlled, with Republicans still in the Senate. But I'm far less qualified to comment on this than on matters in the British Isles.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 01:40 pm (UTC)Of course, there's good odds the Dems will think they're claiming the moral high ground by not starting a witch hunt, but we can hope not.
election
Date: 2006-11-08 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 01:13 pm (UTC)The next two years are going to be fairly banal anyway. With Bush on the way out, but no Democratic supermajority to override his veto, there has to be some bipartisanship regardless of the Senate outcome. Besides, if Iraq is still a festering sore in 2008 (and can you imagine that it won't be?) then Senate dominance with its concomitant majority in the Foreign Relations committee and the putative guidance of the direction of foreign policy may be a vulnerability come the next election. Impeachment requires two-thirds of the Senate, so unless there's a smoking gun out there somewhere, all such fulminations are just sound and fury...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 01:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-08 05:44 pm (UTC)The House also has committees which write legislation.
Can you explain how you figured out the upset margins? As you know, maths is Greek to me, but I'd like to try to understand.
VA
Date: 2006-11-08 11:39 pm (UTC)Maybe I should find somwhere else to live.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-09 08:01 am (UTC)Personally I've got no party affiliation in the UK let alone the US. I'm just happy with anything that causes problems for Dubbya.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-16 07:12 am (UTC)The feeling was that the democrats winning both houses would not be a good thing, as they would then take the blame for Bush. It would have been better for them to take one house now and the other next time.
Oh well.