The Connecticut 2nd has a long history of extremely close races. Sam Gejdenson won by the skin of his teeth on several occassions. It's not at all surprising to see that continue.

Thanks for this post. I would point out though, that WA is not "slow"; it is more democratic. By allowing people to cast ballots as long as they are postmarked--not received--by election day, they have the most liberal requirement here which allows more people to vote. Democracy is not meant to be the fastest or most efficient system; Washington state's is among the most inclusive by letting anyone vote by mail without having to cast their ballot before Election Day. Slow might be the states that still have runoff elections for races where no candidate gets a majority of the vote; these are holdovers from the racist policies of the Reconstruction era. White Southerners had to let black people vote, but passed majority requirements to keep blacks out of office. I realize that in some cases, like TX-23, they potentially benefit my party, but on principle, they needlessly prolong elections and thwart general election results. LA-2 won't have its runoff until Dec. 9; WA-8 will probably be decided before then. The TX-23 runoff date hasn't been set yet. Maybe Texas and Louisiana should be called slow...

Was an exit poll taken in the Schmidt race in Ohio. Local reports are that there was manipulation of the vote tally in Warren County similar to Schmidt's first election.

Yes, the Dem (who remembers his name? Anyone? Anyone? That's right, Nick Lampson!) won in Delay's old district (TX-22).

BTW, LA2, where I live, will not influence the final House count. The run-off is between two Democrats. This is Representative William Jefferson's District, he of the $90K in marked bills safely frozen in his house...here in the heart of smelly old New Orleans, there's no way we'd ever elect a Republican. (That's why Mayor Ray Nagin runs as a Dem despite being politically and financially aligned with and now indebted to the Repubs.) Even if Jefferson wins (which will be embarrassing but not surprising) and is impeached and found guilty, the Governor is a Democrat and will appoint the same to fill his seat.

WHAT HAPPENED TO TOM DELAY's OLD DISTRICT? Did the Democrat win his seat?

Star11:

I think Steele is undeniably charismatic, and this past cycle has made him one of the best known Rs in Maryland. If Mikulski retired, I don't doubt that Erlich would run for her seat, but that doesn't mean Steele wouldn't as well. A year on the cable talk circuit could really boost his stock even more. He may be a liar, but he's a liar that garnered 45% of the vote in a down year for Republicans.

That said, if Barbara decides to step down, there will be a dozen strong Dems fighting to get her seat, and I imagine that Van Hollen would come out on top, and easily beat Steele or Erlich or whichever candidate the Rs put up.

Van Hollen v. Steele would be charm v. charm, each one receiving fawning media attention. It would be boiled down for the electorate as the haircut v. the dog lover, issues be damned.

Colin: I didnt say elections do not mean anything, they mean a lot, it determines the course of our direction and our fate either good or bad. I do hope the terrorists do not misunderstand our system and think it was a victory for them. Now that you have power in Capitol hill, you will have to govern instead if hurling insults at President Bush. If your party starts partisan nonsense with a bunch of silly investigations, you will overplay your hand. The vote was against the war and republicans and not a vote for dems. You will have to prove you are worthy of power. I have confidence you will blow it and put us back in charge.

Welcome back bhoomes. You were never as far out in your invective as KofZ (do you know where he is at) or Fearless Leader.

It would be best for both sides to work together to pass mutally agreeable legislation until January '08. After that it is long and short knifes until election. Also, let us all hope that the Iraq War is not an issue in '08.

I would love to see Allen run against Mark Warner for John Warner's seat in 2008.

If M Warner runs, he will mop the floor with Allen, Tom Davis, or whatever other sap is nominated by the Repubs.

Man of Steele Show:

On what would basis could Steele rationalize a run in 2008 if Mikulski retires? Because people will forget? He will become a Democrat? Because he will have more of a 'resume' I see no possibility of him running for office in MD again. There is talk of Ehrlich, too, running for Mikulski's seat, but two years just seems way too soon after such significant losses.
They were just talking about Allen conceding so that he could run for Warner's seat in 2008 w/o a nasty recount hanging over his head - I see this as more legitimate, but not likely. After two years? That seems very strange. . .

bhoomes -- Good to see you are starting to spin the election already my friend. I was worried that I hadn't seen enough of that to date. The reality of recent mid terms is that the party in power has picked up seats. Just look at 2002 and 1998, the latter of which was also a "6 year itch" election. Moreover, control of the House has now flipped twice in about 60 years? And weren't Republicans talking about how 2004 was a realignmnet election that would cement GOP majorities for DECADES?

Hmm, somehow looking at all this it strikes me that this election probably is a little bit more than just "the norm." Does it mean Dems are now in the majority forever? Of course not, and I actually DO agree that it would behoove Democrats to do something the GOP surely never did -- work WITH the opposition party. But to say the election didn't mean anything? That's just denying reality.

I don't think Steele will run again soon, unless Mikulski announces her retirement. I bet he's given a one hour weekly show on Fox this winter, just him, his dog, and a list of formerly employed GOP congressmen as guests. Seriously, I trust him more as a talking head than as a politician.

Bhoomes; I agree that the olive branch needs to be extended from both sides. So....instead of talking about the next elections and who's going to win, let's see how much we can get done to clean up the debris of mistakes and partisanship.

What are you guys going to do with all that champaign when yours hopes are dashed again. Steele is going to win Maryland, that alone will keep from getting Senate. Plus factor in NJ for us. I can see the headline now on the front page of USA Today on Nov 8. GOP STUNS DEMOCRATS.
Posted by: bhoomes | October 24, 2006 10:30 AM

There is a runoff in Texas because the district had to be redrawn after the primary due to a Supreme Court ruling. The race was open to both Republicans and Democrats, and the special rules required 50% to win.

Louisiana requires a runoff for any race. They don't have primaries for these races.

Bhoomes, I disagree that those seats you named will flip back to the GOP. Alot of seats were actually corrections from the '94 wave that swept the GOP into power. Not to mention with the Democrats taking control of alot of State legislatures and governerships that means we get to draw the map next time. However, I do agree that alot fo the voter fraud that people bring up are isolated incidents of jacka$$es from either party trying to intimidate people. That being said, any voting machine that doesn't have a paper trail is worthless and dangerous in my eyes.

In Louisiana there are runoffs, because they have no Primaries. In Fact the election on Tuesday was the open Primary in Louisiana. So everyone could run and only People with over 50% of votes got elected.

In Texas were 5 Districts been redrawn in August by a panel of Judges after a Decision of the (Texas?) Supreme Court. Thatswhy the Primaries from earlier in the Year were voided and this was in fact an open Primary in this 5 Districts and only Candidates with over 50% of the Vote got elected.

Why are there runoffs in TX and LA seats?

You are right, Bhoomes and i'am glad to hear you talk like this. But when i would live in the US i would still be worried about the state of democracy in the US. (Voting maschines which counts backwards and Voting maschines which tries to select another candidate then selected.) What i dont understand (the same here in Europe) is why there is no requirement for a paper Trail. This would be an elemental security step and an great reassurance.

The state of Democracy in the US is very important because if you want to bring Democracy to the world, then you must be sure that your own sysyem is fulfilling the standards that you want to bring to the rest of the World.

I really hope the US will get it right, then although i dont like all of the american policies and i dont understand many common positions of thinking, i really think America is a fascinating and interesting country which could bring so much good in the world.

There is always going to be some people doing things that are not authorized by the candidates on both sides, that happens in every elections, remember doing 2004 when a couple of dems cut all of the tires to the vans the republicans had set aside to get their people to the polls. It happens but it doesn't mean any candiate tried to steal an election. Enjoy your victory because it will be short lived. Half a dozen seats you won you will not be able to hold during the next election(Neys, Foley;s Delay's etc) By historical standards this election was probably close to being the norm. We will win again and vice versus, so lets set some standards about being gracious in victory and defeat.

not to nitpick to much, but in the GA 12th, if your figures are right, the vote diference is 1,039, not 859. Got be sure and count every one in these tight races...

And a welcome back to Bhoomes! I would like to point out that there was plenty of talk of voter fraud, still by the GOP. You may have missed the story about the false voter guide that listed Steele and Erlich as Dems that was passed out by bussed in homeless men or the calls that informed people to go to incorrect polling stations or the misinformation campaign in GA where the GOP sent out letters to thousands of voters saying they had to bring their State IDs to vote, even though that law had already been struck down or the handbook for GOP poll watchers to aggressively challenge people's right to vote or, well, you get the idea.

Maybe you should buy a paper once in a while, bhoomes.

Bhoomes - perhaps it's time for you to admit the converse is actually the truth-"When there is no electoral fraud- Democrats win."

Besides, wouldn't your time be better spent trying to cull the ethically challenged and honesty bereft (starting w/ President Bush) from your own party?

Notice how when the dems win there is no talk of voter fraud and everthing was hunkie dorie at the polls. Let this be a lesson to you dems the next time you lose(and you will) be gracious in defeat and try not to malign our democracy with bogus trash talk about the election veing stolen just becsuse you lost.

subpoena power;

LOL. still chuckling...

The footnote on the chart is a bit misleading. It states that "Independent members of Congress typically caucus with the Democrats," but it's simply the case that Jim Jeffords, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman each caucus (or caucused) with the Democrats. The way you have it phrased makes it sound like all I's are actually D's in disguise. Three people don't make a rule of thumb.

Holding on tight there to the hope of a Republican Senate, huh? I think hope is lost, my friend.

In NC-8, Democrat Larry Kissell is actually only down by 346 votes, not 450. This race is clearly not over yet.

hey chris, how about michael steele? he might still pull it out, don't you think? i mean, he "came up just short" afterall. maybe there are some more votes out there to be counted.
don't give up hope, chris. there may be a pony yet.

Hey Bobby on the Texas Gulf;

The Iowa organic farmer lost in her bid the State Secretary of Agriculture seat BY ONLY 1%!!!

...a mighty big surprise that bodes well for the future of a blue tide doing something to fix that red tide you were lamenting in an earlier thread.

We made some BIG steps where baby steps would have been historic.

Maybe there's a better day on a much closer horizon...

Perhaps some mention of the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in FL-13 would have rounded out the analysis of the race:

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/NEWS/611090343

Did anyone catch the Bush/Pelosi/Hoyer brief photo-op at the WH just now? The Speaker-elect mentioned that Cheney participated in their meeting, but, presto, he was not part of the video. I guess he's not fit for mixed company.