Here are the 2008 Senate Races:

AK-Sen: Stevens vs Begich
CO-Sen: Schaffer vs Udall
DE-Sen: O'Donnell vs Biden
GA-Sen: Chambliss vs Martin
ID-Sen: Risch vs LaRocco
IL-Sen: Sauerberg vs Durbin
IA-Sen: Reed vs Harkin
KS-Sen: Roberts vs Slattery
KY-Sen: McConnell vs Lunsford
LA-Sen: Kennedy vs Landrieu
ME-Sen: Collins vs Allen
MA-Sen: Beatty vs Kerry
MI-Sen: Hoogendyk vs Levin
MN-Sen: Coleman vs Franken
MS-Sen: Cochran vs Fleming
MS-Sen: Wicker vs Musgrove
MT-Sen: Kelleher vs Baucus
NE-Sen: Johanns vs Kleeb
NH-Sen: Sununu vs Shaheen
NJ-Sen: Zimmer vs Lautenberg
NM-Sen: Pearce vs Udall
NC-Sen: Dole vs Hagan
OK-Sen: Inhofe vs Rice
OR-Sen: Smith vs Merkley
RI-Sen: Tingle vs Reed
SC-Sen: Graham vs Conley
SD-Sen: Dykstra vs Johnson
TN-Sen: Alexander vs Tuke
TX-Sen: Cornyn vs Noriega
VA-Sen: Gilmore vs Warner
WV-Sen: Wolfe vs Rockefeller
WY-Sen: Enzi vs Rothfuss
WY-Sen: Barasso vs Carter

Map and Polling breakdown (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/Maps/Oct08-s.html)

While you might not normally pay attention to this...the Dems can secure a veto proof majority with 60 seats.


Of the 35 Senate seats on the line this year, 23 are held by Republicans. Five Republican senators are retiring: Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Wayne Allard of Colorado, John Warner of Virginia, Larry Craig of Idaho and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Democrats control the Senate. Although it's split evenly with 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- caucus with the Democrats.

Some believe Democrats may actually need 61 seats in order to have a majority because of the "Lieberman factor."

In 2006, Republicans lost six seats in the Senate and 30 seats in the House, shifting the majority to the Democratic Party.

Rothenberg (Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report) and Sabato agree that Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado and New Hampshire are all but a lock for Democrats. With Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens on trial on corruption charges, Alaska could go to Democrats as well.

"Minnesota, Mississippi, and Kentucky are the three states most likely to determine whether Democrats get to 60," Rothenberg said, adding the unexpectedly tight race in North Carolina between incumbent Republican Elizabeth Dole and state Sen. Kay Hagan could turn out detrimental for Republicans as well.

Which happens first?

A) Carl Levin dies

B) Carl Levin resigns

Carl Levin is a fucking stud.

I especially appreciate his Ben Franklin-inspired haircut and eyeglasses.

I like Carl better than Stabenow.

Carl Levin is a fucking stud.

I especially appreciate his Ben Franklin-inspired haircut and eyeglasses.

Carl is the man.

BTW, I wrote him for my Citizenship in America merit badge in scouts when I was 11. He wrote me back (or his staff did). I also met him a few times at parades. He's a pretty cool guy.

Which happens first?

A) Carl Levin dies

B) Carl Levin resigns

Carl Levin is a fucking stud.

I especially appreciate his Ben Franklin-inspired haircut and eyeglasses.
A) Carl Levin is electrocuted while flying a kite.

B) Carl Levin gives up his senate seat to become a full time inventor.

Fixed.

Try as I might, I still think Grandpa Munster moreso than Ben Franklin when I see Levin. :)

A good read about a few GOP canidates battling against McCain's trend downwards:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/rothenberg.gop.house/index.html

To be clear, the article is about House candidates and the thread is currently about Senate races.

What's surprising is which Senate races are and aren't in play with the Democratic wave. Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi have tight Senate races, despite Obama being unlikely to win those states (it may be close in Georgia). But the Maine race is safely Republican despite Obama ahead by 10+ points, a lackluster incumbent Republican in Collins, and a fairly decent Democratic candidate.

DE-Sen: O'Donnell vs Biden

Now Biden is up HUGE in this poll. If Obama wins, does O'Donnell get the seat by default? Or how does that work...?

According to this Huffington Post article, the current governor chooses a replacement. Since the gov is a Dem, O'Donnell wouldn't get the seat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-goodman/heres-what-happens-to-bid_b_120875.html

I'm TOTALLY quaking in my boots here:
OqBq8jBKDik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqBq8jBKDik

What does "closer than necessarily so" mean?

Here's Levin's polling numbers vs. his opponent:

http://www.pollster.com/08MISenGEHvLr600.png

Obviously, this is good news for Levin's opponent -- whatever the heck his name is. ;)

Got'em right where we want'em.

What does "closer than necessarily so" mean?

It's the kind of statement you make when you are trying to avoid going out on a limb and are just throwing scenarios out there.

It's the kind of statement the dude in the video made because he is an idiot.

Kerry is up 65 to 30 right now BTW.

As far as the veto majority, it's a long shot right now. The Dems would have to hold on to the leads they have (it appears only Oregon is close), and also win 5 of the 6 leaning GOP or tied. Those are Minny, Alaska, N.C., Miss, Kentucky, Georgia.

N.C. is tied. Minny, Alaska and Georgia are super close. Miss and Kentucky are within reach, but long shots.

I'd bet against it at this point, but you never know.

If they need a veto majority, there are bigger problems then not having a veto majority.

In 2006, the outside number Senate Dems could realistically pick up was 10 seats. They got 10 seats, by the skin of their teeth. I recall Montana and Virginia being particularly close. This time, it's much the same deal. I don't expect they'll get 10 seats too, but I could believe they'd get 7-8.

The race that could prove to be the most fun is Georgia. Bob Barr from Georgia is on the ticket, and the Democrat running against Chambliss is strong. Due to Georgia law, the winner needs 50%+1, not just a plurality. Otherwise, there's a runoff in December, which would likely be epic.

Stevens guilty on all counts.

What does "closer than necessarily so" mean?

It a 'when he got called out on the other statement' backtracking statement.

Stevens guilty on all counts.

So what happens to the senate race?

It's a shoo-in that Stevens' opponent, Mark Begich, will win. Alaska has a harder line on such things than, say, Louisiana. Begich is the mayor of Anchorage and a solid candidate. Begich polled well ahead a few months back when the Stevens indictment was handed down. The race had narrowed as Stevens had received some favorable legal decisions along the way, but it's over now.

So much of politics isn't really a right or wrong issue but preferences. In some ways the sooner we get to 60 dems with a Dem Prez, the sooner the country will correct itself...much like the country is about to do in November.

Stevens is still running, despite the conviction and McCain calling for him to step down (and rightly so I might add).


"I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights," Stevens, the longest serving Republican in the Senate, said in a statement Monday. " I remain a candidate for the United States Senate."


Despite asking for his Senate colleagues to stand with him, Stevens does not have the support of the top of the Republican ticket. Sen. John McCain on Tuesday called for Stevens to step down.
"It is a sign of the health of our democracy that the people continue to hold their representatives to account for improper or illegal conduct, but this verdict is also a sign of the corruption and insider-dealing that has become so pervasive in our nation's capital," McCain said in a statement. "It is clear that Sen. Stevens has broken his trust with the people and that he should now step down."

Cat fight in ND between Elizabeth Dole and Kay Hagan. Apparently someone was palling around with atheists.

1lf2vDk-4Ag

and the response video in this rap battle....

k76tRXq0ZC0

Stevens is still running, despite the conviction and McCain calling for him to step down (and rightly so I might add).
There's no real reason for him to step down. His running won't screw up the downballot races more than they are already (due to other candidates' ties with him that won't be erased in a few days). I'm expecting Bush to pardon him.

Hagan went biblical on her ass.

It's a shoo-in that Stevens' opponent, Mark Begich, will win. Alaska has a harder line on such things than, say, Louisiana. Begich is the mayor of Anchorage and a solid candidate. Begich polled well ahead a few months back when the Stevens indictment was handed down. The race had narrowed as Stevens had received some favorable legal decisions along the way, but it's over now.
Ok, so maybe I was wrong here. Stevens is ahead very narrowly, but there are something like ~100k early votes to be counted. I just don't get this one. Folks are blaming Begich for being way too nice to Stevens in the wake of his conviction, refusing to refer to him as a convicted felon and whatnot.

In other races, Al Franken is losing by a few hundred votes in Minnesota, well into "recount" and "provisional ballot" territory. There's supposedly enough uncounted votes in Portland for the Oregon Dem to win over the incumbent, and enough uncounted votes in Georgia to force a run-off election.

Saxby Chambliss won, Coleman won, Stevens will win. Republicans hang on to a filibuster...

Plus, if Benedict Arnold (Harry Reid) penalizes Lieberman, it could be an unofficial pick up for the Republicans.

Harry Reid has one of the most interesting wikipedia pages that I've ever read.

Saxby Chambliss won, Coleman won, Stevens will win. Republicans hang on to a filibuster...
That's a lot of crack you're smoking.

Chambliss has to go to a runoff. It's not a shoo-in that he'll win a runoff. Chambliss is not very inspiring, which is part of why he's in this predicament.

Coleman's lead has been steadily shrinking even before the mandatory recount. Franken could squeeze that one out.

~20% of the Alaskan vote hasn't been counted and Stevens' lead is small.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these goes for the Dems.

^^you should read Ted Kennedy's...

reading about the chappaquiddick incident is my favorite bed time story...

That's a lot of crack you're smoking.

Chambliss has to go to a runoff. It's not a shoo-in that he'll win a runoff. Chambliss is not very inspiring, which is part of why he's in this predicament.

Coleman's lead has been steadily shrinking even before the mandatory recount. Franken could squeeze that one out.

~20% of the Alaskan vote hasn't been counted and Stevens' lead is small.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these goes for the Dems.


How do you know that Saxby isn't very inspiring? He's in a red state, he won every single pre-election poll and a state that voted for McCain isn't going to give the Democrats more power. Plus in a runoff poll, I doubt the number of blacks in Georgia who showed up strictly to cast a vote for Obama would show up anyway.

For a few quick-hitters:

2008 wasn't the highest turnout percentage ever, as was wrongly predicted (Stephanopolous).

Black vote increased from 13% to a whopping 14% (if only Detroit had mass-transit, right?)

amount of young voters, such as myself, barely increased but heavily voted for Obama (no surprise here, Obama's going to lower college tuition, can't beat that... (http://www.walshcollege.edu/?id=13&sid=1))

the only thing that increased largely was Hispanic votes, and they went mostly for Obama (probably so they're illegal comrades can get healthcare and voice their opinions despite not having US citizenship)

^^should've gone in the election thread, but either way...

Levin won.

Ledezma is like a bitter 70 year old man in a 20 year old body.

Black vote increased from 13% to a whopping 14% (if only Detroit had mass-transit, right?)


By design, city polling places are all within reasonable walking distance.

For a few quick-hitters:

2008 wasn't the highest turnout percentage ever, as was wrongly predicted (Stephanopolous).

Black vote increased from 13% to a whopping 14% (if only Detroit had mass-transit, right?)



So that pretty much puts an end to the "he only won because of black voters" schpiel, eh?

Pretty much, yeah. I think it was the Hollywood effect with A-list African-Americans, who we're non-existent in supporting John Kerry, that made it seem like they grew in numbers.

Although in states like Virginia & North Carolina, black vote played a significant role. No Democrat has any business winning those two states, not that it would've swung the election anyway had he lost 'em...

I'd bet no white democrat ever wins those states ever again.

How do you know that Saxby isn't very inspiring? He's in a red state, he won every single pre-election poll and a state that voted for McCain isn't going to give the Democrats more power. Plus in a runoff poll, I doubt the number of blacks in Georgia who showed up strictly to cast a vote for Obama would show up anyway.
Saxby flopped on a lot of hot-button red-meat issues for Georgian Republicans-- immigration, the bailout, gun rights, etc. That's why he's in this bind. He does not have a base much beyond those that vote for him because of the "R" next to his name.

Begich just pulled ahead of Stevens for the Alaskan Senate seat, and the remaining ~30000 votes yet to be counted this week are from Begich's turf.

Franken's behind by ~200 votes now, and keeps on gaining as results are canvassed. There's ~10000 ballots, largely from counties Franken won by a lot, that improbably have no votes for either President or Senator. Franken may squeak this one out in the upcoming recount.

I don't hold good odds of the Dems winning in the Georgia runoff. But the Dem went to a runoff in 2nd place before and came out a winner. We'll know how this will go by the early voting on Thanksgiving week.

Keith reported earlier tonight that Begich is ahead by 3 votes over Stevens.

Begich will go down to Palin in that seat in the next election.

Keith reported earlier tonight that Begich is ahead by 3 votes over Stevens.
814 votes now, with more Begich-favorable territory to be tallied on Friday. This is shaping up like the Oregon race.

If Palin wants a Senate seat, she'd probably go for the 2010 seat in Alaska. Her and Murkowski don't exactly "pal around". I can't see why she'd want to be in the Senate, though. She's in the best spot possible for doing a future Presidential run.

I think it'd help if she got involved in some of the wordly affairs so she is a lil more prepared.

That would be one fucked up commute though.

Begich will go down to Palin in that seat in the next election.

That's six years from now in 2014. Writing off Palin in '12 already?

^ I hope she takes a few decades off. Bobby Jindal or Pawlenty are better suited to make that leap, imo.

That's six years from now in 2014. Writing off Palin in '12 already?

No way she get's enough delegates to be the GOP candidate in 2012. And that's probably a good thing. I'd like to see her be a Senator at some point, but as for President...2016 at the very earliest is when I think she should explore that option...

We already saw an Obama v. Palin election...and we already know the outcome.


Keep an eye on JC Watts. Former Congressman from Oklahoma. He could be a darkhorse for '12.

JC is a funny sombitch. <-- term of endearment. I like that guy.

Stevens will win.
Stevens just conceded. Begich won.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/18/alaska.senate.race/index.html

One more Senator for the Democratic camp...

I almost feel sorry for MN election officials ruling on contested ballots (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/).

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/lizardpeopleb.jpg

Ballot #5: Lizard People

This Beltrami County voter cast their ballot for Al Franken, but also put "Lizard People" as a write-in candidate, not only in the U.S. Senate race, but for several others. The county auditor/treasurer ruled that the vote should not be counted because it's considered an overvote. Representatives for Franken challenged that decision. (MPR Photo/Tom Robertson)



So remember that you can only vote for the Lizard People to represent you in ONE and only ONE political position.

Can we call Franken the Lizard King if he wins?

The only bubble filled in for Senator was Franken.

Does just writing the name in without filling the bubble constitute an overvote, especially since he DID explicitly fill in the bubble for "Lizard People" in other races but not Franken's?

Would they have counted it a vote for the Lizard People if he wouldn't have filled in any bubble? If so, I think it's a fair decision.

What if he would had written Al Franken in the write in portion but not filled in a bubble?

Would they have counted it a vote for the Lizard People if he wouldn't have filled in any bubble? If so, I think it's a fair decision.

What if he would had written Al Franken in the write in portion but not filled in a bubble?


Remember the intent portion. I think they might have counted it had he just written it in, had it not been for the circles elsewhere, and the circle on Franken. Gotta give that one to Franken.

I gotta think the Lizard People screwed the pooch on this one. Their sense of an "interchangeable parts" society, where the majority of Lizards are more than prepared to handle any number of tasks, didn't prepare them for the fact that humans prefer specific individuals for certain jobs. You'd have thought they would have done their homework on this one.

I don't hold good odds of the Dems winning in the Georgia runoff. But the Dem went to a runoff in 2nd place before and came out a winner. We'll know how this will go by the early voting on Thanksgiving week.
The early voting didn't go nearly well enough for Martin, and he lost. I probably should've called this one for Chambliss last week so I could look prescient, but I didn't care that much.

Now it's down to the Franken-Coleman mess, where there are thousands of ballot challenges, and a controversial vote against re-evaluating "rejected" absentee ballots for intent of the voter much like the other ballots. So, it's likely to come down to a court deciding who wins, or a Senate deciding to push for some kind of do-over.

Franken ahead, for now
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_el_se/minnesota_senate

Franken ahead, for now
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_el_se/minnesota_senate
Vote totals certified and Franken is ahead. Coleman plans to tie Franken up in court for months:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMpTmr96V5hKIfyHT4Av4jsVQgrQD95H7GB80

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html

25 precincts have more votes than peeps registered???? LOL @ Minni

I'd keep Franken tied up for months too.

25 precincts have more votes than peeps registered???? LOL @ Minni

I'd keep Franken tied up for months too.
Beyond Coleman saying that, where's the evidence? There wasn't enough evidence to sway the Minnesota Supreme Court to stop the recount.

From what I understood, it was the recount where more votes than peeps registered.

Other than Pawlenty, this thing was basically in control of the Dems. They made their decisions based on partisanship. Would Reps do the same thing? I'm pretty sure they would have, but to deny that decisions weren't made that were in Dem control, is not correct, imo.

AFAIK, there were never more votes than peeps registered. There were more votes found in some precincts than were counted on election day, but that's something different. There wasn't a preponderance of evidence to support that as of late December, in a unanimous verdict of the Minnesota Supreme Court. If there is proof, someone needs to put up specifics.

The Dems were in control? Yhe canvassing board that ran the show consists of two Republican SC judges appointed by Pawlenty, one Independence party sort appointed by Ventura, one judge who hasn't stated partisanship, and the Democratic SoS. That's hardly Dems running the show.

FWIW, Franken bores me to tears. I have little love for the dude. If I lived in Minny, I'd probably have voted for the third party candidate. I'm just amused by the whole situation. Minnesota should have Dems running the show, but the western-style Dems in Minny went off and formed their own strong third party to create mass chaos. Fun fun fun...

Minnesota's Supreme Court has declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the state's disputed U.S. Senate race.

:green balloon:

Well I for one actually find Franken to be far smarter than anyone gives him credit for, and a man of exemplary moral character. Especially considering the fact that he has been 100% silent since this whole thing started.

It's over. Coleman concedes. Now sign the damn certificate, Pawlenty.

Well I for one actually find Franken to be far smarter than anyone gives him credit for, and a man of exemplary moral character. Especially considering the fact that he has been 100% silent since this whole thing started.
Yeah, my respect for Franken has grown over the months because he hasn't tried to turn this into more of a circus than it already is.

Like anyone doubted this day would come? He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him!

Yeah, my respect for Franken has grown over the months because he hasn't tried to turn this into more of a circus than it already is.

Me too, man. Dude is the bomb!

Norm Coleman won by 700 votes on Election Day.

I bet he's sitting at home watching the Twins and asking himself "What the fuck?"

They missed counting a few thousand ballots. When they did, Franken won. Doing a recount by hand was required because of the margin. What do you do when your books don't balance, accounting major?

Remember, the three major candidates all _gained_ votes in the recount.
Normally, a few thousand improperly handled ballots don't make a difference. This time, they did.

By all rights, Norm Coleman should've been able to beat Franken. He was the fucking incumbent, competing against a divided ticket and a candidate with flamboyance issues. He's been there before (running for governor against Ventura). It should never have been this close.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/images/lizardpeopleb.jpg

Should this have been a vote for Franken or an ineligible ballot.

I think the latter, however, it was counted as a vote for Franken.

You've made that post before.

He got MORE votes after they recounted. Your guy lost.

Get over it.

You've made that post before.

He got MORE votes after they recounted. Your guy lost.

Get over it.

My guy?

I've never been one of Norm Coleman's constituents.

I could care less now---the Senate is still going to have a very difficult time passing all the far-left shit (cap & trade, gun control, card check, universal healthcare) anyway---with or without Coleman, with or without Franken...

There is not much behind the Democrats 'strength in numbers' for the Senate when you have moderates (Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Bill Nelson, Kurt Conrad) amongst them.

If you had 60 Sheldon Whitehouses', then I'd be more inclined to think Franken's addition would make a difference...

Your guy. He lost.

So you do care then?:


My guy?

I've never been one of Norm Coleman's constituents.

I could care less now---the Senate is still going to have a very difficult time passing all the far-left shit (cap & trade, gun control, card check, universal healthcare) anyway---with or without Coleman, with or without Franken...

There is not much behind the Democrats 'strength in numbers' for the Senate when you have moderates (Ben Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Bill Nelson, Kurt Conrad) amongst them.

If you had 60 Sheldon Whitehouses', then I'd be more inclined to think Franken's addition would make a difference...
Why is it so hard to say couldn't care less? I hear it said wrong more often than right.

So you do care then?:


Why is it so hard to say couldn't care less? I hear it said wrong more often than right.

couldn't**********