2008 Election Results Discussion: Senate

[Mister Tee]

For purposes of completeness: the Senate race in GA went, as expected, to Chambliss. Even the extraordinary black turnout generated by Obama's candidacy only brought Martin within 3-4 points on Election Day, so it was extremely unlikely he'd prevail in the lower-turnout runoff. The South (excepting the Northern-transplant enclaves of VA, NC and FL) remains the GOP bailiwick.

Meantime, additional uncounted votes turned up in MN, apparently moving Al Franken extremely close to Coleman with some percentage of ballots still to be recounted, challenged ballots to reviewed, and disqualified absentees in contention. The election goes on and on...

[Mister Tee]

I've been trying to follow my own advice and ignore the MN recount until a final number comes in...it's so close, results from any individual day are no more meaningful than a single game over a 162-game baseball schedule. But, of course, it's hard to resist at least peeking at what's going, and listening to "expert" projections.

For what it's worth, Nate Silver -- who's had near-eerie accuracy throughout this political year -- is saying, with only a little hedging, that Franken should in the end prevail by 27 votes. If that turns out tobe even in the ballpark, Silver should be given every mathematics prize available.

[Mister Tee]

Let's note that the GOP hasn't had as many as 58 Senate seats since 1928. That Democrats haven't had that many since the Carter administration (and back then, a substantial number were Southern conseravtives, absolutely useless to a progressive agenda). Clinton had, briefly, 57 (down to 56 when Kay Bailey Hutchison stepped into the Lloyd-Bentsen-vacated seat), but he, too, had a greater percentage of Dixiecrats (15, compared to 7 now -- and I'm not sure Webb qualifies as conservative in the same way). And of course, pending MN and GA, we could go up to 59 or (less likely) 60.

Sort of corollary, on the Lieberman thing: like many, I wanted to see Joementum slapped hard, but the 60-thing made it tactically foolish for Obama and the Dems. The top/only priority is getting major programs/changes implemented, and anything that stands in the way has to be dealt with as pragmatically as possible. The most powerful tool Republicans have is the filibuster, and they've shown no compunction about using it routinely. But that was alot easier when Dems were so far from 60 votes; no individual GOPer was held responsible for halting, say, S-CHIP. Now you have a Democratic party largely united around its newly elected, popular president, right on the edge of enough votes to stop filibusters on its own.

I acknowledge, as many have pointed out, that you can't count on a unanimous Democratic vote on every issue (though I do think judgeships, for one, are far less likely to be held up by filibuster). But you have to look at it from the other direction: is the GOP going to be able to hold every vote, which they'll mostly need to do? I have no doubt they can get 25-30 votes for anything (including repealing the law of gravity). But it'll be far more difficult for Arlen Specter or George Voinovich -- up for re-election in 2010 in Dem-carried states -- if they'e held personally responsible for the one vote that blocked health care or aid to the auto industry.

And this is where not slapping Lieberman comes in. It was clear, based on his statement, that he knows Obama stepped in and saved his bacon. Joe owes the man, and Obama, like Don Corleone, may one day come and ask for a service in return. My guess is, one specific service that'll be demanded is that he stand with the party on all cloture votes -- something he's not always done in the past. Had he been tossed off his committe chairmanship, he might well have joined the GOPers in a fit of pique on just such votes. Now the 60 is alot closer to a cemented 60.

You know the real joke? Bloggers are up in arms that Joe gets to keep such a powerful chairmanship. But Lawrence O'Donnell points out, no one in the Senate thinks of it as anything but a second-rate committee -- the other Dem members on it are strictly back-benchers. So maybe Lieberman was conned into thinking he won a big prize but it was only because no one else especially wanted it.

(It is conceivable, as Rachel keeps arguing, that Joe could now use the committee to make Obama's life a living hell. But should he do that, Don Obama could just as easily send a different signal to Senate Dems, who seem inclined to do his bidding, and Joe could be quickly out in the cold)



Edited By Mister Tee on 1227124104

[OscarGuy]

which he will. Lieberman has not only been kept in the caucus, he kept his chairmanship of Homeland Security in order to keep him voting for cloture motions with the Dems in case things get close.

[rain Bard]

If the Democrats win the runoff in Georgia and the recount in Minnesota, they will have a 60-seat-"fillibuster-proof" majority.

Only if Lieberman counts.

[Greg]

Begich Will Be Alaska's First U.S. Senate Democrat Since Gravel
Democrat Mark Begich will win the Alaska Senate race.

With 14,626 of the roughly 24,000 ballots left to count today, Begich's lead over Republican Ted Stevens is now, 2,374. The remaining results are expected to arrive later this afternoon. Stevens would have to win by a margin of over 25% of the outstanding ballots to tie Begich.

That would require something of a Gravelanche.

Currently, Begich leads by 0.77%, which is outside the free 0.5% recount zone. The recount fee is a paltry $15,000, not a sum Stevens has ever had trouble acquiring via one means or another. Given his likely expulsion by either the Republican caucus or the U.S. Senate as a whole (though we are in "reconciliation" mode, so who knows?), it seems unlikely anyone besides Stevens himself would have the desire to pursue such action. Still, the Anchorage Daily News calls such a recount "likely."

Congratulations, Senator Begich.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008....te.html

If the Democrats win the runoff in Georgia and the recount in Minnesota, they will have a 60-seat-"fillibuster-proof" majority.

[taki15]

Even if Stevens loses by a couple thousand votes, it isn't very flattering for the people of Alaska that almost half of them voted to reelect a convicted felon.

I am starting to wonder if Bill Maher is right when he calls the state ''a Chinatown''.

[Greg]

Begich Leads By 814 Going Into Thursday
The Alaska Board of Elections has finally updated. With 17,728 votes counted since the previous update, Democrat Mark Begich has the lead over Republican Ted Stevens, 132,196 to 131,382.

More votes to be counted tomorrow and possibly Friday.

As we've pointed out and has been pointed out elsewhere, the remaining votes come from Begich-friendly districts. Mark Begich is now an overwhelming favorite to win the Alaska Senate seat.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008....ay.html

[Mister Tee]

I may be, like Alex in today's Doonesbury, the only one still haunting political websites looking for straggling results, but...

Alaska may not be so much suspicious as unfinished. The state results have been reading 99% complete, but apparently that's "99% unless you include a whole bunch of early or absentee ballots", which are thought to number 60-90,000. Given that Stevens holds only a 3000 or so vote lead, this race is nowhere near determined. Some counting Wednesday and Friday of this week.

And the Coleman lead over Franken is down to 206, again all prior to the recount. Whoever wins is going to be lucky in the extreme.

[Mister Tee]

My feeling on the MN Senate race about now is, just give me a final score. But the fact is, even before the recount, simply with report adjustments, Coleman's margin has shrunk to 236. MN people say the optical scanners tend to miss a fair number of valid votes, meaning there may be as many as 3000 uncounted ballots right now. It's ludicrously close either way, but recent history in left-leaning states is for recounts to benefit Democrats (WA Senate 2000 and WA Governor 2004 ). This could go on till December.

Alaska is just plain suspicious at this point. Polling, excellent everywhere else in the country this year, was off by 12% in the Senate, House and presidential races. And get this: despite the enthusiasm over the election, and the hometown advantage of having the governor on the ballot, currently reported voter turnout is the lowest percentage since Alaska achieved statehood.

Happily, we have a reformer in charge up there who I know will get to the bottom of this.

[Greg]

Even though the Minnesota Senate race is going into recount, Norm Coleman has declared victory. He said he hopes Al Franken will ask that there not be a recount in order to save money, as the recount will cost the entire state, that cast about 3 million votes in the Senate contest, all of about $86,000. Sheesh.

[FilmFan720]

I think that being governor of Alaska is also different than being the governor of one of the lower 48 states, whether that is fair or not. There is a feeling that you are disconnected from the rest of America and that you are from a completely different culture (hence all the moose hunting jokes). While normally I think being a governor is a safer road to the White House, for Palin it would help her to come down to Washington (where she will certainly be more visible) and get some experience there. Either way, though, I wish her nothing but bad luck politically.

[cam]

Umm, wouldn't Sarah Palin want to run for re-election as Governor rather than try to take an open senate seat?

Of course she would rather be a senator--you remember the Senate -is- in Washington . not Anchorage!

[Mister Tee]

Multiple Oregon sources project Merkley the winner. +6

[Damien]

I think the path to the Presidency is still better if you are an executive, but it wouldn't hurt Palin to take the other route either.

It wouldn't hurt Palin to get a brain, either.