Election results

[magid]

Deval Patrick is the next governor of MA, and the usual local suspects won their races.

Nationally, however, what a huge sea change! Huzzah! The Democrats are now the majority in the House (may they be a power for good, not hot air or single-party putsches; I hope the lame-duck losers don't landmine the legislative field before they go). And it's down to the wire whether they'll get the Senate as well (showing the power of everyone's vote in the races as tight as Montana and Virginia). It might end up deadlocked, 49-49-2, with the two independents getting much more power. Vermont's Socialist Senator Sanders is likely to vote with the Democrats, but Connecticut's Lieberman is a wild card. He lost the Democratic primary, so switched to independent to run in the November election, and has always been to the right of his party. Which way he will swing may make a huge difference, depending on the other races (which some have already called for the Democrats).

So, presumably this is a clear enough message to the White House that people are not happy with things as they are. (Yay, Santorum's out! And there's more fallout: Rumsfeld is leaving, too! Yay!)

The other part of the election was the state-wide ballot initiatives. All three of the ones in MA were defeated, some easily, some not, so there not be more stores selling wine, candidates for office will not be able to be listed by multiple parties, and there won't be a union/collective bargaining for child care workers.

The four hot-button issues around the country are limiting using eminent domain to take land for private use (all states that had this question voted for it), linking the minimum wage to inflation (ditto), tobacco issues (where it's legal to smoke, extra taxes on cigarettes, and so on; mixed results), and whether marriage is a union only between a man and a woman. There were seven states voting on whether marriage must be between one man and one woman. Arizona was the only one to defeat it, with a very tight race (51% to 49%). All the others (Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) voted to define marriage this way, and Colorado went the extra step of denying the establishment of domestic partnerships as well. Some of the races were tighter than others, but in the end, it's all defeats. I still think that this will change, but it's discouraging.

On a lighter note, Arizona's Proposition 200 (After each general election, award $1 million to a randomly chosen voter.) was defeated (66% to 34%). I'm just amused it made it on the ballot. And I discovered that handling reptiles as part of religious services is illegal in Kentucky.

Comments

[queue.livejournal.com]

Don't forget that the Vice President gets to break ties in the Senate.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I know, but if both independents do vote Democratic (most of the time), then it won't come to that very much. Or there might be a moderate Republican or two around, I suppose. I'm hoping we don't come to need the Vice President much.

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

While it sucks major ass, the passage of Colorado's marriage amendment isn't as bad as Wisconsin's (or Virginia's, or Ohio's), and at least losing on the referendum (or whatever) that would have a separate-but-equal category for same-sex partnerships doesn't mean the state can never create them, since the "let's amend the state constitution" assholes didn't include "no civil unions or domestic parnerships EVER" language in their lousy amendment.

The passage of all these new anti-gay amendments and crap is a serious downer, on an otherwise happy post-election day.

[magid.livejournal.com]

I think that all the referenda about defining marriage are just beginning skirmishes in a battle people'd hoped they'd not have to fight. In the end, women got the right to vote, interracial marriages are legal, and so on. I just wish that more people agreed with me already :-). So, yeah, there's always the next election.

I'd heard people say that MA shouldn't've passed the law that started all the states' ballot questions, 'cause that would mean more Red(necked?) voters would turn out to defeat the ballot question than otherwise would vote. I'm glad to see that yesterday's results showed at least that part of it wrong.

[ceo]

Let's not forget the South Dakota abortion ban (which was crafted to be the case that les to the overturn of Roe v. Wade), which was repealed in a statewide ballot question. Far more satisfying to see it overturned by the voters than by the courts especially somewhere like SD.

[prog.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that Lieberman's said from the start (of the post-primaries) that he'd continue caucusing with the Democrats, and I don't think there's been any indication that he'll go against this. A lot of the summaries I've been seeing have been lumping both him and Saunders as Democrats, as far as determining the majority goes.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Yes, that was a big one, too. And I agree about voting it out being a stronger way to have it happen.

And there were a couple of states that voted down requiring parental notification for underage abortions, too. (As one person put it, for good parents, they don't need it, and it'd give the bad parents more chance to mess with their kids.)

[magid.livejournal.com]

I've heard Lieberman say he'd hang with the Democrats, but I guess I just don't know how much I believe him: I still find it peculiar to lose the Democratic primary, so *poof* turn into an Independent for the general election. Now that it looks like the Montana race is going Democratic, it's less likely the Republicans would court him to make a majority, anyway. (At least one place I saw posited the Republicans offering him committee chairmanships to swing Republican, and in some ways his ideology isn't far from theirs.)

[hrafn.livejournal.com]

I'll see if I can dredge up the link, but I read an article today summarizing the results of the various anti-same-sex marriage stuff, and pointing out that, for the most part, the numbers against SSM are lower than even a few years ago. And that candidates (for Gov and other) who spoke out in favor of equality for queer folk were elected, so that speaking out against bigotry isn't a campaign killer. Even in states that voted to put that crap in their constitution, they voted for candidates who were opposed to the amendments.

[electrictruffle.livejournal.com]

I don't think that it so much matters how often the _vote_ with a particular party, but instead which party they decide to _caucus_ with.

There are loads of committees and the like which determine which bills even come up for a vote, and the committee leadership is determined by which party is in the majority. So being the majority party means lots of control before things even get to a vote.

There will probably be quite a bit of negotiating from both parties to get Lieberman to caucus with them, and he will probably be in a position to push his personal agenda, much like the minority party tails that end up wagging the ruling coalition in Israel.

-ETR

[electrictruffle.livejournal.com]

Though of course both Sanders and Lieberman have stated that they intend to caucus with the Democrats, so it isn't premature to say that the Democrats are in control of the senate :)

[magid.livejournal.com]

Last time there was a tie, there were co-chairs from each party.

Happily, there is no tie this time :-).