Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided 1090

Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided

Comments Filter:
  • by Rix ( 54095 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:39AM (#16766357)
    Or just keep them from getting worse.
    • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:44AM (#16766433) Homepage
      Or just keep them from getting worse.

      Nothing will get done. Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years. I am sure it is going to get a major workout in the next two. This is not a bad thing, government is best when it does least.

      • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:51AM (#16766545) Journal
        Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years.

        Unfortunately it's been sitting in there next to his stack of signing statements which HAVE been heavily used over the last 6 years.

        If nothing else, maybe the new Congress will actually put this signing statement bullshit in check.
      • by bhima ( 46039 ) <Bhima.Pandava@gmail. c o m> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:52AM (#16766561) Journal
        we'd be better off relying on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a basis for a system of government.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:46AM (#16767485)
        Um, the reason why Bush has never vetoed is that his agenda calls for expansion (not reduction) of government power, just like the majority of US politicians (republican and democrat alike) over the past 100 years. Nearly all new bills call for expansion of government power, not reduction -- that is why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. That is why the US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire in the history of organized coercion. You don't get from strictly limited constitutional government to world empire by vetoing bills.

        My point? If Bush dusts off his veto pen, it certainly won't be because the democrats are calling for expansion of power. And given history, it is quite unlikely that the democrats will be calling for reduction of power. (Of course they'll throw us a few bones here and there to give the appearance, but I guarantee that when all is said and done, government will be -- drum roll please -- more expensive and more powerful, just as it has nearly every susecutive year for the past 100 years).
    • by Digital Vomit ( 891734 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:48AM (#16766493) Homepage Journal
      Will they be able to make things better? Or just keep them from getting worse.

      They're democrats, not magicians.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      Thats up to the people who got elected, and your definition of "better". They could be DeLay-style partisan hacks and spend the next two years doing nothing but blocking the Republicans, and nothing will get done ("that government which governs least, governs best"). They could be all too happy to help Bush and the Republicans sink the government ledger in never before seen levels of red ink. They might even manage to count to three and find a new plan for Iraq that was neither "stay the course" nor "cut
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:14AM (#16766895)
      The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. In fact, the US government is now the most powerful government and world empire that has ever existed in the history of organized coercion.

      Over the last 100 years, US political power has been domainated by the republicans and the democrats together. Neither party dominated by itself; they shared in the power over this period. This trend continues today in full force, as does the trend for expansion of power. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, thousands more ways for a peaceful individual to become a criminal.

      Given this near-exponential growth of the US government, it is clear that both parties are primarily driven by power -- otherwise, why would they have fought so hard to expand their powers over the past century? If they valued the freedom of the individual more than their own power, then logically, the incredible growth of the US government over the past century wouldn't have been possible. If even one of the two dominant parties actually worked to reduce, rather than expand government power over the individual, then wouldn't they have cancelled each other out?

      Of course that's not the case. So let's answer your question: Will the democrats be able to make things better, or will they only be able to keep things from getting worse?

      You're going to have to deny history to come up with a positive answer on either count. I'll bet my life that when the democrats are finished, the US government will be (drum roll please) bigger, more powerful (measured in both revenue and power over the people), and last but not least, there will be yet even more ways for peaceful individuals to become criminals.
    • by cyberscan ( 676092 ) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:57AM (#16767645) Homepage
      To be up front, I will state that I am a conservative and vote along that ideology. Even so, I am pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of the "Repugnacan" Party.

      The Republicans had control of both houses of congress, the presidency, and "right wing" majority in Supreme Court. In other words, they had a monopoly on power in the United States? Did they live up to their "party platform?" NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Rather than reduce the size and scop of government they have made the government size and scope the largest in U.S. history. As far as abortions and "gay marriage," the carnage continues at abortion mills, and NO LAW was passed to prevent "gay marriage." In fact, the Bush administration has appointed the largest number of openly gay people to office. The Republicans claim that they were tough on Muslim extremeists, yet they voted to outsource our nation's security to Arab companies while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws that intrude upon American freedoms. Christians and other moral majority type people fell for the Republican con plain and simple, and the Republicans did not keep their promises as a party. As a result, FED UP voters rightfully threw their sorry asses out of office :-)

      The problem I have with the election, however, is the fact that Demoncrats were elected in their place :-( Will the Demoncrats live up to their promises of affordable, quality healthcare? Will they do something to steady the flow of American jobs to overseas slave labor countries? Will they repeal the "Patriot" Act? Will they restore the legal protections that Americans had under the Constitution? The most likely answer to all of these questions is likely not just no, but HELL NO!!! Remember the Democrats' promise when they ran against George Bush Senior? They railed against the republicans about their eagerness to send American jobs overseas (to repressive countries such as Red China). When in office, they did nothing to stem the flow of American jobs overseas. In fact most voted for the North American "Free Trade" Agreement. Healthcare costs also skyrocketed during the Clinton era. There were also the uncoinstitutional intrusions on peoples freedoms. Will there be any real changes in the way we are governed in the next few years? HELL NO!!! It will be business as usual.

      I call the state of American politics the "swinging pendulum of sameness." When voters become fed up with the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Democrats, they fall for the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Republicans. It is the same game, but with a different name. The main difference between each political party is which group of voters they target with their empty campaign promises and lies, deceit, and corruption. Each election, voters are still stupid enough to actually swallow these lies. It is the stupidity of voters that allow these assholes to get away with all their crap. I am sure that this post will be modded down or catagorized as a troll. So be it. However, that still does not change the fact that the American voters as a whole are still stupid. Most believe that they have no choice but to vote the "Lessor of Two Evils." ost are also too lazy to do research on the candidates on the ballot even when sample ballots are available weeks in advance. If they would actually take about 15 minutes to do research, they would see that they never even heard of the majority of the candidates on the ballot. This is because the vooice of these candidates are squelched by the mainstream media. In fact, most media outlets will not even list them as being in the race.

      I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote." I say that they are throwing away th
  • Fraud count (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:40AM (#16766371)
    Successful votes: 46%
    Unsuccessful votes: 2%
    George Bush: 52%
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by LordKronos ( 470910 )
      Last week on the Daily Show they were making some joke about the big news for 2006 being Bush defeats Kerry again. Yesterday in a slashdot post, someone had joked about how it would be funny if Bush won in Ohio again.

      Well last night, before I had seen any election news, I decided to go check out the results so far. I googled for "cnn election" and clicked "I'm Feeling Lucky". The headline on the page was "BUSH DEFEATS KERRY". I had to do a double take before I realized it was the 2004 results page. See what
  • by toupsie ( 88295 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:42AM (#16766393) Homepage
    Any idea if the stock market will rally or tank on the news that the Democrats have taken over Congress?
    • Re:Stock Market (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chapter80 ( 926879 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:04AM (#16766707)
      Tip #1: Don't take stock advice from Slashdot.

      Tip #2: My belief is that the end-of-year-rally will continue, and October 2006 to October 2007 will be a good year in the market (with most of the gains early). If I recall correctly, it almost always is, in years of the mid-term elections.

      Tip #3: One stock prediction you can rely on: "It will fluctuate."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by harks ( 534599 )
      Probably neither, since the Democratic gains were expected and therefore already built into the price of every stock.
    • Re:Stock Market (Score:4, Informative)

      by jnaujok ( 804613 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:52AM (#16767567) Homepage Journal
      Stock futures are down big this morning, as happens after almost every democratic win. I believe NASDAQ is down 20+ and Dow is down 40+.
  • You idiots! (Score:3, Funny)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) * <ellem52 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:42AM (#16766403) Homepage Journal
    You fell right into Karl Rove's Dieboldian scheme of Haliburtonist warforoilism! You fools!
  • by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <(eldavojohn) (at) (> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:42AM (#16766409) Journal
    Yes, it's good for everyone, even the citizens that call themselves Republican.

    Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat. They didn't have 2/3 majority in both the House & Senate but it put the rest of the country in a really bad spot. You see, the three branches were put in place so that no one party/person could go nuts and foul up the country.

    What has been happening as of late, is that bills are flying through all three branches and being approved. Some of these are good for Republicans, some aren't. Some of the things George W. Bush has been doing are aligned with his party and some weren't. The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.

    Compounding on these problems, it seems the Democrats were resigned that this would happen after their defeat in a lot of prior elections.

    The fact is, I don't want anything to fly through the process of passing bills. I want there to be a large discussion before it becomes law. Recently, I've seen headings that say, "Bill passed that allows president to do X" and my response was, "When the hell was that even proposed? Oh, six days ago? That's aweful fast!"

    The Democrats have a majority in one branch now, I don't care who gets the Senate. Let's just keep a nice balanced government. I'm not naive enough to think that this process actually works but I do know that as of late it's been really crappy--probably for both parties. I'd like to see the Republicans take the Senate, the Democrats have the House & let whatever nut jobs we want to be president.

    So if you call yourself Republican, just remember that the other half of the country is Democrat--and it benefits you to keep them happy. A balanced government is more important for my health than balanced meals.
    • by LinuxGeek ( 6139 ) <djand DOT nc AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:46AM (#16766459)
      Actually, the three branches of the US government are: Executive, Legislative and Judical.
    • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:48AM (#16766489)
      The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.

      Um... the three branches are the Executive (the president heads up this branch, and it includes the military, all of the various agencies headed up by his appointed cabinet memebers, etc), the Judicial (the courts, which are populated with career-long judges that are typically in office well past the duration of the administration that nominated them, which usually means a pretty mixed group, philosophically), and the Legislative (which happens to have the Congress and the Senate as its two main parts).
    • by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:20AM (#16767001) Homepage
      I used to call myself a Republican, and if the party ever comes back from the fiscally irresponsible, gay marriage obsessed, party with their heads in the sand over Iraq party they have turned into, I'll come back.

      Having said that, you are spot on. This IS good for the country. And this is actually good for the Republican party because it kicks them in the ass and shows them how far they have gone. I (personally) believe it is also good for the Democratic party as well (who I would probably have belonged to 3 or 4 decades ago). The gains they made were from moderate Democrats, not the raving liberals who seem to have directed the party for a while now. It is high time people realize that real people have views across the board, making them average out as moderate. Few people fall perfectly party line along the hard left or hard right.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sg3000 ( 87992 ) *
      > Yes, it's good for everyone, even the citizens that call themselves Republican.

      It's good for another reason. Political parties sometimes need a straw-man to put blame on as an excuse to not cater to their most extreme constituents. So they get the benefit of support from that member of the constituency, without having to actually do what they would like. Think about how much the Republican base has been complaining that Bush hasn't delivered on promises. In fact, the only group who has gotten what they
  • I, for one,... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:44AM (#16766427) Journal
    ...will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings. (ha, you thought I was going to say something abuot overlords, didn't you?)

    Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.

    (BTW - can you really call Liberman a Democrat now? I mean he votes with the Republicans and the national Democrats gave him the finger earlier this year. I wonder if he will consider switching parties? That woul d be the ultimate up-yours, especially if the Dems get both tight races left - as his switch would put it at 50-50, and "the duck" would then cast all tie-breaking votes)
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by perrin5 ( 38802 )
      Hope that you're right.

      Speaker Pelosi (heh) has a 100 hour plan with a number of very good ideas, if you ask me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gfxguy ( 98788 )

      ...will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings.


      BTW - can you really call Liberman a Democrat now? I mean he votes with the Republicans and the national Democrats gave him the finger earlier this year.

      Lieberman votes with Democrats on 90% of the issues, therefore he's a solid Democrat. The national Democratic leadership didn't like his stance on the war with Iraq. That one issue got the angry left riled up

    • by ObligatoryUserName ( 126027 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:37AM (#16767309) Journal
      The Republican majority has never understood or respected Congress. They literally believe that it should do as little as possible. That's what they came into power on in 1994. Immediately they cut oversight hearings in 1/2 (Yes, they only spent 1/2 as much time doing oversight of the Clinton administration as the Democratic Congress), and it has been on a downward trend to oblivion ever since. They spent 10x as much time investigating Clinton's Christmas Card mailing list as they did Abu Ghrab.

      This is because Republicans have always viewed Congressional hearings as merely a club to attack the other party with when they are truly essential to a well running government. A lot of our problems would have been avoided if they had kept fulfilling that role, but they are phobic about saying anything bad about other Republicans. Let's just hope that there are enough old hands in Congress that can remember how this is supposed to work!
    • Re:I, for one,... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by antv ( 1425 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @11:00AM (#16767691)

      will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings.
      Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.

      Well, in some cases action on real issues is about investigation. I (for one) am concerned about:

      • War profiteering and torture. There are a lot of issues about how Iraq war is handled and what private contractors (Halliburton, mercenary companies) are doing. Did you know, for instance, that there were private, non-Army interrogators in Abu Ghraib, not bound by US Military Code of Justice (I highly recommend watching "Iraq for sale []" movie, BTW) ? Then there are CIA secret prisons []. I definitely want that investigated.
      • Illegal wiretaps. I have my 4th ammendment rights and I want to know if government was violating them.
      • Reasons we got into war. 2839 Americans [] and about 600,000 Iraqis [] are dead. Somehow no one even got fired for that. I don't like the idea of politician being able to murder more than half a million people and just simply get away with it.
      • Corruption. Well, I don't have high hopes for that, because all politicians are corrupt and they won't put themselves in jail. Still, this needs to be investigated.
    • Re:I, for one,... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Phoenix666 ( 184391 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @02:00PM (#16771187)
      Sure, I agree. I want Congress to:

      -repeal the Patriot Act
      -put a stop to govt. spying on Americans
      -restore habeus corpus
      -repeal the tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy
      -close Guantanamo
      -stop "extraordinary rendition"
      -end torture
      -get the US out of Iraq
      -fund alternative energy and public transportation so we can stop funding terrorism through oil
      -implement national health care
      -disband and dismantle the Dept. of Homeland Security, which is the creepiest title since 'Ministry of Truth.'
      -crack down on corporate aka white-collar crime
      -stop outsourcing our jobs
      -restore environmental protections
      -shut NK and Iran's nuclear programs down
      -stop invading other countries at the orders of AIPAC ( rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf [])
      -seriously fund medical research to cure cancer and heart disease, etc.
      -catch Osama bin Laden, for pete's sake
      -repair our alliances
      -start addressing the very scary and very imminent threat of China

      Basically, I want them to undo everything Bush has done, and then take the country in a positive direction domestically and abroad.

      But I will be seriously pissed if I don't see investigations and impeachment, because the neo-cons, the war profiteers like Bechtel and Halliburton, and all their co-conspirators must be brought to justice. 'Cause like it or not folks, if they don't then our last means to get justice is with our guns.
  • by Joey Vegetables ( 686525 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:44AM (#16766435) Journal
    As a believer in liberty, limited government, and rule of law, I'm no fan of the Democrats. BUT I do recognize that with a divided government, less gets done. And the less that gets done, the better off all of us are. Fewer wars are started. Fewer liberties are infringed. Fewer taxes get raised. Fewer vile "regulations" get passed. Fewer obstacles are placed in the path of economic growth and prosperity. Hence, although I'd never have voted for any Democrat, I'm still glad they took at least the House.
    • by BeardsmoreA ( 951706 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:12AM (#16766861) Homepage
      As I'm from the UK, I can't claim to understand the ins and outs of your voting in the US, but from what I just read you're saying "I would never have aligned my vote with a politician who I wanted to win to help stabilize our political system, because he from that other party. Sounds like utterly stupid tribalist, partisan politics, which is responsible for most intelligent people in Western democracies being so utterly bored with politics as a whole...
      • by ChristTrekker ( 91442 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @11:20AM (#16768117)

        As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.

        The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.

        My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution [] or Libertarian [] if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.

  • by PastaAnta ( 513349 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:47AM (#16766475)
    Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.

    Hello United States of America!

    Maybe You should consider inviting the UN for supervising the next election like any other Banana Republic out there?

    Oh sorry - You couldn't take a joke ;-)

  • by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:49AM (#16766507)
    were in ur house, beetin ur repz!
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:54AM (#16766573)
    So far, in the close Senate races (Tester Vs Burns in Montana and Webb Vs Allen in Virginia), the vote counts all favor the Democrats, leaving the incumbant Republicans in the position of legal challenger. In percentage terms, the advantage for the Democrats is much higher than in Florida 2000's presidential election, so the benefit of the doubt before the votes are checked will be very high for the Democrats taking the Senate.

    I'm actually very glad that we have such close races in this election - this makes for one of the best possible cases for both parties to demand drastic changes in the standards needed for the voting process. Especially in the case of the 'electronic' voting machines and optical scanners using software like GEMS, and with extremely lax enforcement of standards across the board. Even without the expected cases of shennanigans, I hope we can expect some level of bi-partisan smackdown of these dangerously flawed voting systems.

    Ryan Fenton
  • by schnikies79 ( 788746 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:55AM (#16766599)
    you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
  • by kherr ( 602366 ) <kevin@pu p p e t> on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:55AM (#16766603) Homepage
    It should read, "Concerns of election fraud..."

    Voter fraud is people voting under false identities. It rarely happens. Election fraud is the kind of mass voter suppression and dubious vote counting we've been seeing in this country. Even the most celebrated examples of "voter fraud" are really election fraud, such as Chicago Mayor Daley allegedly engineered dead people voting for JFK.
  • Dear Blogosphere: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @09:57AM (#16766617) Journal
    You remember how you were going to send pro-war democrats a big message and kick Lieberman's sorry ass out of the senate?

    Well, the way the senate results are coming down, guess what: you just made Independent Joe Lieberman the most powerful man in the Senate.

    How do you like them apples?

    With love,
    -- Irony
  • by Dekortage ( 697532 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:06AM (#16766755) Homepage


  • Voting issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:13AM (#16766865) Homepage
    I'm curious what is being done about some of the ridiculous voting issues that occured. There were glitches favoring both Dems and Reps, and NEITHER is acceptable. I know the Feds are actually following up on this and investigating, but with our government I'm wondering if that will actually mean anything, and even if they arrest a couple people, will they actually demand a recount?

  • Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by finkployd ( 12902 ) * on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:14AM (#16766893) Homepage
    As an ex-Republican (Bush created a lot of us) who still leans conservative at least on economic issues, this is no surprise to me. What is interesting to me is that a party that includes some pretty intelligent people seems to primarily target idiots in their rhetoric.

    For example, most conservatives I know could care less about gay marriage. It is not a huge issue for me, I find myself being for it. I have no reason to oppose it so it just seems fair. Yet Rove and co. keep making this a cornerstone of their "get out the vote" campaign. The Christian fundamentalists do not have enough numbers that you need only focus on them to win, especially when it comes out that your own party might be covering up for a gay (the horror!) teen-predator who inexplicably held a co-chairmanship in the "missing and exploited children caucus". That probably did not play well in the bible belt.

    Corruption anyone? Of course this is a cyclical thing and I fully expect the Republicans will probably regain Congress in a few election cycles after the Democrats turn out to be just a corrupt. And the cycle will go on and on because corruption is not a party issue, it is a requirement for office in DC.

    Then you have Iraq, the elephant in the room that none of the Republican commentators wanted to touch (no pun intended). Again, you would have to be a totally uninformed moron to think that everything is going great and we need to "stay the course", yet that has been the message for years, flying in the face of reality (with its well known liberal bias ;)

    But the most ridiculous thing to me has to be the "listen to mommy and daddy you stupid little children" approach the Republicans have taken in warning us what would happen if the Democrats win. Probably plays well to those who only get their information from Rush/Hannity/etc., but for those of us who are not spoon fed our beliefs by paid mouthpieces it is insulting. "The terrorists are cheering the Democrats on", "The Democrats want us to lose", "If the Democrats win, we will lose the war on terror", "The future of civilization rests in the balance of the election"
    Give me a break, both parties are pro-America and want the best for us, they just differ on how to get there. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering of the worst kind.

    Then you have the issue of how far Republicans have come from the "94 take over" years. Go back and re-read the "Contract With America", it is chock full of some really good stuff that I could really get behind. However, it is as far from the Republican party as you can get.

    A good number of us are not religious/social conservative fanatics (or as I like to say, Shiite Christians), but that seems to be all the Republicans are targeting. Many of us ARE fiscally conservative and you will not find a more fiscally irresponsible government that the Republican controlled federal government of yesterday. Almost none of us are willing to join Bush's delusion regarding Iraq anymore. The WMD scam, the clueless management on the part of Rumsfeld, and the "la la la, I can't hear you" approach Bush takes to any news that is not positive has clearly taken its toll.

    Personally, I hope the Democrats take the Senate for a clean Congressional sweep. I still disagree with many of their positions, but more important that that is my belief that checks and balances between the two branches of government is preferable to a mono-culture.

    I am Finkployd, and I approve this message
    • Means nothing... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gillbates ( 106458 )

      Does this mean House Democrats will actually vote Democrat? After they've been voting Republican for the past 6 years?

      Let's not forget that the Democrats voted for the PATRIOT act, too. Everytime you hear of Bush & Co. invading our personal liberties, remember that it was both the Democrats and the Republicans who passed the legislation allowing him to do so. The Republicans voted their conscience, however poorly formed it might be, while the Democrats simply betrayed both their principles and t

    • Re:Not a suprise (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bloosqr ( 33593 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:55AM (#16767625) Homepage
      I think the democrats since clinton are actually 'the economist' style conservative which is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.. clinton spent a lot of time paying down the debt, reducing welfare (to workfare) and doing a lot of things that should have given the fiscal conservatives a source of hope.. Not all democrats are like this to be sure, but there are more out there than you might think . .For what its worth i vote democratic now on national/state level and vote republican on the city level (because of the entrenched corruption of the democratic party in my city (philadelphia) )
  • by castoridae ( 453809 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:19AM (#16766981)
    Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.

    WTF was this little gem thrown into the summary? Not only does the article not mention fraud at all (if it did, I blinked...), but according to CNN, Number of civil rights voting complaints 'low' [].

    With a summary like that, seems like the editor is angling for a new job at Fox News...
  • by Cereal Box ( 4286 ) on Wednesday November 08, 2006 @10:25AM (#16767079)
    Well, the Democrats got a favorable outcome, so I guess that means they don't think there was any voting fraud this time.

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.