The Chosen One
Member
I wonder if Montana is going to slip away from the Dems. It's getting awfully close.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official NeoGAF US Mid-term Elections 2006 Thread
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Synth_floyd
Banned
What's the story in Montana? Anyone know if the as yet uncounted votes are expected to lean democratic or repubican?
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
Cheebs said:
Yes. If that happens the VP could be spending a lot of time in the senate.
Synth_floyd
Banned
Montana is at 99%? Where? According to CNN it's at 91% and the Dem is up by about 2000
I'm very happy to see the most of the country made this election about saying no to the current Republican lead direction, now hopefully the Democrats will actually DO something with the control they've won, at the local levels as well as the national level.
Faith in US population not quite restored... but getting a little better.
Faith in US population not quite restored... but getting a little better.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
can you american duders give a real quick guide to foreigners as to what the house and senate actually do? Which is better to have, etc?
i don't mean an essay, just a "A does x, B does y" typa deal. If the democrats get both of those, how is GWB still president, what is left to elect/vote on?
confusing system.
i don't mean an essay, just a "A does x, B does y" typa deal. If the democrats get both of those, how is GWB still president, what is left to elect/vote on?
confusing system.
Agent Dormer
Dirty Drinking Smoker
1,586 vote difference in favor of Tester with 99% reporting in according to CNN.
catfish said:
House and Senate pass laws on up to the Pres to approve basically.
GWB will still be president because there's nothing able to impeach him on. It's really really rare to have a president impeached. Having slim control of the Senate for either side means not much will be done there that wouldn't happen normally with a majority.
Synth_floyd
Banned
House is the lower body, senate is the upper body. They both have to pass a bill before it gets sent to the president though. In all honesty having both isn't as important as just having one as the dems will primarily be blocking the republican legislature and as long as they control one they control all the committeships and can do hearings with subpeana (sp) power and make people testify under oath. But if they have both they can make a serious drive to try and pass their own legislation that will eventually get vetoed by bush.
catfish said:
The House (compromised of 100's of lawmakers) vote on bills (attempting to make them law).
The Senate (compromised of 100 people) then take what's sent to them from the House and vote on it.
The President then can VETO or sign any law sent to him from the Senate.
The House and Senate also do important things like approve of judges and pass yearly budgets.
MrSardonic
The nerdiest nerd of all the nerds in nerdland
when do the final results for the senate come in?
IIRC, the senate has somewhat more control over international issues (as in, advise and consent for treaties, where the house has no say), and political appointments, but I could be mistaken - I've always managed to jumble things up here. And in case of impeachment, the house writes up the articles, while the senate tries the president and, potentially, remove him from office. This is one reason why people screaming for Pelosi to "impeach Bush" are talking nonsense - it would only set off a major political firestorm, and since you need 60 senate votes to actually remove the president, and the republicans had 40/100 going into this, the president would stay.
In theory, the house is supposed to represent the people, as they are voted on a per-district basis, and the districts are divided per population percentage. The senate represents the states, as every state gets two senators regardless of population.
In theory, the house is supposed to represent the people, as they are voted on a per-district basis, and the districts are divided per population percentage. The senate represents the states, as every state gets two senators regardless of population.
GoutPatrol
Forgotten in his cell
What an excellent thread to read after watching CNN, Faux and MSN last night.
If Montana stays Democrat, I will be so happy.
If Montana stays Democrat, I will be so happy.
Link648099
Banned
Is there any news from TV publications on what is going on, or when we would likely know the races? is this another 2000?
Edit:
And btw, CNN says 99% of Montana precincts reporting with the following:
Montana Senate
Updated: 8:14 a.m. ET
Democratic Tester
190,486 49% 99% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Burns
(Incumbent)
188,900 48%
Full MT
Libertarian Jones
9,990 3%
Edit:
And btw, CNN says 99% of Montana precincts reporting with the following:
Montana Senate
Updated: 8:14 a.m. ET
Democratic Tester
190,486 49% 99% of precincts reporting votes by county voter survey results
Republican Burns
(Incumbent)
188,900 48%
Full MT
Libertarian Jones
9,990 3%
Synth_floyd
Banned
Looks like the first counts in both VA and MT favors the dems. Next comes the recounts!
Cheebs said:
Are you such an idiot? I have to hope you're not. Are you one of those crybabies that blamed Nader, too? People ought vote their principles, not choose the lesser of two evils. We have two super bloated parties with so much internal variance its obscene and yet there's only two parties getting all the money and all the power to keep screwing over the electorate.
This is why we're shackled to Douchebag and Turd Sandwich, though good on you that you love the Douche so much you'd vote mindlessly straight ticket.
I would have voted Nader in 2000, but after realizing if 1/3 of FL Nader supporters would have voted Al Gore we would have a different president I changed my mind. At this time I can't bring myself to vote third party then.
I would prefer a new party over the current two(BULLMOOSE PARTY ON THE RISE!) but unless it is viable then I won't do so.
I would prefer a new party over the current two(BULLMOOSE PARTY ON THE RISE!) but unless it is viable then I won't do so.
Link648099
Banned
JayDubya said:
QFT, the middle parties play a "golem-like" role in determining the future of the country, and they are very important either way.
scorcho said:
I'd say it's hanging on Montana much more so than Virginia at this point. Webb's lead in VA is currently much more healthy than Tester's, which is why I'm listening to the cable news and NPR and I'm puzzled why they always bring up a possible VA recount but never mention Montana as a possibility (unless there's something odd about their recount law in the state). Montana will be a much closer margin, and at the levels of Webb's lead right now it may be politically difficult for Allen to make a huge recount push - of course, I'm unsure as to what is actually left to count in VA though.
Although I would actually prefer the Dems not to take control of the Senate, or, at least, for it to be split down the middle, forcing Cheney tie-breaker votes.
One other note - the US president is *not* the equivalent of Prime Minister from many other countries, in that he is not chosen by the house or senate. He (and the vice president) are elected every four years, according to the electoral system. Basically, every state has a number of electorates equal to the number of congressmen (house and senate), and in most cases, the presidential candidate that wins the state vote gets all of the electoral votes for the state.
(Well, that's not quite it, but that's how it usually works in practice..)
The only thing congress can do is remove a president from office, which (should) only happen for major abuses of office, or treason.
And what's left to vote on? For most people, nothing much for the next two years.
(Well, that's not quite it, but that's how it usually works in practice..)
The only thing congress can do is remove a president from office, which (should) only happen for major abuses of office, or treason.
And what's left to vote on? For most people, nothing much for the next two years.
Yes we can. >Cheebs said:
Anyway,
Democrats: "Not As Lame as You Think"
I appreciate this even more, now.
Cheebs: True. A lot of moderate Democrats made gains. Whereas moderate Republicans seem to be shrinking even more. This could actually help Dems in '08 if the American people realize the GOP is simply too conservative while the Democrats will be giving off a centrist vibe. I just have a feeling the GOP will remain stubborn and not try to reach out and work with Democrats. Meaning they probably won't grasp the concept of running a true centrist in '08. All speculation.
- Status