Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the well-not-officially-anyway dept.

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.

cancel ×

1090 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FOSP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766341)

I feel a great distrubance as though millions of people cried out SHIT all at once. Oh yeah FOSP (first oh shit post).

Re:FOSP (3, Funny)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766367)

That would be a great disturbance in the Farce.

Re:FOSP (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766847)

A macacaphonic chorus.

Will they be able to make things better? (3, Insightful)

Rix (54095) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766357)

Or just keep them from getting worse.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766407)

Neither

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (5, Insightful)

toupsie (88295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766433)

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.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766515)

But, even still, (Not being American) doesn't it mean that no more crazy laws will be passed? even if the Shrub writes them, they still wont get through.

Its too bad the recent laws made it through.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1)

Zuke8675309 (470025) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766613)

But, even still, (Not being American) doesn't it mean that no more crazy laws will be passed? even if the Shrub writes them, they still wont get through.

Its too bad the recent laws made it through.


Bush can't write laws. He can only sign them into law or veto them. Only Congress can write new laws.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (3, Insightful)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766665)

But you have admit, Bush has exercised leverage within the party (and thus both the house and senate) as far as which laws reach the floor for a vote and head to his desk. Just because he doesn't write them, doesn't mean he doesn't influence the process a great deal.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (5, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766703)

Only Congress can write new laws.

It's more like: Lobbyists write new laws; congress votes for them in exchange for campaign donations.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766791)

The President can write a law and have a member of Congress introduce it on his behalf.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766635)

But, even still, (Not being American) doesn't it mean that no more crazy laws will be passed? even if the Shrub writes them, they still wont get through.


Only congress can make laws (although representatives might draft something at the president's request, so if it's something that doesn't pass the house then Bush never gets the chance to sign it. It never works the other way (president writes a law and congress passes it).

Its too bad the recent laws made it through.


Any one in particular?

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (4, Insightful)

geoffspear (692508) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766655)

Sure, if by "draft something at the president's request" you mean "take a bill written by Executive branch lawyers and pass it without actually reading it" like they did with the Patriot Act.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (2, Insightful)

Memnos (937795) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766723)

Yes. Sometimes the best things happen (or more correctly, the worst things do not happen) when government gets nothing done. The people who wrote our Constitution really did not intend for government to be efficient. Maybe way less profligate, but not efficient. However, it might be a stretch to say no more crazy laws will be passed, even for a while. Craziness/stupidity is not a monopoly -- but rather the best-defended competitive industry we have.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766545)

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.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (5, Funny)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766561)

we'd be better off relying on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords as a basis for a system of government.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1, Funny)

Memnos (937795) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766807)

When I see a strange woman lying in a pond, with or without a sword, I tend to lose interest in governmental matters.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766733)

Nothing will get done.

The House can now have real investigations into the corruption that got us into Iraq. And there is nothing the White House can do about it (although I expect they will continue to obstruct as much as possible).

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (5, Insightful)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766493)

Will they be able to make things better? Or just keep them from getting worse.

They're democrats, not magicians.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766681)

You mean they're politicians, not miracle workers. Not even Scotty could get the U.S.S. Intrepid out of the mud.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (2, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766501)

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 and run".

In other words, "we'll see".

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766649)

...or make them worse... that covers all three options.

Re:Will they be able to make things better? (1, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766783)

Or just keep them from getting worse.

One of the "bigger picture" questions I'm wondering about is when we inevitably vote Bush out of office in 2 years (assuming he'll actually LEAVE and assuming we don't impeach his ass first), is will whoever is in next actually get rid of the powers Bush has consolidated for them? Are we stuck with this crap forever? Politicians, whether right or left do not like to give up power of any sort.

Fraud count (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766371)

Successful votes: 46%
Unsuccessful votes: 2%
George Bush: 52%

Re:Fraud count (2, Funny)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766567)

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 happens when you get used to google being so good at reading your mind.

Stock Market (2)

toupsie (88295) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766393)

Any idea if the stock market will rally or tank on the news that the Democrats have taken over Congress?

Re:Stock Market (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766415)

I thought slate had an article saying that democrats were better investors recently ? Too lazy to search, sorry.

Re:Stock Market (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766469)

Tank. Get your money out of the market now and use it to buy weapons to
protect yourself. This is the beginning of the end of America.

Re:Stock Market (4, Informative)

Chapter80 (926879) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Stock Market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766719)

The stock market will do well, since gridlock will be the beltway theme for the next 2 years. No taxes will be repealed, so investors won't have to worry.

Re:Stock Market (2, Insightful)

harks (534599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766721)

Probably neither, since the Democratic gains were expected and therefore already built into the price of every stock.

You idiots! (2, Funny)

ellem (147712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766403)

You fell right into Karl Rove's Dieboldian scheme of Haliburtonist warforoilism! You fools!

In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766409)

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.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (5, Informative)

LinuxGeek (6139) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766459)

Actually, the three branches of the US government are: Executive, Legislative and Judical.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766581)

The judical is unimportent in america, especially looking at the executives history of disobeying the judical branch. Aside from ignoring court orders, the judical is also unimportent, because, it only interpits laws, and can declare them illegal (which takes a long time, and then you have to look at the disobeying thing again). All in all, the judical is basically irelevent in controling government, its only relevent to the people governend, and even then, they would want bad laws not made in the first place, rather then try to get the courts to say they are illegal.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (3, Insightful)

F34nor (321515) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766751)

Cough, cough. Sputter. The judicial is the emergency brake. When all else fails and you are riding on the skids then the judicial is the most important branch of government. When asked why we have the senate, a very un-democratic institution, it was explained that it was cream to mellow the coffee. The job of government is to protect the people from the will of the majority. When the majority votes in fascists that want to pass laws that invalidate the constitution then the judicial says "NO, you can't do that." Your laws MUST pass muster, they must be legal laws, hence the third branch. The part that is relevant to the people governed is the fourth estate or the media.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

Kyro (302315) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766461)

We have the same thing happening in Australia right now.
The Federal Government also gags debate in senate so the bills go through quicker. Quite sad really considering some of the rot they put through is clearly designed in the interests of big business.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

zenasprime (207132) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766485)

I thought the three branches were the executive, the judicial, and the legislative. hmmmm.... :p

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#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).

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

harks (534599) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766781)

7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans. Yes, some of them were approved by Democratic Senates, but I'd say it's still indicative of Republican control. So they do have the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, at least until next year starts.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (0, Redundant)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766505)

The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.

Sorry for being picky, BUT the three braches of government are the Executive (president), Legislative (house and senate combined), and the Judiciary (the courts). The House and Senate are NOT seperate branches.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766525)

Agree, good post. However we'll have to see whether the Dems spend more time on issues than on vendetta against the Rove/Rumsfeld/Cheney types. I'm guessing they're smart enough to do the former, especially since many incoming Democrats seem to be fairly balanced folk rather than the hysterical far-left Ned Lamont-type.

Three Branches (0, Redundant)

dereference (875531) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766535)

Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.

And let me stop you right there; those are not the three branches of the government. You might want to go take a remedial civics class (or wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ) before continuing to "explain" anything.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

Supero100 (664946) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766547)

Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat.
Did Bush just do away with the Judiciary, too? Though many would say the Repubs have control of the Judiciary too anyway.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766663)

The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.

Except Congress pretty much just does what it wants. You have a very short memory, like most Americans, as you have forgotten how little opposition it took from the AARP and even Congress itself for Bush to cave in a like a coward on his plan to "fix" Social Security and nothing was done. I am not in any way advocating a position for or against his plan, but I am simply pointing out that even a Republican controlled Congress doesn't just rubber stamp whatever Bush wants. You may be too young to remember this, but when Jimmy Carter was president Congress was controlled by the Democrats and they absolutely despised him and worked openly against a lot of things he wanted done. The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 was passed by a Democratic Congress in reaction to Jimmy Carter's apparent decision to abandon Taiwan to the whims of China and it made it a law to obligate the US to defend Taiwan in case of Chinese attack.

I do agree with you that in this case a Democratic Congress might be very helpful for the nation to counterbalance the White House, but I want to point out that just because Congress and the White House are members of the same party, that doesn't mean that Congress just rubber stamps what the president wants. In fact, my impression of this Congress is that they are "do nothing" Congress not interested in passing any legislation of merit.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (1, Offtopic)

LMacG (118321) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766677)

No need to point out the error on the three branches, several others have gotten there first, but hey at least your sig is correct today.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766749)

You don't know what the three branches of the government are. You are an idiot.

Unfortunate that it's not reversed. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766789)

Aside from your error in naming the three 'branches' (as others have helpfully pointed out), I mostly agree; I don't think it's particularly great for either party to control both houses and the presidency. The "fast track" is generally a bad thing, stifles debate, and results in poorly thought-out legislation.

That said, I would have preferred that the Republicans retain the House and the Democrats take the Senate, than the other way around; the House was already acting as a check to the President in some respects, by being more conservative than him. For example, it was the Republican-controlled House, not the Senate, that was blocking Bush's unpopular "immigration reform."

My preference is for the Senate to be more liberal than the President, and for the House to be more conservative/populist; this way if the executive starts to swing too far in either direction, you can have a brake to slow him down by.

I can still see a lot of bad legislation coming out of the arrangement that looks like it will happen, based on yesterday's election.

Re:In My Opinion This is Good for Everyone (0, Offtopic)

Ichigo Kurosaki (886802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766863)

"Slashdot: A place where I'm +5 Insightful when I tried really hard to be stupid." How ironic.

I think its obvious... (1, Funny)

peterpressure (940132) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766411)

Rove let the Democrats win so fixing the 08' elections will be more plausible...

I still think Diebold arranged this one...

Yeah.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766421)

Like NO-ONE knew this already.

I, for one,... (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766427)

...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:I, for one,... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766549)

Haha, I was just thinking "Great, the Democrats won... now we won't have 3 months of recounts."

And Lieberman is officially badass now. He fought the two-party borg and won.

Re:I, for one,... (1)

chantron (1013105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766851)

Lieberman isn't badass, he didn't beat the 2 party system. All he did was lose his party's primary, cry about it and get the support of the GOP.

Re:I, for one,... (2, Interesting)

perrin5 (38802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766619)

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:I, for one,... (0)

analog_line (465182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766699)

If Lieberman actually officially switched to a Republican party affiliation, it would be his last term in office.

He talked long and hard about caucusing with the Democrats in order to convince enough Democrats that a vote to keep him in wouldn't be a vote for the Republican party. If he betrayed that, so blatantly, he'd be committing political suicide. Politicians break promises all the time, but most of the time they don't survive as blatant a betrayal as a party switch would be for him.

And Lieberman doesn't have a hell of a lot to gain by switching. Democrats don't NEED the Senate nearly as much since they have the House. They have their roadblock, since Bush is likely to become fond of his veto pen. Lieberman will theoretically keep his seniority and place in line for committee chairmanships if he caucuses with the Democrats (and nothing really stops him from just rejoining the Democratic party, just like Jeffords pitched his Republican party affiliation). The Republicans would basically have to offer him a leadership post in order for him to gain anything in the move, and even then it would be a close thing for that to be a gain, since it would piss an awful lot of people off on both sides.

Right now, Lieberman needs the Democrats to like him more than the Democrats need to make nice with him. It's certainly in their interest to keep him caucusing with them, but not at any cost.

Re:I, for one,... (2, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766787)

...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.
Agreed.

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 enough to vote for Lamont in the primary, but when push came to shove and the majority moderate Democrats saw what was happening, they voted in the "real" election for the guy that best represents them. He'll caucus with Democrats, which is as it should be.

Re:I, for one,... (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766819)

Uh, we are talking about the same Lieberman right? He may agree with the President's views on Iraq but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. You wouldn't neccessarily call Lieberman a Democrat but he's far far far far far away from being a Republican.

Diebold stole the elections! (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766429)

I blame Rove!

Divided government is good (4, Insightful)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766435)

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.

Re:Divided government is good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766563)

I'm not american, but in my country I once voted for someone I didn't want to win(and they didnt'). at first that sounds like I've hit my head to hard, but I predicted that one group was getting ahead too far and IMHO a voice of opposition needed to be in place so that any bills and such that were presented were thought out enough that they could make it past an opposition with power. One party having absolute power is better for that party than it is for that countries citizens. But unlike the crazy partisan voters, I feel not an obligation to a party, but an obligation to my country.

Re:Divided government is good (1, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766601)

As a believer in liberty, limited government, and rule of law, I'm no fan of the Democrats.

Thats exactly, why I am a fan of the Democrats. Not that they always get it 100% right on those counts, but at much better than the otherside. Its basically one of those "the enemy of enemy is my friend" deals.

I say this as an ex-Republican who had to leave the party after they went bat shit crazy and decided to start doing exactly what they are supposed to be against.

Re:Divided government is good (5, Insightful)

BeardsmoreA (951706) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766861)

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...

Re:Divided government is good (1)

oyenstikker (536040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766867)

"Fewer taxes get raised."

Hahahahahaha. They are politicians. They will always unify to take our money. Seriously, even if they can get nothing major done, they will still manage to pass bills that are mostly pork.

News for Nerds? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766437)

News for Nerds?

I think not.

Re:News for Nerds? (2, Insightful)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766583)

What? So now nerds aren't allowed to have a political interest?

Get over yourself, and let the rest of us enjoy the "News"-part of the slogan, kthnxby

What will the democrats be able to do? (2, Interesting)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766443)

It seems to me that, even with a house majority, the democrats won't be able to change much in the next two years. They won't be able to override vetos and may not even be able to pass much of their dream legislation in the first place because of the number of conservative democrats who were recruited and elected. The one thing that will certainly happen though, is a minimum wage increase. Most republicans will not dare to vote against that, even though they were happy to prevent it through the ploy of never bringing up legislation in the first place.

Re:What will the democrats be able to do? (3, Informative)

necro81 (917438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766651)

There's more to holding a House majority than passing bills. The most important thing, especially in the House (rather than the Senate) is that the majority party gets to decide the rules of order. The Democrats will now have the chair of every House committee, Speaker Pelosi will have the power to decide what bills even make it to the floor. Having the chair of all the committees, the Democrats will be able to exert Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking since Bush came to office. In short, Democrats in the House will be able to frustrate the President's agenda, and likely make his final two years very embarassing.

Like Bush says about elections... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766455)

Democrats now have a mandate.

America has handed them a huge amount of political capital.

Re:Like Bush says about elections... (1)

Erixxxxx (920617) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766691)

Ehh, I dont think so. If they had won something like 2/3'rds control, you could say mandate. Im actually suprised they didnt win more than they did; I would have estimated the anti-Bush-thus-Republican feeling to be stronger than the results indicate. I think the many repubs using the tactic of distancing themselves from the Prez made a smart move.

Just curious? (1)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766463)

Would a voting verification system that took a a good bit of prep m,silicon, money ,and lots of hardwired programming be worth an accurate election?

Election Supervision? (3, Funny)

PastaAnta (513349) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 ;-)

I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (2, Interesting)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766481)

What's the diff? Republicans and republicans lite. They all share a similar agenda anyway.. they mostly support a christian agenda (you have to in the US) and are opposed to changing the status quo (e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)

Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766661)

The US is (sadly, given this is the 20th century) a highly religious/Christian country, but there's a big difference between having to support that to some extent and being an extremist born-again loonie like the commander in chief and his religious crusades.

The Democrats do support national health care (don't you remember Hilary trying to champion it under Clinton?), although that's rather odd given the opposite-of-expected demographics of the two major parties. Really health is a human rather than partisan issue, but if one partly feels the need to have politics trump human values, then you'd have (wrongly) expected it to be the rebublicans with their lower income voter base who support it.

Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (1, Insightful)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766715)

"What's the diff? Republicans and republicans lite."

I agree wholeheartedly.

"(e.g. bringng in medicare like every other developed nation)"

I.e. North Korea, Cuba, and the defunct Soviet Union? I guess there's Canada too (and what a crappy system it is, I can tell you as a Canadian).

Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766817)

"they mostly support a christian agenda"

As opposed to a jewish, or muslim, agenda? Next time, think before you display your bigotry.

Re:I switched from Coke to Pepsi!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766821)

Excuse me? Seems more like Democrats and Democrats-lite to me...

At least they all seem to want to spend my money like Democrats... And the whole 'compassionate conservative' crap is just Republicans outdoing the Democrats at being Democrats (except for the gay rights and abortion thing, which gets the public attention but is only a minor battle...).

Hey, Karl Rove (4, Funny)

analog_line (465182) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766507)

were in ur house, beetin ur repz!

Lets just hope (1, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766509)

that no Nancy Pelosi sex tape emerges for oh so many reasons.....

Re:Lets just hope (1)

tweek (18111) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766833)

I honestly have a feeling (and I'm no democrat mind you, registered libertarian) that Nancy Pelosi won't be House Majority leader. Sadly enough it will probably be Murtha.

Democrats know that Pelosi is to the far left of the majority of most democrats. Not even they want her third in line for the Oval office.

What I'm looking forward to is the excuse Republican's use for loosing.

It already started last night "Conservatives just aren't getting out and voting". If the Democrats had lost, they would be out screaming that there was election fraud.

Neither of these two parties can imagine or fathom that someone WOULDN'T vote for them. Last round, the democrats blamed it on voter stupidity and the overenergized religious right.

The change (-1, Offtopic)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766531)

I, for one, welcome our new Tinkly Winkly overlords!

It appears not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766725)

...as gay marriage was casted away in a lot of states. Tinky Winky [worldofbubble.com] would be very sad to hear this conservative view on what should be anybody's own business - not that of Mr. and Mrs. Fundamental Conservative.

Gee... I don't remember Slashkos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766543)

posting Republican wins...

I pity the Democrats (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766551)

People voted for the Democrats because they want them to fix some things; especially the war in Iraq. There's no magic bullet for that one. No matter what anyone does, Iraq will be a mess. The consequences of cutting and running will be just as bad as those of staying the course. The world relies on oil from the middle east and it looks like there will be turmoil there for many years to come. In other words, we can't just abandon the situation. The only solution is to reduce our dependance on oil and that isn't going to happen over night.

The budget is also a disaster. Our foreign debt is huge. We aren't going to be able to afford the social security and medicare that we will need when we retire. The Democrats can raise taxes, which won't be popular and runs the risk of borking the economy, or they can abandon social security and medicare, which also won't be popular (at least with the grey hair set, which is where we're all going if we're lucky).

Two years from now, at the next election, the public is going to perceive that the Democrats haven't fixed the ills that beset us and consign them back to the wilderness.

Re:I pity the Democrats (1)

Jumper99 (51637) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766735)

People voted for the Democrats because they want them to fix some things; especially the war in Iraq.

I have yet to hear any Dem actually propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include just tucking tail and running home. Of course I have yet to hear a Repub propose a solution for Iraq that doesn't include the "stay the course" party line. There has to be a middle ground and since the Dems ran on a basic agenda of "vote for us, we aren't them" I'm not holding my breath that anyone will come up with anything new.

Democrats have the benefit of the doubt... (3, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#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

Gridlock is best (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766589)

Given the record of the Clinton and Bush admins on technology, I think that total gridlock is the best solution. "No more laws" is better than bad laws.

exactly like it should be! (5, Insightful)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766599)

you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!

Election fraud, not voter fraud (4, Informative)

kherr (602366) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766603)

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: (4, Interesting)

s20451 (410424) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766617)

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

Re:Dear Blogosphere: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766657)

He's no more powerful than he was before. He's pretty much a Democrat as he was before. You see how unwilling he was to give up his power though.

If you really want a problem, Nancy Pelosi will probably now be the most powerful person in Congress.

Re:Dear Blogosphere: (2, Insightful)

mdozturk (973065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766825)

Wrong. Any person on the senate who switches side every once and a while becomes "the powerful person in the senate". No senate vote is guaranteed (otherwise why vote?). Lieberman is a great example for this, even though he was a "democrat" how many times did he vote in line with the republican majority?

In my opinion its better for people to show their true colors. If he is gray, he should be gray not blue.

In other news... (2, Funny)

Chabil Ha' (875116) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766693)

US border agents noted a surge in US citizens returning from extended stays in Canada...

There's one small problem... (4, Insightful)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766755)

THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!

Illinois (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766769)

I did vote, but I'm not really sure why I bother. As an Illinois resident, you can vote either way and you'll end up with a corrupt money grubbing official. Before someone decides that I'm flaming, keep in mind that both the Democrats and Republicans (in Illinois) are guilty as sin. I was mildly optimistic about Barak Obama, but his shady land deal has taken his shine off. Is it even possible for an independent to find a good canidate in Illinois?

diebold! (2, Insightful)

syrinx (106469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766835)

As probable-Speaker Pelosi said:

Despite the fact that it looks like the Democratic Party has demonstrated a strong resurgence, I urge the nation to withhold judgment. As we have noted constantly over the past few years, the electronic voting machines from untrustworthy companies like Diebold may seriously and fraudulently alter election results. I call upon the Justice Department to vigorously investigate the election outcome, to determine if Diebold and other conspiratorial companies gave us a victory that we did not deserve.


No, just kidding, of course she didn't say that. We all know there's only problems with voting machines when Republicans get elected.

(shamelessly stolen from qando.net)

But seriously, while I generally support Republicans, the current batch has been almost entirely useless over the past several years, so perhaps this will serve as a wake-up call.

Nancy Pelosi president (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766845)

Come January, if Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the house, she will be two heartbeats away from the presidency. Should both Bush and Cheney die suddenly, she would be next in line to become president.

I, for one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16766859)

welcome our Democratic overlords.

Oh wait, I'm not an American. Never mind...

Voting issues (2, Interesting)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 7 years ago | (#16766865)

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?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>