Election Results Open Thread

Jaybird

Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to AskJaybird-at-gmail.com

Related Post Roulette

145 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    Guam legalized Medicinal. (It’s the first territory to do so.)Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

      Booyah.

      I think Hick is gonna win, but his really muddled stance/politically negative stance on Legalization is gonna hurt him, I think. (I still think he wins.)Report

      • Jaybird and Stillwater should have taken the beer bet — looks like I was wrong on two of the three. Jefferson County is going to lose its bellweather status — it’s running about six percentage points farther Democratic than the state as a whole this year.Report

  2. Saul DeGraw says:

    I think we should move this from Off the Cuff, don’t you? Give it more visibility.

    The Democratic Party had a really rough year this year because the GOP is generally more motivated than the Democratic party in midterms and the Democratic Party is defending a lot of red states that they won in 2008. Plus some states like Arkansas and West Virginia have gone more red.

    McConnell easily won reelection already, this should not surprise anyone. I think Grimes started strong but imploded pretty early. The Democratic Party is still much more of a big tent party than the GOP* and this causes weird things to happen in more purple or red states where the Democratic candidates can win but they often have to distance themselves from the national party which pisses off liberals in bluer states like New York, Massachusetts, and California. I still think Grimes would have been helped more than hurt by a straight-forward defense of her party. Northern and Western Democratic politicians learned to be party proud. Southern Democrats still need to get the memo.

    *Demonstrated by the Cuomo and Teachout primary fight in NY. Teachout won the northern suburbs and among the New Brooklyn set. Cuomo still easily won in NYC. I think there the middle-class professional kind of socially and economically liberal Democrat never really learned to play city politics very well. De Blasio is an exception.Report

  3. Saul DeGraw says:

    One thing I will say is that my heart always races because rural and conservative counties tend to get their votes counted first and this always make it look like a GOP landslide even in deep blue states.Report

  4. zic says:

    I made GOTV calls all afternoon; something I’ve done in many other elections.

    Today, in Maine, this was the first time that nobody said they were not going to vote. When I went to the polls after, they were packed. So I’m expecting a big turnout here in Maine. Lest you think it’s because of our gaff-prone governor, think again. People want to vote on wether or not it’s okay to bait bears with Dunkin Donuts. I voted yes, which means that it is, in fact, not okay, thanks to the perverse wording of such questions. The polls close in 2- minutes; I expect results soon.Report

  5. greginak says:

    Most exciting news so far is that the final Hobbit movie will be 180 minutes long. I did not vote for that.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to greginak says:

      @greginak

      I hope you are being sarcastic.

      And really? Someone needs to reign Peter Jackson in.Report

    • greginak in reply to greginak says:

      @saul-degraw Sadly no, that is what i read from a supposedly reputable source.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to greginak says:

        I’m with ya greg. Taking the next Hobbit on the over at 180 is money in the bank.

        Also, I can’t remember an election cycle that made (MADE!) me more apathetic about politics.

        Maybe those libertarians are onto something…Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to greginak says:

        Why make pt. III three hours why not just spin one three hundred page prequel into six or seven feature films?Report

      • greginak in reply to greginak says:

        A three hour Hobbit final flick will be a perfect metaphor for the 2016 prez election season which is starting pretty much tomorrow. It will be followed and picked at by obsessive nerds ( like many of us). It will in many ways be predictable but have a few surprises, some intrigue, and some entertaining moments. In the end it will be an overly expensive waste that just barely gets the job done but leaves everybody running for the potty and exhausted at the end.Report

    • Neil Obstat in reply to greginak says:

      Actually, I have enjoyed Peter Jackson’s excesses in interpreting “The Hobbit”. But, after all three chapters are out in DVD, I look forward to a pirate-expurgated-version a la the Star Wars “Phantom edit” (“Phantom Menace” with as much Jar-jar Binks removed as possible), removing most of what was not hinted at in the book as possible. I’d estimate a final cut of not quite 4 hours.Report

  6. Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    I’m in WA, so we won’t know any real results for a few days (although there will be early results before tomorrow).

    The only federal office I voted for was for a democrat, because the GOP contender sounded like a complete loon.Report

  7. Kazzy says:

    I was surprised at how lax the… supervision? oversight? whatever… was at my polling place. At one point while chasing Mayo around the room, I ended up behind the table where the people who gave out ballots sat. There were whole stacks of ballots just sitting there. I could have easily made off with one (what I would have done with it, I don’t know; our place had us fill in the circles with markers and then feed it into some fancy machine that gave me a thumbs up afterward). That was a bit concerning.

    I will also report that no photo ID was required. Instead, they checked our signatures given on the spot versus those they had on record, which they linked to our home address. Seemed like a pretty good system.Report

  8. Marchmaine says:

    Who is Karl Rove’s agent? The man must be a genius because darned if I didn’t just see Rove on Fox news even after his debacle in 2012.Report

  9. Saul Degraw says:

    Re: Governorships.

    It looks like Brownback is going to be out but Walker and Snyder are going to remain. Corbett and LePage also look like they are going to be out.

    This is called a mixed message for Tea Party politics.Report

    • Michelle in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Corbett is out! Horrible governor. Glad to see him go.Report

    • Road Scholar in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Yeah, Brownback is about as popular as three-day old fish around here. He basically had carte blanche to test run a far right economic agenda thanks to a basically tea party legislature and it blew up in his face. The simple truth is that right-wing, supply-side economics Just. Doesn’t. Work.

      Kansas is actually reliably center right and moderate. He just got reminded of that.Report

    • Road Scholar in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Well crap. That was a little premature. Where were you getting your info, Saul? Davis has conceded defeat so we get to “enjoy” four more of Brownback.

      FWIW, the commentary from local poli-sci types is painting this as more of a Davis flub than an endorsement of Brownback. Keep in mind that this was a squeaker in a deep red state where it shouldn’t really be close. And a lot of money was thrown at this race from the Koch’s and outside the state as well.Report

      • The Republican steak on governors is amazing. Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois…Report

      • Saul DeGraw in reply to Road Scholar says:

        I’ve just been refreshing the front page to the NYTimes.
        @will-truman

        Are Republicans a T-Bone or a Porterhouse?Report

      • Saul DeGraw in reply to Road Scholar says:

        More seriously,

        Coakley is horrible at retail politics. She is a master at backroom deals and got the nomination out of the old-school playing to the top and biding your time method. Massachusetts also does not have a long history of electing women to state wide office. I think Warren is the first.

        LePage seems to be helped because the third party guy took away a sizeable number of votes from the Democratic candidate and did not back out in time. He also did a mealy mouthed “you can vote for someone else” to his supporters.

        A lot of the Democratic base disliked Quinn.

        Brownback is a surprise. I can’t tell if he helped Roberts or Roberts helped Brownback.Report

      • Maine really ought to have a runoff, given their recent history with independent candidates.

        No single race is super surprising. Taken as a whole, though… I wasn’t expecting it, to say the least.

        They didn’t even clear a majority in Vermont.

        Bad election for opponents of raising the minimum wage, bad election for labor, bad election for Democrats.

        The unskewed guy was right. He just picked the wrong election. Average Dem bias this year for the senate was six (so far) , and two for governorship.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Road Scholar says:

        @will-truman

        Re: Unskewed Right guy

        I just wrote a huge post on this. I think saying the unskewed right guy was right is a bridge too far. Almost everyone predicted this would be a good year for the Republicans. The Six Year itch is usually a good year for the opposition. 1998 was the last time the party holding the White House did well in a six year itch. 1998 and 2002 are the only times since 1946 when the party holding the White House won House seats.

        I was expecting the Democratic Party to at least win Iowa or Colorado though.

        Everyone still expects the GOP to have a tough map in 2016.Report

      • Everyone predicted that the Republicans would have a good year, but the polls did not suggest they would have as good a year as they apparently have. For the senate, they were off by six points.

        (No, I don’t think Unskewed Guy was prophetic. I do think that we should be wary of putting too much faith in polls, which two years ago made me a science-hating lunatic, even though the polls were off by a bit then, too – albeit in the opposite direction.)Report

      • greginak in reply to Road Scholar says:

        The polls are off a bit every election. The only difference is the direction.Report

      • Yup. More than a bit this time, though. (For the senate, anyway.)Report

      • Kim in reply to Road Scholar says:

        greg and will,
        What does England have to say?
        If you aren’t bothering to follow the money, then you really can’t say that all the polls are off.Report

    • James Hanley in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      @saul-degraw

      You’re not equating Rick Snyder with Tea Partyism, are you?Report

  10. Kolohe says:

    I can’t believe how close Gillespie made the US Senate race in Virginia.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Kolohe says:

      There are a lot of really close elections. LePage seems to be narrowly up in Maine now

      This is sad and I hope it changes.

      But the Democratic Party seems to be holding onto Iowa for now! LA is going to a run-off. We are barely holding onto to the MA governorship (Coakley was a horrible candidate).Report

  11. Michelle says:

    Still too close to call in the NC Senate race. I hope Hagan holds on. She’s not exactly a flaming liberal, but far better than the execrable Tom Tillis.Report

    • Michelle in reply to Michelle says:

      And Tillis wins. A big victory for the Koch brothers, the NRA, and Crossroads, all of which poured millions into the race, making it the most expensive race in the country. We’re screwed.Report

      • Kolohe in reply to Michelle says:

        Terry Sanford has been the only liberalish* Senator ever re-elected in North Carolina, and he was only able to do it once.

        *using the most expansive definition of liberal for Sanford, Hagan, and Edwards. (and really just distinguishing them from pre-1960 Dems)Report

      • j r in reply to Michelle says:

        Out of curiosity, where do the actual individual people who voted for Tillis figure into your conception? Are the just mindless zombies carrying out the will of the Kochs and the NRA?Report

      • Kim in reply to Michelle says:

        jr,
        I hope they’re just dupes. I’d rather not set myself as the enemy of large swathes of the country.

        What’s your opinion on BearHunting?Report

      • Michelle in reply to Michelle says:

        @j-r

        Negative campaign ads work and the ads Tillis and his surrogates put out were almost all negative. Many of them were downright false at worse, egregiously misleading at best. Lots of fear-mongering. Yet people are influenced by this stuff. If they weren’t, Koch and Co wouldn’t have thrown their millions into buying endless advertising.Report

      • j r in reply to Michelle says:

        Yet people are influenced by this stuff. If they weren’t, Koch and Co wouldn’t have thrown their millions into buying endless advertising.

        That is simply not a true statement. It’s like saying “psychics must be providing value; if they weren’t, people wouldn’t being spending millions on psychics.”

        It is comforting to believe that people with different political views than yours must either be evil or dumb or otherwise fooled, but it is just not true. People have different ideological worldviews and different policy preferences. Not sure why that is so hard to accept.Report

  12. Michael Drew says:

    Colorado people – Udall seems to be underperforming Hickenlooper. From what I’ve heard there was a definite turn against Hickenlooper around guns and executions. So the turn against Udall must be quite something. Any sense of how Mark Udall managed to drop the ball in a particularly special way out there? Or is it not really special at all, just in keeping with the night’s larger dynamic?Report

    • I’m not a Colorado peep, but I’ve read a fair bit of outside analysis on his campaign and almost all of it negative. Basically that they felt if he just said “birth control!” loud and often enough he’d win.

      Does the view look any different from Colorado, Colorado peeps?Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Ezra Klein has basically the same take. One wonders what they were looking at that caused them to think such an exclusive focus on WoW was the way through rather than a broader message. The numbers among men must have just been terrifying. And from what I’ve heard, for Obama they are out there.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Will Truman says:

        This sounds about on par with what I’ve read. He earned the nickname Senator Uterus. Gardener actually tried to be a relatively socially liberal Republican on women’s issues by advocating for over the counter birth control. The issue is whether he sticks with it once elected.

        On the other hand, there was a defeated personhood amendment on the ballot in Colorado so maybe the focus on women’s issues played off for both candidates somehow.Report

      • For what it’s worth, over the counter birth control has appeal with some social conservatives, too. Jindal has floated the idea.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Ezra’s piece on it suggests the Dem push to mail-in-I’ve elections there may have just outright backfired (which I can’t say I could have told you it would but sure as hell makes sense to me in hindsight. Which is some seriously tidal a democratic Party kinda shit.

        Lots of potential lessons for the Dems in this one it seems. The passing of the Obama machine makes me wonder whether Dems’ advantage going forward could be blunted by typical Dem (and Clintonian) sheer mechanical incompetence in the processes of elections. That is, after all, what cost HRC the 2008 nomination.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        mail-in-izeReport

      • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

        Saul,

        All’s I can say is that the anti-Gardner ads I’ve seen/heard have been exclusively about his anti-abortion and related position. So if he loses, I guess we can chalk it up to a single issue. If he wins, it’s may be a bit more complicated.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Ack. Typical, not “tidal a.”

        I fishing hate tablets.Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Will Truman says:

        Whoops. If *Gardener* loses we can chalk it up to a single issue….Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        He lost.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Oh. Well, *he* won. 😉Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Will Truman says:

        @michael-drew

        The Mail-In Ballots did seem to help the GOP because of the senior citizen vote.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        @saul-degraw

        I have no independent info on that apart from Klein’s one graf at Vox, but yeah so it seems. Shocking that a clever Dem electoral scheme backfired.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Will Truman says:

        Cory Gardner’s anti-Udall ads covered stuff like the Keystone Pipeline, Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs. Udall’s ads, until the last couple of weeks, covered birth control. Now, in the last couple of weeks, Udall’s ads did turn around…

        But there’s one dynamic that I haven’t seen raised yet: this is Colorado’s first “mail-in” ballot. People have been voting for a month, mailing it in, and then waiting for election day for the stuff to be counted. If you voted a month ago, you didn’t have an opportunity to have your mind changed by the stuff that happened in the middle of October.Report

    • Stillwater in reply to Michael Drew says:

      As a COpeep, I’d say that most of the anti Udall stuff results from a pretty good Gardner campaign. He didn’t go all negative (as Udall did) and he criticized Udall for being a partisan voter (99% of the time he voted for Obama!). Coloradans aint dumb, but they are just like the rest of us: waiting for someone to actually Get Some Shit Done. Udall is prolly the last person I’d vote for in that regard. (I didn’t vote for him.)

      That he’s underprforming relative to Hickenlooper isn’t surprising to me. Udall has a wiff of odiousness about him that Hick lacks. Hick is pretty straight up and very intelligent (on both policy but also politics), in my view. That doesn’t me he won’t succumb to the Vote the Bums Out programme, one which we can implement in every even year fowevah.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Stillwater says:

        What is odious about Udall?Report

      • Stillwater in reply to Stillwater says:

        Yeah. Good question.

        Don’t know how to answer that. All’s I can say is that I’ve seen him speak in person a handful of times and have come outa it thinking he’s pretty odious. Career politician, from a long line of politicians, ironed jeans draping over $500 cowboy boots, no real stances on anything beyond the talking points of the day. I think Coloradans want a change. I just don’t think Gardner is gonna give em the change they wanted, even tho it might be the change they deserve.Report

      • Will Truman in reply to Stillwater says:

        Udall has been a pretty strong advocate for privacy. Multiple libertarians on my twitter feed are sorry to see him go for that reason.Report

      • Kim in reply to Stillwater says:

        Stillwater,
        Can’t speak to what Udall wears on the campaign trail, but he is a hiker (backpacker), pretty well known for hitting the deepwoods.Report

    • The three interesting races were US Senate, US House District 6, and the Governor’s Office. Gardner(R) and Coffman(R) have been declared winners of the first two; Beauprez(R) is leading narrowly for Governor at the moment. All three basically ran at least implicit “I’m a conservative, but not that kind of conservative” campaigns. I trust all three of them on that about as far as I can throw them, but hope that I’m wrong (we need sane conservative voices).Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I think I trust them too.

        The problem is that even sane Conservatives need to vote with their party just like even conservative Democrats need to vote with their party. A few sane or moderate voices in a sea of Hard Right politics does not really matter.Report

  13. Will Truman says:

    Notably, one of the biggest losers tonight is the existing minimum wage. It’s getting its butt whooped in stone pretty red states.Report

  14. Kolohe says:

    Nunn shall not pass (into a runoff)Report

  15. Saul Degraw says:

    The big issue seems to be a huge GOP lead in the House.

    Jon Chait doesn’t think the Democratic Party has a chance of retaking the house until 2020. Chuck Todd guesses that there is no chance of the Democratic Party winning the House until 2022. Chuck Todd’s prediction makes sense because it revolves on the census and the Democratic Party winning state legislature positions.Report

  16. Dand says:

    So voters want a higher minimum wage, legal pot, abortion access and GOP representation. Ok then.— Ben Casselman (@bencasselman) November 5, 2014

    Report

  17. Michael Drew says:

    I just feel bad for my Wisconsin people. My mom in particular is not going to take this one well. (Her sisters OTOH…) I think she thought they might turn him out this time. I shoulda been on the horn telling her while it was closer it wasn’t looking great. Hopefully she was on top of it enough to see the writing in the last two weeks.

    One thing I don’t want to hear anymore is that, yeah Wisconsin voted him in in 2010 & 2014, but gosh darn it in 2012 the people who voted for him were voting against the recall not for him. Please. They were voting for him.Report

  18. Dand says:

    Bruce Rauner just won IllinoisReport

  19. Dand says:

    Looking at the exit polls republicans did much better with Asian voters than they did 2012 from 26% to 47%.Report

  20. Michael Cain says:

    Will the new majority leader of the Senate — McConnell or otherwise — kill the filibuster in January?Report

    • Doubt it. It isn’t worth it when you don’t have the presidency because all you can do is force vetoes (in this case, from a term limited president). Especially when losing the senate in two years is highly likely.Report

      • If they keep the senate and win the presidency in two years, though, all bets are off.Report

      • I’m wondering how much pressure they’re going to feel from the House to force Obama to veto things. Absent a change in the cloture rule, the Senate is still going to be the place that bills go to die. Except for the budget, of course. For the past few years, the House Republicans could pass budget resolutions that implied large cuts in social spending, but couldn’t pass appropriations bills implementing those cuts. With a larger House majority, they might manage that.Report

      • I just don’t see it. Nixing the veto is a huge bullet to fire, and one that they didn’t fire when they payoff would have been much bigger. It’s more likely that the Democrats will have the White House and Senate in 2016 than that the Republicans will, and that looms large.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Don’t be so sure that cloture will be the issue in this Congress that it has been. Democrats have no record of running McConnellesque lockstep resistance to major bills, nor of unity in general. They’re likely to play ball with McConnell in ways he never did with them.

        That said, it’s possible that nothing that can pass this House of Representatives will ever garner a single Democratic vote in the Senate. But that will be more a function of the lower house’s majority than the upper house’s minority.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Will Truman says:

        Nixing the filibuster, you mean.

        And that’s a big bullet to be sure, though nixing the veto would be bigger still.Report

      • North in reply to Will Truman says:

        It’s probably post election bitterness but I hope Reid runs the new minority exactly how Senator Turtle ran the old one.Report

      • Mo in reply to Will Truman says:

        @michael-drew I think the Dems will be able to more easily vote in lockstep. One thing about this election is that pretty much all of the Democrats in red states are gone. So you have a bunch of people that will gain support for pushing against Republicans. The Ds lost the Senate, but they got a much more ideologically condense Senate chamber.Report

    • James Hanley in reply to Michael Cain says:

      No, he won’t. The real question is whether he’ll resurrect the filibuster on appointees. He was hopping mad when Reid killed that through parliamentary procedural maneuvering, but he’d floated the idea himself previously. That is, he’s like nearly every other Senator who’s spoken out on the issue–fully supportive of killing the appointment filibuster when in the majority, aghast at what a radical Senate-destroying idea it is when in the minority. There are very few other issues where the essential hypocrisy and power-lust of the political class is so sharply demonstrated.

      I think if he believes the GOP has a good chance to take the White House and retain control of the Senate in 2016 he won’t resurrect it. That will partly be because payback is fun, partly because the Dems gave him what he asked for in the past and so now he can have it without being responsible for it, and partly just to make things easier for a prospective president of his own party.

      Whatever his motivations–which undoubtedly are not based on principle–I hope he keeps the appointment filibuster dead. It’s a bad use of the filibuster.

      If he has real principle and courage–of which I’m sure he has neither–he’ll also return the Senate to the standing filibuster. I won’t hold my breath.Report

  21. Dand says:

    I predict the pundits will say Democrats need to support cutting social security and republicans need support more immigration despite the fact neither of these opinions are popular with the voters.Report

    • Murali in reply to Dand says:

      cutting social security and having more immigration are actually decent policy proposals in their own right. They certainly have a sort of libertarian charm to them.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to Murali says:

        @murali

        Beltway Pundits love cutting social security because they do well enough that they do not need to rely on social security when they retire.

        In other words, our pundits are merely a sham for their own preferences. I like Krugman’s sarcastic “Very serious people” accusation.Report

      • Kim in reply to Murali says:

        Kill da boomers Kill da boomers!
        (sorry, my reference to bearhunting above has me on a bit of a kick…)Report

  22. greginak says:

    It seems like strong night for the R’s. So who thinks impeachment isn’t far off. I think there is at least a 50% chance the House goes for it. Of course it fails but that is irrelevant.Report

  23. Dand says:

    Bruce Rauner made a strong to reach out to African American voters: he won 6% of the black vote.Report

  24. Dand says:

    No exit poll data from Maryland.Report

  25. Dand says:

    Sam Bronback got 51% of white voters and 47% of hispanic voters.Report

  26. KatherineMW says:

    Well, marijuana legalization has been popular this election. If Alaska passes it too, then BC will be the conservative portion of the Pacific coast in that regard, which is unusual (Canada’s typically more liberal than the US, and BC is typically fairly liberal even for Canada on social/behavioural issues).

    Of course, given the construction of Canadian criminal law, we won’t have legalization until we have it federally. In general I think having a consistent criminal law nationwide is sensible, but this is one situation where it has a downside. It’s useful than American states can test-drive the policy chance for us.Report

  27. Damon says:

    Republican Hogan Wins Race For Maryland Governor

    WTF?!!

    Maryland!!!Report

  28. Barry says:

    Murali November 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm
    “are you kidding, 180 minutes of pure peter jackson magic is just awesome!!!!!”

    Especially if they put in lots of scenes which seem to be ads for upcoming Disney rides, and drag out every frikkin’ thing until the wonder has been dead for 10,000 years… 🙁Report

  29. Barry says:

    Michael Drew November 5, 2014 at 2:01 am
    “Don’t be so sure that cloture will be the issue in this Congress that it has been. Democrats have no record of running McConnellesque lockstep resistance to major bills, nor of unity in general. They’re likely to play ball with McConnell in ways he never did with them.”

    The Republicans had no such record, either, until 2009 (at least, since Truman).

    In terms of ordinary, tit for tat, compromise politics, the Senate Dems are in a place where they both can rretalitate and should retaliate.Report

  30. Glyph says:

    Well, shoot.Report

  31. Saul Degraw says:

    According to some Googling:

    Mark Warner seems to be narrowly holding on to his Senate seat.

    The Democratic Party seems to also be narrowly holding onto the Governorship but lost the Colorado state Senate. They might still control the Colorado State House but by a less firm majority.Report

  32. Mike Schilling says:

    Voter suppression works.Report

  33. zic says:

    Well, I’m going to go celebrate by purchasing Dunkin Donuts. A dozen less to sell to the bear baiters once they’ve gone stale.Report

  34. Brandon Berg says:

    Two more years of sweet, sweet gridlock. Since mass democracy has rendered good government politically infeasible, the next best thing is homeostatic government.Report

  35. James Hanley says:

    Pardon me if anyone’s already addressed this, but had anyone seen bite totals yet? That is, did Dems once again cast more votes for House candidates than Repubs and yet lose, or did the GOP truly outpoll them thus time?Report