NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(mreye @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 01:40 PM) I didn't mean to make that assumption. I meant to just point out the "Revolution" of 1994 was a farther right win. They had a clear message and were elected to execute that message. They failed and I believe the result is what we saw last night. I refuse to believe that this election was an endorsement of Dems more than it was a rejection of the "same ol' same ol'" Agreed on all points.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 01:38 PM) Can anyone say "sore loser"? Not helping... needler. Let's keep the positive and interesting discussion going, shall we?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) Some states have a law where it's automatic. Not sure if VA is one of those. I agree, tho, Chisoxfn... no recount. Just move on, unlike Webb would have. Again with the polarization? Webb would have done it, probably. The guy's posters read "Born Fighting", and it would have meant a possible sweep into Senate control. But I think Allen might do the same. Its not about which party they are in, in this case. Webb wouldn't do it because he's a liberal, nor will Allen do it or not do it because he is a conservative. Either one would do it if A) they think they have a resonable chance to win, and B) it was best for their party and their own political objectives, short and long term.

QUOTE(mreye @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) It could be a good thing. Personally, I think they got too comfortable since 1994 anyway. They needed a wakeup call and hopefully this is it. The base hasn't been motivated for years. You want to motivate them? Lead! Don't go to the middle. Don't concede and "be friends." Do what you think is right. Do what we elected you to do. Do it because you believe it's right not because you're afraid to lose your job. I'd just like to add that sometimes, for either party, a candidate doing what they think is right does indeed take them towards the middle. Some people are moderates (on a net basis) because they are doing just that - sticking with what is right, not just following a party line. Moderate isn't necessarily unmotivated. Hard-liner isn't necessarily morally grounded. Lieberman, Ford (who lost), Romney, McCain are all examples of that. They have views that fall into both parties, not just one, but they stick with them anyway (well, McCain seems to be sliding right to get the GOP base, but he's basically a moderate).

UPDATE... CNN has called MT Senate - Tester wins. Webb is now claiming victory in VA, but a recount may be needed. That wouldn't happen until end of November at certification time, and only if Allen requests it. So as it stands right now, barring a recount in VA and reversal, the Dems have likely taken the Senate.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 10:41 AM) We luuuuuuuuv it when you analyze. Sorry, I got carried away. I love local and state politics. In many ways, so much more interesting than national.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 10:23 AM) Business issues is what makes me a conservative. Small budget, low taxes, government is the problem-not the solution, smart business growth etc. I think I actually fall more dem on the social stuff, than true conservative. I think it is product of my MYOB approach to most things going for both business and private life. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me the key for the next year or two if I want to do this again is to stay relevent in the meantime. I have a couple of ideas, but I am not to sure on the details. Staying relevant, and visible, are key. Here is the thing on some of those "city" issues - you may be conservative on some of the financial stuff, but there is more to it than that. And the solutions don't tend towards one party or another. For example... --Crime. How do you reduce it? More cops, or less cops but better qualified? Or do you target the rehab side? Or do you prefer an indirect method like job corps and other employment improvements, etc.? Many of those questions are not party-aligned. --Education. Some of your suggestions on your website for the schools are also non-party specific. Its a matter of execution and methodology, and not as much the curriculum, if you are a mayor. As a school system leader (mayor in this case), you are more of a business leader, and by nature that usually means your are more apolitical. --Zoning. Where are you on eminent domain, which is becoming a hot topic? The GOP is split on this, with some Libertarian-types and small-gov conservatives really upset with the widening use of that tactic. And they happen to align with some liberal Dems on the subject. Being in MC, if you look to rejuvenate certain parts of town, you'll run into this issue. I think its just a different playing field at the city level. Red and blue mean different things.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 10:05 AM) That's what I am really hoping for. I know in the meantime I am going to keep an eye out for the future, and keep an ear on what is being done in the community to change things. If things don't improve, there is no doubt I will run again in a couple of years. Like I said I am also thinking about maybe shooting even bigger next time, the one hang up is that Michigan City has been blue since the 70's, and yet things have gotten progressively worse. The 99 election almost got a red mayor, but they came up just short. I think I could build a solid platform there, I just don't know if I want to give up that much family time to do it. At the mayoral level, the whole blue/red thing is different. Social issues are less of a concern - its more about business, zoing, education, crime, etc. Figure out which party you align with on THOSE issues, and you may find you are pretty moderate anyway. Your particular mix might sell really, really well in MC.

Blago will be even more ineffective in this new term than his previous. The Dems, his own party, in the State Congress, despise him. There are some Blago-Bush parallels, actually. Both won 2nd terms mostly due to the fact that their opponents were simply more inept than they were. Both were pretty ineffective in first term, and are looking to be even worse off in 2nd term. Both have trouble getting the Congressional members of their own parties to support them. Both think the legislature is there to do their bidding.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 09:37 AM) screw joe lieberman. all this s*** w/ montana and virginia wouldnt matter if he hadnt friggin run Lieberman will still vote Dem the majority of the time, and in fact he is counted in as a Dem in the current 49-49 split (with MT and VA undecided). Also, MT and VA would still have mattered. Lamont probably would have won CT, and they'd be in the exact same position of needing both those states to get to 51. How does Lieberman's run make MT and VA matter any more than they otherwise would have?

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) Don't they get tv on the reservation? Are these people so f@cking stupid that they don't have a clue? If she can't speak english, she probably can't rwad it either. How did she get to the polls? Someone drive her? Does that person have a clue? Was this really necessary? And by the way, the reading part is an important thing to keep in mind here with regard to American Indians. Many people may not realize this, but, almost none of the American Indian tribes' languages have a written component. Some, like the Cherokee and I believe maybe the Navajo, developed one after European contact simply as a method of translation. The languages are entirely oral in nature. So, since AmerInds do have the right to vote in federal elections, how do we ensure they can vote? Do they have someone at their polling places to enter their votes for them? Sort of a connundrum.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 06:41 AM) After the beatings at the polls, I am really doubting McCain will be the first to announce. I don't think you will get a big named repub to be first in line, because they don't want to spend the whole time explaining and taking ownership of what has happened under Bush. I truely believe the R canditate in 08 will be someone we are not thinking about at all right now. I think you are right. It will be a smaller-name Dem or two to go first - salivating at the idea of taking a shot with the Dems in control, plus riding their wave (or their coattails). Someone not named Clinton, Edwards or Kerry.

Great stuff, man. I'm proud, we're proud. That's a lot of votes. Now that your name is out there, you'll be in an even better spot for a run at this or something else.

So as of now, there are two open races left for the Senate - MT and VA. The numbers I have at the moment are: MT: Tester (D) up by about 1800 votes, with 99% in. VA: Webb (D) up by roughly 8000, with 99% in. If these hold, its 51-49 Dems in the Senate, I believe. On a seperate note... Whitney, the Green party candidate for IL Gov, finished with 10.58% of the vote. That's a whopper right there. They cleared the 5% threshold by a factor of 2.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 08:49 PM) a lot of "green" voters wouldn't have voted democrat anyways. it's not a good excuse for losing. Thus, my second sentence.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 08:46 PM) Can I at least blame the Green Candidate, who is sitting on over 20k votes? If that 20k makes a difference, then I suppose so. But some of those would have voted Green no matter what - not like they are protest votes. What is the 20k as a percentage thus far? Is it material?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 08:39 PM) The Dems have held the senate seat in Maryland. That was the GOP's other pickup opportunity. George Allen is up by barely 8000 votes in VA, with 84% of the results returned. Allen's lead has shrunk from about 30000 when 60% were counted, so the last segment seems to have been more pro-Webb. Don't know if there's enough left, but it's gonna be real close. So close that "James H. Jim" might have made a difference. Sheldon Whitehouse has beaten Lincoln Chaffee. That's the 3rd Dem Pickup in the Senate. Chris Chocola has gone down in Indiana. My understanding is that the James H Jim thing was only on the confirmation page, not the vote selection, so I'd say the impact should be minimal.

Just in case anyone isn't sure where to look, here is CNN's dashboard: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/res.../key/index.html Scroll down to the CALLED section for those races. Looks like 21 races so far are called... all Dem. US Senate at Dems +3 (Casey, Brown, Whitehouse took R seats), house all seats Dem, at this point.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 08:25 PM) Reading the comments on Zorn's blog, I was amazed how many people were calling for a vote for Whitney. Looks like the Greens will have an easier time next go-round. Yup. Someone mentioned it earlier, and I am not sure on the details. But for certain elections, if a party gets 5%+ in any election, they get certain things automatically that they didn't get before. I don't recall what those things are or if they are at the state or national level, though.

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Nov 7, 2006 -> 08:24 PM) The AP called Blago an 1.5 hours ago.... that means turnout in Cook County is going to be big.... ... that means stroger's probably gonna win (which is sorta disgusting even to this democrat) Actually, I'd say they called Blago because the areas Topinka was to be strongest in (downstate and collar counties) are almost even. Nothing in Cook is in yet, and Blago will of course carry that big time. And yeah, Stroger will probably win.

So, here is something I am finding very interesting in the IL Governor election. Current results in, from Chicago Tribune, as of a few minutes ago: Governor - Illinois 154 of 11692 Precincts Reporting Baar Topinka , Judy GOP 23,774 44.55 Blagojevich , Rod (i) Dem 23,527 44.09 Whitney, Rich Grn 6,061 11.36 The line in bold is telling, I think. Whitney isn't some one-shot phenom. That's a protest vote, and a big one, by Illinois voters saying that the two major party options they were given were just complete garbage. And I agree. We'll see how that holds up as more precincts report - since only a fraction have done so. But since Topinka is leading these precincts, I'd say they are majority downstate - where the Greens won't usually do well. Urban voters may actually increase that number. 11% is HUGE for a Green party candidate for Gov.

I used to vote for quite a few Republicans. Heck, in the 4 Prez elections I've been eligible for, I've only voted Dem once. But the CURRENT Republican party in Congress has pretty much brushed off any semblance of financial discipline or fairness in the budget process - and that was one of the major reasons I had supported them before. And as for Iraq, I voted against everyone, Dem or GOP, who supported the war in Iraq at any point (to my level of awareness, and their votes in Congress). I cannot in good consience put anyone in office who was either dense enough or uninformed enough to have been dragged into supporting this mess. So today, I am hoping for victory for Dems, but more specifically, Dems who had the guts from day one to call the Iraq War spade what it was - one of the costliest political blunders of our time.

OK so I'm catching up after an absence, and committing a faux pais - replying to a stale thread. But I felt the need to reply to 2 statements I found highly misinformed... QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 11:58 AM) I have such strong beliefs against the economic principles of the democratic party that I'll be sickened if they take control. My only hope is if they do, that in 2 years somehow the Repubs can re-organize and find a way to get back in (but regardless they will need to somehow win the presidency cause that would be HUUGE). 10 years ago, I was right with you on this. But here is the thing - the economic policies of THIS GOP Congress and Presidency are fiscally irresponsible to a level beyond any evil the Dems may commit. The absurd arguments used by the GOP on this topic - that liberals are all tax-and-spend - is laughably hypocritical coming from a party who is entirely spend-and-spend in its current makeup. The economic policies of the GOP in Congress have made a 180 degree turn in the last decade. They have completely failed to control themselves and our country is paying the price. I had never, ever said this before this cycle, but I will say it now - if you want Congress to be fiscally responsible, then you now have to vote Democrat. They are by far the lesser evil in terms of government budget. The only economic policy being pushed by a significant number of Dems that disturbs me is the desire by some to increase (or return to previous, by some people's perspective) the taxes on capital gains. That would be a terrible idea. The other ideas I am seeing them put out there (balanced budget, leaving income tax level but re-balancing towards progressive instead of regressive, promotion of more use-fee structures for department-specific budget needs, etc.) in terms of economics are far superior to the current debt-happy GOP's policies. This GOP in this Congress is NOT the GOP of financial discipline. Those days apparently are over. QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Nov 3, 2006 -> 09:15 PM) if we have to pay an extra 2 cents for every dollar earned by dividend income or capital gains, I guarantee it won't hurt it either. If you knew even the basics about the capital markets, you'd realize that any increase on gains taxes will absolutely have an effect. Even if its a small increase. That isn't to say that's reason enough to not do it, necessarily - there are other factors involved. But if you increase it, there will be a negative reaction on the street. I for one would hate to see the cap gains taxes increased from current levels, especially since this country is so piss-poor at saving and investing.

The GG, like the Heisman and most other media-voted awards, is absolute garbage. There is no correlation between winning it and being what the winner was intended to be.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) also, as i stated earlier, Kerry wasn't even trying to imply that if you don't study hard you'll end up serving in Iraq. in context, it is obvious he was trying to make a joke about Bush's academic career and his viewed inability to "get us out of Iraq". I disagree. I think there is no way, grammatically or otherwise, he was referring to Bush. He said "stuck IN Iraq". He meant exactly what he said - they'd get stuck there serving. Bush isn't IN Iraq. It makes no sense. Which makes Kerry's absurd responses all the more insulting. The man truly cannot lead. QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 2, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) I'm not sure of you are aware but there is an "educational" requirement to get into the military. And from what I have heard, it's not so easy anymore. IMO, it would be easier for an uneducated person to collect welfare - and they do - than it would be to join the military. I wouldn't call having an HS Diploma a high educational hurdle.