Will Senate punters have to wait for three weeks?
November 8th, 2006
-
ABC News says a Virginia recount would have to wait until after Nov 27
With control of the Senate down to whether Jim Webb has taken the Virginian Senate seat from George Allen a report on ABC News tonight suggests that things are not going to be settled quickly.
This is what their website is saying “A win in Virginia would squeeze out a 51-49 Senate majority for the Democrats. Without it, the chamber would split 50-50 and Vice President Dick Cheney in his constitutional role as president of the Senate could give Republicans the extra vote they need to retain control..There are no automatic recounts in Virginia, but state law allows a candidate who finishes within a half-percentage point to request a recount paid for by state and local governments. With a margin greater than that, but less than 1 percentage point, the trailing candidate can still seek a recount, but must pay the costs if the results are unchanged. Either way, a recount could not begin until after the State Board of Elections certifies the results on Nov. 27. The losing candidate has 10 days after that to request a recount.“
If this is correct then it is going to be the end of the month before we know what the overall outcome of the battle for Senate has been. It still hangs in the balance.
My guess is that this will give Betfair the time to reflect on the issue of the two independents - Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders. It also means that the betting is likely to continue.
So punters who are tempted into this market are risking money on how they think Betfair will settle the market. This seems fairly dangerous.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Fantastic! More delay and prevarication in an American election!
Still it has forced Donald to go which is good.
I wonder how tis affects the mood at no 10?
BTW, I have linked to updates on todays cash for peerages news on my blog :
(Me shameless hussie)
1 Shameless Hussie. I’m not sure Tony gives a toss for Donald …. I think he’ll start to get demob happy soon and make some interesting decisions.
BTW I see young Matlock has been disgracefully overlooked by Lord Strathclyde in the Tory Lords reshuffle ….. and buried the bad news in the American mid terms !!
Re 2 Jack W, You may well be right about Tony and Donald, but I was thinking about the obvious damage to both Buch and the neo con people. Bush’s stance seems fataly weakened.
2. Mike, I think I’ve changed my mind.
If Senate had been split 50/50, Cheney would have had the casting vote. Senate seems to accept that he does not, because the Republicans only have 49. It follows that Senate regards the Independents as Democrats. It doesn’t matter what we think, if Senate acts as if they are Democrats, that’s what they are and that’s how Betfair should rule.
Either way, they should rule promptly. And they should suspend the market pending that ruling.
3 Benedict. You are correct. Bush is a lame duck unless he co-operates with a Democratic Congress.
The GOP will also be reading the results for 08. Ohio looks very bad for them and no Republican has won the presidency without Ohio. A more moderate Republican candidate is likely … McCain ?? Not sure.
4. But they ran as Independents. They may caucus with the democrats, but they won’t become part of the Dem Caucus - ie they will be enrolled in the Senate as Inds. I can’t see how Betfair can class them as Republicans… This should have been made clear well before now, though.
RE 5 JackW, us Conservatives certainly hope for someone who could pass for a conservative rather than a loon.
I have heard some disturbing things about McCain recently though. Is it true that he caved in on torture?
4 - Cheney has the casting vote in any division that is 50-50. But because the vote to organise the Senate will go 51-49 Democrat*, it won’t matter.
Not sure what it really means to say “Senate acts as if they are Democrats” other than that Lieberman and Sanders choose to vote with the Democrats in electing the committee chairs.
If there were a hung parliament here with a Con-Lib Dem** coalition, the Lib Dems would vote for a Tory Queen’s Speech, but would you expect Betfair to pay out on a bet on a Conservative absolute majority on the grounds that “the Commons acts as if the Lib Dems are Tories”?
* - assuming Webb wins Virginia
** - or any other combination you like
Will this not be academic if the Democrats take Virginia?
9. No: if both Inds count as not Dem, the Senate will split 49-49-2 if Dems take VA, so dead heat rules apply.
6. You mean Democrats, I think, ACM? Anyway, the point is that if Senate regarded them as Independents the result would be a tie - 49/49 with two ‘others’. They would then (I think) turn to Cheney for the casting vote. They aren’t doing that, so it seems Senate regards the independents as Democrats. Betfair should follow suit.
11. Betfair says explicitly that dead heat rules apply. So, I assume, they do not look at Cheney’s casting vote. This is consistent with the Betfair question: “Which of these parties will have more seats in the US Senate following the 2006 US Senate Elections?”
(and yes, I did mean Dem - to little sleep…)
Understood.
4 - I don’t think they’ll go for someone moderate, though (unfortunately) - they’d need sustained drubbings before the base started voting in primaries for a moderate rather than someone sharing their values. Look how much electoral disaster it took the Dems to come up with Clinton, the Tories with Cameron, Labour with Blair, the SPD with Schroeder etc
11 - Peter, the Senate as an bureaucratic institution does not take a view (which I think may be the direction you are thinking in).
There is a vote to assign committee chairmanships; if that went 50-50 (or 49-49 for that matter) then Cheney would have a casting vote on those chairmanships, as he does on any tied vote. If the two “others” vote with the Democrats, there is no tie to break, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are Democrats.
7 Benedict. Not sure about McCain and the torture issue.
It’s difficult to translate Rep/Dem politics over here. Some Reps like defeated Chafee in Rhode Island are more liberal than some of the southern Democrats. So I look at them on a case by case basis. The defeated Santorum in Penn certainly fits into your loon catergory. He makes many of our own Tory Tombstone mob look like dangerous Communists !! Sadly IMO there are far too many of the Santorum tendency and not enough of the old liberals in the GOP.
betfair on its website say the bet is for “Which of these parties will have more seats in the US Senate following the 2006 US Senate Elections?” Notice MORE not MAJORITY
Currently per the BBC it is Dem 48, Rep 49, Ind 2 with one seat to delcare
This could go Dem 48, Rep 50, Ind 2 OR Dem 49, Rep 49, Ind 2
So in my view the only two results could be a Republicans have the most seats or it will be a dead heat. As there is no dead heat in the betting market will all bets de cancelled?
Surly independants are independants even if they vote with the Democrats.
17.I’d have thought so. But Sanders had the Dem nomination in VT, he just chose not to list a party on the ballot paper. This may be sufficient to class him as a Dem. I don’t see how Lieberman can be seen as a Dem - he failed to win their nomination.
17. The rules on the Betfair senate page state “Dead Heat rules apply.”
Yes, indeed, Benedict (6), you shameless hussie (sic)! - “us Conservatives certainly hope for someone who could pass for a conservative rather than a loon.”
You made your choice a year ago, Benedict…………
And beautiful words, Jack (5), beautiful….. “Bush is a lame duck”………
But best of all was Kathleen Harrison fallng flat on her face once again in Florida………….
15 Well if that’s the case, BV, it’s a tie on a strict reading of Betfair’s rule and I revert to my original view.
I think I should go to bed before I change my mind again.
With both houses now against the Republicans, the option of a new constitutional amendment to allow non-US-born candidates for President disappears too.
18 - but then again, party “membership” is not the same concept in the US as it is here. Running against an official party candidate UK would get you expelled from whatever party it was. But I’m far from clear that such a notion exists in the US. If Lieberman asks to join the Democratic caucus, he would almost certainly be expected and it would be hard to say he weren’t a Democrat senator.
However, he could caucus with the Democrats without joining the actual Democratic caucus.
21 - me too
22 - it was never really there: it needs a 2/3 majority in each house, not just a bare majority.
23. I believe Sanders and Lieberman have both indicated that they won’t join the Dem caucus.
Can anyone work out how many seats in the House the parties are likely to get? I’m getting contradcitory information from the various websites about the House races that haven’t formally declared yet…
26 Rob. The last I heard there were 13 seats to declare with the Dems up for 3 more gains that I believe will take them to + 31.
Argh. Just realised that I mistyped my election prediction so adding 10 to my Republican’s estimate.
23. Any citizen can get their name on a primary ballot for whichever party they choose for any office they choose, as long as they fulfill residency requirements, collect enough signatures from registered voters within the district, and file a registration fee. The actual required numbers vary by state law.
23.”If Lieberman asks to join the Democratic caucus, he would almost certainly be expected and it would be hard to say he weren’t a Democrat senator.”
but shouldn’t it count as how they’re elected, not how they sit?
For ex if in UK, let’s say, Clare Short runs as Labour candidate, she’s elected and in her acceptance speech says that she won’t take the Labour whip, I suppose the result would have still been regarded as a Labour win in terms of betting because she run and was elected as Labour, no matter what she’ll do next.
Actually I lie again - I didn’t mistype - simply seem to be so tired now I can’t add up. Or type!
RE 20, Tressage, Yes I voted for Davies. That said I am happy with the outcome. I do not see either Davies or Cameron as a loon. I see Cheney and Rumsfeld that way along with the necons and the loony winof the evangelical movement.
Ah, Benedict, I see Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Chameron and even Davies as loons. I suppose it all depends on one´s point of view. But I certainly took your original comments as referring to Chameron as a “loon” and I thought to myself: there is hope in and for Sussex after all……
24 - Plus 3/4 (I think) of the State Legislatures also approving.
[34] Something like that IIRC. There hasn’t been a constitutional amendment since that reducing the voting age to 18 thirty-odd years ago (can’t be bothered to check Wikipedia
) - in the present state of American politics I doubt even one setting out the order of the days of the week would carry…
RE 33 Tressage,
35 - IIRC, there is also a provision for convening a Constitutional Convention that can re-write the entire document
But I’m not sure if this proecedure has ever been invoked.
Is it my cynical brain, or was Rumsfeld set up as the fall guy? Think on this for a second. Bush has known for weeks that he would lose these elections. He must have known that the Senate was close. Sacking Rumsfeld a month ago could have saved the Senate. Why sack him now? Because he takes the heat for Iraq, lances the boil, and helps a more moderate Republican win in 2008.
Or am I just an old cynic…?
27. Jack, according to CNN, 10 districts have still to be called. So far it’s 229 for Dem and 196 for Rep.
The 10 races are:
- Connecticut 2 (inc R): Dem ahead of around 200 votes (all precincts reported)
- Georgia 12 (Inc Dem): Dem ahead of around 800 votes (99% reported)
- New Mexico 1 (Inc R): Rep ahead of around 1300 votes (99% reported)
- Ohio 2 (Inc R): Rep ahead 51 vs 49 (100% reported)
- Ohio 15 (Inc R): Rep 51, Dem 49 (100% reported)
- Washington 08 (Inc R): Rep 51 Dem 49 (48% reported)
- Wyoming 01 (Inc R): Rep ahead of around 900/1000 votes (100% reported)
- Louisiana 2 (Inc Dem): If I’ve understood correctly from previous thread, a run off will take place (between 2 Dems, so it’s a Dems hold anyway)
- Texas 23 (Inc R): If I’ve understood correctly, a run off will take place between a Rep (48%) and a Dem (20%)
35: “can’t be bothered to check Wikipedia”.
I can - it was in 1992: the 27th amendment said congress could only award itself pay rises that would take effect after the next elections.
It doesn’t really effect your point though, since the amendment went through congress in 1789. It just took 200 years to get enough states to ratify it. (Plus it’s a dead letter amendment, as the courts have ruled that it doesn’t apply to cost of living adjustments, hence congressmen can just vote themselves large cost of living increases rather than large pay rises).
Re 38 Ben, You are an old cynic! But you may also be right,
Apparently many ex members of congress are a bit upset at thetiming thinking that if he had gone earlier, preferably a lot earlier they would have saved their jobs.
39. The 10th race is North Carolina 8…Incumbent is Rep..he’s 460 votes ahead (100% reported)
41. Benedict, if you had just seen your political career flushed down the toilet because of Bush’s idiot policies, wouldn’t you a little upset…!
Actually it makes real sense and the more I think about it the more I like it.
I’ve even put it on my blog! There you are you see, you’re not the only one who can shamelessly plug their blog!
Sorry to go off thread, but this morning’s news about Gordon being asked to tell the police what he knows of Cash for Coronets… when the police are trying to build a case, they ask everyone connected except the person they are actually hoping to charge. The only person they seem to have NOT spoken too is Mr Blair. Charges in the offing?
Actually whether there are or not, we now know what his legacy will be. Remembered for an illegal war and selling peerages. Charged, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.
But if he had culled him earlier it would have looked like panic. Truth is, once your on a spanking, you will get the spanking anyway. Where Bush has failed (as do all leaders, by the way) is in not sacking himself. He was after all the real target of American approbriation last night, not poor old Rummy at all.
Evening all. Just got in so what exactly is happening?
Who is the likely winner in Virgina where I think it all hinges on for the senate?
38,41 on Rumsfeld’s departure. Was it not reported in the last week or so that the only thing delaying his replacement was Bush’s inability to presuade anyone to replace him?
One side-effect of presidential term-limits (and Vice President Cheney’s ill health) is that joining the current regime is not much of a career move since the guys at the top will soon be in retirement. That this job involves the quagmire of Iraq probably does not add to its attractions.
It may still be better than our system which encourages Prime Ministers to “go on and on” to the detriment of good governance and their own reputations: Blair, Thatcher, even Churchill.
I agree Paul. But I’m still glad Don Rumsfeld has gone, he is behind all the bad decisions the US have made in Iraq. Like going in with too few troops. Like tearing up the State Dept plan (900 pages) for winning the peace. Like refusing to commit the resources needed to win the peace. Like disbanding the Iraqi Army.
Actually how in hell did he survive so long? Was it simply that Bush liked having someone he was intellectually superior to around him?
I’ve just looked at the 50 Hot House races listed on electoral-vote.com and it is striking that only 10% of the Dem pick-ups have female candidates, whereas 60% of the unsuccessful Dems are women.
What are the factors which are causing female House candidates for the Democrats to be so much less successful than the men?
4. Cheney always has the casting vote in the event of a 50-50 tie in the Senate; it’s not just when the parties are split 50-50. The fact that there are two independents does not change this.
The market was not on who would control the Senate - in which case Peter’s analysis would be applicable - it was on who would have the most seats. Cheney’s casting vote is irrelevant to this, even if it had been 50-50.
RE 44, Ben, if you had read the latest article on my blog about Cash for peerages you would have known why Gordon and the rest of the cabinet first. That said Guido would like the police to ask some questions of Gordon. His article is here:
http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-yates-should-ask-gordon.html
RE 45 Paul Lloyd, actualy i would have sacked him in 2003, and many Republican ex members of congress would have sacked him in Jan 2005. In that were the case then I think that would have made a difference. If it were a month ago, you are right he would have still got the spanking and would have had to sack someone else.
Bushes judgement is very very suspect.
45 — Rumsfeld was no innocent patsy. He insisted on too few troops in Iraq (and arguably Afghanistan) and on disbanding the Iraqi armed forces, and he overruled professional soldiers. He had to go.
Re 48, Yes Ben making 500,000 armed men redundent with no means to feed their own families was a masterstroke. Needless to say I have covered that in an article on my blog as well, which is linked to in my piece on the Rumsfeld resignation.
No matter which way you look at this, Rumsfeld is an arrogant pratt who was never fit for his job.
RE 52, I agree, but not now, he needed to go a long long time ago, preferably 1976 which is when he last went.
Benedict (36): also
And Ben (38). “Is it my cynical brain, or was Rumsfeld set up as the fall guy? Think on this for a second. Bush has known for weeks that he would lose these elections. He must have known that the Senate was close. Sacking Rumsfeld a month ago could have saved the Senate. Why sack him now? Because he takes the heat for Iraq, lances the boil, and helps a more moderate Republican win in 2008. Or am I just an old cynic…? ”
I have the feeling that you are beginning to find your feet in the Tory Party, Ben. And you are becoming very cynical, quite rightly. So who is getting himself set up to be the fall-guy in Chameron´s Tory Party, when the moment finally arrives? Who other than the Non-Old-Etonian in the immediate Chameron circle…. The abysmal failure as Tory Shadow Chancellor, who else? Chameron sacks the most incompetent person in his Kitchen Cabinet - and sets himself up as ruthless etc, demanding etc, and efficient above friendship etc….. Wait for it……..
Interesting scene in the film ‘Borat’ where American Evangelical Christians including a Supreme Court judge and a Senator ululate in the background trying to cure him! Rumsfeld seems quite sane in comparison….
I think Ben is right. Iraq will be Blair’s legacy and it’s not really fair. This change of mood in the US leaves him looking isolated and ridiculous. If he wasn’t going soon I would expect Labour to be in big electoral trouble. It’s not being pro or anti Iraq but being so out of tune with the zeitgeist. And why couldn’t he see what any blind man on a galloping horse could?
44.”Sorry to go off thread, but this morning’s news about Gordon being asked to tell the police what he knows of Cash for Coronets”
It seems many ministers have been asked to submit a written statement (Gordon, Prezza, Reid, Straw, Kelly and also David Miliban who wasn’t in the Cabinet at the time of the last GE).
Hewitt is set to be quizzed.
It was also reported that NEC members in the run up of the GE have been asked to submit a written statement…but Walter Wolfgang was quoted by BBC saying that he’s not aware of any NEC member who got such a letter.
55. Oh Sage…you live and dream… so who is Ming the fall guy for then?
Roger. Blair paid the price for his ’shoulder to shoulder’ phrase after 911. Never before had he made any statements that committed him to anything quite so categorically. At the time he was constantly stung by the growing reputation of being ‘more spin than substance’, and I would guess saw his commitment to the GWOT as outward evidence of his ‘honourability’ to a friend, and his nobleness of purpose. He wanted to believe, like every leader before him, that history would prove him right in the end.
Instead of seeing the opposition to the war in the country for what it was, an expression of grave concern that our country was being led into a ludicrous war that could never be ‘won’ and was justified on the most dubious of grounds. Rather he saw opposition as proof that he was given to greater powers of perception than the majority. Quite simply he went mad around November 2001 and has never recovered.
DC @ 58 Ming can’t be the fall guy for anyone. Falls are dangerous when you’re a pensioner…
Tressage I think your broken record is getting a bit old don’t you? Isn’t it an indication of how highly you rate David Cameron that you constantly try to do him down?
DC (58) - if I didn´t live and dream, I woundn´t be a Lib Dem. I would probably be a Tory, like yourself. But then I do have hopes eventually to see something better - so I am not a Tory. I keep working towards my goals.
“Who is Ming the fall guy for…?” A very odd question, DC. Nobody, of course.
You only need a fall guy when you have a disaster and you need somebody to blame for it - like you Tories after the next general election. It seems to me that Osborne is being set up as your fall guy - poor chap - but then he is already a bit out of his depth, isn´t he?
This Betfair definitions thing is fascinating. Personally, I think the only sensible results are a Republican win or a dead heat (dependent on VA), reflecting the candidates and their parties as the voters saw it.
But it’s been clear for some time that that was not the prevailing view on the markets, and I think that must to some extent reflect some assurances given by Betfair. This encouraged me to take exposure to a Dem win last night on this market despite my own reservations (I laid Reps. at 1.44 and bought back most of it at 1.55 when Allen looked good with half the votes counted)
I can’t see how Lieberman is a Democratic Senator at all. Sanders had the Democratic nomination - and I think he is sean as a Democratic Senator in the mkt right now (Democrats trading at clear odds on for most seats).
56. The Congressman in question was re-elected unopposed yesterday.
Still counting in Virginia.
They’ve added about 130 new precincts to the official website count - generally one new precinct in every County for “Conditional votes”.
2 new precincts have just declared - total vote Allen 80, Webb 50.
Webb now leads by 7,317.
There is also the issue of a tabulation error overstating Webb votes by 1,400 in one County which it is believed has not yet been corrected in the official count. If so the current Webb lead is actually 5,917.
59. Feeling tempted to stick up for Blair after that post!
Problem was Paul it was all the usual suspects and the oppertunistic libdems who were opposing the war so anyone with any sense would have backed it.
Maybe with hindsight it would have been better to have just nuked Iraq? I would love to know how the libdems would have dealt with Saddam. “Please don’t do that Mr Saddam you naughty boy or I’ll tell my Mummy”.
Will Ming be going to Iraq to plead that Saddam’s life is sparred?
Hang Im High I say!
Re 62 Arb Seeker, yes the Betfair issue is bizarre. I think Betfair arein for a bit of trouble here.
RE 63, Chrisco, how very worrying
No, Ben (60). “Tressage I think your broken record is getting a bit old don’t you? Isn’t it an indication of how highly you rate David Cameron that you constantly try to do him down?”
Chameron is a charlatan, who uses his supposed charm to talk the birds out of the trees (and other similar metaphors). In fact, he has nothing whatsoever to say, and just picks up phrases from past and present Lib Dem policy, to which he gives his impeccable public relations gloss. I don´t think he even understands what he is talking about.
Unfortunately, much of the media and many of his followers (including yourself, I think) are unable to see him for what he is. With the absolute disgrace that this Blair-Labour Govenment is, we need a strong opposition to tear it to pieces. Instead, the Tories cave in at every opportunity - their surrender over the disgraceful extradition treaty with the US is but the latest example.
And it is no use saying that Ming and the Lib Dems ought to be doing the job. We have, for many years. But it is Chameron who is being paid a princely salary for being the official “Leader of the Opposition”, it is Chameron who is given an abundance of opportunities at PMQs, it is the Tories to who the media turn to first for comments.
And the Tories - under Chameron - are failing the country, Ben. Can´t you see that?
67. Only you can see it Sage cos it ain’t happenning!
“We have for many years” Oh please…
You really are clutching at straws, many of those ‘precincts’ have single figure votes to count. Webb has won, there will be a recount but that’s it.
I’m not going to be led astray this time.
How nasty can you Tories get, DC (65)?
“Problem was Paul it was all the usual suspects and the oppertunistic libdems who were opposing the war so anyone with any sense would have backed it.”
So if the Lib Dems are in favour of something, you noble Tories must be against: and vice versa. That rather leaves you isolated from your glorious Leader, doesn´t it? (From time to time, of course; depending on the flavour of the week that he chooses to present.)
“Maybe with hindsight it would have been better to have just nuked Iraq? I would love to know how the libdems would have dealt with Saddam. “Please don’t do that Mr Saddam you naughty boy or I’ll tell my Mummy”. Will Ming be going to Iraq to plead that Saddam’s life is sparred? (sic) Hang Im High I say!”
As Martin Rowson´s brilliant cartoon said, Chameron was prancing around saying “Hello, Clouds! Hello, Trees!”, and all the Tory members present were thinking “Sell it off…. String ´em up….”
It is nice to see Chameron´s Tories finally coming forward in their true colours…. Same Old Tories, I fear………..
70. Sage: Hey less of the old!
What’s nasty about that post? Ming has already made a special effort to say Saddam should not be executed. Even Blair had to get in on that pathetic act.
If you think my support of a legimate court’s decision to execute an evil monster like Saddam is wrong then its: same old wishy washy woolley liberals.
69. Agreed - I know. Not clutching at straws - I just like to keep an eye on what’s going on.
A bit quieter here tonight than last night. So it must be 49/49/2 for the Senate I guess. NOC.
One of those invasive Ladybirds from Asia has just landed on my printer!
That surreal moment heralds my bedtime.
Ugh - system collapsed afer 95% of message written, in order to update Firefox…. Sorry for the delay, DC…. Try again….
“Old”, not in years, perhaps, but in attitudes. The Tories are old, decrepit, out-of-date, past their sell-by date, etc. Your Chameron is trying to rebrand you as totally the contrary - and he is failing, because he cannot present you as what you really are not. I sometimes feel very sorry for the young (and gullible) Tory supporters who sign on, in the mistaken belief that the Tories are now somehow “Liberal”.
So you - a typical Tory - still belive in capital punishment. OK. Martin Rowson had it totally right in his famous cartoon, when Chameron was prancing around declaiming “Hello, Clouds! Hello, Trees!”, while the Tory members were inwardly chanting “Sell it off…. String ´em up….”
So you come back with “If you think my support of a legimate court’s decision to execute an evil monster like Saddam is wrong then its: same old wishy washy woolley liberals.”
“Legitimate court”, DC? Established by invading powers? Like in Quisling´s Norway and Vichy France and even in Nazi Germany?
For some people, principles also count for something, though you may sneer. If Ming insists that he does not believe in the death penalty - thereby speaking for many of our citizens - that is fair enough. He is clearly demonstrating where he stands on this issue: no death penalty, even for monsters like Saddam. And if he thereby forces Blair to define himself, excellent by me! Chameron, of course, won´t say what he thinks about it until next week, when he has had time to consult his opinion groups. That makes it very difficult for you Tories. You don´t know where you are - and we don´t know where you are either.
And right on cue…… (unpremeditated by me, I do assure you all)… along comes Ming with this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6129566.stm
A promise to repeal all Blair-Labour´s repressive legislation…….
Tories - if you believe in freedom, now is the time to come over to the Lib Dems………..
Libertarians in the Labour Party - do come along too….. The future is bright, it is golden……… Nick Palmer MP, how can you resist?
If the Democrats take Virginia - it will be a tied Senate 49-49 with 2 independents
In the current senate there is one Independent who takes the caucuses with the Democrats - making there total 45 but he is not part of the Democratic Caucus … the same will happen with this Senate if the Democrats take Virginia - the two Independents will also caucus with the Democrats but not be part of the Democratic Caucus - but the Democrats will be the majority party…
For betting purposes if Virginia goes to the Democrats it will be a dead heat - if not - the Republicans will have the majority of seats
NBC - Virginia projected for Webb by NBC - Senate 49-49-2 - so both houses fall
Betfair must add Sanders and Leiberman to the Democratic totals for very straightforward reasons.
The question we bet on is ‘which of these parties will have more seats following the 2006 election’. Sanders won the Democratic nomination, and did not face any rival Democratic candidate in the election confirming his nomination as a Democratic candidate.
The effect of both winning their seats is to outvote the Republicans in the Senate giving FORMAL power to the Democrats - the Democrats therefore have more seats. Voting, power and seats are equivalent. A party seat can mean no more than the voting power of the elected in the chamber.
The casting vote of the Vice-President is irrelevant for this simple reason. THERE IS NO TIE - THERE IS NO DEAD HEAT, Sanders won the Democratic nomination.
A dead heat could only occur where the Vice-President cast a vote due to EQUAL VOTES CAST IN THE SENATE BY EACH PARTY. Sanders and Lieberman voting with the Democrats, make this tie-break power of the Vice-President irrelevant. A tie-break or dead heat is therefore absent.
The Democrats therefore have power more seats that outvote the Republicans in the Senate. One party controls the Senate through greater voting power, caused by more seats under its voting bloc. There is no tie-break or dead heat in the Senate.
To confirm this look at the official election website page of CNN - http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/ . They confirm that Sanders and Lieberman have been added to the Democrat totals for control of the Senate. Thus the Democrats have WON MORE SEATS IN THE SENATE, assuming the Democrats are confirmed as the winners of the Senate seat in Virginia.
77. AP, CBS and NBC all now say they have called Virginia for Webb.
Also reported that Allen is inclined not to ask for a recount if the numbers after the canvass (due by tonight - ie Thursday evening) are in line with election night (ie he is still 7,000 behind after the canvass).
So Betfair may have to make a decision sooner than expected.
the story about Sanders is that he won the Democratic endorsement but declined to run on a Democratic ticket - the Democrats declined to stand against him - and he won the election as an Independent - as did Lieberman
The news channels here in the states are showing it as 49-49-2 which is the official result
I think we may have to wait to see how the two are described by http://www.senate.gov Anything else is unofficial.
Thank goodness the British system is totally transparent, even if it does sometimes come up with the wrong results! (Like Blair winning last time…… and Thatcher various times previously……….)
rej4sl is wrong. News channels are describing the result as 50-49-0, 1 to be decided. Go to http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/senate/.
Also the betfair question is about party power ‘WITHIN’ the Senate. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether they were standing for election as independents, democrats or whatever else - it is purely about the effect of their party based voting and so power ‘WITHIN’ the senate.
So all those mentioning party labels candidates stood under on ballot papers have made a completely irrelevant point.
The Betfair question makes absolutely no mention of the ballot paper labels. It solely refers to party power within the Senate.
Will no matter how much you go on, the fact is that they are NOT Democratic candidates, and were NOT elected as Democrats to the senate. Therfore they are treated as independants by the betting companies, and no party will have a majority of the seats.
I am sorry I am sitting here in MN not watching the results on the WEB - MSNBC news - are showing a graphic - 49-49-2 - I am only reporting on what I am seeing on US TV - yup they are also calling it a victory for the Democrats-
BBC America also had a graphic which shows 49-49-2 and then combined the results to say that if the Independents vote with Democrats it would be 51-49 voting power.
I know it is confusing - as some news reports are combining the Dems and Independents and others are not - on the official Senate site the last Independent was classed as I not D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14289273/
here is a link to the MSNB web site and the graphic they show on TV
Allen is conceding now.