Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote Victory

Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate by 12.6%, or 55.0%--42.6%. From the Huffington Post:
Look how easily the media manipulates everyone's perceptions, including our own. An hour of vote tabulation reveals a stunning fact: Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate by an overwhelming 11.6% margin - 55%/42.4%. "Bipartisanship" and "compromise" are today's buzzwords, when the phrase on everybody's lips should be "mandate for dramatic change" - especially in Iraq.
The thing is, Democrats had actually won the Senate popular vote for the 55-42-2 Senate, so it isn't surprising that we have a huge popular mandate when we took control.

Simultaneous to the Democratic popularity wave, Bush's numbers have crashed:
President George W. Bush's response was swift and decisive--if a little late. After voters gave Republicans "a thumpin'" at the polls, handing Democrats control of both houses of Congress, Bush banished his contentious defense secretary; invited the presumptive leaders of the new House and Senate to lunch (would-be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had pasta; the president ate crow, a Bush aide joked); and suffered through two pained photo-ops with Pelosi and Harry Reid, the Nevada Senator expected to become Majority Leader. And what did the president get for listening to the voice of the American people? The worst approval rating of his presidency.

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to just 31 percent, according to the new NEWSWEEK Poll.
I'm not sure why MSNBC decided to write this article as though the voters are being unfair to Bush, but it doesn't change the numbers. Oh wait--I know why MSNBC decided to write this article as though the voters are being unfair to Bush. Sorry about the lapse in memory and judgment.

That Democrats are only ahead 51-49 in the Senate despite a crushing popular vote victory, and that major new outlets are still presenting voters as whining, ungrateful plebs who don't understand the bi-partisan outreach of our Dear Leader, shows just how much work we still have to do in order to dismantle the levers of power Republicans have used to maintain a 50%+1 majority for so long.



Display:


Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (3.00 / 1)

 The only bi-partisan agreement I will support is that everyone take responsibilty for their actions. You take bribes, you go to jail. You start an illegal war you go to trial as a war criminal. You pollute the envoronment your corporate charter is revoked. Oh, and I might add if you lie to the American people on the public air waves your broadcast liscense is pulled. We are a nation of laws and they must be enforced for the common good, rather than re-written for special interests.  We do have the power, the question is are we brave enough to use it?


Everybody eats, nobody hits and there is no third rule.
by upperleftedge on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:16:08 PM EST

Mandates (none / 0)

Wasn't it a "mandate" for Bush in 2004 when he won with 51% of the vote?  Now we win with like a 13% vote lead, pick up both Houses of Congress against all odds, and Bush's approval plummets to its lowest levels ever, and it's a clear indicator that the American people want a moderate, bi-partisan electorate?

Jesus, when do we get to have an objective media?


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:19:52 PM EST

Re: Mandates (none / 0)

bi-partisan government


Rudy Giuliani hates firefighters. And puppies.
by Fran for Dean on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mandates (none / 0)

Given all the political capital he earned and got to spend (supposedly), the proportions would suggest we could install the corpse of Lenin in the floor of Congress before getting run out.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Confused (none / 0)

Where are the numbers for the CT Senate race going?  Is Lieberman being counted as a Dem or an independent?  How about Sanders in Vermont?  Those could throw the numbers off a bit.


by Tom on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:22:45 PM EST

Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote Victory (none / 0)

Given that Republicans had gerrymandered the political districts in their favor, this victory is all the more impressive.


by global yokel on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:26:22 PM EST

Re: Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote Victory (none / 0)

how would gerrymandering have anything to do with it?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you can't gerrymander senate seats (none / 0)


"I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."--John McCain
by lorax on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Impressive also (none / 0)

because 91,000 racially-biased votes may have been suppressed in Virginia.


--donna darko. I don't read or respond to comments. There's too much hate and misogyny here.
by nonwhiteperson on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:57:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

55-43-2.  I was actually thinking the same thing looking at these numbers this morning.  I guess MSNBC beat me to it.  Early bird and whatnot.  So what 4 seats are rightfully ours in 2008?  Some combination of Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia right?


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:42:44 PM EST

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

what *5 seats


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:44:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

Well... consider the 17 states that didn't have a Senate race in 2006:

Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota

You've got eight very red states in there, plus four more that Bush carried in both 2000 and 2004, and two more that he carried once (Iowa in 2004, New Hampshire in 2000.)  So take some caution.

I'd add Maine to your list of seats that should be ours that are up in 2008 as we've carried it in the last four Presidential elections -- but Collins will be very difficult to take out, so let's hope she retires/switches parties.  New Mexico and Virginia are obviously predicated on Domenici and Warner, respectively, retiring, as we won't beat either of them.


by Tom on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

Er... should be "five more."  Only two of those states (Oregon and Illinois) were Democratic in both 2000 and 2004.

Anybody know what the national percentages were for House races?  I'd like to see that.


by Tom on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

I'm in the middle of other stuff today, but i'm gonna add it up tomorrow.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:02:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Senate 51 49 (none / 0)

That Democrats are only ahead 51-49 in the Senate despite a crushing popular vote victory

Only 1/3 of Senate positions were in play this election.

In '08, 1/3 more, with a p/u of only 4 gets us 55/45


by ROGNM on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 01:52:29 PM EST

Re: Senate 51 49 (none / 0)

overall vote says 55-43-2.  We've got two independents- Sanders and Lieberman.  We've only got 49 Democrats.  So six more fresh Democrats on tap, and yes, I'm doing this instead of correcting my own post a second time above.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Senate 51 49 (none / 0)

Even better.

The first edit of this comment I had something like: "in '08, 1/3 more, and a similar p/u of 6, etc."


by ROGNM on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:27:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

Keep in mind that the "popular vote for the Senate" isn't terribly meaningful.  Seventeen states didn't have any Senatorial elections and wouldn't be counted in such a total.

What are the House numbers?  That's the interesting question.


by RickD on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:14:33 PM EST

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

Now I know what my calculator and I will be doing this afternoon.


by Lucas O'Connor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)


by RickD on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 02:14:39 PM EST

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

The record will show that I predicted an 11.8% advantage in the Senate popular vote in the predictions thread.  I missed the absolute vote level.  

NB: I'm glad this is getting out.  I put it in the predictions thread and several places precisely because I knew it would be a blowout, and we'd need to get word out fast to counter their post-election idiocy.


by Professor Foland on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:50:45 PM EST

House Popular Vote (none / 0)

From Real Clear Politics at Time

Democrats won with 52.4% of the major party vote, compared to 47.6% for Republicans. (Because votes are still being counted, these numbers are not final and may change slightly.)

Here I missed; I expected 54-46.


by Professor Foland on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 03:54:23 PM EST

HEY HEY HEY (none / 0)

How dare you Chris...It's not DEAR LEADER...

IT'S FEARLESS LEADER...

Get it right ;-)

Seriously, good article!


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 04:09:25 PM EST

More to come (none / 0)

What's also impressive is the margin in victories.  Democrats won 23 senate seats, Republicans 9.  And in the next two election cycles, Republicans will have 40 seats up for election to the Democrats' 27, leaving them much more vulnerable.


by phaed on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:29:54 PM EST

Re: More to come (none / 0)

2008
Possible pickups: CO (Allard), ME (Collins), MN (Coleman), NH (Sununu), NM (open?), NC (Dole), OR (Smith), VA (open?)
Defending: LA (Landrieu), SD (Johnson)
Possibly open: DE, MI, NJ

2010
Possible pickups: MO (Bond/open?), KY (open?), IA (open?), NH (Gregg), AZ (open?), PA (open?), NC (Burr), FL (Martinez)
Defending: CO (Salazar), ND (Dorgan) -- both of those are big maybes
Possibly open: WI (I'd like Feingold to be President, LOL), HI, VT, MD

So I'd say it's looking good.


by Tom on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 05:43:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More to come (none / 0)

If McCain retires in '08 to run for President, Governor Napolitano or Attorney General Goddard will probably be favored to pick up his seat.  If he waits until 2010, Napolitano will probably be a slam-dunk, assuming she doesn't do something during her second term to reduce her current, enormous popularity.  (Goddard is more likely to run for Governor that year.)


Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama for President! Beat McCain!
by Alex on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:23:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

"Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate by an overwhelming 11.6% margin - 55%/42.4%." The math is a bit off... 55%/42.4% actually gives a 12.6% margin
by PatriotActor on Sat Nov 11, 2006 at 06:05:52 PM EST

Re: Bush Plummets, Democrats Win Huge Popular Vote (none / 0)

You're forgiven.

Oh wait--I know why MSNBC decided to write this article as though the voters are being unfair to Bush. Sorry about the lapse in memory and judgment.

At least you didn't confuse Iraq, the country we invaded, with Iran, the country we will invade, like I often do.


by SPIIDERWEB on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 12:36:15 AM EST

Face it (none / 0)

It was a mandate.


--donna darko. I don't read or respond to comments. There's too much hate and misogyny here.
by nonwhiteperson on Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 01:43:58 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.