Umm.  If 100% is accounted for, then why does this official Va voting site say there are more precincts.

http://www.sbe.virginiainteractive.org/

And btw, the numbers on it keep changing.

The Michigan 7th saw a race between Democratic nominee Sharon Renier and Republican Tim Walberg. Walberg defeated McCain-style "moderate" Congressman Joe Schwarz in the primary, and was funded almost entirely by the Club for Growth, the Minutemen, Right to Life, and other far-right organizations. He raised well over a million dollars for this rural district. Sharon Renier, by contrast, raised no more than $50,000.

Tim Walberg is a professional politician with 16 years experience from the state legislature and a polished public image. Sharon Renier is a chicken farmer who got the nomination because of hard work on her part and a belief that no Democrat could really win the seat. Indeed, no Democrat has.

The final result: Walberg 51, Renier 46. Renier out-polled John Kerry (45% in 2004), and won Calhoun County, Eaton County, and the portion of Washtenaw County that's in the district. She was even fairly competitive in Jackson County (the most populous county and home of Jackson, MI-- birthplace of the Republican Party). For a candidate like Renier, that was a stunning performance.

Tim Walberg is terribly out of step with his district, his state, and his country. Anyone ready to defeat him in 2008?

Perhaps it's a little too early for this, but I think that clearly the most dangerous guy for our movement within our party is Rahm Emanuel.

This guy unabashedly is about himself.  He's an obstacle for true progressiveness in America and the netroots should keep an eye on him.  He needs to have nothing to do with our 2008 House campaign.  

Emanuel seems like a guy who is in our party to temper progressive achievements from within, all the while taking credit for EVERYTHING that IS actually achieved.

I live in Seattle, and in 2004 Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi for the governor's office by a whopping total of 130 or so votes after two recounts and multiple legal challenges by both sides.

After the final tally gave Gregoire the governorship and the Secretary of State (a Republican, no less) certified the results, there were some grumlings (and no doubt still are among the tinfoil hat crowd on the right), but they quickly died down and most people just accepted the results and moved on.

This is what will happen with Montana, Virginia, and any other "disputed" races. The country will accept it and move on, and we need to ignore the sore losers on the right who might try to keep this matter alive. It won't work, and we don't need to feed into it. Ex post facto Swift Boating just doesn't work--especially when it's based solely on lies and wishful thinking.

"And here is a big key: conservatives only outnumbered liberals by a 32%-20% margin."

I agree, that's the closest I've seen that margin as well.  But take note: it still means there are over 50% more conservatives in this country than there ard liberals.

That has an important corollary: conservatives by definition make up a greater percentage of the Republican Party than liberals do the Democratic Party.  Whatever you want to call non-conservative, non-liberal voters -- centrists, moderates, morons, whatever -- there are necessarily more of then in the Democratic Party than there are in the Repubican Party.  All you have to do is do the math to see that that's true.

Assuming a 50/50 division between Republicans and Democrats:

Liberal Democrats: 20%
Moderate Democrats: 30%

Moderate Republicans: 18%
Conservative Republicans: 32%

Just looking at those numbers you can see that it's more important for Democrats to be able to bridge the moderate-liberal divide than it is for Republicans to bridge their own divide, because they begin the game with a base that is 50% larger than the Democratic base.

There is no more important political reality for progressives to deal with than this stark fact: at most, and this has been true for four decades, liberals or progressives amount to 20% of the population.  They're the innovators, they're the agitators, but they're also a minority.  Without forging bonds with people like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer to the right, progressives have no chance of helping the Democrats govern in this country, and that would be a shame.

what about lieberman?  have we heard definitely from him that he will dem caucus?

Rest up, Chris, you deserve it.  

My question right now is what to make of Bush's press conference?  I wasn't able to watch the whole of it, but I really can't believe that he sounded the way he did.  At certain points, he sounded like a prisoner who had been loosed from his shackles.  He even rejected his party and said that immigration reform would be easier with a Democratic Congress.

Maybe he actually believes that as long as people vote for you, then they support everything you do.  That's a mind-blowingly strict belief in the meaning of elections.  It would explain a lot if he believed that.  It would explain his refusal to change policies in the face of abject failure and popular discontent.  

It was weird.  

One thing that people are starting to comment on about the turnout numbers is that young voters turned out in a big way. The thing that I find really interesting is the data from individual precincts (see http://mydd.com/story/2006/11/7/201848/8 48), which shows some youth-heavy precincts having huge jumps in turnout (50% on average). These were precincts where there were heavy youth-targeted get-out-the-vote campaigns taking place. These big increases show that if campaigns go after young voters, then young people will respond. Unfortunately, most campaigns don't spend much time working to turn out young voters. Hopefully these numbers will convince them to start.

And with so many close races this time around, it seems likely that the increase in youth voting may have impacted some races.

people really are abandoning conservatism

I like the sentiments of Rosenberg's piece, but summary statements like the one I pulled strike me as being a little dangerous.  Let's just say that they didn't show up at the polls this time.  If we ever get it into our heads that they've walked away from their belief system or that they'll buy into Rosenberg's notions of how to govern because they're perfectly sensible, we're going to get our pockets picked again.

Having said that, hats off to Chris and the entire DD gang for a superb job of helping to make yesterday happen, and keeping all of us involved in it.

This is a great day but some perspective is required. The first thing I looked for in exit polling last night was percentage of self-identified liberals. When it dropped to 20% I was numbed. It was 21% in 2004.

That's hardly the closest margin I've seen, even recently.  It was 29-20 in 2000.

I wanted that number up to 22%  to provide some indication our message and ideology was taking hold. When you've got a surging number of young voters heavily tilted our way, yet the number of liberals remains static or even downturns slightly, how can that be a thrill ride?

The drop from 34 to 32 could be short term anger and stray. In fact, that's probably the case. The key is to move the 20 upward. That aspect is in our control.

That conservative-liberal number is huge.  This is consistent with other polling I've seen that shows more people identifying as Democrats.  Bodes very well for the future.

I'm reading through all the hopefuls emails here - that you guys are hoping you are making progress for your progressive agenda.

You couldn't be more dead wrong. Pelosi and company did not get voted in because people are embracing progressive liberal idealogy. All you have to do is look around the country at all the local Propositions that passed/failed: they are predominantly conservative.

The dems winning both houses is simply a message that the conservatives are sending to their representatives: clean it up & get back to Reaganesque conservativism.

In 2008 the folks will vote the Republicans back into office.

So don't you'all go gettin all excited about anything.

The national House exit poll on CNN.com still lists the ideological breakdown as 32-30. However, tonight I was listening to a political radio talk show and the host went over the exit poll breakdown, very throughly and commenting on the implications.

Twice he specified the liberal percentage and used 21%, not 20%. That would make sense, since it was 32% conservatives and 47% moderates. So there should be a missing 1 percent.

I saw one category today that added up to 101%. They round the numbers and make other adjustments, to the point I've seen the NEP change several days after election day. Maybe CNN is late updating the 20 to 21.

Might not seem like much but I'd feel a heck of a lot better.

I wanted to tell you how good your post (Just A Step Forward--But What A Step!) felt. I also thought it was the best view and summary of the election night I had read, and IMHO encourage you to try inject it into the mainstream as an OP-ED somewhere. Don't know if that's realistic. Just looking at the Times front page this morning: Banner on Rumsfeld, big picture of Reid and Schumer, then an article by Nagourney, the actual election, as you presented them, is being buried. My only disgreement with you is your treatment of the south. Much as I can relate to disgust with the pernicious influence of extremist southern conservatism, isn't this the time to stress Katrina, and extend a helping hand from Democrats to the deep South? I would like to see effective rebuilding and relief programs added to the priorities listed in six for '06. The party has natural leaders to showcase and drive the efforts, and now has the political power to set the agenda. Resonates more than port security, for example. Thanks again, for the post and all your work!

I would like to point out that of the 52 targets of the Google Bomb Project, 25 were defeated on Election Day, and a few recounts in addition to those 25.

That's a good success rate, eh?

Angelides' Big Mistake --

Well it was truly a great day for Democracy in California and across our nation. We've made incredible gains and started a new positive momentum. Too bad Phil Angelides didn't accept a brave offer by Controller Steve Westly to keep the Gubernatorial Primary clean and respectable. Though Angelides'  decision to ignore Westly's positive campaign offer may or may not have had a decisive impact on his chances, Californians are certainly tired of wasted time and money being pumped into useless negative campaigning. Westly's positive offer was truly refreshing. One thing is for sure though, no one could have done more to support Phil Angelides and our Party's candidates than Steve Westly. After barely losing an extremely disappointing primary, Westly certainly stood tall in support of our shared Democratic values. It was great to see how he came FULL-TIME to Phil's side even as so many other Democrats simply disappeared. I want to thank Mr. Westly for helping to put forth a truly valiant effort to defeat our Bush-promoting, middle class bashing, immigrant disparaging Governor.

Steve Westly's actions (and not just words) will certainly be remembered should he ever again decide to go forward with public service aspirations. True Democrats always reward candidates who PROVE themselves loyal and unselfish, especially when it comes to relentlessly championing our mutual Democratic values.