I’m watching the US election results with particular impatience, as I’ve agreed to do a piece for the Fin on implications for Australia, which are hard to figure out until we actually see the results.
My general desire for an overwhelming Democrat win is in line with personal self-interest. For the last two presidential elections, I’ve had to write three different pieces covering a win for either side or “too close to call by deadline time”. I really don’t want to do that again.
So far things look good for the Democrats. Leaked exit polls, for what they’re worth, show leads in most key races, and the early counting has confirmed some gains in the House, Senate and state governorships.
Update 1:40 I’m going to get in early and call a win for the Dems in the House. They’ve gained around nine seats already (no losses at all so far), and only need to hold onto leads to pick up the six more they need.
Update 3:15 It looks like the Dems will gain about 30 seats, which also means a majority of 30. The odds are still against a win in the Senate, but the size of the loss will make it hard for the Republicans to hang on next time around.
A big winner out of all this is John McCain. The Republican establishment will have their work cut out to stop him getting the nomination now, especially if they put up a member of Team Bush.
John Quiggin 
quite interested by the fact that in your intro you dont even mention the overwhelming reports of fraud and the general value of such a rigged election
I’m keen to see if “instant runoff voting” gets the nod from US voters in those areas where it is being proposed. For those that don’t know “instant runoff voting” is the US name for what we in Australia generally refer to as preference voting. Something that I think the US democratic system could well do with, especially given that voting is optional. Instant runoff voting might not break the two party duopoly however it would open the field up more to third party view points. And as One Nation showed in Australia you don’t even need to win power to influence policy. I think that if the major parties in the US adopted it internally to select their presidential contenders then they would also improve the political menu that gets put to the American voter. For now it is an idea they are still only toying with at the local government level and in the next few hours we should get an indication as to whether they like the concept.
In case you’re interested, John, I’m liveblogging the count at LP:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/11/08/midterm-updates-and-links/
I have joint Aus-US citizenship, and have worked on California Congressional campaigns for the Democrats in years gone by.
it’s easy to despise the bush administration, but after living through the nixon and reagan eras, and learning what all the other less publicly incompetent/corrupt/brutal regimes got up to behind the scenes, i’m not really impatient about regime change in the usa. “plus sa change..”
the problem is more fundamental. western society has been unable to create democratic institutions of government. no amount of newspeak can disguise (elective) oligarchy as democracy. the unending cycle of violence, corruption,and incompetence that characterizes modern ‘civilization’ is the natural result of putting the wealth and power of society in the control of a few people, and those few people self-selected for qualities of arrogance, greed, and simple amoral lust for power
apologists for modern society, and there are many who make their living this way, say that we vote for these politicians. given a formal choice, between ‘rule by politician’ and ‘rule by referendum’, many people would choose actual democracy. but the only choice they are ever presented with is: “which gang of bandits do you think will harm you least?”
the masses are not crying out for democracy, most think they have it. a life time of conditioning by schools and media have left australians incapable of self rule. but it need not always be like this. simply refusing to refer to australia as a democracy would be an important start in breaking the conditioning of ‘doublethink’ which limits political progress.
I think “landslide” would be a conservative estimate.
Once again the betting polls appear to have got it right. Andrew Leigh reports that the big electoral bookies like the Dems in the House and Reps in the Senate:
It now appears certain that the Reps will lose the House and unlikely that the Reps will lose the Senate.
I would like to know what evidence does Pr Q require before he admits that punters know more than polls or pundits? I for one have an open bet on Howard to win in 2007, despite the fact that most polls show the LN/P behind and most pundits have gone sour on him.
The odds quoted were laid after the last polls were released and were exactly consistent with them. The challenge is to predict an outcome where the polls and pundits all get it wrong. The markets failed this test badly in the Austrian election, as I mentioned a while ago, offering 6 to 1 against the surprise winner.
When I look at the CNN webpage for the seat allocation in the House of Reps and the Senate it is tragic to observe that it is wall to wall Democrats and Republicans. Nowhere is there any independent or third party voice. Australia may have some oddball independents and third force parties but I wouldn’t want it much any other way. In the USA it seems to be just coke or pepsi and increasingly the sugar isn’t even real.
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/
I hope McCain gets it.
Not so quick people. The Dems are ahead in Missouri, Virginia and Montana.
Bill Kristol, speaking about McCaskill’s new lead in Montana on Fox News:
Boilover!
It looks like the City of Oakland is giving Instant Runoff Voting a very big tick.
http://www.acgov.org/jsp_app/rov/current_election/nofrace.jsp?f=338112.htm
So far the yes vote seems to have attracted 68% support.
Republican Jim Talent has conceded in Missouri. Four down, two to go.
Neck and neck in Virgnia with >99% counted but Webb (D) ahead by 11,000
Tester (D) is ahead 50-47 in Montana with 69% counted.
Bush is officially a lame duck.
Looks like it will be a notionally Democratic Senate to go with the House. McCaskill has taken Montana, Webb will slimly win the inevitable recount in Virginia and Dester is 51 to 47 up in Missouri.
Legislatively, this is going to mean gridlock for two years (atleast), in particular, the conservative nature of a lot of the new Democratic senators will mean little is going to change. Tax cuts will probably stay in place. The real benefits of this are likely to be in oversight. While the administration will continue with Iraq, it should encounter greater committee scrutiny.
For an administration which seems to keeps its cards very close to its chest, this can only be a good thing.
A big tick for Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis.
http://mpls.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/citmsm.html
Dems will get the Senate with Montana and Virginia – after all the lawyers finish with it.
Some final commentary from me: I’m heading out again to go celebrate with some other Brisvegas Democrats! But I want to emphasise two things as the takeout message. The first is that the Constitution deliberately makes it harder for public sentiment to affect the Senate – with only a third of the Senate up every three years. Remember that the other two thirds who weren’t up were elected in either 2002 or 2004 – both Republican years. So the Democrats had a big mountain to climb – and it looks like they might be in reach of the summit. If the US had a different electoral system, you would have seen the big shift in the House mirrored in the Senate. So before anyone starts claiming that the Senate result somehow vindicates the GOP, ponder that. And remember that a lot of these Senate races – Virginia, Montana, Rhode Island, would have been regarded as GOP certs a few months ago.
My second point is that the Democratic sweep in the House (and it’s looking like a healthy majority) has been won in the face of gerrymandering and the alleged “micro-targeting and get out the vote” advantages the GOP have. Not to mention the GOP’s financial advantage. It really does reflect a very changed mood across the States, and many of the wins for the Democrats have come from “red states”. There’s a very different electoral dynamic now, and a very different political dynamic. If anyone thinks it will be business as usual for the Republicans and Bush, you’d better put your thinking caps on right now. I suspect many at the top of the GOP are in shock tonight. After all those books explaining how the Republicans had a permanent majority, they’ve had their come-uppance. The implications for Australian politics as well will be intriguing. No matter how stubborn Bush is, the changed dynamic will lead to a shift in course in Iraq. There won’t be any impeachments, but the whole tenor of politics has shifted. So it’s yay from me, and despite all the electoral imperfections, yay for democracy as well!
McCain has a long track record of campaigning against pork barreling. I too hope he gets the nod. He’ll be a shoe-in against the unelectable Hilary in 2008.
Terje, I think Bernie Sanders, who describes himself as democratic socialist, is one of the few independants elected. Its possible he will share the balance of power with former Democrat Joe Leiberman in the senate. We might see some interesting deals done there.
Further results for US local governments moving to Instant Runoff Voting.
Currently it looks very close in Davis CA. Way too early to call it.
http://www.yoloelections.org/returns/davis_l.html
Amendment 3 in Pierce county looks like a very narrow yes for IRV.
http://www.piercecountywa.org/pc/abtus/ourorg/aud/elections/misc/currentResults.htm
So it looks like either 3/4 or 4/4 regional areas that were given the option of moving to IRV have decided to embrace it. Thats a good momentum builder for the movement.
proust wrote:
My God! I agree with every single word of that! (except its Hillary not Hilary)
Did you realise that McCain is a global warming ‘alarmist’: McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act
P.S. As of 8pm FOX News is still calling the Senate for the Democrats
Terje, one thing to note is that in Australia, party discipline is very strict. In America, you’ll often find that votes divide along lines other than party affiliation. So in practice many more of those Democrats and Republicans that’ve been elected are more like Barnaby Joyce… I don’t know if there’s some way to quantify independence of a chamber without reference to political parties, but if there is, you’ll probably find that Congress is more independent than our Parliaments.
In fact, that’s probably why you see independents and third parties elected in Australia, even with our majoritarian electoral system, but not so much in America. (ISTR that was the topic of one of the articles posted in a Democratic Audit email a while ago.)
And it’s shoo-in, not shoe-in.
What!!! More bark than bite. I’m sure that will soon be Barnaby’s tag line.
Yesterday’s news…
Andrew Bolt is spinning it, and he will be soon if he continues trying to maintain his spin in the face of the reality of the US mid term election results. Tim Dunlop’s nailed his stuff over at Blogocracy, and I’d add that this election was…
Probably because the westminster system combines the executive and the legislative components of government.
Trackback.
There was a ballot question (Question 2) in Massachusetts for fusion voting, but I cannot find the results.
Instant run-Off voting would certainly provide a huge boost to the US Libertarian Party, the third biggest party in US politics, so that would be a very good thing.
I understand that it the first time that one of the major parties has not lost a single seat in either House in a winning year.
It’s common to lose a seat or two while winning handsomely, but In this case the Repugnants didn’t capture a seat from the Democrats in the gubernatorial races either. It marks the end of the long period of Right-wing dominance in US politics.
Many awful reactionaries like Santorum in Pennsylvania for instance, have been swept away’
In South Dakota ,the voters rejected a harsh anti-abortion bill in a referendum,and in other states adopted stem-cell research .
The new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,would be seen a a left-liberal in Australian terms,not much different from Natasha Stott-Despoja or Julia Gillard.
And where does all this leave Howard…His contacts in the USA must be shrinking,and Bush is yesterday’s man now…Pelosi ridicled Bush’s “Stay the Course” line in her victory speech..so what about “No Cut and Run “Downer now ????
jquiggin Says: November 8th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
True enough, but Austrian politics have always been a bit odd. But the punters bested the polls in the 2004 US presidential elections. The polls gave Kerry some chance of winning. But the result was a satisfactory win for Bush, in line with the smart money (The early exit polls fiasco effect on betting markets should be ruled out as it occurred after votes were cast and was irrelevant to the predictive ability of punting markets.)
So I am still confident about punters over polls and pundits. I am prepared to back punters over polls in the 2007 AUS federal elections. Is Pr Q prepared to go out on a limb on this?
Jack, most of the pundits predict re-election of the Howard government. Are you betting against them?
(Notes from an Australian living in California).
Brian –
The lack of Republican pick-ups owes more to the gerry-mandered electoral boundaries than anything else. Politicians in several states have re-drawn boundaries to protect incumbents and to create a situation where political campaigns here are increasingly waged in a handful of ‘winnable’ districts. You make an interesting historical observation, but I don’t think it’s entirely attributable to a Democratic swing.
As for Nancy Pelosi(D-CA), she’s certainly left-liberal by US standards, but she’s closer to an Australian Liberal ‘wet’ than she is to Julia Gillard. Australian politics–in common with much of the rest of the world–is several degrees more progressive than the US body politic. In terms of your ‘progressive’, ‘classic liberal’, ‘classic conservative’, ‘reactionary’ spectrum, the US has ‘classic conservative’ (Democratic) and ‘reactionary’ (Republican) parties. Apart from Ralph Nader and the Greens, there really isn’t a ‘classic liberal’ or even ‘progressive’ block in the US.
Yobbo –
the US Libertarian Party is a tiny, fringe group. Ralph Nader, running as an independent, captured more votes than the Libertarian candidate in 2004, and vastly more in 2000. I see no reason that instant runoff polling would particularly help any minor party. Perhaps a Hare-Clark type system might increase their representation, but I’m skeptical.
I’m predicting a landslide Beazley win next year. With both Bush lame-ducked and and Blair gone Howard (and Australia) couldn’t be so lucky as to resist the trend. My experience is that progress is made by two steps up and one and a half backwards. We’ve well and truly had our two steps up. The downslide is coming. We can only hope that Beazley is better in government than he is in Opposition, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Iemma is shaping up to lose in NSW, and this will clear the way for Labor to take a lot of NSW federal seats, a key state, especially as there is a deep recession there with little prospect of an upturn before the federal election.
The US election of course is a huge win for Osama bin Laden and the whole Islamofascist movement. It’s the equivalent of Britain surrendering to Hitler at the height of the Battle of Britain. Big lesson: you can get anything you want by means of applying determination and ruthless random killing.
Actually OBL has always been happy with Bush. Only a token force went after him and then when they had the chance blew it. All the troops were sent to Iraq!!
What thickhead would do that.
Whyisitso obviously didn’t vote for one john Howard who was less than spectacular in Opposition.( whicch is an understatement
Did you read any of the landmark speeches? lucky man!
Who would in any sane mind vote for the republicans in the USA. They had sold their values down the river, were corrupt and spent more money than the democrats could dream of.
Let them stew out of office until they realise what small government means
“The US election of course is a huge win for Osama bin Laden and the whole Islamofascist movement. It’s the equivalent of Britain surrendering to Hitler at the height of the Battle of Britain. Big lesson: you can get anything you want by means of applying determination and ruthless random killing.”
What planet are you on mate? Even moderate Republicans dislike the current Bush administration.
“The US election of course is a huge win for Osama bin Laden and the whole Islamofascist movement. It’s the equivalent of Britain surrendering to Hitler at the height of the Battle of Britain. Big lesson: you can get anything you want by means of applying determination and ruthless random killing”.
I humbly disagree with that statement.
A more accurate portrayal of the facts would be to say that Bush is a war monger drunk with power and the world should be thankful his power has been curtailed.
Despite a crumbling party Iemma is still far more credible than Debnam who comes over as a pratt.
rog,
how is Iemma credible?
Seems to me Debnam is merely getting the label ALL oppo leaders get.
Even Howard had the same label in 96!!
“Bush is a war monger drunk with power and the world should be thankful his power has been curtailed.”
True. But let’s not forget that the US public’s main complaint against Bush is that he’s a losing war-monger. If Iraq had ‘gone well’ (to the assessment of which the number of dead Iraqis would be largely irrelevant), don’t kid yourself that the Dems would be anywhere now.
The real question is whether failure in war will do anything to wean Americans off their love-affair with violence. In a culture entirely myth-bent on it, that’s a long shot.
More on this soon, Crispin, but I think there are good reasons for optimism.
Terje: Probably because the westminster system combines the executive and the legislative components of government.
More important that that, I think, is that the Labor Party has some sort of an oath so that their members have to vote with the party or be kicked out. So obviously the Coalition has to be pretty unified to be competing force…
Crispin makes a very good point.
The vote against Bush and make no mistake it was against Bush was more a vote of the total and utter incompetence in handling Iraq rather than being against the war perse’
PrQ,
The pundits may be saying the ALP will win – but the people actually putting their money where their mouths are seem to be plumping for the Liberals to be returned. I cannot get to Centrebet from work to link to it, but Palmer’s Ozpolitics blog had it a few days ago (before he went off air). I think the betting market currently has an implied probability of a Coalition win at just over 56%.
Jack may or may not be betting on it, but others certainly are and the betting markets have a better record than either the pundits or the polls.
Andrew, this far out the betting market is as accurate as any poll.
Unemployment fell to 4.6% in October. Another nail in John Howard’s coffin. Interest rates will go up again early next year. Howard should have realized when he introduced WorkChoices that this would fuel employment and force the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates to counter these booming conditions. Very short sighted!
“The US election of course is a huge win for Osama bin Laden and the whole Islamofascist movement.”
BULLS**T.
One Weisberg, writing in the Fin. Times and quoted here
on Economist’s View says: “Most of those who reclaimed Republican seats campaigned against free trade, globalisation and any sort of moderate immigration policy. That these Democrats won makes it likely that others will take up their reactionary call…” He goes on to say: “…many of the critical House races, where Democrats called for a moratorium on trade agreements, for cancelling existing ones, or, in some cases, for slapping protective trade tariffs on China. These candidates also lumped illegal immigrants together with terrorists and demanded a fence along the Mexican border. In Pennsylvania, Democratic challengers defeated Republican incumbents by accusing them of destroying good jobs by voting for the Central American Free Trade Agreement and being soft on illegal immigration. “Fair tradeâ€? candidates also won back formerly Republican seats in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin”.
Of course, radical electioneering often turns into cautious conservatism in office (particularly in the corrupt US system of govt.) but it appears at least that the globalisers won’t be able to simply pooh-pooh opposition without more serious debate in the future.
That line put in George C Scott’s mouth in the movie “Patton” is spot on: “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser”. It’s part of their Calvinist streak; success is a sign of election by God and failure therefore a sign that the person is damned. Crispin’s right – Bush’s political crime was not in starting a cynical and immoral war, but in losing it.
It’s the voters that have lost this war, Augustus. The West (not only America) will succumb to the first serious challenger of the 21st century that is ruthless and has the staying power combined with a reasonable level of technology. The islamists have the first two requirements but have yet to acquire a sufficient level of the third. It’s only a matter of time. We better get used to living as muslim converts in a theocratic world.
whyisitso – are you for real? Is not the trail of US-deposed democracies throughout the 20th century ample proof that the USA has all the necessary ruthlessness to dispose of anyone it sees as a threat? The Iraq war has been lost by all sides, and won by none. It could not have been usefully won, because it was an idiotic conflict, waged for no purpose, between worthless opponents any of whom decent, well-informed and rational people could not possibly have sided with. One set of idiotic fundamentalists against another. The best to be done under such circumstances was to stand aside and hope the whole stupid thing will blow over. Bush, Blair and Howard between them have unfortunately, in their tireless and successful advocacy of islamism, been the enemy “The West” really didn’t need. Well, one is nearly down, another will be gone before long, leaving only the hapless Aussies with a loon at the helm.
“I’m predicting a landslide Beazley win next year.”
whyisitso – what does Labor offer that the Liberals don’t?
As far as I can see, it’s two things: Labor will give the policy levers back to the lefty public-sector elites, and industrial relations back to the unions. On almost everything else the two parties are more-or-less indistinguishable.
Who does this appeal to? Lefty public-sector elites of course and maybe 60% or less of unionized workers. Not enough to get Labor over the line. And that base is shrinking, not growing.