DSCC: We've won both Virginia and Montana

[TheresNoMoney]

Both Jon Tester and Jim Webb have won their races in Montana and Virginia but want to make sure that every vote is counted. We expect to have official results soon but can happily declare today that Democrats have taken the majority in the U.S. Senate.

Montana Vote Situation: Jon Tester leads Conrad Burns by approximately 1,700 votes (as of 11am EDT) and counting. In Silver Bow County (Butte), a Democratic stronghold, votes are still being counted but Tester is winning there with 66% of the vote.  We expect to gain the majority of these uncounted votes and to add to Tester's margin.

Montana Process: When the counting phase is completed, a canvass will verify the vote tallies. That process could take as long as 48 hours, and must begin within three days and end within seven. Unless the canvass shows the margin to be within ¼ of 1%, there is no recount. As the loser, Burns would have to request the recount. When the votes are all counted, we expect to be outside that recount margin.

Virginia Vote Situation: Jim Webb is up by approximately 8,000 votes and once the provisional ballots are counted, we expect Webb's margin to increase. (Please note that VA absentees were included in the tallies from last night.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/8/11169/6462

[Verily]

Virginia included absentees? Then it's definitely over. Provisionals tend to go Dem since cities have problems more often than rural areas.

[Sam Spade]

I don't see either being lost at this point.  Though stranger things have happened.

Interestingly, the Democrats eeked by a couple of wins in the Senate, whereas there are a number of House seats (10 or so to my count) that the Republicans eeked out (lost very few super-close House seats on the  whole, actually).

In other words, the Democrats were very close to winning nearly 40 seats in the House, whereas Republicans were very close to losing only four seats in the Senate.

That's the reason why I called this one a Cat 4 wave on my scale and am sticking to it.

[bullmoose88]

I don't see either being lost at this point.  Though stranger things have happened.

Interestingly, the Democrats eeked by a couple of wins in the Senate, whereas there are a number of House seats (10 or so to my count) that the Republicans eeked out (lost very few super-close House seats on the  whole, actually).

In other words, the Democrats were very close to winning nearly 40 seats in the House, whereas Republicans were very close to losing only four seats in the Senate.

That's the reason why I called this one a Cat 4 wave on my scale and am sticking to it.

I'd love to see your extremely early prediction for 08, assuming the animosity towards the GOP falls back to usual levels, and without any seat specific issues. (In other words, when this normalizes a bit, what would the house and senate look like in 2009?)

[Sam Spade]

I don't see either being lost at this point.  Though stranger things have happened.

Interestingly, the Democrats eeked by a couple of wins in the Senate, whereas there are a number of House seats (10 or so to my count) that the Republicans eeked out (lost very few super-close House seats on the  whole, actually).

In other words, the Democrats were very close to winning nearly 40 seats in the House, whereas Republicans were very close to losing only four seats in the Senate.

That's the reason why I called this one a Cat 4 wave on my scale and am sticking to it.

I'd love to see your extremely early prediction for 08, assuming the animosity towards the GOP falls back to usual levels, and without any seat specific issues. (In other words, when this normalizes a bit, what would the house and senate look like in 2009?)

Hard to tell right now.  As an observation, this election is not a realignment, more than anything it's a process of eliminating the few Republicans left in New England and displaying anti-Republican moods in Indiana and PA.

Remember, waves have their greatest effect on marginal seats.  What I was surprised about was which marginal seats fell (Leach, Gutknecht, Hart) and which ones didn't (Shays, Gerlach, Pryce), for example.

A few factors to take into consideration when examining the House:
1. Which Republicans from marginal seats will retire, which often happens after a loss of power.  There are so few left, however, it probably won't make that big of a difference. (5-10 max, maybe)
2. Which Republicans switch parties to be in the majority.  The marginal ones that survived are oddly the real Republican fighters and bruisers and I doubt they'll switch.  Maybe 1-2, maybe 0.
3. What candidates the Republicans run in 2008 in the newly won Democratic seats.   Along with that, which defeated incumbents will come back and try to retake their seats.  (for example, will Fitz and Hart run again in 2008) The newly-won Dem seats that will be in obvious clear and present danger in 2008 are obviously TX-22, OH-18, PA-10, WY-AL, if Cubin loses and to a lesser extent KS-02 and IN-09 (extends somewhat, but less to all of Indiana, frankly).
4. Which people on the other side retire.  I don't think this will be fairly high.

On the Senate side, there are a lot more Republican seats up in 2008, but many of these are in the South and Mountain West and are probably in little danger.  Once again, it all depends on who retires and who doesn't.  And also, who runs for the Senate? Will any Senators switch parties (there might be one, doubtful more)?

I'll try to put up a list later today on my early gut impressions concerning the various 2008 Senate races.

[MODU]

Virginia included absentees? Then it's definitely over.

If that is the case, then I would agree.  According to the VA Election board's website, it only says that mailed absentee ballots must be postmarked by 10/31/06, and hand-delivered ballots received by 11/4/06. 

[NHPolitico]

The AP has called the race for Tester.

[Smash255]

I don't see either being lost at this point.  Though stranger things have happened.

Interestingly, the Democrats eeked by a couple of wins in the Senate, whereas there are a number of House seats (10 or so to my count) that the Republicans eeked out (lost very few super-close House seats on the  whole, actually).

In other words, the Democrats were very close to winning nearly 40 seats in the House, whereas Republicans were very close to losing only four seats in the Senate.

That's the reason why I called this one a Cat 4 wave on my scale and am sticking to it.

I'd love to see your extremely early prediction for 08, assuming the animosity towards the GOP falls back to usual levels, and without any seat specific issues. (In other words, when this normalizes a bit, what would the house and senate look like in 2009?)

Hard to tell right now.  As an observation, this election is not a realignment, more than anything it's a process of eliminating the few Republicans left in New England and displaying anti-Republican moods in Indiana and PA.

Remember, waves have their greatest effect on marginal seats.  What I was surprised about was which marginal seats fell (Leach, Gutknecht, Hart) and which ones didn't (Shays, Gerlach, Pryce), for example.

A few factors to take into consideration when examining the House:
1. Which Republicans from marginal seats will retire, which often happens after a loss of power.  There are so few left, however, it probably won't make that big of a difference. (5-10 max, maybe)
2. Which Republicans switch parties to be in the majority.  The marginal ones that survived are oddly the real Republican fighters and bruisers and I doubt they'll switch.  Maybe 1-2, maybe 0.
3. What candidates the Republicans run in 2008 in the newly won Democratic seats.   Along with that, which defeated incumbents will come back and try to retake their seats.  (for example, will Fitz and Hart run again in 2008) The newly-won Dem seats that will be in obvious clear and present danger in 2008 are obviously TX-22, OH-18, PA-10, WY-AL, if Cubin loses and to a lesser extent KS-02 and IN-09 (extends somewhat, but less to all of Indiana, frankly).
4. Which people on the other side retire.  I don't think this will be fairly high.

On the Senate side, there are a lot more Republican seats up in 2008, but many of these are in the South and Mountain West and are probably in little danger.  Once again, it all depends on who retires and who doesn't.  And also, who runs for the Senate? Will any Senators switch parties (there might be one, doubtful more)?

I'll try to put up a list later today on my early gut impressions concerning the various 2008 Senate races.

Not going to go through all the possible good races in 08, but one off the bat is Colorado regardless if Allard runs again or not, and Maine if Collins decides to retire.

[Raoul Takemoto]

NBC also calls MT for Tester.

[Cylon Candidate]

CNN.com just called MT for Tester.