Election 2010: Liveblogging The Results

Tonight looks to be one of the most exciting elections in recent memory, as the GOP appears to be headed for some impressive electoral gains. But will the Democrats be able to hold off the GOP wave? Will vulnerable Democratic incumbents survive in close races, or will a legion of underdog Republicans prevail? Who will control the Senate? What surprise results await us tonight?

I will be liveblogging tonight’s election results – at least for a while. There’s no need to refresh your browser – new entries will pop up as they are posted. You can also follow my Twitter feed for more election updates. For political geeks like myself, this is going to be one very interesting night…

10:29 pm

Kristi Noem has a narrow lead over Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin in SD. In ND, Earl Pomeroy was pummeled by Rick Berg. The Dakotas appear to be reflecting their Republican orientation in these House races. But watch Noem. In 2002, John Thune narrowly lost to Tim Johnson because of Democratic votes in the reservations of western South Dakota.

10:26 pm

Nate Silver is seeing a 75-seat GOP gain in the House as a possibility. I don’t think it will actually be that high, but even a 60-seat swing is a big move. Remember, the 1994 Republican Revolution was a swing of 54 seats. Tonight’s results are bigger than ’94, at least on the House side.

10:22 pm

Pat Toomey looks like he will win. Same for Mark Kirk in IL. That gives the GOP another 2 Senate seats. It also means that President Obama’s old Senate seat is now occupied by a Republican. Schadenfreude, baby…

10:17 pm

Bobby Schilling has defeated Phil Hare in IL-17. This is one of the more symbolic races of the night. It was a district that went for Obama by a significant margin, and Hare hasn’t run a competitive race in years.

10:11 pm

Ugh, a power outage may delay results in the Nevada Senate race.

10:09 pm

Unsurprisingly, California is looking to be a Democratic blowout. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman spent millions to win, but the simple fact is that anyone with half a brain has already fled California for greener pastures. California’s likely to become a Greek-style economic basket-case in the very near future.

10:04 pm

Looks like Toomey was able to pull it out, running ahead of Sestak by about 32,000 votes. I am surprised that it was that close, especially when the other races were such blowouts for the GOP.

9:21 pm

The PA Senate race is looking dire for the GOP. Pat Toomey has been consistently ahead in the polls, but is not pulling ahead. If Toomey loses, that will be quite a shock.

9:19 pm

It’s looking like Ron Johnson will defeat Russ Feingold in WI. This was not a race that was on the radar screens of political pundits a few months ago. It goes to show what kind of a wave election this is.

9:18 pm

It’s interesting – the House is a bloodbath for Democrats, but the Senate is looking rocky for Republicans. CO and IL are both not looking good for Republicans.

9:06 pm

The Senate race in CO is looking bad for the Republicans. Ken Buck made a lot of stumbles in that race, and that may be hurting him in key districts.

9:04 pm

I love all the announcements that John Thune is projected to win in SD-Sen. Thune was unopposed.

9:01 pm

The Star Tribune has declared Betty McCollum the winner in MN-04. Her opponent, Teresa Collett was a professor at my law school. It’s too bad she lost, as she is smart as a whip and would make an excellent elected official. Sadly, MN-4 and MN-5 would elect a dead rat if it had a D next to its name.

8:53 pm

The early Senate returns in CO, IL, and PA are all leaning Democrat, but that’s probably due to reporting from larger urban areas.

8:49 pm

The next set of interesting elections will be the WI Senate race, where Russ Feingold is likely to lose, and the IL Senate race, where Republican Mark Kirk is doing well in key districts.

The chances of a GOP Senate are basically nil right now, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some interesting Senate races out there tonight.

8:41 pm

I’m embarrassed for VA-08. Jim Moran amply deserved to lose. So military service is not public service? Really? Really?!

8:40 pm

Christine O’Donnell is giving her concession speech. I’m sorry, but the woman is just vapid. Should be talking about Senator Castle tonight.

8:31 pm

Sadly, Sean Bielat wasn’t able to defeat Barney Frank. He was always a longshot, but it would have been nice to see Frank out of office.

8:28 pm

Marco Rubio looks very Presidential tonight.

8:22 pm

In NH-01, Carol Shea-Porter has lost. The GOP is definitely steamrolling the House vote tonight.

8:20 pm

Joe Manchin is speaking in West Virginia. He may be a Democrat, but he will be a VERY conservative Democrat.

8:18 pm

CNN says that the GOP will win at least 50 seats tonight. Could it get up to 60?

8:15 pm

Fox News has also called the House for the GOP. Again, no surprises there.

8:13 pm

I’m watching the SD-AL race closely. Moderate Democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin is in a close race with Republican Kristi Noem. So far Herseth-Sandlin is ahead, but by only 3%.

8:10 pm

NBC is predicting that the GOP will retake control of the House.

The question isn’t whether the GOP will take the House, but just how many seats they will pick up.

8:07 pm

Rand Paul is giving his victory speech. Will he give a shout-out to Aqua Buddha?

8:03 pm

A bunch of projections are coming in. No surprises there. The GOP gains one more Senate seat as John Hoeven is elected to the ND Senate seat.

8:01 pm

VA-02 goes to the Republicans. Another sign of a big night for the GOP.

8:00 pm

The polls in Minnesota are about to close, along with 13 other states.

7:54 pm

Alan Grayson has lost to Daniel Webster in FL-08. Grayson was the one who said the the Republican’s plan for health care was to have people die faster. Good riddance to him.

The GOP gains in the House are looking very impressive.

7:47 pm

Todd Young defeating Baron Hill in IN-09 is another sign of a big night for the GOP. My 55-seat prediction might very well be on the low side.

7:46 pm

More good news for the GOP. Rick Boucher has been defeated in VA-09. So far, most of the House races are going towards the GOP.

7:40 pm

I said that if WV goes to the Democrats, it probably means that the GOP can’t take the Senate. And the networks are starting to call the WV Senate race for Manchin. Both CNN and NBC have called it for Manchin.

But in good news for the GOP, the Republicans have won in IN-08, another bellwether race for tonight. The Senate may be out of reach, but this could be a very good night for the GOP in the House.

7:36 pm

Fox News has called the VA-05 race for the Republican. This is one of the bellwether races tonight. The Democrats had spent a lot of time and money supporting Tom Perriello, and it didn’t prevent him losing.

7:34 pm

CNN is also calling it for Blumenthal in CT, and Richard Burr in NC. Neither of these races are a surprise. Linda McMahon ran a competent campaign, but she had a tough job in convincing voters to elect a former wrestling CEO and Republican in a deep blue state. Even Blumenthal’s fabrications about having served in Vietnam wasn’t enough to sink him.

7:31 pm

Also, in SC01, Tim Scott, an African-American Republican has won.

In the least shocking moment of the race. CNN has called the AR Senate race for John Boozman. Blanche Lincoln was a dead woman walking since the health care vote. Good riddance to her.

7:30 pm

Sandy Adams beat out Suzanne Kosmos in FL-24. Good, Kosmos was one of the incumbents I was hoping would get soundly trounced.

7:23 pm

Still looking at the VA races, which will be bellwether races for GOP control of the House.

7:08 pm

Marco Rubio won in FL – which means that the GOP has another major star in its ranks.

7:07 pm

Christine O’Donnell is not a witch; she is toast, however.

6:55 pm

Unsurprisingly, Rand Paul won in KY. There’s no shock there.

Word is that the exit polls are not showing good results for the GOP in the WV Senate race. But after 2004, putting faith in exit polls does not seem wise.

6:52 pm

WV Senate is too close to call. WV is a bellwether race for this evening. If Raese pulls it out, the Republicans will be having a very good night.

6:50 pm

It’s official — Rob Portman is the next US Senator from the state of Ohio.

5:45 pm

Polls have closed in parts of KY and IN. There are some key races in those states, although the Senate races in both are almost surefire GOP wins. Rand Paul is well ahead in the KY race, and Dan Coats will cruise to the Senate against Brad Ellsworth.

Liveblogging Obama’s Iraq Address

I’ll be liveblogging President Obama’s address to the nation on the topic of Iraq. This will be a new kind of liveblog for this site. Updates will happen automatically, there’s no need to refresh the page. Don’t forget to read about Obama’s record on Iraq. After the speech, I’ll be assembling some commentary from around the blogosphere.

You can also follow the liveblog on my Twitter feed if you are so inclined.

6:24 pm I’m ending the liveblog for now. Click here to see some post-speech reactions from across the blogosphere.

6:20 pm This was a speech that sounded very much like something Bush would have given. Again, I mean that as a compliment.

6:19 pm “Our troops are the steel of our ship of state.” I love that line.

6:18 pm Obama seems to be getting a bit emotional describing the casualties of this war. As anyone would be. It’s very humanizing.

6:17 pm The stuff about a new GI Bill is nice, but how to pay for all of it?

6:15 pm The economic stuff seems tacked on and artificial. The Iraq section was quite good, but this part doesn’t live up to the tone that Obama set earlier.

6:13 pm Obama’s transitioning to the economy. This makes sense, to a point, but it’s a jarring transition.

6:12 pm The problem with Afghanistan is that it’s much less developed than Iraq was. Afghan civil society is nowhere near what Iraq’s was, even after decades of Ba’athist rule.

6:11 pm This is a speech I could see Bush giving. And I mean that as a compliment.

6:09 pm President Obama gives a nice tribute to President Bush. That’s quite classy, but will piss off the left to no end. I like it for both.

6:09 pm So far this is one of the most Presidential addresses that Obama has given.

6:08 pm “Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war.”

6:07 pm All U.S. troops to leave by the end of next year, pursuant to the Status of Forces Agreement.

6:06 pm “Our combat mission is ending. Our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” Let’s hope that’s true.

6:06 pm The emphasis on the Iraqi people is good. This wasn’t just a victory for us, it was a victory for the people of Iraq. We did this together.

6:05 pm No, Mr. President, this wasn’t your campaign promise. The withdrawal date was set before you became President. It was in the 2008 SOFA.

6:04 pm “Tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended.” Operation Iraqi Freedom is over.

6:04 pm The President’s tone in regard to the troops is exactly what’s needed here. He came close to blaming Bush, but didn’t do so directly.

6:01 pm Will talking about Iraq now make Obama seem out of touch? By focusing on Iraq, does it make the President look like he’s not concentrating on the economy?

6:00 pm The speech should begin shortly.

5:58 pm I’m guessing that ratings will be low for this speech. It’s the middle of summer, and people are more concerned about the economy than Iraq.

5:53 pm This is only the second time Obama has addressed the nation from the Oval Office. The first time was in response to the Gulf oil spill.

5:52 pm ABC News has excerpts from tonight’s speech on Iraq. President Obama will be speaking from the Oval Office.

5:46 pm Just a reminder, you don’t need to refresh this page. You should be able to get updates automatically. Obama’s speech will begin in about 15 minutes, at 8PM EST/7PM CST.

Post-Speech Reactions

This was a workmanlike speech that was delivered well. What’s striking about the speech is how much President Obama sounded like President Bush. Some of the rhetoric was downright stirring. I’m (obviously!) disinclined to like the President, but I found myself mostly liking this speech. But the weakest part was the part discussing the economy. For one, it was a digression from the topic of the speech. And for another, it was too generic to mean anything. What does Obama intend to do about the economy? Because what’s been done so far hasn’t exactly done much good. Stephen Green drunkblogged the speech and found it rather bland, other than some stirring rhetoric. I’m not so sure that it was that bad—the President let himself show just a crack of emotion, which helps him. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) found Obama’s speech to be “awkward”. Apparently Rachel Maddow is positively livid that President Obama had anything good to say about President Bush. I have to admit, if Obama’s pissed off Maddow, that makes me like him more. Lawprof William Jacobson distills Obama’s speech into one sentence. At The Daily Kos, praise for the economic section of the speech. What’s interesting about that section is how mushy-mouthed it really is? Exactly what is meant by the President’s desire to “strengthen the middle class?” It’s a boilerplate phrase, which is probably why some want to read more into it than is actually there. Off-topic, but tonight’s liveblogging was brought by this great liveblogging plugin for WordPress. It’s a great plugin, and the Twitter integration was a definite plus. I highly recommend it. In speaking of Twitter, the speech wasn’t even one of the trending topics. I’m not sure very many people were paying attention to it. Jonah Goldberg found much of the speech to be “offensive.”

Obama On Iraq: Setting The Record Straight

Tonight, President Obama will speak to the nation about the end of combat operations in Iraq. I’ll be liveblogging the speech here. I’ll be using a new system for liveblogging — as I liveblog the speech, you’ll be able to follow along without the need to reload the page. I’ll also be sending out liveblog updates through my Twitter feed.

Setting the Record Straight

An Iraqi woman raises a purple finger after voting for the first time in a free Iraqi election.

But first, it’s important to set the record straight. We would not be able to be removing our combat troops from Iraq had we not successfully quelled the sectarian violence in Iraq. In short, without the surge back in 2007, Iraq would not be nearly as stable as it is now. The surge worked. It reduced sectarian violence.

Because the U.S. worked with Sunni leaders, Iraqi Sunnis helped us remove al-Qaeda in Iraq. This lead to the death of al-Qaeda leaders like Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and more recently Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. While there are still al-Qaeda affiliated splinter groups in Iraq, they are nowhere near as powerful as they were in 2007.

Because the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq was eliminated, the radical Shi’ite groups lost support. Iranian-backed radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr couldn’t use the fear of al-Qaeda to win over Iraqi Shi’ites. Instead of leading a Shi’ite civil war, Moqtada al-Sadr ended up being discredited. His band of thugs, the Mahdi Army, are no longer a major threat to the future of Iraq. Al-Sadr himself was forced to flee to Iran out of fear.

All of this was due to the surge—not just the fact that we added more troops, but we used better tactics to protect the Iraqi people and improve their security and their living conditions.

There are two reasons why Iraq never flew into civil war in 2007: the bravery of the Iraqi people and the bravery of the U.S. and coalition troops.

The Real Obama Record On Iraq

Notably absent from these reasons in President Obama. His record on Iraq is a record of being fundamentally wrong from the beginning. Then-Senator Obama was an ardent opponent of the surge from the very beginning. He is on record as saying that not only would the surge not work, but the added troops would have increased tensions in Iraq.

As a candidate, Obama strongly opposed the surge throughout 2007 and into the 2008 campaign. His position was that the U.S. should begin immediately removing troops from Iraq. Had President Bush listened to Obama then, there would have been a power vacuum in Iraq that would have turned the country into another Somalia.

In fact, Obama had said that even after it was clear that the surge was working, he still would have opposed it.

But Obama has subsequently changed his tune. He tried to scrub his prior criticisms of the surge from his campaign web page. And it would be only a few years after Obama ripped the concept of the surge to shreds that he would endorse the very same policy—but that time applying it to Afghanistan. President Obama may have opposed the surge when he was a candidate, but now he seeks the credit.

He deserves little credit. He can’t say that he fulfilled any campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq: in fact the timetable for US withdrawal was set before Obama took office. It was the 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that set the withdrawal date, not President Obama. Regardless of who had won in 2008, the situation would be the same. It was the surge that allowed the U.S. to draw down its forces in Iraq without creating a dangerous power vacuum that would have destabilized the entire region.

Now, if President Obama gives full credit to the troops without politicizing the issue, he’ll have set the right tone. But Obama’s statements must be set against Obama’s record on the war. He was wrong on the surge. The surge worked. The security of the Iraqi people was a necessary precondition to any political rapprochement. Obama’s preference for a “diplomatic surge” would never have worked.

No matter what Obama says tonight, the real heroes in this conflict and the American, coalition, and Iraqi soldiers, police, and security forces that put their lives on the line day in and day out to secure a better future for Iraq. If the President acknowledges this, he deserves credit. But if he tries to spin Iraq into a political victory for himself, it will backfire on him. This isn’t Obama’s victory, this is a victory for Iraq. We should never let the President forget that.