Not yet. There are still four seats whose winner is undetermined, awaiting the count of absentee and provisional ballots, not to mention possible recounts. But Dems have a 49-47 edge in the HoD races that have been settled, so they need one of the remaining 4 to share control of the HoD, and 2 of 4 to own it.
Late last night, here were the counts on those remaining four races:
#HD27 (Chesterfield): Del. Robinson (R) up by 129 votes. #HD28 (F’burg): Thomas (R) up by 86. #HD40 (Fairfax): Tanner (D) up by 68. #HD94 (Newport News): Del. Yancey (R) up by 12.
The Dem’s ahead in one, and behind by a mere 12 votes in another, so 51 is very possible, given what we know and don’t know at this point.
What need of only one leader now? Obviously, it’s not required. The results across the country are all the evidence needed to see this. This wasn’t even a mid-term, and turnout was spectacular. What a wonderful thing to see!
You can choose to characterize it that way, but my view is different. People will choose a leader as circumstances evolve. Leaders self-select, if you hadn’t noticed. Remember Obama in 2008.
As already noted, no one leader is needed for the mid-terms. The wind is at their backs, voters now see tangible evidence that their vote does matter and they can effect change simply by becoming involved. Why spoil it by foisting a “leader” on them so early in the process?
LOL, when you have to characterize a situation in a particular way in order for your argument to sound credible to your own ear, you should probably examine the merits of your argument.
I don’t see anyone “cowering in fear.” Please feel free to name a Dem who is doing that. Seems to me, such behavior is reserved for Republicans: Spicer Loiters in the Bushes - WaPo
Dems and progressives of every stripe are speaking out, calling bullshit on all the egregious behavior being done by Trump and his administration. You don’t have to look far to know who might emerge as a presidential leader of the Democratic party. There is an abundance of choice.
One of the things Hillary was accused of in 2016 was insisting it was “her turn” to run. No one on the Democratic side wants a repeat of that, obviously. Waiting for the natural leader to emerge is a strategic acknowledgement of the unsettled state of the Democratic electorate, nothing more. A smart one.
I completely agree. To your list I would add Biden, Warner, Schiff, Wyden, Swalwell, Newsome and Garcetti off the top of my head, and like you, I would not consider it exhaustive. I do wish Franken would consider running!
My dream ticket today is Biden/Harris. Yeah, he’s old, but if Trump or Pence are the candidate, then that’s no biggie. Biden brings experience, name recognition, the steadiness of Obama and the promise of the Obama legacy; Harris brings youth, freshness, experience, a sharp mind and hopefully an appeal to progressives.
But I personally believe neither Trump or Pence will be names anywhere near a ballot box in 2020, so then it remains to be seen what “leader” will emerge on the right before selecting the best leader for the left. Should be fascinating to see who it could possibly be on the right.
(I’m only going to respond to that part) Nor do I, which is why I didn’t say anyone was doing that… It was you who seemed to think that was a good strategy. That is all:
I meant in the sense of the “tall poppy,” as my late Australian husband used to refer to it. Tall poppies tend to be cut first. Not an indication of fear; merely an understanding that if you make yourself a target, you’ll likely get shot at.
I find our emphasis on distribution of votes by land mass to be meaningless. Who cares if Northam only won by a lot in a comparatively small geographic area? The land doesn’t get a vote (except, of course, in the US Senate and the Electoral College, more’s the pity). Fifty-four percent of the voters is “most of the state.”
Hopefully it’s more than just “demographics” – an over-reliance on this was, many ague, a factor in the 2016 Democratic defeats – but also regretful Trump voters, and some who regret not having voted in 2016 at all.
And from Politico: “Nearly 80 percent of those health care voters went for eventual winner Ralph Northam, a Democrat who’s pledged to expand Medicaid.”
Even better for the Democrats: This overwhelmingly good night shoves Donna Brazile right out of the news. I can also be hopeful that this also signals turning the page on the endless refighting of the 2016 primary race.
I also agree, that except for an incumbent popular president, no party really has a national party leader. Even the beloved Ronald Reagan was tainted by Iran Contra and the endless scandals of his cabinet when he left office. George H.W. Bush called for a, ‘kinder, gentler nation.’ Plus, Reagan already had alzheimer’s symptoms.
OK, folk - let me be the first to ask - how will the Dems screw THIS pooch?
Just waiting to hear the completely tone deaf crowing, doing little other than creating splits among Dems and energizing Repubs!
I have good friends in the trenches, and they assure me that positive developments are occurring/growing, but I’ve cheered this team of not-so-lovable losers for too long to get too excited too early! Someone enact some gun control before the Dems shoot themselves in the foot yet again!
Nate Silver mentioned that the polls for the 2016 Presidential election were more accurate than the polls last night, but because the result was the predicted one yesterday, nobody cares while last year made everyone think polls are shit.
Plus the Democratic Lieutenant Governor would break tie votes.
A 30 year old Marine veteran who identifies as Socialist, and was abandoned by the Democratic Party because he wouldn’t tailor his message to their approval, beat the VA House Majority Whip.
I’d hate to be a pollster right now. One thing they for sure can’t account for is how many citizens are moved one way or the other to actually get out and vote – some perhaps for the first time ever in a lifetime of non-voting. There’s just no way to know.
On the bright side, it makes election interference a pretty dicey proposition as well. If there is a significant disparity between what is reflected by exit poll information v. actual outcomes, those results will be scrutinized much more closely. Election interference works best when the tilt is only slight. Kind of like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania…
Does this result have any impact on the civil war within the Democratic side, taking some of the strength away from those who claim that only an extreme Left agenda and more solidly Progressive candidate can drive the turnout that the Democratic side needs?
Northam is clearly not that wing’s standard bearer yet his better than predicted result was driven by better than expected turnout.
Will being united in opposition be enough to get moderate Democrats out for those of the progressive wing and progressive Democrats out for those of the more moderate wing even though they disagree with the specific candidate many individual issues other than being in opposition to Trumpism and the GOP?
And will the lesson for the GOP side be to, as Trump suggests it should be, more fully embrace him and his policies (whatever they actually are) if they want to get the sort of turnout from their side that they need?
