I’m a little surprised that I find myself having to concede this, but I’d like to offer the Democrats a hearty congratulations on completing the 100 Hour Plan yesterday evening, and successfully blowing my expectations out of the water. If they manage to maintain the pace, this could prove to be a very interesting two years. As the measures still await a trip through the Senate and the signature or (as the case may well be) veto of President Bush, I’m still willing to bet that about half of the changes will never see the light of day.

As many of you know, the 100 Hour Plan consisted of a number of laws and policy changes that the new Democratic House of Representatives wanted to pass in the early days of their reign. These ranged from repeal of tax cuts to an increase in the minimum wage and just about everything in between. According to Wikipedia, the points were:

• “Break the link between lobbyists and legislation” with new House rules
• Enact all recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission
• Raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
• Grant federal funding to a wide variety of stem cell research projects
• Cut interest rates on student loans in half
• Allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, securing lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
• Institute a “pay-as-you-go” policy to reduce the deficit
• End the Bush tax cuts for the Americans “at a certain level” (those making $250,000.00 a year or more)
• End large tax subsidies for large oil companies

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Hour_Plan

I’m not sure that there’s really much more to say on this, but it almost goes without saying that I will be keeping a close eye on what happens in the Senate and when the bills finally get to the President.

I also have a bit of a mistake to admit - I had misunderstood what exactly was meant when they announced the ‘100 Hour Plan’ - I wrongfully assumed that it referred to the first 100 hours of the new Congress, not just the first 100 working hours. Not that it really matters, not that this is any defense of my predictions, I simply want to make my mistake clear and be honest with my readers.

Well folks, as you have most likely heard, today was the transition to the 110th Congress of the United States of America. What is particularly interesting about this transition is that the Democrats are taking control of both the House and the Senate. I’d love to sit here and make doomsday predictions about how bad everything will be, but I feel safe enough that we will not have to. My reasoning is simple, and can be broken down into a number of simple points.

• The a large proportion of the Democrats who won seats previously held by Republicans are fairly moderate and not all that likely to support terribly liberal and leftist laws and programs.
• Although we have lost our majority, there are still a good many Republicans in both houses, enough that only a few democratic votes would have to ‘defect’ in order to prevent overly partisan legislation.
• President Bush may have only made one veto in the past, but I have a feeling we’ll see a lot more in the coming months and years. He may have a tendency not to satisfy the conservative base, but I have enough faith that he won’t allow the Democrats to destroy anything at the same time.
• The Democrats know that a lot of their support in the 2006 Election, especially in swing districts that had previously gone Republican, is due to moderate people who are fed up with the Republicans of the 109th Congress. Because of this they are going to have to avoid any radical policies and laws to have any real chance of keeping their majority in 2008.

With that and more in mind, I’d put the chances of the Democrats of making any real changes at about 20%, although I really don’t want to commit myself to that number. What I am fairly certain of, though, is that there is no way the ‘100 Hour Plan‘ will be enacted in 100 hours. While most of the 100 Hour Plan is actually pretty good and moderate, I just don’t think it will happen. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised.

To be honest, changes in Congressional rules and procedures aimed at greater accountability - regardless of the party sponsoring them - are something I would support with open arms. Hopefully, these rules will extend to the pork barrel projects that waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year. Repeal of tax credits for oil companies and the wealthy - although not something I’d support - are probably a good idea and will make a real dent in the deficit.

Besides marking a new Congress and a new majority, today marks a milestone in United States History. Shortly after the Democrats took power, Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, California took was elected Speaker of the House. Although I do not support her politics, I view this as an important advance for women’s rights and one step closer to ending affirmative action - I hope. Although I do not have a video of the vote and ceremony which followed, you can view a clip from FoxNews over at HotAir.com along with more information on the transition.

This post is getting to be a little long, but in closing let me say that I am looking forward to these next two years - not because I’m looking forward to the Democratic actions, but because I think this is going to be a great biennium for politics and political news.

Correction: There was a typo with this article, the incoming Congress is the 110th, not the 100th.

I called Virginia for Webb just before at 1:59AM EST this morning (all times and dates on the headers of this blog are PST), and I still stand by my prediction. What I find interesting, however, is that the total vote counted plummeted sometime early this afternoon or late morning. I checked the totals at about 10:00AM Eastern and it was at 99.86% counted. However, the Virginia State Board of Elections is currently reporting only 94.81% as having been counted. Although I have no real source on this, my best guess would be that many absentee ballots have yet to be counted.

None the less, by combining my call on Virginia and the Network calls on the other states, I am confident - albeit mildly upset - that the Democrats have won control of both the House and the Senate for the 110th Congress, making George W. Bush a very lame duck.

The breakdown of the 110th Congress’s Senate will be as follows:

The 110th Senate will consist of 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 heavily Democratic Independents.The map is based on data from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2006_US_Senate_results.png and a US map from http://libremap.org/data/boundary/ which is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License available online at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

As much as it pains me to do this, I’m ready to make a call on Virginia.

NewsVC now predicts that Virginia is going to the Democrats, leaving the states of Montana and Missouri to decide the election. My gut feeling is not a positive one and I would not be surprised if we wake up to news that the Senate has changed hands.

With 99.63% of the vote counted, Democrat Jim Webb has pulled ahead of Republican Incumbant George Allen by 7,811 votes as of 1:56am EST.

It does seem that Webb’s lead is shrinking bit by bit, but I am still very worried as to the final outcome. Both scattered reports across the networks and comments to this blog seem to be indicating that the majority of the remaining ballots are in democratic parts of the state. We can still hold out hope. We can still maintain control of the Senate!

As of 1:21am EST, the vote in Virginia is 99.47% counted with Jim Webb in the lead by a margin of a mere 1,524 votes - that is a margin of less than seven one-hundredths of one percent of the total vote in the state.

This race continues to become more and more interesting.

It looks like Webb is in the lead, although it seems smaller than the 3000 vote margin that multiple networks were reporting about ten minutes ago. Current lead is Webb with a 1,789 vote margin.

Breaking 12:30am EST: And it now looks like FoxNews is calling the state of Tennessee

Could it be a glimmer of hope? George Allen has pulled slightly ahead again, his margin now increasing to 1,868 votes. No change in percentages, but we can still hope, right?

This is insane, I really wish they would count faster…

Edit 12:15am EST: FoxNews is now reporting that the VA vote is 100% counted and Webb is leading by about 3,000 votes. Not looking good. I hope TN and MT and MO hold out.

The Virginia results are really getting interesting.

The night started with a Webb lead, Allen pulled ahead, and his lead has been shrinking. At 12:00am Eastern, with 99.10% of the vote counted, Allen leads with a margin of only 1757 votes - approximately 0.07%. This is truly an intense race.

All of the networks, rightfully so, simply refuse to call the race. Some blogs out there have called it, but such predictions have little real basis at this point in time. I will not make a prediction, but the feeling in my gut is not that good. I want Allen to win, but I’m worried.

Breaking news at 11:15pm Eastern:

At this time both CNN and MSNBC are calling the House for the Democrats, FoxNews is still holding out on the final seat. Looks like the polls were correct with the takeover.

Update at 11:18pm Eastern: FoxNews has now called the House for the Democrats.

I’ve read through the Voter’s Guide and made my decisions, now that the drop boxes are closed, I’ll make them public (along with my reasoning) for all to see. Voting is supposed to be a private matter, but I really don’t care if people know - I’m proud of my choices.

State Measures:

39: YES - On the surface, this measure looks like an obvious yes. After what happened in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, I am very much inclined to vote for it. On the other hand, the opposition makes a good point that it will cost up to $30 million a year, with a good chunk of that being lawyers fees. The economic development aspect makes sense, but I’m really not sure that I like the idea to begin with. In the end, I’ll make this a reluctant yes.

40: YES - I most certainly understand what the opposition means when they say that electing judges by district will lead to different interpretations, but I think that it is a good thing. Judges are supposed to be non-partisan, but we all know that they lean one way or another. It seems to me that in selecting judges by district, the more rural and conservative parts of the state will have more of a say in how our laws are interpreted. If we can???t pull every bit of politics out of the courts, we should at least balance it. Besides, if it worked so well for years, it should work just as well now.

41: NO - I’m all for lower taxes, I’m all for smaller government, what I’m not for is a huge cut in school funding. This measure could take as much as $337 million from the schools. In Beaverton the amount would be about $21.22 million. I just can’t do that. In Beaverton we have the best public schools in the state, and we’re still hugely overcrowded. My school has just over 2600 students and was built (rather, upgraded for) only 2100. Until we get some real reform in the way the school system is run, schools need every penny they can get. Cut the waste, and then we can cut the taxes

42: No - This is silly, if you ask me. I’m not sure just how good an indicator of likely payouts a credit rating is, but I’m sure there is some sort of correlation. People who are irresponsible with money are probably more likely to have other accidents as well. I just can justify raising rates for responsible people.

43: YES - I can’t see why one wouldn’t support this measure. It does nothing to restrict the availability of abortions, it does not require parental permission, it simply requires parental notification before girl makes one of the most difficult decisions of her life. I understand that some girly come from abusive families, but it seems that the judicial overrides will work just fine.

44: YES - For a measure with no arguments in opposition, it would be hard to vote any other way. It costs the state nothing and will help tens of thousands of Oregonians without insurance get he medications they need.

45: YES - This is a tough one; I see valid points and good arguments on both sides. I very much dislike that some lawmakers seem to do nothing and keep getting re-elected, but at the same time there are many good, multi-term legislators. In the end, new voices win out in my mind.

46: YES - I agree that campaign finance reform is a good idea. Although I think that the legislature should come up with a plan that makes sense (unlike Measure 47) and then send it to the voters, this measure has very high requirement of 75% of both houses. It is the high requirement that makes me feel this is OK.

47: NO - While the idea of restricting campaign financing and spending makes - at least for candidates - some sense, all of the tedious rules and regulations in this measure (it is almost nine full pages in the Voter’s Guide) seem like overkill. I should be able to donate to Political Parties and PAC type organizations without restriction, and it is overkill to require major donor names and businesses in ads. I especially dislike the need for a special number if you donate more than $500 a year. This measure is simply insane.

48: NO - Again, this may come as a bit of a surprise, but I can’t bring myself to vote for this. Our state is growing, but not at an even rate. The Beaverton School District is the fastest growing district in the state and I simply can’t justify cutting millions from school funding. Cutting taxes is one thing, but limiting the spending of existing tax revenue makes no sense to me.

Candidates:

US Representative (District 1): Derrick Kitts - Yes, I’m mostly voting down party lines, but he seems like a good candidate. David Wu’s had his turn, now it’s time for a change.

Governor: Ron Saxton - Again, a somewhat partisan decision, but I’m not much of a fan of our current governor. Besides that, the Oregonian (a fairly liberal paper) endorsed Saxton over the incumbent Democrat Ted Kulongoski - something they very rarely do. I just hope that Mary Starrett doesn’t spoil it.

State Senate (District 17): Piotr Kuklinski - I do like Brad Avakian, but I felt that partisanship was the way to go. Regardless, I’m pretty sure that Avakian will win.

State House (District 34): Joan Draper - I don’t really know much about either of the candidates, but she seems to have a good platform and ideas.

State Supreme Court (Position 6): Jack Roberts - He seems to have good experience and a positive stance on judicial fairness.

State Court of Appeals (Position 9): Ellen F. Rosenblum - unopposed and I don’t know of a good write-in.

Circuit Court (District 20): Charlie Bailey - He seems to have a good background and a slate of endorsements from actual people, not just newspapers.

County Commissioner (Distinct 2): Desari Caldwell - She is running unopposed and seems to be a decent candidate.

METRO (District 4): Kathryn Harrington - She is endorsed by the major local papers and I like her background and previous experience a bit more than Cox.

Local Measures:

34-126: YES - Libraries are an important asset to the community. It seems that $33 a year for the average home is a small price to pay.

34-127: YES - Public safety is perhaps the number one responsibility of government; $81 dollars is nothing for these services.

26-80: YES - Oregon is renowned for its wilderness and conservation; it seems that some more money for wildlife and wetlands won’t hurt.

34-139: YES - This is a no brainier. If you’ve been in a Beaverton area high school in the last few years it is clear how important this is. We desperately need a new school and expansions of existing ones. Either pass this bond or put a moratorium on the construction of new homes in the greater Beaverton area.

34-133: YES - Fire and Rescue is just as important to public safety and well being as police are. To not pass this would be stupid.