-
A Holocaust Denier Walks Into a Bar
May 10, 2013 | 219 comments
-
What’s in a Name?
May 6, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Benediction
March 20, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Great Consolidator: Dec. 2009
February 15, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Punking the President
January 14, 2013 | 15 comments
A Further Perspective
A Senate Split
If Republicans achieve a 50-50 split in the Senate today, they’ll have the Democrats — and themselves — right where they want them.
Voters are unpredictable beasts (see Greene, Alvin) but, if Republicans win all of the Senate races that they are thought likely to win in today’s elections plus my own Washington state, we will end up with a 50-50 split in the U.S. Senate. Elections are emotional occasions, so conservatives would be unlikely to say hooray to that. Maybe they should, for five reasons.
One, the rules of the Senate favor an energized minority over a bare majority. Senator Mitch McConnell only needs 41 votes to grind legislation or nominations to a halt and he will now have those votes. It would be much more difficult for a bare majority of Republicans to put together a governing coalition given some of the moderates in the caucus. Conservatives are often frustrated with those ladies from Maine, for instance, and the GOP would need them to get to 51.
Two, Democrats will be disorganized. Put aside for a second the sheer entertainment value of a prospective Senate Majority Leader having to get the very independent Joe Lieberman’s blessing and then rely on Vice President Joe Biden to cast the tie-breaking vote, hard as that may be! This would be a majority in name only and a significant number of Democrats would want to work with Republicans with an eye toward re-election in 2012.
Three, with such a divided Senate, the coming conservative House would be the engine that drives the legislative process. After the 1994 elections, remember, the fights were often between the conservative Republican House and the more moderate Republican Senate, and only then between Congress and President Clinton. That muddied the message and it kept the balanced budget amendment off the table. America is still paying for that sin of omission.
Four, political scientists have found that blame sharing makes difficult legislation more palatable. True, we can well nigh guarantee that legislation that makes it through a 50-50 Senate will not be all that conservatives hope for. But that’s only half the battle until 2012. President Barack Obama would have a much harder time vetoing legislation that makes its way through a nominally Democratic Senate than he would a Republican one.
Five, Republicans don’t deserve to win. Under George W. Bush they presided over a federal government whose budget grew from $2 to $3 trillion annually. They got mired in scandal, launched one more war than they probably should have, began the bailout binge, and Osama bin Laden, that icon of the September 11 atrocities, avoided the grasp of the greatest military superpower the world has ever known.
Theirs was not a star performance. The only reason things have turned in the GOP’s favor of late is the even worse performance of the Democrats. Voters today are poised to express their displeasure with the Republicans’ opponents. They are not saying, “All is forgiven.” It would be useful for the next Congress to have a permanent reminder of that fact.
About the Author
Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearPolicy.com, RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (59) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeremy Lott
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/11/02/a-senate-split
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Booger | 11.2.10 @ 6:22AM
From the desk of Vice-President Joe Biden:
Dear Senators,
Okay, who's The Big F****** Deal now, huh? That's right, you know it. Who's your Big F****** Daddy now? Oh, yeah, say it. You know it. Who wants to be majority leader? Well get the F*** over here. I'm King of the World, baby.
That's right, you need me. Joe F****** Biden is large and in charge. President of the Senate. Always knew I'd be President some day. 50-50 and you gotta go through Joe F****** Biden to get anything done. Want your F****** budget passed? Whose your Daddy? That's right. Want your committee seats? Well I'm the Big F****** deal you have to pay off. Line up boys and girls. Oh yeah.
You all laughed at me for years. Said I couldn't F****** talk straight or like a normal F****** person for anything. Well I'm the smartest guy in the room. And every F****** one of you is gonna F****** line up and tell me how much F****** smarter I am than any of the rest of you F**** or nothing gets done. Because you've got a F****** Mexican stand-off here and so I'm King of the F****** world.
Looking forward to F****** you up for two more years,
Vice President and Smartest Man in the world Joe F****** Biden
http://beautifulletters-bls.blogspot.com/
PJ| 11.2.10 @ 10:14AM
EXCELLENT! Got the bumbling idiot down to a T! Can envision him squinting his beady eyes & flashing his teeth through his fish lips as he murmurs, "F******" everytime he writes the word down.
Mimi| 11.2.10 @ 10:23AM
HEH...BOOGER ,
You talkin bout 'MY GOOD-BOY CATHOLIC JOEY'....Nice to hear he'll finally might get to be IMPORTANT! Will he do RIGHT by us? He better ! When the "O" is sitting in the corner, staying ..." SHUT-UP" for once...My JOEY will be the GO-TO guy.....He's brushing up on the CONSTITUTION...so I heard and trying to break the swearing stuff. He has the hope that HISTORY will reward him... FOR helping us PATRIOTS save the country!!!!
Ed Pike| 11.2.10 @ 8:28AM
50-50 is perfect for the last two years of Obama's presidency. It will force Biden to put the administration's imprimatur on legislation, stickinig him to it like ink on paper.
Indiana Alex| 11.2.10 @ 8:35AM
All the balanced budget amendment would be is a warm gentle place to hide behind when proposing tax increases. It is a bad idea.
tony bonn| 11.2.10 @ 9:08AM
and when you spend like a drunken sailor like great society stalwart and war monger george bush and indonesian bankster barak obama it's time to pay the piper....tax up bitch.
idalily| 11.2.10 @ 1:19PM
Indiana, with all due respect, you are posting nonsense. The states that have balanced budget amendments are not proposing tax increases they have to "hide behind." No, if an increase is required, it better be explained in depth. BBA's have worked for states for years. It can work for the Fed as well.
Also, if a Federal Constitutional BBA were passed along with a Fair/Flat (and CAPPED) tax system, we would have fiscal sanity at last. And perpetual gridlock, with both sides fighting tooth and nail for every dime. That is a good thing.
Texas Jayde| 11.2.10 @ 2:13PM
i'm not sure what you mean by a "capped" tax system. a better option would be to repeal the 16th amendment and pass the fair/flat tax. without the 16th amendment be repealed, a corrupt congress would bleed us dry, just as the democrats are planning on doing right now. now, the bad news is that congress is not going to give up the power to tax and spend. that is the main source of their power.
idalily| 11.3.10 @ 4:33PM
By capped, I mean limited. No creeping up the tax percentage every few years on a permanent basis (like they've done with Social Security and Medicare). OF COURSE the 16th would need to be repealed, and I'd like the flat tax to be a straight percentage sales tax at point of final sale on non-food items. No Fed income taxes AT ALL. No Death tax. No capital gains tax. None. Phase out SS and Medicare over a long period of time (ala Paul Ryan's road map) and in the meantime, lock box it (for real, this time) and privatize it. Pass a BBA. Along with all that, cut, cut, cut spending EVERYWHERE. Disband most of the IRS, all of the Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, HUD. Cut salaries, pensions and everything else for Fed employees. Break public sector unions. Audit the Fed and at the end of each year provide the public on-line a balance sheet and income statement of what the Fed govt took in in revenue and what they spent it on. There, that's my wish list. Oh, and tar and feather Barney Frank on the Capitol steps would be nice, too.
canuckistani| 11.2.10 @ 3:11PM
The RGA expects to have over 37 states in GOP hands come Wednesday.....that's a 2/3 majority for ratification of the BBA.
If the TP does not force it onto the legistlative docket on Jan 5th, then they are frauds and will perish within one cycle.
Louis Jenkins| 11.2.10 @ 8:46AM
Right now we may have settle for what we get. 50-50, 49-51, or 51-49. We want a change we can deal with, not believe in. Let the HR have the GOP majority! That will be more than helpful. As for the Wun, I can see headaches galore.
canuckistani| 11.2.10 @ 3:15PM
I am trying to figure out how Miller will hold himself back from the earmark trough, when his own people have become addicted to it. There are still a majority of RINOs in the senate caucus with mouth on teat.
They will lay low for the near term and then begin their own back room deals with Obama if they sense a primary fight is coming their way next time. Mark the date.
The counter-revolution begins!
George S| 11.2.10 @ 3:39PM
Earmarks are a smoke screen -- they'd barely pay the interest on a week's worth of interest on the federal debt.
jstwndring| 11.2.10 @ 10:20PM
"They will lay low for the near term and then begin their own back room deals with Obama if they sense a primary fight is coming their way next time. Mark the date."
I hope you are wrong, but, I fear you may be correct on this. There are still far too many RINOS left that have a proclivity for dealmaking compromises with the opposition. McCain, anyone?
Walt Scott| 11.2.10 @ 9:05AM
The first four reasons don't really count. The Republican "leadership" would be the same tired, old power-hungry politicians.
Sheila| 11.2.10 @ 9:31AM
Important point, Walt Scott. Too many people expect to be "saved" by this election; even if the GOP wins all the contested races, this is only the first of many steps that are vital if the Republic is to be saved from the two corrupt parties. There are still too many on Congress from the 1970s, and still too many emotion-driven women and ethnic-grievance representatives. Restrict the franchise and restore the Republic our Founders bequeathed us! Tribalism + democracy + stupidity = racist idiocracy.
idalily| 11.2.10 @ 1:22PM
For now, I'll settle for stopping the bleeding. Saving is going to take longer. I also think most conservatives understand that. Vigilance is KEY.
jstwndring| 11.2.10 @ 10:23PM
That's why the Tea Party's here. This is the first step. Next, put pressure on Republicans to do our bidding. Then, evaluate. If need be, use influence in subsequent primaries to continue to cleanse the Republican party of socialist wolves in sheeps clothing.
Derek Leaberry| 11.2.10 @ 9:46AM
One delightful aspect of having the Democrats in the majority is that John McCain and Lindsey Graham will be denied committee chairmanships that they would use to backstab conservatives.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 12:07PM
Hear, hear, Mr. Leaberry,
Today is only the beginning. Without 60 votes, all the action will be in the House, anyway. There is no advantage for a conservative to have the Senate essentially controlled by a squishy middle comprising McCain, Graham and those ladies from Maine.
Peppermint Tea| 11.2.10 @ 10:18AM
It seems to me that Joe Liebermann would be the big F****** deal. He's the independent and the swing vote. Maybe he will squelch Tea Party initiatives making fodder for 2012, but force the Senate to be more pro-Israel (when they bomb Iran).
Patrick| 11.2.10 @ 1:54PM
Not likely, given that the President is yearning to surrender.
mike siroky| 11.2.10 @ 10:37AM
I totally agree that a split Senate or even a 51-49 Dem Senate is good for Republicans/conservatives.
1> any Obama/Dem initiative that smacks of wealth redistibution can be stopped with filibuster.
2> any popular initiative, such as across the board tax cuts, will draw enough scared Democrats to allow passage in the Senate after it passes the House.
3> any Obama veto will be seen as going against a bipartisan consensus, not against Republicans per se. That makes him a loner without a party.
idalily| 11.2.10 @ 1:24PM
Your lips to God's ear, my friend. And at the risk of being hopeful for the first time in over two years, I have to say, I think you're right.
Michael Kohlman| 11.2.10 @ 10:54AM
Sounds good, and it may indeed get the GOP off the hook as far as getting anything done. BUT, I think you would have seen a lot of senior Dems retire early when they could no longer head comittees or get pet legislation to the floor. Also, Dems will still set the agenda, control what comes up for votes, and what investigations to proceed on. GOP legislation and budgets can get sidetracked in the Senate instead of forcing Obama to veto them. And maybe Lieberman could have been coerced to caucus with the GOP in return for keeping his committee chair. Clearly, the balance favors controlling the Senate, even I think, if we had to put up with Mike Castle. Too late now.
loulou| 11.2.10 @ 11:02AM
uh, Kohlman, I don't think you get it.
Mike Castle is precisely the type of ruling class Republican we are trying to purge. They really would be happier in the Democrat Party.
ggoblue| 11.2.10 @ 5:07PM
i guarantee you that the dems will never have a unanimous vote in the next 2 yrs.
out of 51 seats they will be defending 24 incumbents in 2012.
we will be defending 9...
if they lock up behind obama again we will be looking at the 60 seat majority for republicans in 2013. after today's bloodbath, that ain't gonna happen.
plus president stupid is leaving town...by the time he gets back, the survivors in the senate will have a new pecking order.
loulou| 11.2.10 @ 11:00AM
We have to hope that tired, old McConnell, Cornyn, Lindsay Graham, McCain and other RINOs don't enter into another "power sharing" scheme with the Dems.
We will need an infusion of cojones.
irish19| 11.2.10 @ 11:49AM
We need to hold their feet to the fire to make sure they do not do this. We cannot have them "reaching across the aisle." The lib agenda has to be stopped in its tracks. After 2012, we can hopefully begin rolling things back in earnest.
JShizzle| 11.2.10 @ 12:04PM
I agree...but we as an electorate have to follow through. If McCain, Grahamnesty and the other RINOs start up their old, familiar tricks again...we need to vote their butts out. Anyone who doesn't pay attention to the TEA-nami needs to be purged in 2012.
Lee| 11.2.10 @ 12:41PM
We need to vote McCain and Lindsey Graham out period. Graham is up in 2014, McCain will be re-elected this year.
Not too many RINOs running on GOP ticket in 2012. In 2012 there will be 23 democrat seats up and only 10 GOP seats.
We have a chance of getting to 60 GOP seats in 2012, as 14 of the democrat seats are in red states.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 1:46PM
Lee,
It starts tomorrow! Fortunately for my Senator John Cornyn, he has four more years. We've no choice but to see what he makes of them. Perhaps he'll smell the coffee.
Derek Leaberry| 11.2.10 @ 1:47PM
McCain and Graham are already planning mischief. When you fail to kill the king, and conservatives failed in Arizona, or the queen, as conservatives failed to do in 2008 in South Carolina, we must expect treachery.
Texas Jayde| 11.2.10 @ 2:19PM
loulou, cornyn is up for re-election in 2014. Texans are already serving him notice that we are watching him and if his spine doesn't stiffen, he will be turned out to pasture because we WILL find a conservative to take his place.
CalMark| 11.2.10 @ 11:40AM
"The Republicans don't deserve..."
Four years of Democrat abuses and outrages, and Lott is still trashing the GOP of 4 years ago. How sanctimonious! And how typically Beltway!
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 12:11PM
CalMark,
The GOP of 4 years ago is the only brand they have. There may be a new game afoot in the party, but it has to be shown. I quit the GOP twenty years ago with Bush-I presided over, what was then, the largest tax increase in history. Conservatives have been forced to vote for Republicans as a Hobson's choice between holding ones nose and voting, or sitting on the sidelines.
Thank goodness the grass roots appears to be taking the party back from the ruling class. Are you listening, Senator Cornyn and your NRSC?
Jeremy Lott | 11.2.10 @ 12:59PM
CalMark: You're part of the problem.
CalMark| 11.2.10 @ 2:15PM
Mr. Lott: After moving to California in 2006, I registered "Independent," a measure of disgust with the GOP: in late 2005, Republican phone solicitors were demanding money even after finding out I was unemployed. I re-registered Republican in 2008 to stop McCain.
The Democrats who ran registration in my county attempted to ban me from the polls. This was the fifth instance of blatant voter fraud I have observed, always by Democrats. Now THAT is corruption.
They GOP of 2004 were cowards, fools, and even knaves. The Washington Times published a letter from me speculating about a new party to replace the GOP.
However, Republican "corruption" is a conventional-wisdom mantra. I reject it, because it is questionable, even intellectually-dishonest, moral equivalence.
Accepting such is a big reason the GOP gets into so much trouble. In the GOP barrel, there are always a few bad apples. The Democrat barrel is almost entirely bad apples. Saying, "We can't talk; our barrel has its share" is absurd.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 4:00PM
CalMark,
I admire your attempt to fight for the party from the inside - sincerely. I chose the other route of funding candidates directly and telling the R's to take a hike.
For the party to run Dole, because it was his time, and to get behind "mavericky" McCain after his chicanery does not inspire any confidence among conservatives. Bush-II had more popular support (perhaps name recognition) but never was, nor claimed to be, a conservative. The damage he did was tremendous, but the times were unique as well.
This conservative praises the "Tea Party" movement for working within the GOP. A third party would be, in my opinion, a disaster putting the conservative in the desert for forty years.
Still, it remains to be seen if the GOP of the old guard will give way to more conservative leadership. If it does, I will join you within the party. Here's hoping it does, but the conclusion is not fore ordained.
Lee| 11.2.10 @ 12:33PM
Congress, particularly the Senate has always been about the next election. Congress under GOP or DEM control has little use for solving real problems with real thoughtful legistation. It is about offering bills that will force the opposition into positions that make it hard for them to campaign in the next election cycle.
Obama's initial appeal to the masses was that he talked a good game of bi-partisanship, he was the healer, the guy that was going to bring the best from both a liberal and conservative perspective. Many people fell for this thinking Obama was the guy that could bring the red and blue states together and we would have concensus rule.
Now all us fools that voted for Obama in 2008 know the truth, we elected a Trojan Horse full of communist, marxist, and outright thugs. Now we must try to rid the Trojan Horse by turning to the GOP and hope they will read the election results correctly and listen to the populace. We want smaller government in all areas, we want closed and protected borders, we want energy independence by drilling at home, we want tax cuts that will stimulate the economy and create real jobs. We want the government out of our daily lives and out of our pocket books.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 1:40PM
Lee,
I want what you want, but I'll take issue with your cynical view of what motivates the offering of bills. Gamesmanship abounds, but can you really think Obamacare was about forcing the opposition into a corner? If it was, it most surely backfired.
My question for you and others who became enthralled by the Obamessiah is "What did you see?" I saw a poseur. Of course, the choice was horrible.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 1:42PM
Lee,
P.S. If the Republican Party misreads this election, there may not be a 2012 to worry about.
George S| 11.2.10 @ 3:50PM
What we want, we cannot have. The founding documents purposefully created a government that cannot move on a dime when political winds change direction (like, say, a parliament). Our government is plodding and deliberative, to prevent change, to keep the premise of individual freedom and government of the people alive in perpetuity.
What has happened over the years is that our representatives started compromising with the progressive elements in our government and culture. Slowly, freedoms vanished. Today, after 100 years of New Deals, Fair Deals and Square Deals, we have shifted slightly towards socialism. Getting rid of that would require a huge shift in public policy. But since those who are on the receiving end of entitlements have representation, the inertial nature of our government won't change that anytime soon.
Obama happened after a 100 years of progressive change. Today, is the first day (hopefully) of the hundred years needed to change back to a constitutional republic.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 4:08PM
A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step. In this case this first step is the most important as another step in the direction we have headed in the last two years may be the last step taken.
Doghouse Riley| 11.2.10 @ 12:51PM
I'm predicting only 45 GOP senators by the time the dust has cleared:
WA - Murray wins by 37 votes after four recounts
WV - Manchin wins by 37 votes after four recounts
NV - Reid wins by 37 votes after four recounts
CT - Blumenthal wins by 37 votes after four recounts
chris haynes| 11.2.10 @ 2:20PM
Good point on Joe Liebermann.
He would be the independent and the swing vote. Staunch booster of abortion, the biggest holcaust in history. You cultivate holocaust enablers, what does that make you?
Anommynous| 11.2.10 @ 2:33PM
Remember the 2000 election? The Democrats achieved a 50/50 Senate split with Cheney casting the deciding vote. Well, the majority Republicans, in the spirit of "bipartisanship" when surely they didn't have to, agreed to that silly power-sharing agreement with the minority Democrats.
If the Republicans pull off a 50/50 split, will the Democrats, in the spirit of bipartisanship, agree to a power-sharing agreement with the Republicans? The Democrats need to have their feet held to the fire on this, because it exposes their hypocrisy. The Republicans need to remind the voters that they agreed to the power-sharing agreement in 2000 and insist that the Democrats do the same, even though we know that they won't.
Joe D.| 11.2.10 @ 2:35PM
Please correct me if I am wrong. But if we get the 9 you are talking about we would be the majority party. It would be 50 Republican, 48 Dems and 2 independents (Liberman and the Socialist from Vermont). Please let me know. So wouldn't the Repubicans be running things?
Anommynous| 11.2.10 @ 2:41PM
Joe, I believe that Lieberman and the socialist would caucus with the Democrats, so they would form a sort of coalition. This Democrat coalition would hold the majority.
John Navratil| 11.2.10 @ 4:04PM
Anonymous,
You are correct. And even if Lieberman were persuaded to caucus with the R's, he is still a (principled) liberal. It wouldn't help.
Pat| 11.2.10 @ 5:38PM
If the Republicans triumph today and control the House while splitting control of the Senate, “nothing will get done” the Democratic pundits are whining. Well, duh! Isn’t that the idea? Tonight, many Americans will sleep soundly secure in the knowledge our elected employees will soon be clawing and biting each other like a barrel full of angry wolverines – now that’s a soothing thought. And what legislation should “get done” exactly? How about 34 weeks of paid vacation for our legislators – annually? Would you rather our elected employees were off fishing or thinking up new ways to defraud voters and swindle us taxpayers? And you’re not really still thinking that question over - are you?
We act as if our elected employees should be like auto workers with some sort of hourly quota of work to fulfill – something even those government employees, the auto workers, are no longer required to do. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t even lift the 3,400 page Health Care Bill let alone read it, so how much work are they actually doing anyway?
And isn’t it their legislative staff who are the worker bees creating endless legislation their bosses don’t bother to read before voting? So, we desperately want some Poly Sci major who couldn’t find a real job working 12 hours a day on the next Health Care bill?
If we wanted someone to do those jobs honest Americans won’t do, we’d elect illegal immigrants, not politicians. So, let’s embrace “Gridlock”, it beats “Hope” and “Change” any day of the week. And, sure, some innocent will claim that once the Republicans are in control they’ll roll back all those swindles the Democrats perpetrated on us – ha, ha, that’s a really funny one, now have you heard the one about the traveling salesman and the farmer’s daughter?
PJ| 11.2.10 @ 7:23PM
Joe Lieberman is a radical liberal who just happens to be a gentleman. The only thing conservative about him is his protectiveness over Israel. I tend to remember him as Gore's VP running mate who enthusiastically embraced not just embraced the defense policy of progressives. Lieberman will not side with the Republicans on anything but Israel. He's another Democrat. Period!
Tim*| 11.2.10 @ 9:20PM
Called Winners Republican Tea Party Candidates Rand Paul-Kentucky, Marco Rubio-Florida, JimDeMint-South Carolina, and Non-Tea Party Republican John Boozman-Arkansas.
Toomey lookin' good coming outta of early counted Democrat Stronghold Philadelphia.
Running parallel to poll leading Gubernatorial Republican Corbett.
RCV| 11.2.10 @ 10:24PM
From Nate Silver, the most astute political analyst in the country: "Joe Sestak's numbers in Pennsylvania look somewhat more robust. He's holding his own in the western portion of the state, the Philadelphia suburbs, and performing well in the industrial areas in the eastern portion of the state. He has accumulated a 100,000-vote advantage so far in Philadelphia. This race ought to worry Republicans."
RCV| 11.2.10 @ 10:53PM
Toomey will likely pull it out in the end, but...the loss of West Virginia virtually ends GOP hopes for anything close to a tie in the Senate.
RCV| 11.3.10 @ 12:25AM
Toomey has pulled it out, but Democrats have won in California and are maintaining leads in Nevada, Washington and Colorado. There is now zero chance of Republicans gaining control of the Senate.