did falk win the election?
922379
Van Hollen Beats Falk In Tight A-G race  \n \n \nMADISON(AP) -- J.B. Van Hollen says he plans to be an attorney general that both Democrats and Republicans can be proud of.\n\nThe Republican candidate focused on his background as a tough prosecutor to defeat Kathleen Falk in Tuesday's election.\n\nFalk's campaign issued a statement, saying she has called Van Hollen to wish him the best.\n\nVan Hollen painted himself as a seasoned crime-fighter, calling on his experience as a district attorney and a federal prosecutor.\n\nHe ripped Falk as inexperienced in criminal justice, blasting her in ads and in the media as never having tried a single criminal case.
851104
I don't know.\nThe Democrats got a lot of votes from those ignorant gullible Conspiracy Nuts.\n\nLooking forward to Mancow.\nMancow Rules!
215706
Absolutely. He's conned everybody that's voted for him by switching parties, and made a farce of everybody that payed for his liberal campaign.\n\nedit: Yes, you vote for a person, but he was voted under the impression that he would pursue the liberal platform. It's total BS for him to switch parties.
1076056
Well now that's intriguing!! I don't remember anything being posted on the Yahoo pages or blogs or any user screaming with excitement about their win...hhhmmmmm\nVery very good Question my friend. Email Jane Furrows, she will probably know or will be able to find out.\n\nKeep us posted.
810139
NO. I knew the politicians would win.
1185065
Yes I did...and it was on a DIEBOLD...\nSo that means when my vote went in...\nit was changed to what the Republicans want...\nSuch a corrupt, shallow party....
65079
Only if the race were between Perry and Friedman.  Otherwise, no. In my opinion Friedman has no platform or experience.  Strayhorn and Gammage both have him beat hands down.
13316
To answer your second question...evidently, yes.\nAs to the first, Oh, if only there had been a retarded chimp on the ballot, how much better the outcome might have been.... I almost swoon to think of the improvement that would represent!
735014
Yes!  As a matter of fact, they just reported that McCain has won the 2008 presidential election.....
386199
probably...she won the runoff election
968801
He conceded!  \n\nDidn't have a small enough margin to call for a recount. And Allen is due to concede, as well, so it's officially a Democratic majority in the Senate!
780778
The website for the NY board of elections doesn't post the unofficial results of the election. They wait until the results are certified. But the candidates are listed on the website. And since Andrew Cuomo was the Democrat candidate for A.G., I'd make an educated guess that he was the winner.
348379
There was no national election. There might have been some sort of a vote among top Bolsheviks. Besides, he rose to power not by getting into top office, but by usurping all power in the office that he already had. After Stalin died, there were some votes, but there was only one name on the ballot, an no pens or (or privacy) to cross it out.\n\nI like your punchline, but it might be more appropriate for Yeltsin or Lukoshenko (recently re-elected Belarussian czar). Putin is a bit more subtle than that - won't let any opposition to gain enough public support.\n\nIf you want Stalin to say something funny, try this: "Why do you think I dislike jokes about myself? I love them, I even collect them - got nearly two camp-fulls."\n(i.e. two prison camps filled with peoplewho told the jokes)
1044734
To somepolisci...\n\nA Republican who had been trailing in the polls (due to some talk he was possibly connected to a scandal that got his predecessor indicted) won.  His polls went up after he pointed out that he is stricter on illegal immigration than was his opponent and after McCain canceled an appearance at one of the candidate's benefits because the candidate opposed the Senate Bill.  His opponent was also taped saying to someone who had just told her that he had no documents that it was OK, he could work for her campaign and vote for her anyhow. (She says it was a slip of the tongue.)\n\nBusby (the one who lost) was concerned enough about the importance of the immigration issue that her campaign fund paid for and ran adds in favor of an even more conservative candidate who had ties to the Minutemen, hoping to split the vote on that issue.\n\nThe margin he won by wasn't huge, I admit.  However, he had special hurdles to overcome.
180160
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!\n\nHere is what happened ... what liberals refuse to see the truth in.\n\nIn November 2000, Al Gore was PROJECTED to win Florida by media outlets using their projection formulas. Only problem was was that they were wrong. George Bush was declared the official winner by a narrow margin - about a 1,000 votes. Due to the closeness of the election, Florida law required a recount. The recount showed Bush won by only 537 votes.\n\nAl Gore disputed the results and asked that four counties be recounted as allowed by law. However, it soon became clear that the recount could not be completed and certified by 5.00 pm on November 14th as required by law. The heavily Democratic counties of Volusia and Palm Beach sued to have the deadline extended. The Bush campaigned countersued claiming it was unfair to change the rules in the middle of the process.\n\nEventually, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of the counties and extended the deadline. The Bush campaign appealed to the US Supreme Court which sent the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification. The Florida Supreme Court again ordered the recount. Bush filed an emergency stay of the recount with the US Supreme Court - which the court upheld.\n\nAt this time (12 December 2000), the Florida House of Representatives voted to certify the original results of the election and voted along party lines. After the certification of the election, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the recount should continue. Later that same day, the US Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore, voted 5-4 to end the count in accordance with Florida law. They cited different counting standards and no one central authority figure in charge as the reasons for the ruling.\n\nBush vs. Gore effectively ended the recount, and Bush was certified the winner.\n\nNOW, you tell me if George Bush cheated. He followed procedures allowed by law - as did Al Gore. He used the courts to try to get a favorable outcome - as did Al Gore. Al Gore - had the situations been reversed - would have done the exact same thing George Bush did.\n\nWas it a clean win? Absolutely not. Was it legal? Absolutely.\n\nInterestingly enough, the USA Today, the Miami Herald, Knight Ridder and the Tampa Tribune conducted a recount after all was said and done. Under every possible scenario using the conditions that the Gore campaign requested, George W. Bush STILL won the election in Florida.\n\nInteresting facts:\n\n* Some Democrats blamed Ralph Nader for the loss. Had Ralph Nader not run, Gore would have won both New Hampshire AND Florida. Either state would have given him the victory.\n* Had Al Gore won his own home state of Tennessee, he would have won the election.\n* More than 8,000,000 Democrats nationwide voted for George Bush.\n\nThe Democrats have not forgotten the election of 2000, and all of the anti-Bush rhetoric playing today is a direct result of the loss. The election of 2000 is tearing the party apart.\n\nMany liberals claim that "Bush is not my President." As a conservative, this is the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard. It doesn't matter who you voted for or who you think should have won, Bush is still the President for ANY American citizen. Fortunately, only a small percentage of close-minded inviduals think like this, and most of the country thinks they are ridiculous.\n\nEDIT: You libs quote websites like http://www.smirkingchimp.com and http://www.moveon.org and http://michaelmoore.com as credible resources for the news??? Websites that obviously have an agenda? Fortunate that most Americans there, too, see through that garbage.\n\nTo the two of you who said you will never vote again. While I think EVERY American should vote, I am glad to see that two liberals who do not think very clearly have taken themselves out of the election cycle. Nothing like giving up and helping your vowed enemy win again, huh? Hope that make you feel great, 'cause it does me!!  :-)
790134
No, the recent election results are proof of that.
1030174
He was voted into office by a LANDSLIDE!!! \n\nMajority of VOTERS wanted him into office!!!\n\nHe is the BEST person for the job!