Thank you for posting that, Brad! Jeez, you would have thought that race would have been the first one I looked at this morning, but been too caught up in the national stuff.

This is sure a pleasnat surprise.
When I went to bed last night it wasn't looking good.
Go Debra!

More good news:

Montana margin beyond recount level with 99% of precincts reporting:

Democratic Tester 49%

Republican Burns 48%
(Incumbent)

Or "pleasant"

Elsewhere in California Pombo got his ass woopped, but Doolittle managed to stay in. Considering he has one of the richest constituencies in northern California it is not much of a surprise.
But he his also on the short list of those who should be taking a dive as the Abramoff investigation cleans house.
It could be more satisfying to see him slink away with his tail between his legs than be defeated in an election.

Hey Brad, Great news, but why are you going so easy on that slime-ball Bruce? Please, quit mincing your words

Bluebear --- Thanks for the cheerful thought about Doolittle. I was pretty bummed about the results this morning, but I'll keep that image in mind of his slinking away with his tail between his legs.

(There are not that many rich people. I've racked my mind trying to figure out why any average citizen would vote for him...well, I give up.)

So Good!
Yesterday i heard she was losing to this criminal and it made me turn off the TV.
Great news!
All we need is VA.

I called it on my site for Debra at 4:30 a.m. Anyone that wants to read it can go to http://www.californiapro.../11/in_closest_cali.html

Now, where do we go from here?

A secretary of state who wants secure votes?!??
Noooooooooooooooooooo...
(Congradulations Debra. Please set up 100% paper ballots, and secure voting, then deploy it nation wide).

I have to bring up that rotten old JD Hayworth R-Az was knocked off too

Looking at the breakdown of counties in CA won by Bowen vs. McPherson is deceiving, much like looking at the breakdown of red and blue states in the US, since the smaller number of counties won by Bowen are in the coastal, more populated parts of the state. In particular, Bowen won LA County by nearly 400,000 votes, more than offsetting the fact that she lost overall in the rest of the state, since her total victory margin is around 250,000. The ironic thing about this is that the LA Times endorsed McPherson, demonstrating how out of touch and lacking in sway it has become with its own potential subscription base. Interestingly, the Editor of the LA Times resigned yesterday, joining the previous publisher of the paper who resigned a couple of months ago, both being unwilling to completely fall in line with the mandates of the Times corporate master, the conservative Tribune Co. in Chicago. Not surprisingly, both have been replaced by lackeys from the Chicago Tribune. The good news is that the Tribune Co. is hemorrhaging money and there is a big local push in LA to buy the LA Times back to local ownership, with the potential buyers mentioned all being of a more progressive, less conservative bent (and local) when compared to the Tribune Board.

Congrats Debbie Bowen! We were pulling for you here! WOW! Remember I was saying, "where are all the good people in high places?" Now, hopefully, they are the new congress and state congress's & governors.

Brad: Loves democracy, hates hypocrisy.

McPherson: Loves hypocrisy, hates democracy.

What happened to that Haas guy? I saw a special on FSTV with Bev Harris, hosted by Ed Asner, with a cast of other patriots, and it was in San Diego, and they were all bashing Haas. I said to myself, "Hey! I know that guy from the Brad Blog!"

Congratulations Ms. Bowen! Let's see CA go to all paper mail-in ballots, like us here in OR! You're right, Brad, this was one of the most important races in the country, if not THE most important.

Thanks for all of your work, Brad!

This is FANTASTIC news for us folks here in California.

This will ensure voter integrity. And more importantly, with Debra we now have killed the RepubliCONs chancing for stealing the vote like they did with FL Harris and OH Blackwell.

Hurrah for DEMOCRACY, Constitution of the United States and WE THE PEOPLE!

By the way, don't pay any attention to the exit polls. As I understand it, they were made to conform to the "actual" totals before being released. Seems to me possible that the Republicans lost far worse than the final totals show. Yes?

Woo Hoo! Yay Debra!! I thought she had lost, too!! Hahaha, glad to see I'm not the ONLY one enjoying a little schadenfreude!!!

This is actually fantastic news for everybody in the country because if Bowen can clean up California voting the rest of the country stands a much better chance of following her lead.

As far as "election fraud" goes this was the most important race of the day.

Arry #6

I guess I had Rocklin in mind, and all the other new subdivisions of half million dollar homes 8 feet apart.

Those seas of orange tile roofs flowing off to the horizon.

Six years ago it was a 20 minute comute from North Sac to Rocklin. Morning or night it didn't matter.

Now it is 35 minutes in the morning and nearly an hour in the afternoon on a good day. Sometimes as long as an hour and a half.

a heartfelt

thank you!
to all who are fighting for transparency, accuracy, security, auditability and more in our elections.

I will not be sworn in until January, but I have plenty to do in the next two months. Delighted to have this workload!

Oh, thank you, Senator Bowen for being someone for whom I could vote with complete confidence. What a relief!!!

We love you Debra! I sent out a newsletter to 1,500 Californians championing you the day before the election. As we all know, CA was a big prize for those who would corrupt our democracy. Now they'll have to find another way to steal. A huge sigh of relief from this Neoconvict.

Had to pinch myself when I found out Debra Bowen had in fact won. WHOPPEEE Integrity is on the march.
Thank you Debra for such a strong campaign; your determination was contagious.
My favorite part of the Bowen/MacPherson debate was when Debra turned to the fibber and said, but Bruce, I thought we were friends.
Debra's campaign had a lot of class and a lot of guts.

Yay, Debra! I've been trying to explain to my friends here in central Europe how the elections might just have saved the world. True, only the most advanced students get to the point of considering your recent, gloriously and thankfully triumphant campaign, but in many ways it really was the single most important campaign in the country. The very thought of Brucie stealing Cali's electoral votes for JEB... well, 'nuff said...

Senator Bowen - I second Agent 99 and CZARAGORN!

This is fantastic news!!! I can't wait until Debra decertifies some of those evil voting machines...

Sorry I forgot to say.Starting with Diebold. They can't be allowed to have machines in the next presidential election!!! If we get rid of them here in California maybe we can get other states to follow our lead.

Thank goodness we will have Debra leading the way!!

This is truly GREAT NEWS!

California has always been a place of great innovations and freedoms that filter down to backward places like Utah eventually.

STAY THE COURSE CALIFORN-I-A!

By the way, how did things work out for that "Clean Elections" proposition there?

good riddance. no let's rid california of ALL THESE EVIL CRACKING HACKING ELECTRONIC MACHINES

#28 - Larry --- the public campaign financing proposition (Prop 89) failed miserably. (74.5%-No, 25.5%-Yes) Go figure.

Arry #30

That's NOT what I wanted to hear Arry, but thanks for the information anyway.

Arry #30

I'm just curious how that Prop 89 was worded --- was it the typical legalese that hardly anyone can understand?

I know these things are intentionally worded in the most confusing language. In 2004 we had the Gay marriage amendment on our ballot. It was so confusing that the League of Women Voters had translated it on their website to help people know whether they wanted to vote for or against it.

When I voted Nov. 7, I found I had missed studying one of the proposed amendments. So, I asked for help deciphering the legalese. The Elections officer I spoke with called over their "expert" to help me.

The "expert" [who I am sure must have already voted] sat down, looked at it, scratched her head & waffled back and forth ... maybe it means this --- wait --- no --- maybe it means that --- wait --- no ... Gah.

She finally said how much she hated the way they write these things. Then she told me "just don't vote on it." Gee --- did SHE vote on it? Isn't that sad.

Well, I took my time and answered it & even though it gave me a headache I nailed it. The awful thing is - if it looks like you agree with the title - take another look because the amendment probably means exactly the opposite.

I believe the wording should be easy to understand.

Kira 32

You said this about propositions and amendments:

if it looks like you agree with the title - take another look because the amendment probably means exactly the opposite.

I believe the wording should be easy to understand.

EXACTLY! There should be a law that requires lucidity in every bill, amendment, or proposition being voted on, as well as a required argument for and against it!

However, the proposition in California was brought forth by the nurses in California as far as I understood it. So it really was a grassroots movement and seemed legitimate, so I doubt it was craftily worded.

PBS's Now program had an excellent program about it a couple of weeks ago which should be on the website, but I guess it's water under the bridge now. Places in Arizona have been using it, (clean elections), for 8 years, and it seems to work fine unless you're greedy and dishonest.

Kira --- Of course, the defeat of Prop 89 was a big disappointment to me. I think it was a matter of lack of education more than anything. I don't believe the citizens of California are dead-set against public financing of campaigns, as the results indicate.

The summary - which is what a lot of people look at said: Provides that eligible candidates for state elective office may receive public campaign funding. Increases tax on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program. Imposes new campaign contribution/expenditure limits. Fiscal Impact: Increased revenues (primarily from increased taxes on corporations and financial institutions) totaling more than $200 million annually to pay for the public financing of political campaigns.

I don't believe 75% of Californians would oppose that. No way. As I'm pretty much off the media grid, however, I don't know what kind of (possibly effective) negative ads were put out. Maybe we should do some "forensic analysis" of the proposition votes.

If you are interested, here's a pdf of what was sent to the voters.