My understanding is that the votes have been counted in Virginia and Montana, and that Webb & Tester have more votes. I get that because the races are so close, there may be recounts, etc. to confirm the count, but if they have more votes than their opponents, why not call the race? I get that people are gunshy about calling a race [I]before the votes are all in [/I]after the Florida debacle in 2000, but if the votes have, in fact, been counted, and Webb & Tester have won, announce it as such and let the losers take whatever steps they deem appropriate.

Am I missing something? Why are these results being treated differently? Montana isn't even within the spread where Burns would get an automatic recount.

I guess I'm just anxious to pop the champagne... :Alchy

Re: Question re the Senate Races

Well, Tester has been announced the winner in Montana. One down, one to go!

Re: Question re the Senate Races

I think your avatar is dancing faster. :lol:

Re: Question re the Senate Races

the problem with anouncing a winner in a race that close is that there is more than likely to be a recount. having a margin of a couple thousand votes on 2 million+ total could be a mistake...

Re: Question re the Senate Races

plus, the networks look bad now for doing that ;)

Re: Question re the Senate Races

[QUOTE=day_for_night;404449]the problem with anouncing a winner in a race that close is that there is more than likely to be a recount. having a margin of a couple thousand votes on 2 million+ total could be a mistake...[/QUOTE]

I have to confess, I have a bit of an ulterior motive -- as I look back on it, I guess I felt like Bush benefited from being called the winner back in '06, as if there was a presumption that he had, in fact, won. Kinda like the ruling on the field standing in the absence of incontrovertible visual evidence on an NFL reply. I guess I'd like to see Webb benefit from that presumption as well.

;)