“It’s a comfortable margin,” said Lisa Stephens, a newly elected Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner.

Worthington acknowledged his lead over Beier and said the current vote count looks promising.

“I’m eager to know the final numbers,” he said. The Registrar reported 1,464 votes for Worthington and 1,333 for Beier based on precinct counts.

As the Registrar tallied remaining absentee and provisional ballots, Beier remained hopeful.

“There is still a chance,” he said. “But, if votes come in at the same rate, Kriss will win. I’m expecting to lose,” Beier said Thursday.

Beier, who ran against Worthington eight years ago, said he will devote his time to volunteer opportunities if he fails to secure the City Council seat for the second time.

Both candidates spent Election Night in uncertainty as they awaited precinct and absentee ballot counts.

Auto mechanics, college students, and city commissioners crowded Kriss Worthington’s campaign headquarters on Telegraph Avenue Tuesday night to support the current District 7 City Council member.

Representatives from the Machinist’s Union, which represents auto mechanics, praised Worthington’s leadership during a recent strike.

“Kriss took time out of his day to come by our strike and see what was happening,” said Gary Horrocks, a Berkeley auto mechanic. “He’s been at every rally.”

The union’s Alameda County director Don Crosatto noted Worthington’s genuine support. “He wasn’t just there to get his picture in the paper.”

Worthington supporters say they have no doubt he will continue his efforts to represent students and revitalize Telegraph Avenue, among other things.

UC Berkeley political science major Candace Nisby, 19, gathered student support for Worthington’s campaign.

“What really pulled me to Kriss was that he appointed students to city commissions,” she said. During the past 10 years, Worthington has appointed 72 students, a number far greater than any other Council member. “We need representation, people to fight for what students believe in.”

Berkeley Rent Board Commissioner Jesse Arreguin is one of many students who became involved in city politics with Worthington’s help. He appreciates Worthington’s efforts to increase the number of young people in city government.

Worthington’s supporters criticized Beier for pouring large sums of money into his campaign. Beier spent $72,000 and Worthington spent $27,000 during the campaign process.

“This hasn’t been an easy campaign,” Arreguin said. “But, through grassroots support, people throughout the city have come together to support Kriss. He definitely deserves to get re-elected.”

Worthington’s Campaign Treasurer Nancy Carleton attributed the tight race to Beier’s campaign spending.

“It’s been a far closer race than it should have been, mostly because of a candidate trying to buy the campaign,” Carleton said.

Beier’s supporters, who gathered at City Council member Gordon Wozniak’s home Tuesday evening, said Beier outspent Worthington in order to stand a chance as a challenger in this race.

“If you want to win, you’ve got to spend more money,” Wozniak said.

Wozniak described the Berkeley Daily Planet newspaper’s support of Worthington as “free endorsements.”

“I don’t have a local newspaper in my pocket,” Beier said. “It’s hard to get your message out otherwise,” he said.

Beier appreciated financial support from Berkeley residents and the local Chamber of Commerce, which put $18,000 towards his campaign.

Beier said the Chamber’s support for his campaign shows how much small business owners in Berkeley are in need of a new leader. “Out of the 410 businesses in the Chamber, 403 have three employees or less,” he said. “A lot of people are looking at me to turn Telegraph around.”

Worthington, who also supports the Telegraph Avenue revitalization effort, said he plans to continue supporting local businesses. “I got a late start on campaigning because I spent so much time fighting to get resources back on Telegraph,” he said. “This is time I would have normally spent on campaigning.”

Though Daly enjoys a sizeable lead, it’s not enough for him to be named the official winner. San Francisco’s ranked-choice voting method requires a candidate to garner at least 50 percent of the vote to be named the outright winner. Elections officials are now tallying the second and third choices in District Six. They’ll use those numbers to determine the winner. The process count could continue through Friday.

Daly's supporters call him a passionate advocate. His critics call him antagonistic. At Tuesday's post-election party, Daly said he is maturing and indicated San Franciscans may see a different side of him during this term. "Over the past six years, I've definitely aged, I've definitely experienced, and that will continue to happen during my tenure," Daly said. "That said, I'm always going to stand up for what I believe in, I'm always going to fight for the less fortunate, I'm always going to strive towards justice. Daly greeted supporters on election night at a South of Market nightclub packed with a cross-section of District 6 residents, from young bike messengers to homeless senior citizens in wheel chairs. They all crammed in and feasted on pizza as a DJ spun reggae tracks. People crowded around a computer terminal in the corner to check the latest election results while Daly shook hands and danced. The scene was much different at the Black camp, on the other end of SOMA. Black's team gathered at the upscale hangout, MoMo's, across from AT&T Park. They sat at tables with white table cloths and dined on roast chicken, ravioli and fresh greens. Those who weren't monitoring results on their Blackberrys watched live election returns on two jumbo plasma screen televisions. Soon after polls closed, the Black campaign was feeling hopeful. Early results showed him in the lead. But, as more precints started reporting, those numbers changed and Black never regained his lead. Still, he remained hopeful. "I do think that we're going to pick up a lot of second and third place votes," Black said. "I'm just excited about where we are right now." The race for District 6 surprised many Daly supporters when it became much tighter, and more contentious, than they had ever imagined. Black is a political novice. However, as a former legislative aide to District 2 Supervisor Michaela Alioto-Pier, he worked closely with Mayor Gavin Newsom and won Newsom's endorsement. Two weeks ago, a poll commissioned by San Francisco's business community indicated Daly had reason to worry about his seat. It showed him trailing Black, 37 percent to 31 percent. The District 6 race was seen as not just a neighborhood contest, but a snapshot of the issues that divide the city. “This is really the two big tectonic plates in the city fighting it out again,” said Corey Cook, a political science professor at the University of San Francisco. “It’s the big fight.” The dividing line: urban development. District 6 encompasses San Francisco’s Inner Mission, Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods, as well as Treasure Island. All of those neighborhoods included some of the city’s most affordable housing in 2000, when Daly was first elected. That’s still largely true today, though the real estate is among the city’s most attractive to upscale developers. A large part of Black's platform included plans to clean up the district, particularly the Tenderloin, where prostitutes, drug users and the homeless congregate. “People throughout the district say two main things: it’s dirty and it’s dangerous,” said Black. “Supervisor Daly has been there for six years and he hasn’t done anything to address it.” Daly painted a different picture with his message to voters on his campaign website, pointing to efforts to help people get off the streets by increasing the amount of money allocated to housing for seniors, families with disabilities and the formerly homeless. Daly also emphasized his leadership in bringing 10,000 new housing units to District 6 while preserving available rental housing. Daly supporters say keeping District 6 affordable is a matter of preserving San Francisco’s reputation as a haven for people from all walks of life. “If this becomes a city where only the rich can afford to live, you’ll be holding the title to a town that’s devoid of culture,” said Ted Strawsen, who spent the Saturday before Halloween campaigning for Daly outside a Safeway store in the Inner Mission. Seven blocks away, Daly passed out campaign flyers at 16th and Valencia Streets. As Daly smiled and greeted voters in a soft-spoken voice, there was no trace of the sporadic temper tantrums that have been the focus of intense media attention throughout his six years at City Hall. It came to a head in 2004, when Alioto-Pier introduced a measure to censure Daly after he told a landlord rights’ advocate to “f*ck off” during a hearing on tenants’ rights. The censure motion was defeated by a vote of 8-2, with Supervisors Alioto-Pier and Sean Elsbernd the only supporters. Though the outbursts have made Daly a bit of a hero to some in his district, it’s not a role he relishes. When District 6 resident Rick Valentine approached Daly during his Saturday morning campaigning to compliment him on his renegade style, Daly threw it back at his City Hall opponents. “I’m not a renegade,” he said. “I’m just me. They’re the renegades. I just do what I have to do.” Black’s campaign tried to capitalize on Daly’s well documented personality clashes. “I think people want a bridge builder, not a bomb thrower,” Black said. “I think people want discussion about how we’re going to move forward.” On election night, Daly seemed ready to move on, too. "To my critics, come on over to the party, it's the best party in San Francisco tonight," said Daly.

“Gas prices are the ultimate pocketbook issue,” said Rarick.

“I don’t think that the economics of Prop 87 were ever made all that clear,” said Dan Kammen, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and a co-author of the measure. He echoed Rarick’s comments that the opposition succeeded in framing the proposition in voter’s eyes.

The Yes on 87 campaign fell short in explaining the positive economic benefits of the proposition, he said. And with the No campaign spending almost $100 million, the proposition didn’t stand a chance, he added.

“$100 million will buy a lot of votes,” Kammen noted.

Prop 87’s strongest support was in coastal counties, especially the Bay Area. San Francisco had the strongest showing, with 73 percent of voters supporting it. This was in keeping with a recent Field poll that stated that support for the measure was strongest in coastal regions, while inland areas tended to be against the measure.

But the support of coastal communities was not enough to carry the measure. Only 45.3 percent of voters supported Prop 87 while 54.7 percent opposed.

Supporters had hoped that the success of the measure would focus attention on global warming and encourage the United States to work more fervently toward increasing its use of alternative energy.

“This is not a repudiation about the need to do more about alternative energy,” said Nick DeLuca, a spokesman for the No on 87 campaign.

Prop 87 had “the right end but the wrong means,” he said.

While the proposition was soundly rejected, neither side believes the issues it raised will go away.

DeLuca suggested that the state might still make alternative energy a priority and then line up existing resources to support it, rather than creating a new tax in pursuit of clean energy goals the way Prop 87 was designed.

But Kammen still sees room for an oil tax.

“I’m sure that California is going to pass a tax on oil. I just don’t think it’ll go to energy,” he said. Instead, he expects any revenues to go into the General Fund, rather than directly into funding energy research. Some of that research might have been done by the oil companies themselves, he suggested.

“In a weird way, it’s worse for oil companies that it goes somewhere else,” Kammen said.

Opponents of 87 had claimed that the measure would reduce state oil production, leading to increased foreign imports and higher gas prices.

Supporters disputed this contention and pointed out that the initiative was specifically designed to prevent oil companies from passing the tax on to consumers. In addition, the world market determines oil prices—not California production, said Severin Borenstein, the director of the University of California Energy Institute, who is not affiliated with either side of the proposition.

Opponents also worried that the proposition would reduce funding for schools and public safety.

The oil tax revenues would have been exempt from state General Fund spending requirements. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office said any tax revenue losses would probably not exceed a few million dollars for local property taxes, $10 million in state income taxes, and $15 million in state oil revenues. Supporters said that this money was necessary to put muscle behind California’s global warming laws.

The Yes on 87 campaign’s included environmentalists, venture capitalists, the American Lung Association of California, well-known Hollywood figures, and prominent Democrats like Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

The coalition opposed to Prop 87 included oil companies, the California Chamber of Commerce, several education administrators, and firefighter and police groups.

Both sides raised more than $155 million during the campaign. Chevron and Aera Energy provided most of the No on 87 campaign’s funding, with $71 million of $95 million total, while the Hollywood producer Stephen Bing provided $50 million of the $61 million that the Yes on 87 campaign raised.

Running on a platform showcasing his expertise in alternative energy, McNerney also capitalized on growing discontent with the Iraq war, and a tide of ethical questions weighing down Republican incumbents to takedown Pombo.

McNerney garnered 53 percent of the vote in California’s 11th district, a patch of subdivisions and rural area spanning parts of Alameda, San Joaquin, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties.

“We worked hard, and gathered a lot of support and passion this year,” McNerney told North Gate News Tuesday night.

“The people are ready for this,” McNerney said referring to Democrats’ inroads in regaining the house.

McNerney won decidedly, collecting more than ten thousand votes than his opponent.

Ousting Pombo, a seven-term incumbent and chairman of the powerful House Resources Committee, is a major victory for environmental groups. The Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club spent millions of dollars on advertising targeting the congressman’s environmental record. The strategy proved victorious, as advertising helped to balance the money race, where Pombo out-fundraised his opponent by over $3 million.

Ethical red-flags stemming from $32,000 he accepted from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, worked in tandem with the labeling of the congressman as an “eco-thug” by the Sierra Club to unseat Pombo, whose family has been in Tracy for generations.

Pombo could not be reached for comment on election night

“This was not a victory just for me. This was not a victory just for Democrats. This was a victory for hope,” Patrick, 50, told supporters at his campaign headquarters. He was joined onstage by Massachusetts’ two Democratic U.S. Senators, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and his running mate for Lieutenant Governor, Tim Murray.

Patrick held a comfortable lead over Republican Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey in polls leading up to the election, and won 56% of the vote to Healey’s 35%. Independent Christy Mihos took 7%, and Green Rainbow Party candidate Grace Ross received 2% of votes.

In an election marred by negative advertising and nasty debates, Patrick managed to rise above the fray. Many voters seemed to feel that he took the high road compared to Healey, who became mired in her attempts to portray him as soft on crime and a political novice while failing to positively promote her own strengths and agenda.

“Barriers have been broken, and we should all be grateful for that,” Healey told supporters in her concession speech.

Patrick had never run for political office prior to this election. He was an attorney for the NAACP in the 1980s, and in 1994 was named U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights by Bill Clinton, making a name for himself with issues relating to prisoners’ rights and affirmative action. He has also done multiple stints in private practice, and served in executive capacities for Coca Cola, Texaco, United Airlines, and Ameriquest Financial.

After announcing his candidacy in 2005, Patrick slowly built up a grassroots campaign that appealed to Massachusetts liberals but also gained momentum from

moderates looking to go in a new direction. He defeated Attorney General Tom Reilly and prominent businessman Chris Gabrieli in the Democratic primary, and led Healey – who voters perhaps negatively associated with outgoing Governor Mitt Romney – from the outset.

In his acceptance speech at his victory party, Patrick praised the diversity of his supporters, thanking everyone from the homeless to venture capitalists. Touching on his campaign theme, which asked, “What have you done today to make you feel proud?” he told the crowd, “You are the ones who transformed this from a political campaign to a movement for change, and I am honored and awed by what you have done.”

“Grassroots is a power of citizenship,” Patrick continued, “It transcends party, it outlasts party, and it has to lift us all up. And it doesn’t end with this election.”

Though he never struck the death blow to Allen’s campaign for re-election by attacking Allen, Webb’s low-key persistence and authenticity appealed to many Virginians, said Toni-Michelle Travis, Associate Professor of Government and Politics at George Mason University.

Webb also had an advantage in Virginia, Travis said, because of his military background.

“We have always sent people to war from Virginia,” said Travis. The state is home to a naval station in Norfolk and many Pentagon employees retire to Virginia, Travis said.

Webb, a decorated Vietnam veteran and weapons expert who opposes the Iraq War, was decorated for service in Vietnam. His rough and ready background made him a perfect candidate to go up against the effusive and confident Allen, and played counterpoint to Webb’s actual understated demeanor.

Allen, whose father was famed football coach George Allen Sr. seemed to use his sports background as a substitute for war service toward the end of the campaign by repeatedly invoking his football legacy.

“Right now, Allen is walking around throwing footballs, trying to emphasize his father’s connection to athletics,” Travis said the day before the election.

Politically, Virginia is a state divided between North and South. Southern Virginians tend to vote conservative. Northern Virginia, according to Travis, is an entirely different world. “People in Richmond tend to think of northern Virginia as occupied territory,” Travis said, referring to the larger percentage of immigrants in the north, liberal viewpoints, and the general diversity of the area.

During the campaign, Allen was largely responsible for his own decline in the polls. While comfortably ensconced in southern Virginia this summer, standing amidst white voters, Allen voiced a racial epithet, macaca, to a young East Indian man in his audience who worked for Webb. “Welcome to America,” Allen told the long-time Virgina resident and US citizen, in a statement that seemed a play to anti-immigration sentiments.

“Allen was playing to the ‘real Virginians,’” Travis said. “Southern Virginians think you’re not a real Virginian if you live in the north. They think we don’t have the right values or attitudes.”

It is northern Virginia’s diversity, combined with Virginia’s respect for military history both north and south, that has resulted in the close Senate race.

But Travis suggested there may be another factor.

While many conservative voters believed that the Marshall/Newman amendment, which changes the Virginia constitution to read that only a union between one man and one woman may be considered a valid marriage in the state, would bring conservative voters to the polls, it was assumed that those same voters would then choose Allen.

Travis postulates a different possibility, one that seems to explain some of Webb’s impending success and Virginia’s support of the marriage amendment.

“(African-American) voters will go to the polls and vote for the marriage amendment. Then they’ll turn around and vote for Webb,” Travis said.

The much-coveted African American vote, which accounts for 14% of Virginia’s voting populace, was being actively courted in the final months of the campaign. Allen had gathered a team of 15 African American clergymen to help him clean up his image following the macaca debacle. Webb was seen with Richmond Mayor and former governor L. Douglas Wilder, and made the rounds in Virginia with Barack Obama.

The election results show that Travis may be right. Virginians resoundingly accepted the marriage amendment. And Webb, coming from behind, may well be the new Senator of Virginia.

While Webb has a clear lead and has already announced he will be forming a transition team, the race is so close that observers expect there will be a recount. That could not take place until after Nov. 27, when the Virginia Board of Election is expected to certify the election.

The three seats had been contested by 15 candidates – one of the highest challenger counts since the 2000 elections when 13 candidates ran.

"I feel really good," said Kim, while celebrating with many of her supporters in the Mission District. "I'm really happy that all of the hard work paid off."

Kim, a 29-year-old youth education director at the Chinatown Community Development Center who lost her school board race in 2004, will be the youngest board member.

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, both Kim and Mendoza held a commanding lead with roughly 13 percent of the vote. At 11.06 percent, Maufas had a slight edge over Bob Twomey who had 10.59 percent of the vote.

"I'm excited. This is really great," said Mendoza, between hugs and kisses from her supporters at Slim's, a club/bar in SOMA. "This is what the voters wanted to see."

"It's a great victory for the community," said Maufas during a phone interview that was cut short because she'd lost her voice. "Congratulations to all the candidates," she added.

Earning a stipend of $500 a month, the new members will face pressing district concerns including declining enrollment, increasingly segregated schools and the search for a new superintendent.

"We want to make sure that we change the negative image of our public schools," said Mendoza. Mendoza came into the elections as one of the strongest candidates. She is Mayor Gavin Newsom's education advisor and earned the support of the powerful, 6,000-strong teachers union, the United Educators of San Francisco. The union endorsed Mendoza, Maufas and Twomey.

"I'm looking forward to working with (Jane) Kim and Kim-Shree," she added. "I'm also looking forward to working with the board members who I've had a good relationship with in the past."

Recently, the school board has been marred by infighting. Early this year, former Superintendent Arlene Ackerman resigned because of the constant squabbles between her and many of the board members. Interim Superintendent Gwen Chan took over in February and is expected to stay on through June 2007.

Although Chan has done much to rebuild relations with the school board, the results of the upcoming elections promise change. The responsibility of the new board will be to hire a new superintendent and end the bickering.

Looking at the results, Kim, who was endorsed by current school board members Norman Yee, Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez, said she holds similar views to Maufas.

"Now we have a clear majority on the board," said Kim who supports neighborhood-based schools.

Although he was defeated, Twomey, holding his election night festivities at Medjool, a restaurant lounge in the Mission District, said he was glad to have run.

"I'm honored to finish somewhere in the top four," he said. "There were a lot of really good candidates."

"This was a great experience," he said.

The record-setting $450 million in bond funds given the nod by voters will pay for improvements at 64 city schools, child development centers and administration buildings. The passage of Prop. A follows a school bond passed in 2003 that triggered $295 million for 30 schools.

“They’ve given us an ‘A’ on how we’ve spent the money so far on the previous bond, and that’s reflected in the percentage,” said Campaign manager Phil Halperin.

Prop. A opponent Roger Schulke said Tuesday’s tally merely demonstrated the short-term memory of city voters.

“We’re awarding incompetence,” said Schulke, who also competed in the race for board of education where he received about four percent of the vote. “I bet you in three years there’ll be another bond measure. Why can’t the city keep the schools maintained?”

District Spokeswoman Gentle Blythe said school districts across California have long relied on bonds to pay to fix leaky roofs, peeling linoleum floors, and safety upgrades like those included in Prop. A’s project list.

And a big chunk of the bond funds, 28 percent, is money the district has to spend to bring schools into compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act by 2012 as it’s required to do under the settlement of a 1999 lawsuit.

The approval of Prop. A means property owners can expect $22.26 per $100,000 of assessed value to be added to their annual tax bills on average over the 25-year life of the bonds.

Halperin said that voters can expect to see the third school bond measure on the ballot in five to seven years to complete the modernization of the district’s infrastructure.

Supporters of Measure J blame its probable defeat in part on an aggressive advertising campaign by opponents.

Opponents of Measure J include mayor Tom Bates, five members of the 8-member city council and a chamber of commerce-backed political action committee, which spent $39,000 to fight the measure, according to records on file with the city.

The no-on-J campaign sent voters three, full-color postcards depicting insignificant-looking, ramshackle buildings that had purportedly been declared historic landmarks. J supporters call these postcards “hit pieces” and say they misrepresented the current landmark process and Measure J.

The initiative’s supporters said the buildings depicted as examples of abuses of the landmark system were in fact not declared landmarks.

Some voters at the Elmwood polling place said the ads worked. Johanna Ilfeld, 31, a small business owner, said the postcards convinced her that Measure J would add too many restrictions to people wanting to build in Berkeley.

“I feel like Berkeley is already pretty cautious in terms of where they let you build and what they let you build,” she said. “I didn’t want to add more restrictions to what I assumed was already a reasonable process.”

One of the co-sponsors of the measure, Laurie Bright, said if it did fail last night, it was because the issues are quite complicated and hard for voters to get their minds around.

Local preservationists initiated Measure J as a last ditch effort to stop the city council’s proposed revision. They said the measure would undercut the public’s ability to preserve historic resources and maintain the fabric of older neighborhoods.

Supporters of Measure J include the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association and many Berkeley neighborhood associations. During the campaign, they argued Measure J would protect citizens’ ability to participate in preservation decisions. Without it, they said, it would become easier for developers to tear down irreplaceable architecture and build structures that erode the quality of neighborhoods.

Opponents said the measure would support a flawed system that creates expensive delays for property owners who want to develop or renovate. They also said it is has been abused by citizens who use the landmark process to stop development they don’t like, whether or not the property has inherent historic value.

Measure J arises from a long tradition of support for historic preservation in Berkeley. Buildings are declared landmarks, or a lesser distinction, “structures of merit” based on their role in the town’s history and their architectural features. Former mayor Shirley Dean said Berkeley holds a special place in the history of American architecture.

“Berkeley has a history of caring about architecture and how it interacts with the environment and creates neighborhoods,” she said. “We’re a very small city with a very big reputation.”

Under Measure J, as with current law, citizens’ right to protect their neighborhood is prioritized. Citizens can file a landmark petition at any point up to the day of demolition. Once filed, the commission has a year to consider the case before having to make a final decision.

But Cisco DeVries, Mayor Bates’ chief of staff called the current process for determining landmark status “unfair and confusing” for developers who may spend a lot of time and money on a project only to find out in the end that the property is a landmark.

The City Council’s proposed changes to the preservation law will be approved if Measure J fails. Under the city council’s proposed new version of the ordinance, property owner’s interests get priority.

The new law would allow property owners to apply for a request for determination to find out if their property qualifies as a landmark, before they even begin to plan a development. This makes it easier for a developer to plan a project without fear of a last minute landmark battle.

The new law would let property owners hire an independent consultant to prepare an analysis of the property’s historic character. Then the landmark commission would have 60 days to make a decision. If the commission fails to decide, citizens have three weeks to do their own research and bring a petition. At that point, if the property is not designated a landmark, the new law grants the property owner a two-year window to develop the property, without threat of further landmark petitions.

Mayoral candidate Zelda Bronstein, who appeared headed for defeat last night, supported Measure J because she said the city council’s new version of the law “sidelines the community.”

She said the new system would not give enough citizens enough time to get involved if they disagreed with the independent consultant’s assessment of a property. She pointed out that landmark petitions require volunteer efforts from citizens, since the landmark commission does not have a research staff.

Bronstein’s campaign manager Austene Hall said Measure J was needed to protect Berkeley from irresponsible development.

“If Measure J fails, south and west Berkeley will be severely impacted by development,” she said. “Developers are salivating--they want to turn West Berkeley into Emeryville.”

Democrats carried 49 seats, and Republicans hold 49.

Democrats are expected to win in Montana. With 74 percent of the precincts reporting, Jon Tester led with 50 percent of the vote against the incumbent Conrad Burns.

In Virginia, incumbent Republican Senator Jim Allen, once a 2008 presidential hopeful, began to lose his stronghold to Democratic challenger Jim Webb when he called a Webb volunteer of Indian decent “macaca.”

Webb currently holds an 8,000-vote lead, a number small enough to warrant a recount. Though the informal winner will be announced soon, the results won’t be certified until Nov. 27.

Despite winning a majority in the House, the lack of a Senate majority will limit the Democrats ability to shift power away from the Bush administration.

"If there is a President George W. Bush to veto, there isn’t very much for Democrats to do," said Robert Reich, professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley, and former Secretary of Labor under the Clinton Administration.

With Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens poised to retire, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg potentially following suit, maintaining Senate control means Bush will continue to have the party votes to appoint his top choices to the Supreme Court.

Regardless, the closeness of the campaign had Democrats cheering.

Rising anti-Republican sentiment springing from the war in Iraq and recent corruption scandals played a key role in the four seats Democrats easily pulled away from Republican incumbents.

Perhaps no lost seats reflected this as clearly as that of Lincoln Chafee, one of the most liberal Republican senators, who lost his Rhode Island seat to Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse.

Similarly, moderate Republican incumbent Mike DeWine of Ohio lost his seat to Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown, getting only 45 percent to Brown's 55.

“At this point, having Republican after your name is like having horns and a tail,” said Peg Rosenfield, spokesperson for the League of Women Voters of Ohio, a week before Election Day.

In Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum strayed from his party’s advice to focus on local issues, trumpeting his support for the Bush administration and asking voters to support him in confronting terrorist threats beyond Iraq. Democratic challenger Bob Casey also emphasized Santorum’s support for the president, and won 59 percent to Santorum’s 41.

With cheers and applause erupting throughout the evening, the atmosphere of McNerney headquarters was upbeat and confident while supporters huddled around television sets tracking election returns.

“We’re going to change direction in this country, people stood up, and this is what happens,” McNerney told supporters. “We need honesty, integrity, and accountability, and we are going to hold this administration accountable for what it has done.”

This race was one of the most divisive congressional races this election season. Many voters in the 11th congressional district were reluctant to disclose whether they supported Congressman Richard Pombo, whose family has lived in Tracy for decades, and who had served thirteen years as Congressman, or his Democratic challenger Jerry McNerney, who wasn’t even on the Democratic Party radar screen until late in the race.

Pombo, the chairman of the House Resources Committee, had been under increased scrutiny this election year. Among the reasons: Pombo accepted $32,000 from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and paid members of his family hundreds of thousands of dollars for work on his campaign.

The congressman had also riled up environmental activists nationwide by supporting weakening the Endangered Species Act as a tactic for helping the plight of farmers, and increasing domestic oil drilling.

The Defenders of Wildlife and The Sierra Club spent over $1.5 million dollars on advertisements attacking Pombo’s environmental record this election season.

Nontheless, Pombo, 46, won the money race, corralling nearly $3.8million compared to the $1.5 million McNerney raised.

Shortly before midnight, almost 60% of votes had been counted. Of those, 53.1% were against the measure and 46.9% in favor. The proposition was passing in only 10 counties out of 58, including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Sonoma and Los Angeles. The margins were tight, most oscillating between 50 and 57%.

“We’re still confident the measure will pass,” said Maria Robles, a registered nurse who works on the “Yes to Prop 86” campaign. Robles said early results are usually a reflection of absentee ballots. “Those voters might not have seen our ads, which were broadcast over the past two weeks. We’re confident the situation will change as the counting continues,” she said.

Patrick Fleenor, chief economist at the Tax Foundations – a nonpartisan tax watchdog based in Washington, DC, which opposes Proposition 86 – said he hoped California voters would reject the measure. “All it would bring is an increase in tax-evasion related crimes,” he said. “It might discourage some people from smoking, but costs would by far outweigh benefits,” he added.

Proposition 86 would apply to all tobacco products, including cigars. From January 2007, smokers would have to pay an average of $6.60 for a pack of cigarettes. The money – an estimated $2.1 billion annually for 2007-2008 – would be used to fund a number of health programs, children’s health coverage and tobacco-prevention activities.

The measure was among the most heavily funded propositions on the ballot in California. Both critics and supporters have been investing massively to advance their campaigns. Opponents have poured in $58 million, mostly from Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds tobacco companies. Supporters, led by California hospitals, have spent more than $13 million to get the measure passed.

Supporters – which included the California Hospital Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association – focused on the positive impact that the measure would have on California’s strained health resources.

So far, however, voters seem to share some of the opponents’ concerns, their main one being that too much money is being allocated to programs and activities not directly related to smoking. While one-fifth of the money would go to tobacco control and anti-cancer efforts, a third of the tax-levy would go to emergency room care and a fifth would fund health insurance protection plans for children.

In a hard-fought campaign, critics have been complaining about lack of accountability to taxpayers and have pointed to the impact that the measure might have on California’s 38,000 licensed tobacco retailers. Another big concern was the possible increase in crime and smuggling as a direct result of Proposition 86.

Critics also argued that previous tax hikes on cigarettes – there have been three in California recently, in 1996, 2000 and 2001 – never really worked in terms of having people quit smoking. Supporters of Proposition 86, on the other hand, insisted that previous efforts have proved successful, arguing that if passed, this new measure would reduce the number of cigarettes consumed in the state by more than 26 percent, or one quarter. It would also save the State $8.6 billion a year in smoking-related health costs, they said.

Central to the “Yes on Prop 86” campaign was a study by the California Department of Health Services, which says the measure would reduce the number of cigarettes consumed in the state by more than 26 percent, or one quarter. The measure would keep 700,000 youngsters from becoming adult smokers and prevent 300,000 smoking-related deaths, the study says. It would also save over $16 billion in health care cost, according to the same report.

Today, an estimated 20.9% of all adults in the US (about 44 million people) smoke, according to figures from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion show.
With 18.5% of adult smokers (about 6 million people), California has one of the lowest smoking rates in the country, but tobacco remains the top cause of preventable death and disease in the state, according to the California Department of Health Services.

Nation-wide, ten tobacco and smoking propositions were on the ballot today either to increase taxes on cigarettes or ban smoking in public places. Counting is still underway.

“This crime fighting business goes back a long way in this family,” Brown said in remarks to the crowd. “I want to look back to the tradition as I look forward to the possibilities.”

Electrified by Democratic gains across the nation, about 500 state and local party leaders gathered at San Francisco’s Delancey Street Foundation, dancing to gospel music and cheering on the candidates. Brown shared the ticket with reelected Senator Dianne Feinstein and current Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who was elected state treasurer.

Longtime supporter Lynn Washington flew up from Los Angeles to attend the victory party. Washington said Brown's victory marked a second ascendancy for the former governor.

"Back in the day Brown was before his time," Washington said. "Now people are looking for a new direction, and Jerry's always had that direction."

Brown, the state’s nimblest political figure, who has served as secretary of state and governor, and is currently mayor of Oakland, defeated state Senator Chuck Poochigian (R- Fresno). Early results suggested Brown won handily, but not by the extravagant margins earlier predicted.

“My first order of business will be to strengthen law enforcement, fill the vacancies in the DNA offices and to meet with the governor,” Brown said. “It’s a very simple job. The attorney general has to defend our laws and do it in a way that is fair to everybody.”

He added that his career has prepared him for the post. “The attorney general is the defender of the public trust,” Brown said. “And there’s no substitute for experience. That’s something that I’ve got a lot of.”

Introducing the new attorney general, Senator Feinstein remarked that it was Brown's father, Pat, who gave her her first job in politics.

Also appearing at the celebration were San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Brown’s sister Kathleen, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1994.

In brief remarks, Lockyer said, “I’m delighted that my successor will be Jerry Brown.”

Brown’s victory concludes one of the most contentious statewide races of the election, in which he and Poochigian attacked each other’s characters, competency and political records.

In 1970, Brown was elected secretary of state, and in 1975 succeeded Ronald Reagan as governor. Brown also ran for the U.S. Senate and made three unsuccessful bids for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Brown’s father, Pat, was a California political fixture, serving as attorney general and then as governor before Reagan. Brown’s sister, Kathleen, lost the governor’s race in 1994 to Republican Pete Wilson. His victory Tuesday marks his first return to statewide office since leaving the statehouse in 1983.

The attorney general is widely considered the second-most powerful position in state government after the governor, and its office has the resources to act on a vast scale, with a Department of Justice that includes 1,100 lawyers covering both civil and criminal law, and 500 law enforcement officers. "The office is a very large operation with finders in a lot of pies," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor at the Santa Clara University of Law.

In recent years, attorney generals such as New York’s Eliot Spitzer and outgoing California Attorney General Bill Lockyer have expanded and redefined the position, going after white-collar criminals with the same zeal once reserved for gangs. Lockyer in particular expanded the offices role in passing and enforcing environmental laws.

But despite the office’s inherently diverse responsibilities, both the Brown and Poochigian campaigns have shied away from talking about much more than being tough-on-crime. Poochigian assailed Brown’s years as mayor of Oakland, which saw a sharp spike in crime. Brown pointed to Poochigian’s lack of experience in dealing with law enforcement, and his lack of support for a ban on assault rifles.

Uelmen said that despite the campaign’s narrow focus, he expects Brown to continue Lockyer’s broad agenda. "I would think with the current public climate we could see an increased scrutiny of corporate crime, public fraud,” he said.

Poochigian faced an uphill battle from the outset.

“From the beginning Chuck had a huge obstacle to overcome in the tremendous name identity that brown brought to the race,” said Dan Schnur, a professor of political science at UC Berkeley and a California Republican political consultant.

Besides name recognition, Poochigian was burdened by his conservative stances on gun control and stem cell research.

During his governorship Brown developed a reputation of swooping down on an office and rearranging it without necessarily understanding what he was doing.

“I'm sure there are already people within the office that are looking for other jobs," Uelmen said.

Yet there are indications that with 20 more years of experience, Brown is a different sort of politician. While Oakland’s murder rate has remained high, Brown has brought economic development to the perennially blighted city, and become more of a centrist.

Sacramento, of course, already has one reigning star. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is likely to be reelected, and observers are eager to see how Brown and the new governor interact. In 2003, Brown praised Schwarzenegger for suppressing the reinstitution of the car tax, and in the run up to Tuesday’s election, Brown repeatedly expressed his desire to work with the governor on substantive issues.

"They are both very skilled politicians,” Uelmen said. “I think they'll size each other up very warily. Of course being from opposite political parties, there will be some mutual distrust. But they’re both savvy enough that I think they'll get along.”

Schnur added, “On the one hand, brown is so irascible that he might be less vulnerable to the Schwarzenegger charm. On the other hand, two fairly unique spirits might end up hitting it off.”

There’s even some speculation that Brown might make another bid for the governorship. Because his terms ended in 1983, before the 1990 term limits went into effect, Brown is eligible for another run.

“I can't figure out why the hell he wants to be the attorney general,” Uelmen said. “He very well might have some unfinished business in the governor's office.”

“It's hard for most people to look at the attorney generalship as Jerry Brown’s last public office," said Tim Hodson, executive director of the Sacramento State University Center for California Studies. “I would never count out Jerry Brown on anything. I would not be surprised if he decided to run for Pope."