In another thread, BarryP makes his predictions for President. Conventional wisdom says Obama wins and most of the LR says so to - I haven’t decided. But for now assuming Obama wins, what happens in the Senate?
The Dems have to defend 44 seats in 2012/2014. 24 of these come up for 2012, the only way the Senate stays in Dem control is if Obama wins by a good sized margin. If the Senate tips in 2012. Three of the Dems that are retiring will probably go Reps…Weber in VA, Kohl in WI and Conrad in NM. They only need to win 4 more for a majority.
Could be interesting with a Rep Majority controlled house and senate and Obama in the White House. What say you?
with politics the way it is nowadays why would anything change? If president from party A wins, party B will play obstruction, and make noises about how party A is ruining the nation and so on, and vice-versa.
Looking at things from the outside honestly it seems that the US’s political system has reached the point where it’s impossible to get anything of substance done since both parties are basically in permanent campaign mode, demonizing and hamstringing the other party just because it’s the other party that proposes something vs on its merits.
Not sure what the fix could be though, because public figures well respected across the electorate that could create cohesiveness and move things forward seem in short supply…
You just defined politics throughout history. This is not something new and the only thing that changes it is the desire to stay in office or preserve a legacy. Clinton is a fine recent example.
You just defined politics throughout history. This is not something new and the only thing that changes it is the desire to stay in office or preserve a legacy. Clinton is a fine recent example.
if politics is that way throughout history how are/were big ticket items ever done? things like the interstate system, the euro currency union, the euro high speed rail network, the Canadian switch to metric, the creation of social security etc.?
Not talking about agreeing/disagreeing that any of the above are/were good and should/should not have been done, or the fact that of course when they were introduced there were “sky is falling” kinda discourses by the opposition at the time, but the fact that they actually passed and were created.
Nowadays it seems that the US is at a point where major structural stuff has very little chance of passing, due to how everything is so gridlocked and that even if somebody did want to create a legacy it seems they would find it very difficult to do so unless they magically had the presidency and supermajorities in both houses (only to likely watch as their “legacy” whichever it is would come under attack a few years later once the electoral tides turn and new laws come in)
I guess that’s why a lot of rulers throughout history liked public works, as it’s a lot harder to legislate a stadium out of existence for example the fact that you “cement” a legacy (as in, the word “cement”) a lot more than you “write” or “legislate” one should give some food for thought
Could be interesting with a Rep Majority controlled house and senate and Obama in the White House. What say you?
Completely uninteresting, 60 is the new 50 in the Senate. All likelihood of big-time Senate control evaporated when the GOP blew ~5 winnable Senate seats in 2010. The GOP may get the majority, but no legislation will get passed that isn’t some form of compromise (regardless of the president). In the end a GOP Senate majority might help the Dems long-term, since independent voters may get even more disgusted with Congress if it becomes even less willing to compromise on any issue. (hard to imagine, since our gridlocked Congress is presently at 9% approval!!!)
According to RCP, the present 2012 Senate prediction is 45-47, GOP leading with 8 toss-ups.
It’s a long ways out still, but seems like a coin flip in the Senate for who takes control. Maybe 60/40 for Republicans. Haven’t looked at anything official with polls and such, so that could be wrong. Things have been looking up a bit for Obama the last few weeks, so maybe if the economy recovers over the next year Dems will hold on.
The Democratic caucus isn’t anywhere near as good as the Republican one at locking people into voting the same, so the Republicans would probably have more chance to get something done with 51 votes than when the Dems had 59.
It’s a long ways out still, but seems like a coin flip in the Senate for who takes control. Maybe 60/40 for Republicans. Haven’t looked at anything official with polls and such, so that could be wrong. Things have been looking up a bit for Obama the last few weeks, so maybe if the economy recovers over the next year Dems will hold on.
The Democratic caucus isn’t anywhere near as good as the Republican one at locking people into voting the same, so the Republicans would probably have more chance to get something done with 51 votes than when the Dems had 59.
You are joking arent you? Havent you ever heard the horror stories about Pelosi’s arm twisting ability? Hell the left even brags about it.
Pelosi isn’t in the Senate last time I checked:). Harry Reid is a buffoon.
I read it as the whole Democratic party. My bad
I think it probably expands there too, at least over the last decade. It shifted a lot in 2010 though. The Blue Dog democrats got absolutely hammered and replaced mostly by Tea Party candidates. So now there are less “uncontrollable” Dems in Congress, and more “uncontrollable” GOPers.
I notice you said “arm twisting” though, which is probably a good way to describe it. There was a lot of battle there to get her votes. Pelosi was very good at it. But the GOP lock step voting came nearly effortlessly until 2010. They didn’t need to twist any arms to get people going the same way.
Anyway, like I said, it’s a new ball game since 2010, so maybe it doesn’t hold true any more. But Congress has done so little in the last year that it’s hard to say.
Pelosi isn’t in the Senate last time I checked:). Harry Reid is a buffoon.
On second thought, your post reminded me the Nevada re-elected Reid…I want to kill the thread now. Just the fact that this happened reminds me we are screwed.
if politics is that way throughout history how are/were big ticket items ever done? things like the interstate system, the euro currency union, the euro high speed rail network, the Canadian switch to metric, the creation of social security etc.?
Not talking about agreeing/disagreeing that any of the above are/were good and should/should not have been done, or the fact that of course when they were introduced there were “sky is falling” kinda discourses by the opposition at the time, but the fact that they actually passed and were created.
Nowadays it seems that the US is at a point where major structural stuff has very little chance of passing, due to how everything is so gridlocked and that even if somebody did want to create a legacy it seems they would find it very difficult to do so unless they magically had the presidency and supermajorities in both houses (only to likely watch as their “legacy” whichever it is would come under attack a few years later once the electoral tides turn and new laws come in)
I guess that’s why a lot of rulers throughout history liked public works, as it’s a lot harder to legislate a stadium out of existence for example the fact that you “cement” a legacy (as in, the word “cement”) a lot more than you “write” or “legislate” one should give some food for thought
I think major legislation gets through when the public is overwhelmingly fed up with the current party in power or the current state of the Union. We look back in history when major projects have been pushed through, but as recently as Obama the environment was ideal for major political and legislative reform. People were fed up with Bush and voted overwhelmingly democrat. The only difference in this case is that Obama never used his opportuniy to effect change.
the fact that you “cement” a legacy (as in, the word “cement”) a lot more than you “write” or “legislate” one should give some food for thought