Congress 2008: The Balance of Power

[editor]

Use this thread to discuss the changing (or not) balance of power in Congress during the November 4th, 2008 election.

The votes from just a dozen districts could mean a very different future for America.

[Mark F. Barnes]

This is the scary one!

[Fringe]

Four more years of Pelosi is like a bad nightmare.

[BryanS]

The honeymoon will be short-lived. Democrats will have historic majorities in both houses... unfortunately, just shy of the 60 senators needed in the Senate. You can expect "minority rule" to prevail as Republicans in the Senate filibuster pretty much everything, grid locking the legislative process. Only hope is for 2010... Whereby even more Democrats get a shot to be elected to the Senate, hopefully enough to break over the required 60 seats in order to get anything done in the Senate.

[musicman]

Four more years of Pelosi is like a bad nightmare.

[TheNiche]

The honeymoon will be short-lived. Democrats will have historic majorities in both houses... unfortunately, just shy of the 60 senators needed in the Senate. You can expect "minority rule" to prevail as Republicans in the Senate filibuster pretty much everything, grid locking the legislative process. Only hope is for 2010... Whereby even more Democrats get a shot to be elected to the Senate, hopefully enough to break over the required 60 seats in order to get anything done in the Senate.

Presidential elections draw a lot more turnout, especially by people that don't know anything about who is running for congress, state, or local positions and who are prone to vote the party line. That usually results in legislators of the same party as the new President riding in on the coat tails. Since this is such a decisive victory, I suspet that the pattern will hold true this time around.

In contrast, mid-term elections tend to be older, more educated about who's on the ticket and on local issues, and therefore the outcomes in the U.S. Congress tend to be more balanced. It's more of a split ticket affair. The party of the President elect from two years ago usually loses power in congress in those years.

[Heights2Bastrop]

The Democrites have offered nothing in the form of a viable platform, just empty promises and accusations of blame toward the Republicans for everything that is wrong in this country.

So, it is my belief that, if O

[TheNiche]

The Democrites have offered nothing in the form of a viable platform, just empty promises and accusations of blame toward the Republicans for everything that is wrong in this country.

So, it is my belief that, if O

[VicMan]

The honeymoon will be short-lived. Democrats will have historic majorities in both houses... unfortunately, just shy of the 60 senators needed in the Senate. You can expect "minority rule" to prevail as Republicans in the Senate filibuster pretty much everything, grid locking the legislative process. Only hope is for 2010... Whereby even more Democrats get a shot to be elected to the Senate, hopefully enough to break over the required 60 seats in order to get anything done in the Senate.

As of April 2008 Democrats were evenly tied with Republicans in the Senate, as per Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/votedforchange.asp

The Democrites have offered nothing in the form of a viable platform, just empty promises and accusations of blame toward the Republicans for everything that is wrong in this country.

So, it is my belief that, if O’Bama is elected, and since the Dims will have control of both houses, they will have no one to put the blame on but themselves, and then they will simply turn on each other.

Well, maybe it won’t happen exactly that way, but a guy can hope, can’t he?

As a note, Bastrop, the Snopes article I mention stated that many of the problems afflicting the US are not so much subject to the will of the Congress to begin with.

Four more years of Pelosi is like a bad nightmare.

The one problem I had with Pelosi was the anti-Turkey bill, which caused unneeded ruckus.

[Porchman]

LONGTIME GOP SENATOR SPECTER BECOMES A DEMOCRAT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter told colleagues Tuesday that he switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party, Sen. Harry Reid says.

Sen. Arlen Specter was expected to face a tough primary challenge in 2010.

The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

Story at CNN

[west20th]

Makes perfect sense for Spector. Still somewhat suprised though.

[HtownWxBoy]

Man... republicans just can't seem to catch a break.

[TheNiche]

The Specter party switch would give Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority of 60 seats if Al Franken holds his current lead in the disputed Minnesota Senate race.

Well, this is about to get very interesting. Franken is only held up by a legal dispute, however it probably is one that he will win in a matter of weeks or possibly months. Once the filibuster-proof mark is passed--and filibusters don't happen in the House--the Republican Party will have become basically irrelevant in developing or passing new legislation. Granted, there are a number of young Democrat congressmen who rode Obama's coattails and are actually very moderate, however because they are junior congressmen, they don't hold any important positions of power. To the extent that they might hold up the vote, their states will win big time in terms of sweet, sweet, bill-sweetening pork.

I have to wonder whether perhaps other Republicans, fed up with their own party, switch parties. Maybe a handful see that they can be more influential as Democrats and follow Specter. Perhaps others will go Independent or Libertarian. But for the time being, there is no sense in being Republican...it's looking less and less like the GOP is working towards a cogent platform realignment, and the very best that they've been able to pull off in terms of neutralizing the appeal of the Democrat platform is a two-pronged attack by fiscal conservatives and populists, neither of which respect the other. It's just not a good situation for them. Even after the mid-term election gives them a bump (and it will, because that's just how it works), it's just not clear that it'll be enough to make them relevant again.

Personally, I'd like for them to crash and burn, so perhaps the concept that key individuals might abandon the GOP is wishful thinking on my part. ...but longer-term, by one means or another, there will be balance. I only hope that there's room for a realignment of platform positions as part of that.