Could Democrats get 60 seats in the Senate?

[bascule]

CNN is speculating that a "perfect storm" of bad crap happening in America might be enough for Democrats to get 60 seats in the Senate, which would make them filibuster-proof and would undo the gridlock which has drug the current Congress down to record levels of disapproval:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/08/senate.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

FiveThirtyEight, a multi-poll aggregator site specializing in predicting the outcome of elections, presently estimates that the Democrats will win 56 seats:

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

 

I think it's unlikely that the Democrats could actually win 60 seats in the Senate, although it's certainly not something I'd be opposed to. Political gridlock has hurt this country terribly.

[ecoli]

I think blind consensus would hurt this country more. We need to debate of ideas, not a majority rule.

 

Also, I would hope people would realize that the economic problems won't be solved by simply electing democrats into power. This is an issue caused by people on both sides of the isle and a real fix is being offered by none of them.

[bascule]

Let me just add: FiveThirtyEight says the Democrats have a 20% chance of getting 60 seats

[iNow]

I think blind consensus would hurt this country more. We need to debate of ideas, not a majority rule.

 

What makes you assume that any consensus achieved would be a blind one?

[ecoli]

What makes you assume that any consensus achieved would be a blind one?

 

I just mean that two parties negotiating ideas are more likely to reach a compromise that better serves the country than 1 party solely looking out for their own interests.

 

Obviously there will still be debate and opposition even with a Democrat majority, but i still would prefer a larger distribution of ideas.

[Realitycheck]

All hail a great monopoly! Finally we can get something done, caput, done, done, done. The hell with the war-mongering, the witch-hunts, the wire-tapping, the wrist-slapping. Finally, we can laugh and play and sing and sway and watch the charts sizzle as the great spirit of brotherhood takes us to new heights while the selfish brotherhood of greed and discontempt sulk in dark corners till they see the light of camaraderie.

[Pangloss]

CNN is speculating that a "perfect storm" of bad crap happening in America might be enough for Democrats to get 60 seats in the Senate, which would make them filibuster-proof and would undo the gridlock which has drug the current Congress down to record levels of disapproval

 

NO! You DO NOT reward a spoiled brat by giving it more toys to play with! We need to throw all these rascals OUT, not reward them for their idiocy! They're in gridlock because they can't see past their own partisanship, not because neither party had enough power!

 

By various news accounts, something like $1.5 trillion has been spent, or promised to be spent (and we all know what THAT means), over the last couple of WEEKS. Glancing at the IRS web site they show something like 140 million taxpayers in 2006, and according to this web site about 40% don't pay any taxes, so call it around 100 million, being outrageously generous (and to simplify the math), and I come up with FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. A debt which the Chinese will pick up for now. For now.

 

So in effect these people just handed you a $15,000 fully maxed-out credit card, your name printed right on the front, the interest rate yet to be determined later (but accumulating now!), and you're not even allowed to make payments on it!

 

And you want one of these two criminal parties to achieve a 60% majority because you think THAT's what's been wrong with this country? Really? That's what's wrong with it, that neither one has enough power?

 

My god, if people were actually getting the BILL for this, the revolution would have come and GONE already!

Edited October 9, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

How exactly do you all think China has been able to steer itself toward such great success and progress, and to make such quick adjustments and changes to things like air quality at the Olympics?

 

The stagnant gridlock in our congress is VERY MUCH a problem. I'm not saying differing views and ideas are not important... I'm saying we are at a time where we need much less talk and much more rock, and the partisanship tug of war is killing us (quite literally).

[Pangloss]

Pardon me, I must have been editing when you posted that; I was adding a line about gridlock to the first paragraph. I completely agree, gridlock is VERY MUCH a problem. But let me ask you this: Would you agree to allow the REPUBLICANS to have that same majority in order to remove that gridlock? If you can't answer that question "yes", then the suggestion that the Democrats should get that kind of power in order to eliminate gridlock is disingenuous, hypocritical and partisan.

 

These people have behaved BADLY, ignoring what's best for the country time and time against JUST TO DEMONIZE THE OPPOSITION. You don't reward that behavior with more power. Not if you are sane.

[iNow]

I don't care what color their shirt is if they're doing the right things, like providing maximal opportunities for renewables, environmental protection, healthcare, etc.

 

They can call themselves the damned Whig party for all I care. It's not the label that is important, but the actions they are taking, the progress they are making, and the path on which they are setting us as a nation and a planet.

[Pangloss]

Okay, but "eliminating gridlock" seems to have suddenly taken a back seat in the above post.

 

I realize that was bascule's point, not yours, but in #8 you seemed to be supporting his assertion that Democrats need to be given the 60 majority because that will eliminate gridlock.

[iNow]

I don't know, mate. I was just responding to your question authentically. Sometimes, it slows us down if we are too rigid with our interpretations and we try to take everything very literally.

[bascule]

NO! You DO NOT reward a spoiled brat by giving it more toys to play with! We need to throw all these rascals OUT, not reward them for their idiocy! They're in gridlock because they can't see past their own partisanship, not because neither party had enough power!

 

Okay. Well the way I see it we tried the Republicans in charge of everything thing, then we tried the split deck thing and that worked out even worse. There's not a whole lot left to try, and from the polls, it seems like America wants a Democratic president and more Democratic control in the Senate. And I agree with America... w00t!

[Phi for All]

It might be good to have a street filled with green lights to get back some regulatory oversight that's been trampled under lately (yes, even before the Bush administration). We have 19th and 20th century policies colliding with 21st century realities, and the last thing we needed was to remove the teeth from our checks and balances.

 

That said, it's never a good thing for one group to hold sway for too long. I just wish that, when stripped of rhetoric and posturing, the two groups didn't look so much alike. But in the end, I guess I wouldn't mind Obama having clear sailing for the first 100 days of his administration where he'll be most effective.

 

I've learned that when the partisan bickering is at its worst, there's a bunch of people who don't want us to look too closely at something else. What would the Dems do to distract us if they couldn't point to the Reps as scapegoats?

[jackson33]

To the thread; Short of something dramatic happening in the next few weeks, it looks like the Dem's will pick up 7 seat in the Senate. Eight if Dole loses in NC, which is dead even in todays polls. Your talking about 'Veto proof' which if Obama become the President would make little difference anyway. If McCain wins, they could be very near veto proof on many issue, where four Republicans tend to vote along with Dem's on every issue. Under either condition, the senate minority still has other means to stop legislation, primarily the filibuster or not allowing a quorum.

 

Since you may not realize; Until 1913 when the 17th Amendment replaced the Constitutional System for choosing Senators, State Legislatures picked those two people. The original intent to represent the STATE in the Congress, opposed to the people in the House (Peoples House) became a total branch with aligned interest. I would also add, the President of the Congress or the person designed to PRESIDE over the Senate was supposed to be the Vice President of the US. What you now have is the wishes of Party Rule, which was feared by ALL the founders. For the record the First 8 Congressional Sessions, the Senate was presided over by the VP, then John Adams for the most part and he made the deciding vote over 200 times. Think Chaney has made one vote and presided only during the 'State of the Union Address'.

[Pangloss]

Well the way I see it we tried the Republicans in charge of everything thing, then we tried the split deck thing and that worked out even worse.

 

It might be good to have a street filled with green lights to get back some regulatory oversight that's been trampled under lately

 

I can understand that point of view, I just don't think it works. The theory being that the obstructionists and denialists in both parties have not listened to critics at all. They know they have low approval ratings but they think it's the fault of the OTHER party's obstructionists and denialists, not theirs. So you put one of them in power in the hopes that the opposition party will observe the rising approval ratings and desist in their behavior.

 

The problem with that theory is you've just bolstered all the partisans in the "winning" party. They think they've just been given a mandate, and their ideological agendas are actually desired by the country. But in fact people don't want progressive agendas OR religious theocracies. They'll put up with ideological programs, but at the end of the day if their wallets are lighter instead of heavier, or if too much "progress" in either direction is pushed over them, the leadership party is out the door.

 

I tell all partisans the same thing: Be careful what you wish for. I said it to the liberals in 1992, I said it to the conservatives in 2000, and now I'm saying it to the liberals again in 2008. Gee, anyone sensing a pattern here?

 

That's why I think it's a mistake to play this game, to reward one of these awful entities at the very moment they're at their most criminal in behavior. People are actually going to celebrate after election day. Celebrate! What the heck is wrong with this country?

[bascule]

They think they've just been given a mandate, and their ideological agendas are actually desired by the country. But in fact people don't want progressive agendas

 

I think many in the younger generation do, and that's the camp Obama seems to appeal the most to. Or, you know, those liberal types. They actually like this stuff.

 

They'll put up with ideological programs, but at the end of the day if their wallets are lighter instead of heavier, or if too much "progress" in either direction is pushed over them, the leadership party is out the door.

 

That wasn't what happened in 2004.

 

That's why I think it's a mistake to play this game, to reward one of these awful entities at the very moment they're at their most criminal in behavior.

 

Who's being criminal? I mean, a District Court judge did rule George W. Bush is a felon for violating FISA, but other than that?

 

People are actually going to celebrate after election day. Celebrate! What the heck is wrong with this country?

 

If the election goes the way I want it to, I'll certainly be celebrating and feel hopeful for the future of the country for the first time in a long, long while.

[Pangloss]

That wasn't what happened in 2004.

 

You're wrong -- 2004 proves my point. Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. That's what happens when you build an opinion off an ideological predisposition instead of the facts -- you come to conclusions based on fears of what MAY happen, rather than what's ACTUALLY happened. You hear people say how the country has slid into religious dictatorship so often that you figure it must be true, then go on to draw conclusions based on that erroneous reasoning (like your statement above). Again, this is why I challenge you when you use ellipses instead of argument. Kudos for not doing so here. You're being straight-up now, and the result is a more reasoned, more factual, and more illuminating discussion.

 

So sure, enjoy the victory. Just like your side did in 1992. Just like your enemies did in 2000. How's that working out so far? Good? Great, keep going. Nobody seems to want to change that pattern. Might as well continue. All it's cost you in the last week is $15,000. Surely a small price to pay for a brighter, more progressive future.

[bascule]

You're wrong -- 2004 proves my point.

 

How?

 

That's what happens when you build an opinion off an ideological predisposition instead of the facts -- you come to conclusions based on fears of what MAY happen, rather than what's ACTUALLY happened.

 

Looks like those fears turned out to be warranted. Perhaps they were founded on more than just an "ideological predisposition."

 

You hear people say how the country has slid into religious dictatorship so often that you figure it must be true, then go on to draw conclusions based on that erroneous reasoning (like your statement above).

 

Why is my statement erroneous?

 

Again, this is why I challenge you when you use ellipses instead of argument.

 

I challenge you to justify your positions with reasoning rather than making statements like "you're wrong" with no supporting argumentation.

 

So sure, enjoy the victory. Just like your side did in 1992. Just like your enemies did in 2000. How's that working out so far?

 

Well, the '90s were great. This decade kind of sucked.

 

Good? Great, keep going. Nobody seems to want to change that pattern. Might as well continue.

 

You must have me confused with a wingut. I'm a moonbat. We've been ranting about change since Bush got elected, right?

 

All it's cost you in the last week is $15,000. Surely a small price to pay for a brighter, more progressive future.

 

Yes, clearly progressive politicking is at the heart of the financial crisis and subsequent bailout *headgib*

[Pangloss]

How?

 

Why is my statement erroneous?

 

I answered this in the previous post. Bush was re-elected because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

 

 

Looks like those fears turned out to be warranted. Perhaps they were founded on more than just an "ideological predisposition."

 

And yet we are not a religious dictatorship. Hence Bush getting re-elected in 2004 in spite of all the crazy ranting from the far left. (Not to mention my own evenly-reasoned departure in the center.)

 

 

I challenge you to justify your positions with reasoning rather than making statements like "you're wrong" with no supporting argumentation.

 

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

 

You gonna respond to that argument, or just pretend it isn't there?

[bascule]

And yet we are not a religious dictatorship. Hence Bush getting re-elected in 2004 in spite of all the crazy ranting from the far left.

 

You know what'd be really awesome Pangloss? If you could actually respond to points I actually make, rather than arguments from the fantasyland in your head. If I didn't actually make the argument, why are you asking me to defend it? I don't speak for those people. I speak for me.

 

Should I ask you to defend why civilizing and Christianizing foreign countries is a good idea? Or how about lynching black people, because it's conservatives who tend to do that? Your kind seem to think women belong in the kitchen, not the workplace. Care to defend that? Oh, those aren't your personal beliefs? You mean there's actually a separation between a particular political stance and personal convictions?

 

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

 

Repeating something doesn't make it right, but thanks for responding like a 3 year old.

 

So you think 2004 was about the moderates being contented? 2004 marked a year of extreme political polarization, and elections won under dubious circumstances, most notably elections in Ohio orchestrated by one Ken Blackwell. It wasn't about cheap gas, a growing economy, and ideological programs that had gone too far. Let's see, at that point the Bush administration was spying on U.S. citizens, torturing prisoners of war, and above all else "spreading democracy" in the name of an overarching "war on terror". That's not an ideology gone too far? Can you please point out anything coming out of the Democrats that remotely compares, short of the Vietnam War?

 

Bush's administration was full of ideological programs run amok. He didn't win because people were content. He won because he (and by he I mean Karl Rove) made people too scared to vote for the other guy.

 

This has been an absolutely horrible period in America's history, and the ideology perpetrated on this country by its administration has been terribly destructive across many fronts. I don't know how you can begin comparing any ideologies espoused by Obama and the Democrats to the ones we've seen coming out of the Bush administration and the 106th/107th Congress.

Edited October 10, 2008 by bascule

[Phi for All]

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far.

There's only three things wrong with this argument. In the summer before the 2004 election, gas had jumped to a record high. It only looks cheap now (really cheap - *sigh*), but at the time it was more expensive than it had ever been.

 

If you're arguing that gas was still cheap enough to be the most viable fuel source that's one thing, but if you're saying the price didn't affect the 2004 election then I don't think that's right.

[Realitycheck]

Bush won simply because the spirit of freedom ringing and sabres rattling was still running strong throughout the populace, propped up by open-ended conspiracy theories of anything and everything related to terrorism. The reality of the facts had not had time to sink in yet, had not even begun to get exposed. The Republicans started the war, as usual, and the population, still extremely moved by 9/11 to act followed suit with their gunslinging in any direction possible. The decision to move into Iraq will always be the point of greatest screw-up.

[iNow]

I think it all has much more to do with all of the paste eaters and douchenozzles in our country who vote en masse, but maybe that's just me.

 

Want to laugh and cry a little bit, all at the same time? The first 10 minutes of this are golden:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=187567

 

 

 

The guest (Sarah Vowell) was damn funny too.

 

Who needs qualified leadership when you have mob rule?

[Pangloss]

Bascule, throwing around a bunch of straw men about Bush's ideologies doesn't change the fact that we're still not the extreme right-wing dictatorship that you want people to believe that we've become. And you have some nerve to make that claim and then whine about political polarization in this country, bud. Especially on a science forum.

 

There's only three things wrong with this argument. In the summer before the 2004 election, gas had jumped to a record high. It only looks cheap now (really cheap - *sigh*), but at the time it was more expensive than it had ever been.

 

If you're arguing that gas was still cheap enough to be the most viable fuel source that's one thing, but if you're saying the price didn't affect the 2004 election then I don't think that's right.

 

I acknowledge the point, but the death of the SUV and many-months of straight decline in American gas consumption is a far more recent phenomenon, i.e. 2007. None of that had happened yet in 2004, and gas prices were only a vague, undefined, not-immediate factor in the election.

 

And that's intuitively obvious. Bush was re-elected. But he couldn't get re-elected today if he looked like Brad Pitt and sounded like Barrack Obama. QED.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Pangloss