No 60 seat majority for US Democrats in Senate

[bascule]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/georgia.senate/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

 

The Democrats will not have a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority, as the Democrat running for the Senate seat in Georgia conceded today.

 

The only seat still up for grabs is the Franken vs. Coleman battle in Minnesota.

 

I would've liked for the Democrats to have a 60 seat majority, but I'm not majorly disappointed that they don't. It's still reassuring that only one Republican needs to break party lines for a cloture vote.

 

That said, I expect things to remain polarized as ever and foresee many Republican filibusters kept alive only by all Republican senators being firmly united.

 

What do you think?

 

(an aside to people outside the US: does it actually help if I stick US in the thread title or do you not really care?)

[Pangloss]

Republicans cannot openly filibuster right now. The mood of the country and the desperation of the economic situation will not permit it. Even more significantly, I don't think they *want* to. They were handed more than just a defeat in November, they were issued an ideological rejection, and they know it. They need to retool and build a new basis for opposition government, and blockage in congress is not going to help them do that. They also lack leadership in that area. The current Senate and House leaders are just not tooled for that sort of thing.

 

That doesn't mean it will stay that way for very long, but I think that does give Obama the opening he needs to cross the aisle and start building bridges to replace all the ones that have been burned by both parties over the past two administrations.

 

I'm actually pretty optimistic about what the new Republican party might look like in a few years, especially after its base spends some time watching Obama work his magic from the center. What if Obama were actually able to make persuasive, optimistic, fair-minded, open-minded progress with christian conservatives on subjects like embryonic stem cell research, or evolution, or prayer in schools? If he pulled those fangs it could really get interesting. Imagine a Republican party that focused on international bridge-building, green economics, conservationism and public service. A party that actually MEANT it when it talked about balancing the budget. Is it really such a wild leap? I don't think so -- that's a party that would make the center really wonder if it was right to latch on to the party that bailed out every state and nationalized every industry.

 

Sure that probably wouldn't be fair to Democrats, but I think anything along those lines would be a massive leap forward to the kind of politics we've been seeing these past few years.

[npts2020]

People can blame the Democrats for all of the bailouts if they want. Unfortunately, it was one of the few bipartisan acts passed by this congress.

[iNow]

I would've liked for the Democrats to have a 60 seat majority, but I'm not majorly disappointed that they don't. It's still reassuring that only one Republican needs to break party lines for a cloture vote.

I believe this gives the Republicans a source of leverage. On any votes which are close and right on the edge, that ONE republican will receive promises and gifts and whatever it takes to coerce him/her to the other side. If leveraged correctly, you could have a few smart republicans becoming very powerful through all of this, precisely because they will be so needed.

[jackson33]

It has always amazed me how so many votes are along party lines in the first place. It hasn't always been this way and today most from both party's run according to their State populations want. Logically every vote, should have a good many from each party on both sides any issue.

 

The House of course, will be running in 2 years again and another third of the Senators. If tradition holds (probably will) whatever Obama wants will happen, at least through the first year, then depending on public perception the second year will be based on that perception. In short, however configured, the Senate has had a Filibuster proof majority since it hit 55 Democrats..IMO...

[Riogho]

60 seats would be terrible. Bi-partisanship is needed, to have one party ruling, whether it be democrats or republicans is a setup for disaster.

[jackson33]

It's difficult for me to argue against anything that prevents Congressional Actions, but one purpose they serve is to further actions from the House, which is and was designed to be where the people were directly linked. The filibuster was first used in the mid 19th Century, where some Senator actually talked for as long as possible, much later changing to an act of tabling an issue. In theory then, if the House by majority vote, followed by the Senate by majority vote and the President then signs...it would follow the intent of the Constitution. Any action requiring 'Super Majority' already exist and should be the only limitations beyond the 'simple majority'.

 

With communication we have today, with phones, computers, even telegrams or the usage of our local papers, anything outrageous will get plenty of opposition from the electorate, which every branch of Government will notice.

 

Rio; Bi-partisan, to me means compromise. Compromise to me means simply changing of minds. If you oppose an issue, say 'Illegal Immigration' and you currently oppose, what could you possibly give up to change you vote if it meant defeat on the issue? Or what would it take in grants going directly to State or District? Isn't this the real problem with politics, in the first place. On any issue, no person with any conviction on any issue should be coerced/bribed or threatened to change his/her mind or in my mind be in Washington in the first place.

[bob000555]

The republicans are about as divided as any party since Teddy Roosevelt pulled the party apart by running as a progressive candidate in 1912. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they split into a populist party and a centrist party especially if Sarah Palin really does seek the nomination in 2012. They will never be able to get all 41 of them to vote the same way on a cloture vote.

[Mr Skeptic]

60 seats would be terrible. Bi-partisanship is needed, to have one party ruling, whether it be democrats or republicans is a setup for disaster.

 

Maybe, but on the other hand it would get rid of that lame excuse that it was the other party's fault.

[jackson33]

The republicans are about as divided as any party since Teddy Roosevelt pulled the party apart by running as a progressive candidate in 1912. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they split into a populist party and a centrist party especially if Sarah Palin really does seek the nomination in 2012. They will never be able to get all 41 of them to vote the same way on a cloture vote.

 

It's now 42, but you still correct, Democrats now have a virtual filibuster proof Senate, if ever needed.

 

I have never understood the Teddy Roosevelt Conservative connection to the modern day Reagan Conservative. Whether Palin runs or not in 2012, think the fight will be in the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. Republican's currently do have a young fresh crop of politicians coming up through State Government and gaining some ground on University Campus. Palin, should be considered to head the RNC, which won't happen, or somehow get to Congress. Splitting Social/Fiscal Conservatives, your idea, would end the party in total and NOT create anything near what now has a shot.

[bob000555]

It's now 42, but you still correct, Democrats now have a virtual filibuster proof Senate, if ever needed.

 

I have never understood the Teddy Roosevelt Conservative connection to the modern day Reagan Conservative. Whether Palin runs or not in 2012, think the fight will be in the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. Republican's currently do have a young fresh crop of politicians coming up through State Government and gaining some ground on University Campus. Palin, should be considered to head the RNC, which won't happen, or somehow get to Congress. Splitting Social/Fiscal Conservatives, your idea, would end the party in total and NOT create anything near what now has a shot.

 

You misunderstand me good sir, I’m not proposing anything I’m predicting what I think will happen. I do indeed think it is likely that the split created in the last election will rip apart the parry into two if not three factions. There will be the Sarah Plain hyperpopulist religious conservative wing, the centrist wing composed of the non-campaign-mode John McCain, and possibly the Ron Paul libertarian wing.

 

Your claim that the democratic party is divided, or at least that it is more divided then the republicans, is quite simply baseless. Any suggestion that republicans are gaining among young people is laughable particularly in sight of the exit polls from the most recent election. Speculating as to which of the republican’s “young people” will be future leaders makes about as much sense as when republicans where guaranteeing that Rudy would be the next president.

 

I was simply drawing historical precedent when I mentioned the 1912 election. Drawing a parallel from 1912 to 2012: assume the republicans nominate another McCain like compromise candidate this person would be vary much like Taft in 1912. In this situation I would not be surprised to see a “draft Palin” movement among women and Southern whites; ending in Palin running as a third party (no amount of political idiocy is beyond the populists.) The republican vote divided, who ever the demarcates nominate(be they Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Bidden) or anyone else would easily win.

 

And how do you arrive at 42 the Franken-Colman race is still being counted and is within one hundredth of one percent of the total vote.

[bascule]

It's now 42

 

Huh? The Coleman/Franken recount is still in progress...

[Pangloss]

Like our local traffic guy says, the wreckage is cleared but the memory lingers. I think they finished the recount with Coleman still in a small lead, but now they have to meet and go over the thousands of "challenged" votes from each campaign.

 

There was a weird rumor going around that the Democratically-controlled Senate would seat Franken in the Senate for voting purposes in January if the election results were not yet determined, but now that Georgia is decided that seems unlikely. It would have produced an ugly fight, though, and again raised concerns about partisanship in the Senate.

[jackson33]

You misunderstand me good sir, I’m not proposing anything I’m predicting what I think will happen. I do indeed think it is likely that the split created in the last election will rip apart the parry into two if not three factions. There will be the Sarah Plain hyperpopulist religious conservative wing, the centrist wing composed of the non-campaign-mode John McCain, and possibly the Ron Paul libertarian wing.

 

Your claim that the democratic party is divided, or at least that it is more divided then the republicans, is quite simply baseless. Any suggestion that republicans are gaining among young people is laughable particularly in sight of the exit polls from the most recent election. Speculating as to which of the republican’s “young people” will be future leaders makes about as much sense as when republicans where guaranteeing that Rudy would be the next president.

 

I was simply drawing historical precedent when I mentioned the 1912 election. Drawing a parallel from 1912 to 2012: assume the republicans nominate another McCain like compromise candidate this person would be vary much like Taft in 1912. In this situation I would not be surprised to see a “draft Palin” movement among women and Southern whites; ending in Palin running as a third party (no amount of political idiocy is beyond the populists.) The republican vote divided, who ever the demarcates nominate(be they Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, Joe Bidden) or anyone else would easily win.

 

And how do you arrive at 42 the Franken-Colman race is still being counted and is within one hundredth of one percent of the total vote.

 

My goodness; It's been awhile in basically agreeing with a poster, I get such a response.

 

Colman, will be seated...predict all you want.

 

On the future of the Republican party, verses the problems in the Democratic Party, I ALSO was/am predicting the future. Think thats what "the fight WILL be" infers. NOW disagreeing with you, I feel the Democrat Base will revolt against an Obama Administration, probably weeks or months from him taking office, earlier the longer he plays president before inauguration. I'll go further and predict his major problems will come from the Democratic Congress and those with specific issues, which will NOT get addressed, or addressed to far less an outcome than expected. He ran, particularly in the early weeks as a populist (saying what a specific group wished), get out of Iraq, tax the rich, place profit taxes on the oil company's and the like. When he began to run as a centrist, he began losing and probably would have if Ms. Clinton and her handlers had planned ahead. They hadn't planned on a Campaign past Super Tuesday, in the first place, doing very well on near no money compared to her challenger. The divide then IMO began...

 

Republicans do have some problems and the big one will be Illegal Immigration. Like it or not, they don't, Latinos in the US are going to become a major block and their is no logical link to the Democrats, at least over the Republicans. They also now have the perception of GWB last 8-10 months in office and the 'Financial Crisis' and a perceived patronizing of the Obama Camp into problem. But its NOT a Palin problem, Ron Paul problem, McCain like problem or one that would split the party.

[bascule]

Colman, will be seated...predict all you want.

 

I would still consider it too close to call, and there's Nate Silver using statistical modeling to predict the contrary.

[bob000555]

Your claim that the democratic patty is divided is absolutely baseless. It is undeniable that the primary was divisive but it is also true that almost every democrat (including Sen. Robert Byrd, a former KKK member) united behind the historic campaign, in fact polls show that 80% of registered democrats voted for Obama.

 

I believe the psychological mechanism that motivates your argument is the false consensuses effect, despite all the evidence to the contrary you continue to project your dislike for the Obama administration on the general population.

 

On the other hand I do have actual evidence of infighting in the republican camp. Apparently even McCain aids had quite enough of Palin’s hyper-populist rubbish calling her a “Wasilla Hillbilly” and saying she doesn’t know that Africa is a continent not a country. In a great show of dissatisfaction with their party thousands of supporters came to Ron Paul’s convention instead of John McCain’s. There was even controversy in the party over weather or not they would reject convicted felon Ted Stevens.

 

Like it or not, they don't, Latinos in the US are going to become a major block and their is no logical link to the Democrats, at least over the Republicans. QUOTE]

 

Usually when a party refers to your people as doing nothing but “steeling jobs”, when a party says your to lezzy to learn their language, when a party tells you their building a fence to keep you out you vote for the other party. PErhaps thats why Obama got almost 70% of the Lateno vote http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

[jackson33]

Bob; What I AM saying is that by 2012, IMO the Democratic Party WILL be divided and much more than the Republican. I am basing this opinion on the absolute impossibility of satisfying both the Far Left and Centrist or Moderate factions of the one party. Add to this Bush will be gone and what has held these factions together in the first place has been 'Hating Bush'.

 

I DO NOT dislike Obama and certainly don't dislike many of the so far appointments. Whether this election is Historic or not, is not the issue. Yes we had two women (Clinton/Palin) run, a Latino (Richardson), a Mormon and of course a Black, who won the General Election. I wish him luck and if I support an issue, will be behind him but will oppose vigorously anything seen radical. What I have said during the campaign and remain convinced, is that he is not qualified to be President and can think of 6 or so others that did run that are were qualified, including Clinton. He as a Constitutional Graduate of Harvard Law School and with a required basic knowledge in American History, has shown me no understanding of how government works much less the duties and responsibilities of that office.

 

No, you have evidence of a few political pundits, wanting to continue working for future candidates, place blame on anyone they can for their loss. Accusations against Ms. Palin, by them have in large been dismissed and the only future split likely will be those few. Frankly most political strategist gave McCain absolutely no shot to winning until she became the VP pick, including myself.

 

Yes, I know Obama did VERY well with the Latino vote and was quite a surprise to me having lived most of my life in South Texas, NM or Arizona and doing business IN their communities. I can only guess that during the campaign, they were continuously exposed to media closing down business and throwing Latinos on buses headed for Mexico. I didn't like that any more than them, but have no idea what they are expecting. They are a very hard working, religious group, wishing to be rewarded for success and based their lives on the dreams America has offered. Seems like you have another problem 'steeling jobs, won't learn the language' which are neither true but another topic...

 

bascule; Anything can happen in Minnesota, but I do think enough is enough and it should be the losing person by all accounts (even if low numbers) to just concede and get on with life. With 19R Senate seats up for grabs and 17D in 2010, Obama/Reid/Polosi have their filibuster proof majority, surely until after those elections. The only possible reason might be Iraq, the War on Terrorism or National Security are involved, but it would likely be Democrats joining republicans to stop actions opposing some 'status quo', especially if Israel is involved...IMO, Coleman will be seated and would place the odds at 99 to 1...

[bob000555]

Bob; What I AM saying is that by 2012, IMO the Democratic Party WILL be divided and much more than the Republican. I am basing this opinion on the absolute impossibility of satisfying both the Far Left and Centrist or Moderate factions of the one party.

This has been equally true for every president we have ever had.

 

Add to this Bush will be gone and what has held these factions together in the first place has been 'Hating Bush'.

 

If you think the disappearance of Bush will do any major harm to Obama your insane. No presidential first term has been defined by the same thing that got it elected. If this sort of logic was at all true the Reagan Administration would fall apart as soon as they could no longer unite against Jimmy Carter, FDR would be destroyed by the disappearance of Hover.

 

No, you have evidence of a few political pundits, wanting to continue working for future candidates, place blame on anyone they can for their loss.

Ah the classic “the media said it therefore it’s wrong” argument. As if candidates directly employ publicly traded media conglomerates. Laughable.

 

Accusations against Ms. Palin, by them have in large been dismissed

By whome? As far as I am aware the FEC report on the McCain budget still includes $150K for Palin’s substandard wardrobe. Saying allegations of stupidity are rude doesn’t make them wrong, in fact if that’s the best response the candidate can come up with it often means they’re right.

Frankly most political strategist gave McCain absolutely no shot to winning until she became the VP pick, including myself

Illustrating my point that the centrists of the Republican party had to bend to the will of the hyper-populist masses. The republican party is moving towards the extremes not the democrats.

 

Your predictions are totally moot without evidence sir. Like it or not Political science is a science and when trying to predict outcomes the rules of science apply. Please site any exit pools, demographic changes, opinion pools or anything else to illustrate your point.

[bascule]

bascule; Anything can happen in Minnesota, but I do think enough is enough and it should be the losing person by all accounts (even if low numbers) to just concede and get on with life.

 

Perhaps this discussion is better suited for the Franken vs. Coleman thread...

 

The margins involved are one hundredth of one percent. There's no "losing person" yet because the margins are so low and many votes are being challenged. Approximate totals have fluctuated wildly on a day-to-day basis. We must wait for the recount to complete until the loser is decided.

[Pangloss]

If you think the disappearance of Bush will do any major harm to Obama your insane. No presidential first term has been defined by the same thing that got it elected. If this sort of logic was at all true the Reagan Administration would fall apart as soon as they could no longer unite against Jimmy Carter, FDR would be destroyed by the disappearance of Hover.

 

Illustrating my point that the centrists of the Republican party had to bend to the will of the hyper-populist masses. The republican party is moving towards the extremes not the democrats.

 

Your predictions are totally moot without evidence sir. Like it or not Political science is a science and when trying to predict outcomes the rules of science apply. Please site any exit pools, demographic changes, opinion pools or anything else to illustrate your point.

 

You lost me at the end -- I think you're getting too upset over your disagreement and stepping across a bit of a logic line there. He doesn't need any proof of his opinion, and it's certainly reasonable to predict that Democrats could lose their unity of they don't behave in a responsible manner, and that they could face internal divides based on their new "big tent" strategy that won over moderates. Surely you can see how keeping moderates happy -- the thing that put them back in power -- is a very different thing from keeping extremists happy. The potential for conflict is intuitively obvious.

 

I agree with you that the departure of Bush will have little bearing on Obama in that realm of Bush-hatred, and I think he will be judged on his own merits. I think you made a good point there about how no president is judged on the same things that got him elected. It's an interesting point as well as a seemingly accurate one.

[bob000555]

When we made the jump from talking about our opinions to speculating about the future we entered the realm of policy analysis which is indeed a science, though probably not to the degree I argued in my last post.

 

All presidents in modern history (with a certain glaring exception) have been elected by a majority which virtually necessitates a diversity of supporters. No president could have appeased all of them but this doesn’t mean they where all one term presidents.

 

Of course if the democrats are stupid they will lose support but to argue that they will necessarily do something stupid is preposterous.

 

By the way I have noticed that when I post twice before someone I’m debating they tend to ignore my earlier argument, please don’t do that should you chose to respond Jackson, see post 18.

[Pangloss]

I don't know if you all have heard the news out of Illinois today, but the governor of that state was ARRESTED today on allegations that he attempted to SELL (for actual money!) the appointment of Obama's replacement as Senator. In these cases the governor of the state in question typically appoints a replacement to finish up the term. Normally they appoint an individual from the same political party in order to avoid having an impact on the national balance of power (though it isn't required, and doesn't always happen that way). That was the case recently when Joe Biden's replacement was announced.

 

But because of this strange development, it now appears that the Illinois state legislature is going to order up a new election to determine Obama's replacement. That move is supported by Illinois' other senator, Richard Durbin, who is also a Democrat.

 

But an election would mean that a Republican could potentially win, further reducing the Democratic majority in the senate. Nobody's talking about that angle yet, but I expect it'll start to pop up in news stories tomorrow. Guaranteed Richard Durbin already thought about it, though, and he deserves credit for making this suggestion anyway.

[jackson33]

Bob; What I AM saying is that by 2012, IMO the Democratic Party WILL be divided and much more than the Republican. I am basing this opinion on the absolute impossibility of satisfying both the Far Left and Centrist or Moderate factions of the one party. Add to this Bush will be gone and what -------"has held these factions together in the first place" -------- has been 'Hating Bush'....

 

 

Bob;

 

If this is correct and both you and Pangloss, would seem to agree, then what will be the uniting argument bonding the extremes with in the Democratic Party. Your back to Environmental Issues, Capitalism and every little self perceived disenfranchised group in the country, with a defined agenda no core belief.

 

The Administration will try, as they all have, to blame the previous one(s) for their own failures or the end results if not favorable to their base wishes. How many times did you hear 'Reaganomics', 'The Carter Years' and so on this cycle, by both sides. It is normal, politics as usual and I agree non-effective to the majority of the electorate.

 

McCain's, biggest error, IMO was ignoring his base. I understood his idea in that the based should follow and he was aiming his campaign at Independents and moderate Democrats. What happened was he did get some of those, but his base sat out the election. As for Palin, well she did stir the interest and obvious to me in turn outs at any event, but people have always tended to vote for the head of the ticket.

 

 

 

Pangloss; The Illinois Congress will probably remove the Governor, if he doesn't resign first, but whether from Election or appointment by the now Lt. Governor, do you actually think a Republican could receive/win the Senate Seat???

 

bascule; The recount has been completed, only to bring up another issue, a difference of about 177 missing votes and additional disputed votes. They are both making some effort to pull the disputed, but as long as neither will concede their legal teams will continue to play games. IMO, and again I don't think either party is particularly concerned. The Republicans know, they would not have the votes to shut down an issue the Democrats really want, probably down to 55 or 56 Dems/Ind...Those 19R running in 2010 are not going to rock the boat.

[Pangloss]

Sure, why not?

 

I don't know enough about Illinois politics at this time to say whether I think a Republican could win an election there at the moment. If the Lt. Governor ends up making an appointment, then most likely that would be a Democrat.

[bob000555]

[

Bob;

 

If this is correct and both you and Pangloss, would seem to agree, then what will be the uniting argument bonding the extremes with in the Democratic Party. Your back to Environmental Issues, Capitalism and every little self perceived disenfranchised group in the country, with a defined agenda no core belief.

 

The Administration will try, as they all have, to blame the previous one(s) for their own failures or the end results if not favorable to their base wishes. How many times did you hear 'Reaganomics', 'The Carter Years' and so on this cycle, by both sides. It is normal, politics as usual and I agree non-effective to the majority of the electorate.

 

McCain's, biggest error, IMO was ignoring his base. I understood his idea in that the based should follow and he was aiming his campaign at Independents and moderate Democrats. What happened was he did get some of those, but his base sat out the election. As for Palin, well she did stir the interest and obvious to me in turn outs at any event, but people have always tended to vote for the head of the ticket.

 

 

 

Perhaps the Democratic Party will be united by this thing called the most charismatic leader in modern times…yeah there is that thing. But seriously for the sake of argument if we throw that factor out your argument is still a classic example of the false consensus effect. Because you deem the democrats’ environmentalism and quest for equality less pertinent then the republicans’ rigid ideology and absurd quest for impenetrable national security you project this value judgment on the population as a whole and extrapolate as though it rely was a universally shared judgment even when the polls show the exact opposite. Nice try though.

 

And in regards to “McCain’s only mistake”, nice rationalization of defect and rejection. Did you ever consider the possibility that the voters thought Obama’s approach was better then McCain’s? It is after all possible that people who disagree with your values judgment aren’t voting based on whim.