U.S. Politics, 12

[Old Zog]

When you say "flipped" do you mean control of both houses changed?

Scot,

I think what Ormond means is that this is the first midterm election in a while in which:

a) one party controlled both chambers of congress going into the election, and

B) one of the chambers "flipped" and the other didn't.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OZ,

Scot,

I think what Ormond means is that this is the first midterm election in a while in which:

a) one party controlled both chambers of congress going into the election, and

B) one of the chambers "flipped" and the other didn't.

Okay. If so that was phrased horribly. I think it's somewhat Ironic that the Senate, supposedly the more stable of the two houses, is the one that changes control more frequently.

[sToNED_CAT]

They needed those votes though. They needed 60 votes in the Senate and they did not have it. So they had to appease either Republicans or capitulate to Lieberman and Nelson.

No, they never needed 60 votes. Every filibuster can be ended by simple majority vote (the 60 votes requirement is just a tradition, an agreement that has no basis in law - Supreme Court said so in past). Of course that would mean decreased influence of some Democratic senators and the Republicans would do the same in future, so they decided to not do it.

But if they really considered those reforms important enough, they would have passed those reforms with 50+ vote. I can assure you if republicans had 59 senators they would pass anything they wanted.

Also it looks like Obama never really tried to pressure some Democrats to pass more progressive version of reforms.

He simply never showed any leadership in this regard.

In fact if I remember correctly members of his administration bashed progressive activists, because of "unrealistic expectations", and he himself said that he never really campaigned for UHC and was in fact never against mandatory insurance.

So there's a question - have the more substantial reforms failed because of republican oposition, or because Mr. President and his administration wanted them to fail?

[Guest Raidne]

They could not get the GOP (or even some of their own!) to play along without paying a high price and even that did not bring anyone else onboard. At least one of the reasons for both is that they did not get people to accept their ideas -- one of the main planks of the GOP's platform this year was the repeal of the health care law.

It is true - fear of WMD and tax cuts have always had more bipartisan support than changes in domestic policy. The other major pieces of Bush legislation? No Child Left Behind and Medicare expansion. Also very bipartisan issues. Those two are sort of like how Clinton was able to pass NAFTA and welfare reform. I think the Democrats, most of them, are actually truly in favor of the Patriot Act, those jerks.

The tax cuts, though - they just framed the debate really well. Congrats to them on that. Someone needs to explain the 2005 Energy Bill passage to me, however, because I do not understand that one.

OTOH, privitization of social security? Nope, didn't manage to sell that one. And TARP? Nope, couldn't sell that one to members of their own party either, although they did manage to pass it off in some quarters as a failure of the Democrats.

But, here's the thing - the two major pieces of legislation during the Obama Presidency - the stimulus package and the health care bill - are not the kinds of bills you can sell to the public. The first is the kind you hope that as President you never have to pass. If you do it, you do it out of duty. The second hasn't gone into effect yet. Nobody really knows what it looks like. So they had to go into a vote with the jury still out. And the American default position is to change sides at the midterm elections.

ETA: I really truly don't think Obama thought they had a chance in hell of holding onto the House this election. And who did? I mean, we tried, what else can we do, but nobody was planning on it.

[BloodRider]

Although it's the first time both haven't flipped at a midterm election since 1930. They had a little segment about that on NPR's All Things Considered tonight. Considering what happened after 1930 (the Depression got much worse) that sounded a bit ominous.

Right I meant in a midterm. But I was still wrong, since I didn't realize it went that way in 1930.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BR,

Do you mean as Old Zog clarified?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

While the sideshow in Washington continues, the unelected, private bankers who really run things keep on truckin'

Fed pulls $600,000,000,000 out of its ass

The Federal Reserve will buy an additional $600 billion of Treasuries through June, expanding record stimulus and risking its credibility in a bid to reduce unemployment and avert deflation.

Policy makers, setting a pace of about $75 billion of purchases a month, “will adjust the program as needed,” the Fed’s Open Market Committee said today in a statement in Washington. The central bank left unchanged its pledge to keep interest rates low for an “extended period” after Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said it could be modified in some way.

While Bernanke’s near-zero rates and $1.7 trillion in asset purchases helped end the recession, the Fed said progress has been “disappointingly slow” in bringing down joblessness close to a 26-year high. The risk is that the move doesn’t work or fuels inflation and asset bubbles, said Paul Ballew, a former Fed economist and a senior vice president at Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. in Columbus, Ohio.

[alguien]

God Almighty, this was a fun post to write.

I don't think anyone here expected things to go differently. We knew it was almost a certainty that the Dems would lose the House, just as we knew that the Dems would likely retain the Senate. If anything, the Tea Party helped Democrats to retain the Senate, so I'm not sure who got "teabagged". Republicans gained control over one of two houses. If that's your definition of getting teabagged then perhaps you might ask yourself if you've enjoyed getting skull-f@cked for the past four years? Honestly, I don't think either is true and this kind of posting serves little to no purpose.

If anything, these results seem likely to help Dems retain the presidency in 2012, after which, you'll most likely go back to your post-and-run-away style.

If these election results bring you happiness as a result of your deluded obsession of Obama, great. And if writing posts like that is where you get your kicks, you have my pity.

[Frog Eater]

And I'm not the slightest bit worried. In fact, man am I looking forward to watching the Republican-led house implode over the next two years. Does better things for Obama's chances at re-election than anything the Democrats could possibly do.

I wish I could archive this and throw it back it up here in 2 years because, mark my words, this is precisely what's going to happen.

I'm not so sure that the next two years will be a total failure. The House will write up bills to gut "Obamacare" that the Dems will trip over themselves in a hurry to capitulate to the Repubs, and then the House will write up some more bills to gut programs important to Dems, and again, the Dems will come running to comply. The White House will try to get something passed in the form of a new jobs bill and the House will kill it, calling it "stimulus" and "Bailout". These will be seen as GOP wins and Dem losses and the GOP will come out shining.

[Fez]

I'm not so sure that the next two years will be a total failure. The House will write up bills to gut "Obamacare" that the Dems will trip over themselves in a hurry to capitulate to the Repubs, and then the House will write up some more bills to gut programs important to Dems, and again, the Dems will come running to comply. The White House will try to get something passed in the form of a new jobs bill and the House will kill it, calling it "stimulus" and "Bailout". These will be seen as GOP wins and Dem losses and the GOP will come out shining.

Nah. The House Dems are now in the position that the Republicans were this past Congress; i.e. almost all of them are ideologically 'pure'. The Blue Dogs got destroyed Tuesday, only 4 members of the Progressive Caucus lost, I think the House Democrats will be united in their liberalism opposing all Republican bills with the exception of anything necessary for the functioning of gov't that doesn't have poison pills attached. Sure the Republicans have more than enough votes to not worry about that, but the Dems will be able to show they are clearly different and opposed to Republicans. As for the Senate, they too staked everything on Obamacare, no way in hell will they allow the House to get any bill gutting it to Obama's desk. Even if Nelson, Manchin, Lieberman, and Landriu would vote with the Senate Republicans for some of the things, the rest of the Senate Democrats can start using that thing called a filibuster.

For two years people have bitched about how the Senate wouldn't act on House bills, now many of the same people are going to be very happy about that. I doubt Obama will ever have to even bust out his veto pen since there's nothing that's going to be reaching his desk for the next two years except (unless House Republicans are truly insane) continuing resolutions to fund government and a raise in the debt ceiling.

[Frog Eater]

For two years people have bitched about how the Senate wouldn't act on House bills, now many of the same people are going to be very happy about that. I doubt Obama will ever have to even bust out his veto pen since there's nothing that's going to be reaching his desk for the next two years except (unless House Republicans are truly insane) continuing resolutions to fund government and a raise in the debt ceiling.

Isn't Harry Reid still in charge of the Senate? He has no intestinal fortitude at all. He cant wait to roll over for Boehner. It will be left to Obama to veto the crap that the GOP comes up with and he will painted as the obstructionist to "real progress in America".

[Guest Raidne]

Don't we say testicular fortitude now?

Also, I think any prediction based on the House Republicans doing anything is wildly overreaching.

And, why would the Democrats compromise on a bill that is a repeal of another bill? That's craziness. Nobody in their right mind would do that. It's not like anyone has stood up and said "you know, Harry, I'm okay with keeping state-based health insurance exchanges for individuals, but I'd like to gut the bit about separate state-based exchange for small businesses, or at least push back the effective date to 2015. I think the American people would be okay with this bill if we did those things."

It's more like "that black Hitler guy thought it up, and it has death panels."

[Commodore]

While the sideshow in Washington continues, the unelected, private bankers who really run things keep on truckin'

Fed pulls $600,000,000,000 out of its ass

I really hope Ron Paul calls these guys up to Congress weekly to explain themselves.

[Frog Eater]

Don't we say testicular fortitude now?

Also, I think any prediction based on the House Republicans doing anything is wildly overreaching.

And, why would the Democrats compromise on a bill that is a repeal of another bill? That's craziness. Nobody in their right mind would do that. It's not like anyone has stood up and said "you know, Harry, I'm okay with keeping state-based health insurance exchanges for individuals, but I'd like to gut the bit about separate state-based exchange for small businesses, or at least push back the effective date to 2015. I think the American people would be okay with this bill if we did those things."

It's more like "that black Hitler guy thought it up, and it has death panels."

Hopefully you are right. I am just feeling pesimistic today that the Democrats can look adversity in the face and not back down.

[Kouran]

No, they never needed 60 votes. Every filibuster can be ended by simple majority vote (the 60 votes requirement is just a tradition, an agreement that has no basis in law - Supreme Court said so in past). Of course that would mean decreased influence of some Democratic senators and the Republicans would do the same in future, so they decided to not do it.

But if they really considered those reforms important enough, they would have passed those reforms with 50+ vote. I can assure you if republicans had 59 senators they would pass anything they wanted.

Also it looks like Obama never really tried to pressure some Democrats to pass more progressive version of reforms.

He simply never showed any leadership in this regard.

In fact if I remember correctly members of his administration bashed progressive activists, because of "unrealistic expectations", and he himself said that he never really campaigned for UHC and was in fact never against mandatory insurance.

So there's a question - have the more substantial reforms failed because of republican oposition, or because Mr. President and his administration wanted them to fail?

Actually part of that is not correct. To change the standing rules of the Senate requires a simple majority vote; however, this vote can in turn be filibustered which can only be stopped by a 2/3rds majority vote for cloture.

So in essence to change the rules of the Senate requires a 2/3rds vote. Though it would be possible to eliminate filibusters or limit debate as the House does. Though I suppose if you wanted to really throw a kink in the works all the Senators from the minority party could absent themselves from the Senate floor and require a call for a quorum. This of course would only be a delaying tactic, but it sure would be funny watching the Senate Master-at-Arms having to go round up 40+ Senators.

[Fez]

Reid has had major issues with messaging and with letting the conservative elements of his caucus get away with a little too much, but I wouldn't mistake that for lacking in fortitude. He forced quite a few tough votes, knows his way around procedure probably better than anyone since Byrd in his heyday, and while he had to give up a lot to get things passed, he never gave away the farm.

Just look at his reelection campaign. He was one of the only people out championing the legislative victories the Dems passed the last two years, he campaigned with Obama (and the first lady) and talked about future legislative victories he would fight for. He called out Angle on her craziness, constantly, and how she was unfit to be a senator. It was not the campaign of a weak-kneed man.

Reid can't for the life of him give a rousing speech, still believes in the collegiality of the Senate, and has had to deal with a 60 vote threshold and only 55 solid votes for two years; and so he's public image with liberals is not good. But don't for a second think he's about to give up and let the Republican House get away with anything.

ETA: Except gun stuff, because, like a lot of Senate Dems, he's very much in favor of gun rights. I wouldn't be too surprised if by 2012 there's a law mandating that we all carry a handgun at all times.

[Swordfish]

What just about everybody in this thread seems to have missed is that people were not so much voting for Republicans as they were against the status quo.

True.

Except for, you know, the fact that just about everyone has pretty much acknowledged (and in many cases bemoaned) that fact.

other than that though, you're spot on.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It is true - fear of WMD and tax cuts have always had more bipartisan support than changes in domestic policy. The other major pieces of Bush legislation? No Child Left Behind and Medicare expansion. Also very bipartisan issues. Those two are sort of like how Clinton was able to pass NAFTA and welfare reform. I think the Democrats, most of them, are actually truly in favor of the Patriot Act, those jerks.

The tax cuts, though - they just framed the debate really well. Congrats to them on that. Someone needs to explain the 2005 Energy Bill passage to me, however, because I do not understand that one.

OTOH, privitization of social security? Nope, didn't manage to sell that one. And TARP? Nope, couldn't sell that one to members of their own party either, although they did manage to pass it off in some quarters as a failure of the Democrats.

But, here's the thing - the two major pieces of legislation during the Obama Presidency - the stimulus package and the health care bill - are not the kinds of bills you can sell to the public. The first is the kind you hope that as President you never have to pass. If you do it, you do it out of duty. The second hasn't gone into effect yet. Nobody really knows what it looks like. So they had to go into a vote with the jury still out. And the American default position is to change sides at the midterm elections.

ETA: I really truly don't think Obama thought they had a chance in hell of holding onto the House this election. And who did? I mean, we tried, what else can we do, but nobody was planning on it.

I think that is exactly right.

The reality is that the issues on which Bush achieved bipartisan cooperation had more public support than the issues Obama pushed. It's really as simple as that. Heck, in the 2000 election, whether or not there would be a tax cut wasn't the issue, because both Bush and Gore supported a substantial one. The same with the prescription drug plan for seniors.

And the disparity in bipartisanship also explains the election results. When you push bills that have less popular support, you tend to lose votes.

Actually part of that is not correct. To change the standing rules of the Senate requires a simple majority vote; however, this vote can in turn be filibustered which can only be stopped by a 2/3rds majority vote for cloture.

That is true under the rules, but it's really a bootstrap argument. If 51 Senators held a vote in violation of the rules, and annexed their signatures to a piece legislation, that's a valid bill regardless of the Senate rules. And if those same 51 Senators voted to change the rules, a simple majority could do that despite what the rules say. Those are just different versions of the so-called "nuclear" option.

[The Progressive]

I'm not saying the Democrats should be the Borg, but the way they currently operate, they cannot govern effectively in the face of concerted opposition.

They had to compromise with the Republicans because of the above. And they wasted a lot of time doing it, and each time they supposedly had a deal someone would torpedo it, wasting more time and wringing ever more concessions out of the Democrats. And still they went back for more punishment. We ended up with a bill no one is really happy with that was used to bludgeon Dems electorally on Tuesday.

It's the price the Democrats must pay for being a big tent and allowing for dissent. I rather have that than the "purity test" that teabaggers love so much.

I think you need to stop paying too much attention to the vomits from the right because plenty of people like the advances made in the health care reform bill (plugging of the doughnut hole, expanded coverage for the poor, end discrimination for people with pre-existing condition, letting colleg kids stay on their parents' insurance for a bit more ......... I mean those things are like literally the difference between life and death for some people). As for the stimulus bill, it saved tons of jobs in education and I know a few people who would have been laid off without it; and my federal tax sure has went down as well.

The financial reform bill makes trading in derivatives more transparent and required more capitalization for banks and loan bundling and more consumer protection ......... all of these are really good. It's not perfect, but it's better than jack shit if the Repubs run the show.

And I don't even know what Altherion is smoking when he tries to claim that a stronger financial reform package would have been passed. Shit if that idiocy was true then you would have thought that after the collapse of Lehman and AIG, the Repubs in Congress and Paulson would have been up in arm about reforming Wall Street ............... but what did they do instead? That's right, they gave the banks even more money.

What just about everybody in this thread seems to have missed is that people were not so much voting for Republicans as they were against the status quo. Consider - congress has something like an 80% disaproval rating - and that includes *BOTH* parties. There is an immense amount of anger amongst the populace - enough anger to potentially bring down the entire system.

I think you missed the fact that most incumbents were re-elected. I also have to wonder how ignorant/gullible you must be if you think that handing control of Congress back to the Republican is "against the status quo". Stop swalloing too much teabaggers' propaganda.

Somehow I'm skeptical that it's corruption that leads Zap to slam Obama so hard and vote straight Republican.

Zap's strain of racism has already reared its head since the 2008 election; it's typical of the racially-motivated rage commonly exhibited and clumsily hidden by teabaggers.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

True.

Except for, you know, the fact that just about everyone has pretty much acknowledged (and in many cases bemoaned) that fact.

other than that though, you're spot on.

If it was simply anti-status quo, then why were so many Democratic incumbants tossed out, yet all but 2 GOP incumbants reelected?