The Implications of 60 Senate votes.
As the gap continues to widen between Obama and McCain, cable news blabbermouths have started tweaking the electoral maps to make the battlegrounds look more competitive than they really are in order to keep the horse race going. What should be more relevant, however, is how the Senate races correlate with the presidential numbers.
Democrats currently hold 50 seats + Lieberman in the Senate (I'm counting Bernie Sanders as a Dem because he's a better Dem than many nominal Dems).
The following races are seats currently held by Republicans but where the Democratic candidate has a lead outside the margin of error:
- VA (Warner)
- NM (Udall)
- CO (Udall)
- OR (Merkley)
- NH (Shaheen)
- NC (Hagan)
- AK (Begich)
On top of that, the most vulnerable Democrat is now Frank Launtenberg, meaning that both Landrieu and Johnson have now slipped in to safe territory. It's unlikely the NRSC will want to spend scarce resources going after the always-elusive New Jersey pickup. Lautenberg is still given a 98% chance to win according to www.fivethirtyeight.com/ .
So, that leaves us with a minimal likely outcome of 57 Dems + Lieberman. Now, the remaining competitive races are also all for Republican-held seats, in order of likelhood to flip:
- MN (Franken)
- MS (Musgrove)
- GA (Martin)
- KY (Lunsford)
If 2 of these competitive seats flip, it would take every Senate Republican + Lieberman to block cloture on any bill, assuming no Democratic defections. Note that historically, many wavering Senators have been willing to vote with their party against a bill, but not to filibuster it. Can you see Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Arlen Specter all refusing to cut off debate on a Democratic health care bill? If three of them flip, Lieberman becomes irrelevant and centrists like Ben Nelson hold all the cards on controversial party-line votes, such as one similar to the 1993 Deficit reduction Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993 (although I believe Budget acts are not subject to filibuster).
If three seats flip, a President Obama would have the equivalent of a Parliamentary Majority, only without the party discipline. The only check on parliamentary majority power, outside of a major party caucus revolt, is the prospect of alienating voters in the next election. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would almost certainly be allowed to expire. Any energy or banking bill could be tailored exactly to the Democrat's collectivel liking. Republicans would be reduced to offering minor amendments and using the occasional wedge on cultural or tax issues from time to time.
How likely is this? Fivethirtyeight's current projection gives Martin a 23% chance to upset Chambliss for seat #60, and only a 5% chance for McCain to win the election. It's no wonder the RNC has decided to try to save Senate seats instead. As for McCain, he might want to rethink a bare-knuckles strategy that will more likely lose him support than gain it. It's his turn to show to what extent he's in this for himself and his aspirations. His party is teetering on the brink of irrelevancy.
- corph's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
The Republicans should
make an issue of trying to re-elect these endangered Senators. Making the point that someone has to be a break on Obama and the Dems on spending. So if you're an independant and voting for Obama, then split the ticket and vote for Republicans for the House and Senate. I'm not sure how they go about making that argument.--it's probably up to each house or senate candidate to do it on their own.
name the enemy, win the war
A few of them have tried.
Thing is, it's hard to argue a "preserve the last line of defense" argument without implicitly conceding you're likely to lose the White House. That might end up demoralizing the base and reducing turnout.
Still, with a concerted effort, the RNC should be able to hold GA and MS. There's little a couple of million dollars could do to swing the Presidential race at this point anyway. They should focus on what's winnable and pray for a game-changing external event.
Great Diary
Thanks for coming back!
A corollary to the Democrats' large majorities is that moderates should be more willing to consider McCain if they are on the fence. With the Democrats looking at majorities of approximately 90 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate, McCain's policies won't see the light of day until at least 2011. His health care plan will never pass. Neither will his tax plan. The Bush tax cuts will certainly expire.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yeah I missed this place.
I like to seek out conflict, and the primary wars at mydd had me enthralled for a while. Then it got boring because it's all self-reinforcing stuff. And while there's still the occasional kernel of good writing at redstate, wading through the deluded nastiness insufferable.
I don't know that moderates can be persuaded by a "divided government" argument. For a possible variety of reasons:
1. The standard "Democrats will raise your taxes" line doesn't seem to be having the same effect this cycle. You have to worry about a job and not losing your savings before you can worry about paying less in taxes;
2. The executive decides what to do with the military. Diminished attention and a separate argument about The Surge doesn't negate the fact much of the population want us out of Iraq, preferably soon. A Democratic congress alone can't or won't prevent that, which ironically means their own ineptness may benefit them;
3. I suspect many swing voters will ulitmately decide mostly based on personality and temperement; if they haven't made up their minds on policy grounds by now it's unlikely they give the policy angle much study or reflection. And the divided-government argument is inherintly a policy-based one.
That could change, I suppose, if Pelosi or Reid overreaches and says something really kooky or scary. But they've been excessively cautious in guarding their majority prospects for two years now; it's unlikely they'll rock the boat.
I could be persuaded..
I've stated before that divided government works best. In fact, it seems that the a Democratic President and a Republican congress works best. however, this does not appear where the country on the whole would liek to go (at all). The question to ask then is who is to blame for that? Is it possible that Americans don't like the current Republican message? I'm not sure. But divided government will return in due time. And I don't think the Dems will reach 60 this year. I see them topping out at 57 at best.
http://wealthweekly.blogspot.com
Wii FC:2805-8311-8040-2678
Brawl: 2277-7051-2186
As it stands now
it's 57, or 58 with Lieberman, so that's a safe bet. If the presidential race tightens it could easily drop to 54 or 55. But if the trend continues, you're looking at 60+.
It sort of makes sense, philosophy-wise, to have a Democratic Executive and a Republican Legislature. Democrats are more likely to believe in the concept of government for the people, and thus would be more dedicated to making sure government works properly. Republicans who believe government is the problem rather than the solution seem to be far more tempted to stack federal agencies with unqualified cronies. Also, in theory, Repubican control of the Congress (i.e. the purse strings) could help curtail the worst Democratic impulses to overspend or expand beaurocracies.
But it hasn't worked out that way. This is where the blue bar in my profile shows up: Democrats are better at both. On the rare occasions when Congress or the President has taken bold and unpopular steps to restor fiscal balance, Democrats have taken them. Republicans, once in power, found themselves incapable of practicing what they preached. They didn't "let spending get out of control" (McCain's favority party-admonishing euphemism), they actively and deliberately wasted taxpayer money. They continue to use Laffer-curve hocus pocus to justify ballooning deficits, and consistently fudge the numbers so as to somehow exclude war supplementals from the budget. When Republicans try their hand at popular social initatives, they get messy boondoggles like Medicare part D.
As for 1995-2001, the likely period you had in mind, recall that the Deficit Reduction Act passed in 1993 with a Demcratic Congress, without a single Republican vote. Gingrich didn't get his deep Medicare after the government shutdown standoff in 1995, and we got budget surpluses anyway.
I certainly understand why you might prefer a divided government. I might too. While I'm not exactly enthralled with Democratic members of Congress these days, I find the Republicans caucus to almost entirely comprised of rigid idealogues, power-mad sociopaths or corrupt incompetents. I don't believe it was one-party government that failed so miserably since 2001. It was Republican government.