Let's say the Dems lose 5 Senate seats in 2010...

[Lief 🗽]

...bringing the balance of power to 55 Dems and 45 Republicans (Democratics maintain a narrow 10-15 seat advantage in the House). They could lose 8 or so (any more, I think, is kind of ridiculous) or as little as one, but I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats, while maintaining a Senate majority, will lose the "filibuster-proof" (hahahahah, in retrospect) 60-seat majority.

What happens next? Does the legislature stop passing major legislation for two years? The Republicans filibuster literally everything strategy will have been validated with electoral gains, so I don't know why they'd change anything on that front. Very few of the Republicans Senate 2010 candidates are particularly moderate; surely all of the ones with a shot of winning are to the right of Collins and Snowe, so I don't see much chance there for even the passage of super watered down legislation. Does the next Congress become a "do-nothing Congress"? Do the Democrats do something drastic and kill the filibuster?

It's pretty clear that the current situation is untenable. If the Democrats had gotten unlucky, and a few thousand votes had swung to Coleman or Stevens (or George Allen in 2006), then Obama's entire domestic agenda would be DOA right now. So what are your thoughts about how this sad state of senatorial affairs eventually settles itself out?

[Eraserhead]

Obama has already blown it, basically. His Presidency is proving to be little more than a placeholder before the next right-winger gets in there and ravages things again (whether that is in 2013 or 2017). Of course, things will only become more pathetic in aftermath of this year's elections.

The Right doesn't fear getting in there and getting their hands dirty, you see. You have to give them that. The next Republican Congress/President will not be afraid to craft policies... no matter how detrimental they might be, they will arise from a coordinated effort. Look at our last President. He was a smashing success for his cause until he was finally (and properly) neutered in 2006 by the electorate.

The fact seems to be that Democrats really just suck at governing. They have everything right now and look at how little they are really doing. The whole thing is just kind of depressing. I mean, do they need 3/4 of the House and Senate to get things accomplished in a speedy manner? What is it? Do you know what would be going down if the Republicans were wielding this kind of power right now?

Okay, I'll stop rambling now. Sorry.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The Senate reconsiders allowing the use of the procedural filibuster, and perhaps goes back to requiring a true filibuster.

[opebo]

Right wing governance will be maintained throughout Obama's tenure, whether it is for 4 or 8 years, just as it was during Clinton's.  Anyone who expected otherwise just doesn't understand the american power structure.

[Torie]

There seems to be this assumption that there are a lot of viable and realistic policy options out there to be chosen from by politicians. There aren't. So I don't think it matters that much who's in power, at least when it comes to supposed ideology or partisanship.

[opebo]

There seems to be this assumption that there are a lot of viable and realistic policy options out there to be chosen from by politicians. They're aren't.

It is true, there aren't, given the current distribution of power and interests.  All viable ways to improve the treatment of the servile class require the reduction of privilege, and the privileged class is both powerful and unwilling to compromise.

[Lief 🗽]

Obama has already blown it, basically. His Presidency is proving to be little more than a placeholder before the next right-winger gets in there and ravages things again (whether that is in 2013 or 2017). Of course, things will only become more pathetic in aftermath of this year's elections.

I don't think that's really fair to Obama. Yes, he should have been able to do more (and like I said, if we had only 58 seats or something, then I doubt anything besides a much more watered down stimulus would have been passed by now), but the healthcare bill, which will 99% pass at this point is going to be a huge legislative achievement. It'll be the greatest expansion of the safety net/welfare apparatus since Great Society, and a greater accomplishment than any legislation signed by Bush or Clinton. The stimulus was also a big deal, and he's likely to sign into law as well at least a financial regulation package by the next election, and maybe immigration or climate change legislation.

I agree with you otherwise though.

[Torie]

I suspect climate change legislation is dead, because it won't pass next year during a recession, and the votes won't be there, thereafter.  The science scandals, and date mining and manipulation, I think have really set the cap and trade et al. folks back, way back.

It is possible something on immigration will pass, but that too is a bit dicey with so many Americans that are here legally, unemployed, although the flip side is that there is now less immigration pressure at the moment, which may be abating some of what some may characterize as a degree of paranoia over the issue.

The health care bill will need to be amended in rather short order, since I think the one in the works is just not going to work very well, and the red ink will soon become unacceptably large.  The budget numbers are just that cooked.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I suspect climate change legislation is dead, because it won't pass next year during a recession, and the votes won't be there, thereafter.  The science scandals, and date mining and manipulation, I think have really set the cap and trade et al. folks back, way back.

It is possible something on immigration will pass, but that too is a bit dicey with so many Americans that are here legally, unemployed, although the flip side is that there is now less immigration pressure at the moment, which may be abating some of what some may characterize as a degree of paranoia over the issue.

It's sad that it takes some fake scandals and a little scaremongering to derail something so important. I suppose I shouldn't expect any less of this country, though.

[Torie]

I suspect climate change legislation is dead, because it won't pass next year during a recession, and the votes won't be there, thereafter.  The science scandals, and date mining and manipulation, I think have really set the cap and trade et al. folks back, way back.

It is possible something on immigration will pass, but that too is a bit dicey with so many Americans that are here legally, unemployed, although the flip side is that there is now less immigration pressure at the moment, which may be abating some of what some may characterize as a degree of paranoia over the issue.

It's sad that it takes some fake scandals and a little scaremongering to derail something so important. I suppose I shouldn't expect any less of this country, though.

The scandals are anything but false, and the temp readings were deliberately cherry picked, with the raw data then hidden from view until it became available due to some leaks. Sun variation is back in vogue much more now (given the corrected temperature data, the ceasing of the increase in global temperatures, and indeed perhaps decline, and new theories now  popping up that have CO2 playing a much smaller role), as perhaps the main driver in temperature variation. In that context, incurring massive expense, and redistribution of money to the third world to bribe them to go green, just isn't going to fly, nor should it.

[Psychic Octopus]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

[Associate Justice PiT]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

     Some Presidents just don't know how to work with Congress properly, though. Given the outcome of Obama's first year in office, I'm somewhat wary of giving him the benefit of the doubt about being able to handle Congress better if the task of doing so becomes harder.

     At any rate, I expect that killing the procedural filibuster will be the first item on the 112th Congress's agenda. Doing otherwise might consign it to the fate of a wasted Congress.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

LOL, if only we could get so lucky as to have them try that sh**t again.

[Psychic Octopus]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

     Some Presidents just don't know how to work with Congress properly, though. Given the outcome of Obama's first year in office, I'm somewhat wary of giving him the benefit of the doubt about being able to handle Congress better if the task of doing so becomes harder.

     At any rate, I expect that killing the procedural filibuster will be the first item on the 112th Congress's agenda. Doing otherwise might consign it to the fate of a wasted Congress.

Yeah; In a reality, this might be the end of his real domestic presidency. For the rest of his term Post-2011, he'll have to deal with a horde of angry Republicans and a bunch of weak willed Democrats.

[Хahar 🤔]

The Congress takes two years off.

[Lief 🗽]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

LOL, if only we could get so lucky as to have them try that sh**t again.

Well, I'm sure Democrats would enjoy increased Hispanic turnout again, after the Republicans spend a few months being racists on TV like they did last time.

[Frodo]

The day Democrats lose their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will in effect see a divided government, even if the GOP fails to seize either chamber.  However, one possible silver lining for increased power for congressional Republicans would bring greater focus on deficit and debt reduction.  Doesn't that typically have greater currency when the government is divided than when either party has complete control?  

[Torie]

The day Democrats lose their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, we will in effect see a divided government, even if the GOP fails to seize either chamber.  However, one possible silver lining for increased power for congressional Republicans would bring greater focus on deficit and debt reduction.  Doesn't that typically have greater currency when the government is divided than when either party has complete control?  

Government spends the least it seems when the GOP controls Congress and the Democrats the White House.

[Vepres]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

LOL, if only we could get so lucky as to have them try that sh**t again.

Well, I'm sure Democrats would enjoy increased Hispanic turnout again, after the Republicans spend a few months being racists on TV like they did last time.

And Republicans would dominate the western white vote. It's a double-edged sword.

[Lief 🗽]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

LOL, if only we could get so lucky as to have them try that sh**t again.

Well, I'm sure Democrats would enjoy increased Hispanic turnout again, after the Republicans spend a few months being racists on TV like they did last time.

And Republicans would dominate the western white vote. It's a double-edged sword.

Not really. They sure didn't dominate the western white vote in 2008. Illegal immigration, contrary to what conservatives seem to think, really isn't a helpful wedge issue for them. Pretty much every time they try to win a campaign on anti-immigrant sentiment, they lose.

[CultureKing]

To be honest, Republican gains would near-solidify Obama's victory in 2012, ensuring the health care plan to be enacted. It also would make him a better president, as he would have to focus and try hard to get his plans done, instead of delegating his authority to Congress as he has done on the health care debate.

Furthermore, I expect more reforms to occur in 2010, such as immigration.

LOL, if only we could get so lucky as to have them try that sh**t again.

Well, I'm sure Democrats would enjoy increased Hispanic turnout again, after the Republicans spend a few months being racists on TV like they did last time.

And Republicans would dominate the western white vote. It's a double-edged sword.

Not really. They sure didn't dominate the western white vote in 2008. Illegal immigration, contrary to what conservatives seem to think, really isn't a helpful wedge issue for them. Pretty much every time they try to win a campaign on anti-immigrant sentiment, they lose.

Western whites as a whole don't seem to care that much about the whole immigration issue, at least in relation to so many other things they see as much more important (the economy, health care, the wars and so on). Meanwhile the Hispanics will likely be angered by a number of the arguments the Republicans will throw out to try and stop any immigration reform. Hopefully the Dems will continue to solidify their support with the Hispanics; in the long run they could really help win elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obama's leadership has been lacking, and he'll cost the Democrats their "fillibuster-proof" majority. America gets screwed thanks to him.

[JSojourner]

Right wing governance will be maintained throughout Obama's tenure, whether it is for 4 or 8 years, just as it was during Clinton's.  Anyone who expected otherwise just doesn't understand the american power structure.

I basically agree.  Though I consider Obama center-left and Clinton center or center-right.  The overarching idea Opebo is advancing is that the money, power and uneducated majority are right to far right.  And "their will be done".

It's dispiriting.

[Brittain33]

Here's a question. Do the Republicans truly intend to bring all legislation to a stop using the filibuster, with the Democrats' acquiescence, or do they only want to make sure all 60 Democrats are on the record voting for all Democratic legislation, so no one gets a "safe" vote against?

[Torie]

Here's a question. Do the Republicans truly intend to bring all legislation to a stop using the filibuster, with the Democrats' acquiescence, or do they only want to make sure all 60 Democrats are on the record voting for all Democratic legislation, so no one gets a "safe" vote against?

Probably a mix and match depending on the issue. I am not sure there will be a party line vote on every issue however, just because it was on health care.