An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Going Negative Is Not a Positive Way to Get Votes (Guest Voice)

In Voting, White Men Don’t Jump »

US Senate: When 60 Isn’t 60

Posted by PATRICK EDABURN in At TMV, Politics, Society.
Oct 22nd, 2008 | Comments

Sitting two weeks out from the election, it seems clear the Democrats will make serious gains in the US Senate. At least 4 GOP seats in Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Virginia are all but certain to go to the Democrats, which means they will have at least 55 seats in 2009.

Seats in Alaska, Minnesota, North Carolina and Oregon are at least leaning to the Democrats and will probably fall as well. Alaska is only salvageable for the GOP if Senator Stevens is acquitted, the other seats seem likely to tip but are a bit more in play. That puts them at 59 seats.

Seats in Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi are possible switches, and just one of them would give the Democrats the magic 60. So it seems like good news for them. But not everything is quite as easy as it seems.

One of the truisms of US politics, especially on the Congressional level, is that in order to win big you need to broaden your political spectrum. This was what the GOP tried to do in the 70s and 80s and it’s what helped them succeed during the 90s. The Democrats have learned the lesson and broadened their base during the 90s, which is why they are where they are.

But part of such success means that part of your majority is (in the case of the Democrats) well to the right of your political base. That is certainly true this time around.

Just looking at the races listed above for example….

Virginia will elect Mark Warner, a pro-business Democrat with a history of opposing tax hikes.

The Udall brothers in Colorado and New Mexico are fairly liberal on some domestic policy issues but more conservative on social and national security topics.

Senator Johnson of South Dakota has often crossed party lines, along with Senator Nelson of Nebraska. The same would seem likely of Democrats elected in North Carolina and Georgia.

By contrast, some of the Republicans retiring this year (whether by choice or on Election Day) are those who have shifted over to the Democrats on some issues.

So while the Democrats might well hit the upper 50s in Senators, they will find that when it comes to any bold ‘progressive’ agenda that the numbers are much smaller than they thought.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

superdestroyer

The 60 seats will allow the Democratic Party to appear more moderate while actually being more liberal. The 60 seats mans moderates will Nelson can vote for closure and then vote against a bill. It will be easy for the Democratic party to always have the 51 safest seats vote for a bill while just requiring the 60 Democrats to vote for closure.

DLS

Sixty seats in the Senate is the Dems' dream this year. I just hope it doesn't teach them the wrong lesson and they believe they have a "mandate" to lunge substantially to the left. I.e., it's bad enough if a Dem Congress and White House act as mutual rubber stamps, but worse if they believe the USA "needs" the equivalent of a Barbara Boxer or Dennis Kucinich Nation (alien and antithetical to nearly all Americans, to say nothing of precedent, propriety, or tradition). Hopefully they'll learn the lesson of the early 1990s when the Clintons tried a leftist lurch and Americans responded as we all know in 1994.

DLS

How will they get the money to pay for a Bold "Progressive" [sic; regression to 1960s] Agenda?

As I've said before, so now says the Journal -- the tax base will have to broaden (see the second of the three paragraphs repeated below, what I have told others already). Perhaps that "doughnut hole" in Obama's Social Security tax plan is merely a set-up reserve for income tax increases already planned but not being revealed officially yet.

"In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the 'very rich' -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the 'fairness' of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463231048556...

elrod

The 60-vote margin is just to prevent a filibuster. Right-leaning Democrats are not going to filibuster liberal Democratic legislation. They might not vote for it in the end but they won't support a GOP filibuster.

Add to this some of the few remaining GOP moderates like Snowe, Collins and Voinovich and it seems that a filibuster is gone anyway.

The GOP may lose Mitch McConnell. Who will replace him as leader of the GOP in the Senate? Who can rally troops?

superdestroyer

elrod,

Does it really matter who becomes the next minority leader since the Repulbicans will have zero affect on policy.

You also realize how moderate Democrats have support things that most of their voters do not want like gun control or amnesty for illegal immigrants by voting for closure and then voting against the actual bill. Then Webb can go home and say he voted against when he actually took the steps to make what he claimed to opposte to actually happen.

DLS

Snowe and Collins, for example, not only can but should change their party affiliations to be honest, and to be opportunist as well after the Dem victory.

The bright side of firm Dem control of the Congress as well as the White House: NO MORE BOGUS EXCUSES from them in Washington and in the media for any failures by them. They are going to be getting _their_ way and _they_ can take the blame when they fail.

blog comments powered by Disqus