Senate shake-up

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/ja ... _headlines

Not sure that Dodd's seat will fall to a Repubican, but Dorgan's surely will. Should be an interesting election season. I don't think the House will lose its Dem majority, but Dems need not only to keep a majority, but to hold on to 60 seats to prevent Republicans from gumming up legislation. I don't see that happening.

[Lurker]

There's no chance the Democrats will maintain 60 seats in the Senate. Dodd dropping out makes it more likely that seat remains Democratic, but as you say, ND is surely going to elect a Republican.

The Washington Times framing is a bit amusing. I guess the two Democratic Senators not seeking reelection have seen the "writing on the wall" but the six Republican Senators not seeking reelection haven't?

I think Democrats will lose at least 2 seats in the Senate and 15 seats in the House in 2010. And yeah, I just pulled those numbers out of nowhere. I haven't started paying close attention yet.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31186.html

Politico sees 20-30 seat swap in the House, but I'm not clear if they think thats a net-net swap, or merely just the number os seats falling to Republicans, without a corresponding number of Republican seats falling to Democrats. I agree that it's almost an impossibility for the Seante to hold the 60 seat Dem supermajority. So Dems have about 1 year now to enact all the legislation they can. Should be interesting to watch. The Republicans will stymie and stonewall, making the Dems take credit, or blame, for whatever laws they pass. How that affects the elections remains to be seen.

[Partha]

I know that Politico isn't real good about putting the actual numbers up, but Republican retirements in both houses still outnumber Democratic ones.

As a matter of fact, there are six Republican seats up for grabs thanks to retirement - Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Florida, and Kansas. Democrats aren't out of line in thinking they can take at least 3 and maybe up to 5 of those seats. Carnehan in Missouri has consistently polled with a small lead and is well thought of by the electorate. Ohio's R candidate will be running against his rep as a Bush made man, Kentucky is looking like another NY-23, with Ron Paul's kid playing the part of King Teabagger. NH could go either way - Ayotte has name recognition, Hodes has a 2:1 cash advantage. Florida? Marco Rubio impresses no one that isn't a teabagger, either.

Of course, losing Dorgan's seat will hurt. ROFL they already formally asked Ed Schultz to run.

[Garrdor]

*Pubby shaking their fist*

"ITS OUR TIME ONCE AGAIN! TYME 4 FILIBUSTERZ!!!! TAKE THAT GODLESS LIBERAL HEATHENS!"

[Embar Angylwrath]

The Mass special election... wow, what a cliff hanger that is turning out to be. All of a sudden a race the Dems took for granted (what a fatal mistake that might turn out to be) has turned out to be a battle for control of the Senate. Clinton and other heavy hitting Dems were dispatched to the state to help shore up Coakley's campaign. GOP money and troops are flooding in too. A new poll has Brown in the lead by a few points. Many are calling this a referendum on health care and the Democratic party, although I think its more of a bungled campaign than anything else. Coakley took a weeks vacation in the middle of a 5 week campaign. And Brown has eaten her lunch in debates.

The new poll has some interesting things in it. The overwhelming majority of those polled think Obama is doing a good job, but they don't like the healthcare package. They also think Coakley is going to win, even though they are voting for Brown.

Looks like Coakley has Democrats and women. Brown has Republicans, and the all important independents, and he has the independents by a huge margin. Should be a very interesting day next Tuesday.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogsp ... ss-up.html

Non-partisan Rothenberg Political Report calls the race a toss-up now. Previously, they had Coakley with a small advantage. They also state that if Brown continues to do well in the media as he has been, he will win the election.

Also, Obama is now headed to the state, reversing a WH position that he wasn't going. That shows you just how big the stakes are. Its a risky move for Obama. If Brown wins in a deep blue state like Mass AFTER Obama's help, that will castrate Obama's political power insofar as elections are concerned. He'll have the roadkill of Corzine and Coakley on his hands. Hard to recover from that.

Also, if Brow wins and the Senate resorts to procedural trickery in order to jam healthcare through, the electorate will kill the Dems in the mid term elections. There's been a huge amount of politburo-like activity on healthcare, and very little of the transparency that Obama promised. A delay in seating Brown that appears as a concerted effort to prevent him from voting on the issue will cause heads to roll.

[Harlowe]

Martha Coakley has ran the most passive, stupid race imaginable and I am absolutely in agreement with Andrew Sullivan....seriously, this is the candidate you put forth to replace Ted Kennedy? Really?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... ected.html

[Embar Angylwrath]

She still has a decent chance of winning, but yeah, this race was misplayed by the Dems. Why... I have no idea. You'd think that the Mass seat campaign would have been managed better than this. Maybe the Dems are a bit distracted? Its the only reason I can think of why they let this race get in this kind of shape, considering the consequences if they failed to keep the seat.

[Harlowe]

If she does it will seriously be a photo-finish (and due to massive amounts of big name campaigning), because I think Brown is polling a bit ahead at this point.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31621.html

The latest poll, taken Sunday night after both Brown and Coakley paraded out their heavy hitters, (including Obama, who couldn't even fill the arena at Northeaster.. he only pulled a little over 1,000 attendees, while Brown pulled over 3,000), shows Brown surging to a 9 point lead.

Nine points...

That means Coakley has managed to lose almost 35 points to Brown in three weeks. Also, the poll shows 25% of Democrats crossing party lines to vote for Brown. That's huge.

Personally, I didn't think Brown would win earlier. I thought he'd lose in a squeaker, and the Dems would dodge a disaster. But now, man, I'm not so sure. Things now really point to a Republican victory in Mass. I don't think one can underestimate the political fallout on a national level from that. I don't think it means Obama cant get re-elected or anything like that, but it would radically change the dynamic of the rest of the year's legislative momentum, throw healthcare expansion in serious jeopardy (not because of Brown, but because of other nervous Dems pulling support), and change the strategy for mid-term elections.

All because Coakley ran a bad campaign... amazing.

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... will-lose/

Not good if Obama's inner circle is predicting a Coakley loss....

[Ddrak]

538 has Coakley at only a 25% chance to win. Not zero, but not great.

Dd

[Lurker]

Obama, who couldn't even fill the arena at Northeaster.. he only pulled a little over 1,000 attendees, while Brown pulled over 3,000

Obama had a capacity crowd of 1100 inside the building (they were set up for a rally, not a basketball game which accommodates more people), 500 in an overflow room, and thousands more outside. Brown had a large crowd of over 3000 at his event.

Why is the truth never good enough?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Obama, who couldn't even fill the arena at Northeaster.. he only pulled a little over 1,000 attendees, while Brown pulled over 3,000

Obama had a capacity crowd of 1100 inside the building (they were set up for a rally, not a basketball game which accommodates more people), 500 in an overflow room, and thousands more outside. Brown had a large crowd of over 3000 at his event.

Why is the truth never good enough?

Don't know what your point is really... I stated Obama pulled in about 1K, Brown about 3K. You agreed. Are you quibbling over seating arangements now? And that aside, is your only comment about this pivotal event related to semantics over stadium size/make-up? There's much more than that going on. I'd be more interested to hear your opinion about the effect of this election on the national political agenda.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Him and Partha don't have an opinion on that yet.

[Lurker]

Don't know what your point is really... I stated Obama pulled in about 1K, Brown about 3K. You agreed. Are you quibbling over seating arangements now?

I commented on your lie because even on the eve of a huge victory no lie is so petty that your propaganda sources won't push it and you won't parrot it. The truth is never good enough and that amazes me. The fact is more people showed up to see Obama than showed up to see Brown. The venue only allowed 1100 inside but there were several thousand turned away who watched on live video outside.

Why did you lie about who drew more people? What's the point? Are you going to quibble about seating arrangements?

On the MA race, I think it was a perfect storm of someone that would make a great Senator but was a very weak campaigner, and she ran up against a slick phony backed by powerful national interest groups who rightly saw this as a huge opportunity. The Democrats took a win for granted, jumped in late in the game, and we deserve what we get.

Obviously, if Coakley loses it would be a huge setback given the dysfunction of the Senate. Government can't function when super majorities are required to pass every bit of legislation, and the Senate was never meant to require more than a simple majority. That needs to be fixed.

On health care, Pelosi has already said that a Brown victory will not kill reform. I don't think they can reconcile the two bills and hold the vote in the Senate before Brown is confirmed so I'm guessing the House would pass the Senate bill as is and send it directly to Obama.

[Kulaf]

Government can't function when super majorities are required to pass every bit of legislation, and the Senate was never meant to require more than a simple majority. That needs to be fixed.

Sad that the only time the Senate ever need "fixing" is when the party in power can't get legislation passed that they want. 66 was to high......now 60 is to high? How hard do you really want to gut the Senate?

The Senate is supposed to be tough to get legislation through.......it keep frivilous bullshit from ever becoming law by people who now see being in the Congress as a "job" rather than meeting when something actually needs doing.

[Ddrak]

I thought the original purpose of the Senate was to maintain equal representation from the states - that way you had to have the majority of people's representatives and a majority of state representatives agreeing to pass legislation. I'm not entirely sure filibustering was something the founding fathers considered a valid tactic in the way it's used today, as evidenced by it not actually being part of the constitution but simply procedural rules.

Not that I really have a position on 66 vs 60 vs 50. I think a better solution would be to allow line-item voting on bills.

Dd

[Lurker]

Line item voting would be a horrible idea, allowing Senators to vote yes on the easy and popular provisions while voting no on the unpopular ones. And just because something is unpopular or difficult doesn't mean it isn't necessary. For example, forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is popular and mandates are not, but both are absolutely required for reform to work.

Kulaf, here's an article covering some of the history of holds and cloture. And since Obama took office the Republicans have decided to oppose everything not even pretending to negotiated in good faith. We have real problems to address and we can't do that with a paralyzed legislature. The abuse of cloture is relatively modern and it's getting worse, and it has nothing whatever to do with keeping "frivolous bullshit from ever becoming law" and everything to do with the minority party trying to ensure that the majority party fails.