Good news/Bad news for Democrats

[Grafter]

The good news? Chris Dodd won't seek re-election in 2010.

The bad news? Neither will Byron Dorgan.

So while Connecticut is now virtually a safe seat for the Democrats, the Republicans have a very good shot at picking up North Dakota.

[lance]

Aren't their 2 or 3 republicans not seeking reelection also?

[TimothyC]

Aren't their 2 or 3 republicans not seeking reelection also?

Senator Voinovich (OH-R) isn't but the main democrat in line to replace him, is Secretary of State Brunner, who has issues (relating to actions or more accurately lack there of relating to the 2008 election) all her own.

[D.Turtle]

From here:

In the Senate, two Democrats will retire but six Republicans will join them. In the House, GOP retirements outpace Democrats 14 to 10.

However, the Democratic Party will still most likely lose their (supposed) super-majority in the Senate, unless the Tea-baggers get their way with the Republican Party.

[Aasharu]

I'm assuming you mean the tea-baggers will sabotage their own cause by opposing any moderate Republicans, in favor of ideological nuts. If so, then, (and I can't believe I'm saying this,) I support the tea-baggers.

[Yona]

I'm assuming you mean the tea-baggers will sabotage their own cause by opposing any moderate Republicans, in favor of ideological nuts. If so, then, (and I can't believe I'm saying this,) I support the tea-baggers.

hehe, Me too. However, the Dems have a more pressing problem if they lose Kennedy's seat in the election Tuesday. They lose the majority in the Senate. If that happens, the GOP will be "chest thumping" all over the place. They'll have to have EMT's at all the conservative talk Radio shows just in case the celebration triggers apoplexy in Limbaugh or Beck (one can only hope )

[Teebs]

hehe, Me too. However, the Dems have a more pressing problem if they lose Kennedy's seat in the election Tuesday. They lose the majority in the Senate. If that happens, the GOP will be "chest thumping" all over the place. They'll have to have EMT's at all the conservative talk Radio shows just in case the celebration triggers apoplexy in Limbaugh or Beck (one can only hope )

They already have a majority. A perfectly big one by any reasonable standard. They just seem to have decided that they can only pass things if they get a super-majority. Something which doesn't seem to have affect the last few Republican Senates.

[SirNitram]

If the GOP declares filibuster, a bill does need a supermajority. The GOP has been. They openly take pride in it.

[Edi]

It wouldn't matter even if the Democrats had 70 seats in the Senate, because their congenital spinelessness would still prevent them from doing anything. Whether they have 60 seats or 59 is not going to matter a bit since several nominally Democrat senators are DINOs anyway.

[Teebs]

If the GOP declares filibuster, a bill does need a supermajority. The GOP has been. They openly take pride in it.

Mmm nope. If the GOP actually performs a fillibuster they need a supermajority. IIRC they have not actually had to do one at any point this term because the Democrats cave at the threat. You can't just declare one (well you couldn't until now anyway ), you have to step up and actually do it.

[D.Turtle]

At this point they should just remove the filibuster, or adopt a weaker version of it. The filibuster was never meant to become something used for every single vote.

There have been several proposals to do something in that direction, from things like lowering the number of votes required to beat a filibuster to 55, to lowering the number of votes required to beat it after a certain amount of time (First vote requires 60 votes to end it, after another week 57, another week 54, another week simple majority).

The Republicans will screech about it a lot, but they threatened to do the same for a lot less than the blatant obstructionism they have been doing.

[SirNitram]

If the GOP declares filibuster, a bill does need a supermajority. The GOP has been. They openly take pride in it.

Mmm nope. If the GOP actually performs a fillibuster they need a supermajority. IIRC they have not actually had to do one at any point this term because the Democrats cave at the threat. You can't just declare one (well you couldn't until now anyway ), you have to step up and actually do it.

Sorry, you're wrong. This CRS Report shows there's only one way to move from debate to voting, and that is a call for cloture. It requires a supermajority. This was made the rule in 1975, when the Dems had a 62 seat caucus, and altered the rule(Other minor changes were supermajority of those seated and sworn, not present and accounted for. IE, no finish cloture at 3AM with five guys).

I realize it's a popular thought that the Dems could seize power if only they forced the GOP to talk talk talk, but no. The rules have been different for a while. The only way to get past a cloture vote is unanimous consent. One Senator can cause Cloture, and he only needs to stand and utter two words: I Object.

[Simon_Jester]

It wouldn't matter even if the Democrats had 70 seats in the Senate, because their congenital spinelessness would still prevent them from doing anything. Whether they have 60 seats or 59 is not going to matter a bit since several nominally Democrat senators are DINOs anyway.

If the Democrats had 70 seats (not bloody likely, of course), then they could get by while ignoring the votes of 10 DINOs. If DINOs could be safely ignored, they wouldn't have enough political leverage to warp the bill.

Which means that bills passed by the Democrats could be passed without the disproportionate influence exerted by the 15% or so of Democrats who are farthest to the right. Moreover, individual DINOs could be pressured with the threat "if you demand too much in exchange for your vote, I'll go to another DINO who demands less." That power to comparison shop would make it harder for any one guy to do what Lieberman did to the health care bill, because Lieberman knew he had the power to make or break the bill (in theory). With more than 60 votes, any one DINO who tries to break the bill may fail because one of his fellow idiots got bought out... in which case he takes a political hit for opposing a measure popular among Democrats and doesn't get a reward for taking the hit.
____

Also, the recent health care bill is an example of one thing: Democrats, even right wingnut Democrats, can usually be persuaded to vote with their party. The compromise it takes to do the persuading can make for shitty legislation, but it's at least possible to get things done. Whereas Republicans persistently vote in lockstep and can never be persuaded to support the Democrats' legislation if the party leadership thinks it's in their interests to block it. Which means total deadlock.

Going from 60 Democrats in the Senate to 55 would greatly change the political dynamic in the Republicans' favor, more than it already is. Going from 60 to 70 would change it in the Democrats' favor, though not as much as common sense would lead me to expect if I were a stranger coming to America from a sane world.

[Teebs]

If the GOP declares filibuster, a bill does need a supermajority. The GOP has been. They openly take pride in it.

Mmm nope. If the GOP actually performs a fillibuster they need a supermajority. IIRC they have not actually had to do one at any point this term because the Democrats cave at the threat. You can't just declare one (well you couldn't until now anyway ), you have to step up and actually do it.

Sorry, you're wrong. This CRS Report shows there's only one way to move from debate to voting, and that is a call for cloture. It requires a supermajority. This was made the rule in 1975, when the Dems had a 62 seat caucus, and altered the rule(Other minor changes were supermajority of those seated and sworn, not present and accounted for. IE, no finish cloture at 3AM with five guys).

I realize it's a popular thought that the Dems could seize power if only they forced the GOP to talk talk talk, but no. The rules have been different for a while. The only way to get past a cloture vote is unanimous consent. One Senator can cause Cloture, and he only needs to stand and utter two words: I Object.

Oh. That's even stupider than I thought the system was. Point conceded.

[Serafine666]

Also, the recent health care bill is an example of one thing: Democrats, even right wingnut Democrats, can usually be persuaded to vote with their party. The compromise it takes to do the persuading can make for shitty legislation, but it's at least possible to get things done. Whereas Republicans persistently vote in lockstep and can never be persuaded to support the Democrats' legislation if the party leadership thinks it's in their interests to block it. Which means total deadlock.

Actually, this healthcare debate is the first time I can remember the Republican leadership being able to corral their members together and get them to vote the same way. Usually, some "reasonable" Republican runs from the pack and flips the vote the Democrats' way at the last minute to try and get some love and accolades. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlan Specter were very well-known for this tendency and various components of the Republican Senate have broken dramatically with the leadership to look good (see the so-called "Gang of 14"). Typically, only Republicans who are politically safe pull this stunt, confident that they can piss off their state and still get elected without much trouble; the opposite seems to happen with Democrats where the politically safe stick with the party leadership and the politically vulnerable jump ship.