CE Week #14: “60 or Not, Dems Have Edge They Need”
December 04, 2008
Tuesday’s Senate runoff victory in Georgia gave Republicans a small bright spot after their devastating electoral setbacks.
But there is probably more bravado than reality in Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ claim that his triumph will ensure a “balance of government” when President-elect Barack Obama take office.
The claim stems from the fact that, without Georgia and the unresolved Senate race in Minnesota, the Democrats remain two seats short of the 60 needed to prevent procedural roadblocks by a united minority.
But the political climate and economic crisis will make it far harder for Mr. Obama’s opponents to employ the obstructionist tactics they used so successfully when Democrats enjoyed only a modest margin the past two years and the GOP held the White House.
Even Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is talking more of using the GOP’s 41 seats to influence the new president’s course, rather than block it. In fact, all signs are that the Democrats have enough votes to help Mr. Obama pass both a massive economic stimulus package and the energy and health insurance measures he pledged in the campaign.
In the House, a Democratic majority of nearly 260 members should enable the new administration to prevail consistently, even if it occasionally loses some of the more conservative Democrats.
And while Senate rules permit greater resistance, reality suggests it won’t be that easy. A main reason is that the 41 or 42 GOP senators include hard-line conservatives from heavily Republican states in the South and moderates from predominantly Democratic states in the Northeast.
At least for the first year or two, it seems unlikely that moderates like Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Ohio’s George Voinovich, Minnesota’s Norm Coleman and Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter would try to prevent votes on major Obama proposals and nominations.
Other Republicans – like Texas’ Kay Bailey Hutchison and, more importantly, Arizona’s John McCain – are likely to reflect public disdain for seeking political gain with confrontational tactics.
Interestingly, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the only remaining major GOP officeholder in a state once solidly Republican, has seconded the Democratic call for a large-scale stimulus program.
It’s no coincidence that he’s up for re-election in 2010.
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has shrewdly tapped into the public mood by stressing repeatedly the need to reach across party lines. Other presidents have done so before, only to fall victim to excessive partisanship on their side or from their opposition. This time, the political fallout from such tactics might be more severe.
The question is how long Mr. Obama can benefit from such a mood. Traditionally, presidents are lucky if their honeymoons last until the August congressional recess of their first year.
Democratic pollster Peter Hart conducted a recent focus group for the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center among “swing” voters who backed Mr. Obama. Results suggest the economic crisis may give him more time.
These voters, Mr. Hart concluded, “recognize the mess he is inheriting, and their expectations are reasonable and not excessive. The judgments about him are more likely to be based on the way he approaches the problems and not by instantaneous results.”
Ultimately, the natural political order will reassert itself. Mr. Obama’s public support may fade; Republicans will seek ways to revive their fortunes.
By the time he enters his third year in 2011, he may need 60 Senate votes more than now. But while the opposition party usually rebounds in the next midterm election, more 2010 Senate races loom on Democratic than Republican turf.
Sen. John Cornyn, the new chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, will have his hands full trying to stem the Democratic tide, especially if Mr. Obama retains popular support.
Until then, Tuesday’s GOP victory in Georgia seems likely to be seen as more significant in underscoring the party’s hold on Dixie than in erecting a barrier to the new administration.
More on RCP: Austin, TX Aims to Be Green Energy Capital
Ahh the filibuster,I remember reading about quite a bit in Hardball, and we have spoken about it in class a bit, but not that much. I had trouble understanding the term at first, but now it is quite clear. It is annoying. The ability for a small group of people to keep any changes they do not want to see implemented can block those bills from ever coming to a vote. The Democrats may not be “filibuster proof”, but that is only if the line is drawn in the sand and no one chooses to cross. There are many moderates in the senate and I seriously doubt that all of them will go on the party line on every issue. As the article states it is not likely that party loyalties will keep everyone in line and play follow the leader. It is odd to see it so plainly stated that those in power will look past the parties to get the problems fixed. It enforces the hope that I have in our government knowing that these men I have never met are not completely prejudiced against their fellow man who faces them across the table and attempts to discredit them and take their job from them whenever the opportunity presents itself.
Connection: Third parties- While I believe that Lieberman is the only declared independent in the Senate it is strange how the voting on some of these issues will come down to the independent and the moderates in the senate if the parties follow their line.
The Republicans may have stopped the Democrats from taking all 60 seats in the Senate but the Democrats are still going to have the power to do what they please. Plus, from the sounds of it, there are members of the Republican party in the senate that are joining the Democrats. Some agree with the Democrats and others probably just want to keep their job. Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the only remaining major GOP officeholder in a state once solidly Republican, has seconded the Democratic call for a large-scale stimulus program. It is going to be very difficult for the Republicans to cause opposition to president elect Obama’s plans if they do not even have everyone in the Republican party on their side. Even Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is talking more of using the GOP’s 41 seats to influence the new president’s course, rather than block it. That is a good idea since in the House, a Democratic majority of nearly 260 members should enable the new administration to prevail consistently, even if it occasionally loses some of the more conservative Democrats. The Republican’s don’t have a chance this time around. They just need to hang out for a few years until midterm elections so that they can take some control.
Connection: 60 seats in the Senate are needed to prevent procedural roadblocks by a united minority to the plans of the president, or in this case, the upcoming president Obama. The Republicans are happy that they prevented the Democrats from having full power in the house, but they still do not have very much power over the Democrats and are mad about not having the 60 seats themselves to stop Obama from having total control.
In this time when everything seems to be going the exact opposite we all want so even those who are in the far right will have to conform with the new policies not only because the Democrats are one vote to get anything and everything they want, it is what most people want or need. Everyone is feeling the aftershock of stocks dropping hundreds of points in a single day and with all the people are starting to lose everything from a few hundred dollars to homes and cars. We need something to help pull us out of this financial setback.
This also seems to be starting the “honeymoon” period a bit early. The legislative branch is already starting to put forth ideas about passing Obama’s plan for the economy when Obama is not even the official President; he hasn’t been sworn in yet. But if things get worse the mid-term elections are not going to be very good for the Democratic party because in the next two years the Democrats can not blame anyone since they hold the presidency, almost two-thirds of the Senate and a House majority. If that is the case, unless bills are created that will greatly benefit everyone regardless of party Obama will be essentially a lame-duck president due to losing the majority.
Connection: The Democrats have control over just about everything and if things take a turn for the worst there is no one to blame. So then they take the hit and lose most power in mid-term elections.
In response to Jordan Yaeger:
First of all, not all of the republican senators will “conform” to agree to an Obama Whitehouse. Obama will target the softer republicans from states that voted split-ticket for more liberal republican leaders, and Obama for president. Also, it is not so much that the democrats will get EVERYTHING that they want; they will get everything that they want within reason. Right now, the legislative branch will have to work with the president on many issues; solving the economic crisis, the war in Iraq, aid for democratic projects, and maybe even some more bailouts. The idea now is probably what it always should have been, the legislative branch is supposed to do what is the best thing for our country, regardless of party-lines and filibusters. And the legislative branch is working to push through much of Obama’s legislation now so that right when Obama is inaugurated and in office, the American people will not have to wait for debates on legislation that may or may not improve our country. The sooner legislative action is passes, to help our country, the better off we will be, and the administrations are also working “overtime” to make themselves look like they are accomplishing so much more than they would do regularly.