Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Can Dems retake the House?
Saturday, September 29, 2012 7:23 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:If there is one thing Democrats are sure about this election cycle, it’s that they can’t send President Barack Obama back to the White House for a second term without also sending with him a more cooperative Congress. The Friday uptick in the nation’s unemployment rate, Democrats have argued, is further evidence of how a Republican-orchestrated stalemate in Congress has stalled economic recovery. With House votes tabled on the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, which would green light infrastructure jobs and likely budge the stubborn jobless number, Democrats now have their sights set on a different number. Twenty-five – that’s the number of seats they’ll need to turn Congress from purple to blue, says Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). “We are reversing the Tea Party wave of 2010,” said Ferguson, adding that Republican obstructionism should not be a shock to voters who have watched the GOP’s behavior since Obama’s inauguration. “Our incumbent Democrats are in a incredibly strong position to win re-election,” Ferguson said. “Many of them won in the tough year of 2010.” A call for comment from the Republican National Congressional Committee was not immediately returned. House Republicans, on Thursday, voted to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels, a plan Obama and the Democrats have rebuked as “the same old policies that got us into this mess in the first place.” The Democrats’ strategy and message for victory in congressional elections is multi-pronged, Ferguson said. The “Have His Back” campaign, which promotes down-ballot voting in the African American community, stresses why voters should take congressional races as seriously as the presidential race. In an interview with Loop 21 last weekend, New York City congressional candidate Hakeem Jeffries said Republicans were “out of control,” and did not deserve to keep their jobs. “It’s important for everyone to find out who is representing them currently in the House of Representatives and determine whether that person shares your ideals, values and supports the President of the United States,” Jeffries said. http://loop21.com/politics/democratic-strategy-house-congress-election-2012
Quote:The Cook Political Report, which meticulously tracks and rates House races, pegs the maximum Democratic gain at eight seats. At this point in 2010, it was predicting Republican gains in the high 40s, and the party wound up with 63 new seats. The Fix, Chris Cillizza’s election bible, gives Democrats the advantage in 182 seats and rates 27 more as “toss-ups.” If Democrats won them all, they’d still by eight seats short. And any schmuck could have warned you years ago that this would happen. In 2010, Republicans predicted that a broad election win—-one that gave them most state legislatures—-would keep the House for a decade. “It could end up translating into control of 15 to 25 U.S. House seats for the next five cycles,” said Ed Gillespie, co-founder of the polling and strategy group Resurgent Republic and who spent endless hours counseling Republicans on the down-ballot challenge. (He’s now flacking his heart out for Romney.) The Republican advantage was tremendous. Most states give the power of the map to whomever happens to run the legislature. As 2011 began, Democrats only controlled the redistricting process for 47 seats-—safe blue turf like Maryland and Illinois--which they squeezed for every possible gain. They had to. Republicans controlled the process for 202 seats. “Republicans weren’t thinking ‘Hey, just how do we draw these lines to screw over Democrats?’ ” says John McHenry, a pollster at Resurgent Republic. “It was, ‘How do we make this suburban Philadelphia seat safer for the Republican who just won it?’ The goal wasn’t so much to add seats as it was to hold on to the 2010 gains.” Republicans and independent analysts figure that the new maps will save at least a dozen seats. In state after state, they followed the same pattern: Create more safe suburban districts and pack the Democrats into a couple of twisty gerrymanders. North Carolina, which narrowly voted for Obama in 2008, is now structured to elect Republicans in at least nine of 13 seats. If you want a general idea of where blacks, Hispanics, and liberal whites don’t live, load a new district map of North Carolina or Pennsylvania or Michigan. If you’re worried about partisanship, it’s time to upgrade to panic. Anyone who wins a new, safe seat can safely ignore whichever kook or LaRouche cultist runs against him. He only has to worry about staying pure enough to win his primaries. In a long look at the new maps, Robert Draper talks to Rep. Blake Farenthold, who’d be a fluke one-termer if the Texas legislature didn’t shore up his seat. “This [new] district is a much stronger Republican district,” Farenthold says to Draper. “You say the same thing, but you use different words. Immigration would be an issue … you’ll be a little softer about how you talk about it in a swing district than in a harder-core Republican district.” Any Democrat in Ohio could say the same thing. Maybe a swing state’s gotten impossibly tough for a Republican to carry. Carve it up right, and you can put the demographically troublesome voters in the districts where they can do the least damage to your party. “We'd have to see an amazing landslide in order for these districts to flip,” McHenry says. “If there was a big coattail effect, that would mean that the people who drew the districts didn't do very good jobs.” http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/election_2012_why_democrats_can_t_win_back_the_house_of_representatives_.2.html
Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:16 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:53 PM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Even a "cooperative" congress will still have to deal with the Senate filibuster.
Saturday, September 29, 2012 2:15 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Even a "cooperative" congress will still have to deal with the Senate filibuster. Imagine what Obama could do with an overwhelming House majority and 61 Senators...kinds like he had in 2009 until 2010's elections.
Sunday, September 30, 2012 4:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Yes, it is fun to imagine what Obama could have done with 61 Senators. Kinda makes it a shame that there were only 57 Democrats in the Senate for the time period you point out.
Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Yes, it is fun to imagine what Obama could have done with 61 Senators. Kinda makes it a shame that there were only 57 Democrats in the Senate for the time period you point out. You are both right and wrong. Senate membership varied during thec111th Congress. The Democrats had between 55 and 58 seats plus 2 Democratic Independents who voted with Obama, that leaves 40 Republicans...except during 2009 at the height of passing things like health care and Obama's economic pans during which they only had 39 (until the election of Scott Brown).
Sunday, September 30, 2012 3:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: So you admit that the Dems never had 61 Senate seats. In other words, you are both wrong and wrong. There are no "Democratic Independents", by the way. >
Sunday, September 30, 2012 5:42 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: So you admit that the Dems never had 61 Senate seats. In other words, you are both wrong and wrong. There are no "Democratic Independents", by the way. > Independents who caucus with the Democrats are Democratic Independents. I was wrong when I stated the Obama had 61 Senators, I never said they were all Democratic, you assumed that. I was right on my broader point that Obama had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate in 2009 until Scott Brown's election in 2010. H Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012
Monday, October 1, 2012 5:34 AM
Quote:Even a "cooperative" congress will still have to deal with the Senate filibuster.
Monday, October 1, 2012 10:48 AM
Quote:One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details: To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election: 1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority. 2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority. 3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority. 4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. 5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th. 6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority. 7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority. 8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th. 8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010. Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010. Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation. Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor. Summary: 1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority. 2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.) 3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster 4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies) 5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days. 6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 2:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Independents who caucus with the Democrats are Independents. If Ron Paul ever ran as a Libertarian or Independent, would you still call him a Republican? Is Joe Lieberman a Republican Independent?
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 3:19 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: For anyone interested in the truth of it, here's the real breakdown on that mythical "supermajority" the Dems supposedly had for two years. I probably shouldn't even bother posting this, but unlike the Republicans, I actually DO think facts matter... The Myth of Democratic Super Majority. Quote:One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time. The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details: To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election: 1. BALANCE BEFORE THE ELECTION. In 2007 – 2008 the balance in the Senate was 51-49 in favor of the Democrats. On top of that, there was a Republican president who would likely veto any legislation the Republicans didn’t like. Not exactly a super majority. 2. BIG GAIN IN 2008, BUT STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. Coming out the 2008 election, the Democrats made big gains, but they didn’t immediately get a Super Majority. The Minnesota Senate race required a recount and was not undecided for more than six months. During that time, Norm Coleman was still sitting in the Senate and the Balance 59-41, still not a Super Majority. 3. KENNEDY GRAVELY ILL. Teddy Kennedy casts his last vote in April and leaves Washington for good around the first of May. Technically he could come back to Washington vote on a pressing issue, but in actual fact, he never returns, even to vote on the Sotomayor confirmation. That leaves the balance in the Senate 58-41, two votes away from a super majority. 4. STILL NO SUPER MAJORITY. In July, Al Frankin was finally declared the winner and was sworn in on July 7th, 2009, so the Democrats finally had a Super Majority of 60-40 six and one-half months into the year. However, by this point, Kennedy was unable to return to Washington even to participate in the Health Care debate, so it was only a technical super majority because Kennedy could no longer vote and the Senate does not allow proxies. Now the actual actual balance of voting members is 59-40 not enough to overcome a Republican filibuster. 5. SENATE IS IN RECESS. Even if Kennedy were able to vote, the Senate went into summer recess three weeks later, from August 7th to September 8th. 6. KENNEDY DIES. Six weeks later, on Aug 26, 2009 Teddy Kennedy died, putting the balance at 59-40. Now the Democrats don’t even have technical super majority. 7. FINALLY, A SUPER MAJORITY! Kennedy’s replacement was sworn in on September 25, 2009, finally making the majority 60-40, just enough for a super majority. 8. SENATE ADJOURNS. However the Senate adjourned for the year on October 9th, only providing 11 working days of super majority, from September 25th to October 9th. 8. SCOTT BROWN ELECTED. Scott Brown was elected in November of 2009. The Senate was not in session during November and December of 2009. The Senate was in session for 10 days in January, but Scott Brown was sworn into office on February 4th, so the Democrats only had 13 days of super majority in 2010. Summary: The Democrats only had 24 days of Super Majority between 2008 and 2010. Discussion: The Democrats had a super majority for a total of 24 days. On top of that, the period of Super Majority was split into one 11-day period and one 13-day period. Given the glacial pace that business takes place in the Senate, this was way too little time for the Democrats pass any meaningful legislation, let alone get bills through committees and past all the obstructionistic tactics the Republicans were using to block legislation. Further, these Super Majorities count Joe Lieberman as a Democrat even though he was by this time an Independent. Even though he was Liberal on some legislation, he was very conservative on other issues and opposed many of the key pieces of legislation the Democrats and Obama wanted to pass. For example, he was adamantly opposed to “Single Payer” health care and vowed to support a Republican Filibuster if it ever came to the floor. Summary: 1. 1/07 – 12/08 – 51-49 – Ordinary Majority. 2. 1/09 – 7/14/09 – 59-41 – Ordinary Majority. (Coleman/Franklin Recount.) 3. 7/09 – 8/09 - 60-40 – Technical Super Majority, but since Kennedy is unable to vote, the Democrats can’t overcome a filibuster 4. 8/09 – 9/09 - 59-40 – Ordinary Majority. (Kennedy dies) 5. 9/09 – 10/09 - 60-40 – Super Majority for 11 working days. 6. 1/10 – 2/10 – 60-40 – Super Majority for 13 working days Total Time of the Democratic Super Majority: 24 Working days. http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/ "I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero "I was wrong" - Hero, 2012 Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!" Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:17 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL