What It Will Mean

Though I won't do my official prediction until this afternoon, let's assume for the moment that the GOP sweeps the House and just misses on the Senate, as Matt Yglesias does here. I agree with Yglesias that the interesting upshot of this will be the irrelevance of "moderates" and Democrats in the Congress. Yglesias writes:

[E]gomaniacal senate moderates will be frustrated to discover that the legislative process now consists primarily of negotiations between Barack Obama and the House GOP.

Why? Because unlike the progressives in the House, the hard line GOP House members will not compromise (even if Boehner wants them too.) The test President Obama will face is immense. In many ways, bigger than the test faced by President Clinton in 1995. Gingrich was raring for a fight, but he had the control. Once Gingrich was broken, Clinton could make deals. Breaking Boehner won't lead to the same result. The crazies are in charge of the GOP asylum. Of course 1995 ended in government shutdowns. Does Obama have the stomach for that type of fight? How does that type of fight end? We live in interesting times.

Speaking for me only

< Time To Vote: Crist Or Meek? | Predictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If Obama had the stomach for it (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:23:19 AM EST
    We would have seen it already.  He had a filibuster proof majority and if he really wanted to fight for something, he would have pulled an LBJ and had those Dems on the fence by the b@lls and said "You will pass this or else."

    If the Republicans force a government shut down, I don't seem him doing a Bill Clinton and saying "Then shut it down and see how that works for you.".  I see him more of a "Let's work this out" kind of guy, which means, in the end, he will capitulate to what Boehner wants.

    And (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cal1942 on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    we'll all lose.

    Might as well get (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:24:12 PM EST
    comfortable with that idea.  I think we're going to be saying that a lot from now on.

    The 1994 loss was not so easy (none / 0) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    for President Clinton.  He was pulled out of his funk from losing Congress with the help of Newt Gingrich who put a nasty face on the Contract for America and with inadvertent consideration, proceeded to over-reach. Gingrich's bloated ego exploded for all to see with his childish tantrum at being placed in the back of Air Force One on the  Yitzhak Rabin funereal delegation flight. That the times are different and  that John Boehner will not be as helpful as Gingrich will require some pretty crafty presidential leadership--no change, but..., just change.

    IMO (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:25:54 PM EST
    the most important change since 94 is the electorate.  we are routinely seeing stuff this year that would have gotten people laughed out of races in 1994.

    I think if you transposed that conflict to this environment Gingrich might win.


    Interesting headlines at HuffPo (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:27:13 PM EST
    Michele Bachmann Makes Move For GOP Leadership Post

    FOX has learned that there is a "draft Michele Bachmann" effort afoot among House conservatives (and prospective members) to move the Minnesota Republican into the leadership.
    Some establishment Republicans are suspect of Bachmann and uncomfortable with some of her ideas. And moving her into leadership could make some GOPers wince.

    Rand Paul Vows To 'CHALLENGE' Mitch McConnell

    Now, likely on the verge of winning a trip to Washington as Kentucky's Senator, he's again in the driver's seat, saying that people like GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can't necessarily count on his cooperation.

    "We will challenge him from day to day, but there will be many areas in which we agree," Paul said of McConnell during an appearance Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

    Same thing that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by robotalk on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    happened in CA with Schwarz, a 2/3 req't to pass a budget.  Complete deadlock.

    The republicans win.  This suits the republican agenda to show govt is incompetent.

    Hate to sound cynical, but only a major crisis will again allow the fedl govt to be effective again.

    Absent that, all politics will be local for the next twenty years--because Obama failed to take the opportunity to truly turn the country around.

    My guess:  Obama goes down as one of the biggest failures in the history of the country.  Highly dubious as to second term.  Note Hillary's utter absence in this election.

    Since black voters still support Obama at the high (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    90's level there's no chance Obama will not win a second term.

    There is a chance he will lose (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    But not a large one imo.

    Would (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    you have thought that these midterms were going to be as bad as they are looking to be two years ago?

    I think his chances really depend on who the GOP nominates.


    And whether the GOP splits (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:48:24 AM EST
    during the nomination process or afterward, due to the result.  I can see the "tea party" types causing a split in the Repubs -- and frankly, I suspect that the White House sees it and hopes for it, too.  Splitting the GOP would win it for Obama even with less than than 50% of the votes.

    The split (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:59:15 AM EST
    here in GA is very evident. There is the Palin/Tea Party against the Bush/Rove contention. The primary ended up being 50/50 with Deal (Bush/Rove) winning it by 2500 votes.

    Right now it looks like we are going to be having gubernatorial runoff. Of course, if Deal wins the governorship, we will have a probable criminal as the head of the government.


    Not the "high" 90s, ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    ... just 90 percent, the same percentage Gore received in 2000.

    Either way, claiming there's "no chance" Obama will lose because of his support among AAs is just folly.


    ? How do you figure that? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Buckeye on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    If a Repub gets Bush's share of spanish vote (45%) and gets into the mid 60s of white vote, he/she wins very easily.  McCain/Palin, as bad as they and their campaign was, got 47% of the vote, won 22 states (losing 2 by less than 1% and another 2 by less than 4%).  Black voters always support democrats 90%+.

    I will agree the current crop of repubs will have a hard time beating Obama, but the black vote will not be much of a factor.


    I already did the math (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:14:28 AM EST
    here explaining how if Obama gets Kerry-like numbers for white voters but Obama-2008 numbers for black voters, he would've still won in 2008.

    But even that is unrealistic in 2010 because most likely Obama would do better than Kerry for hispanic voters - no doubt due to the current Republican's nativism.  The idea that ANY republican would get Bush's relatively good hispanic vote is ridiculous.


    Mark Rubio or Jeb Bush (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:21:06 AM EST
    would get it don't you think?

    We have no idea who the republican candidate will be.   Someone we're not thinking of will emerge so it's silly to talk percentages when we're talking about an assumed white guy standard republican.

    Could be a fat guy, Christie who won a governorship in a democratic state.  Could be a libertarian Hispanic like Rubio, could be a bald business practitioner like Daniels.

    It won't be Palin.  

    Who know what will happen but thinking Obama is a lock is foolish just like thinking he's a goner is as well.

    He has fallen amazingly in 12 months.  He could rise again, he could plateau, it could get worse.

    One thing is certain though, if there is 10% unemployment in the fall of 2012 (I hope there is not) then throw your percentages out the window.


    Palin (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    is splitting the GOP in two right now. Her voters are very upset with the GOP so why would they show up for one of the other candidates?

    With states like SC determining the GOP nominees, there is no way Rubio would be nominated. Christie might be a possibility though.


    Palin voters (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:12:26 PM EST
    When she bows out of the primaries, will rally around the candidate because they want to beat that socialist, Marxist, Nazi, Kenyan-born dark-skinned dude, doncha know.

    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:16:37 PM EST
    that's what I'm not seeing here in Ga. These people are spoiled beyond belief politically and are lackluster about Deal because he is not Karen Handel who they were all excited about.

    If there was enough people that were motivated by that then Obama would have lost in '08.


    Palin (none / 0) (#31)
    by star on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:30:57 AM EST
    Will not get nomination. She will be out there as a distraction so the real nominee will get little attention and questions. I don't think Rebups are all that split as they are pretending to be.
    I'd be wary of a Christie or Romney with pawlenty as running mate.

    Oh, they (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:42:30 AM EST
    are split. The coalition that they had has been coming apart for about 20 years now between the paleo and neo conservatives.

    surely (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:21:18 AM EST
    you jest. We have large AA populations down here in the south and if that was the only decisive factor we would have never had a GOP governor.

    If he runs (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:56:35 AM EST

    I don't think he will.

    What (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:01:08 PM EST
    makes you think that? I hear that all over the blogs but no one really gives any concrete reasons for it happening. The only thing that might make Obama not run is someone sitting him down and telling him he's a sure loser in the general.

    I'm one of those who (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:59:53 PM EST
    has said that since before the general election in 2008-- not that he won't run for a 2nd, but that there's a decent chance he won't.

    My reasoning-- I don't think he has the zest for actual governing.  I think what he really wants is to be an adored eminence grise like Bill Clinton.


    Who do you think (none / 0) (#52)
    by itscookin on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    Could play Goldwater? Is there anyone Obama trusts who would tell him?

    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    A man who tells us that the difference between 1994 and now is that we have him, will not listen to anyone (sans Michelle, maybe) who tells him not to run.

    Well (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:19:04 PM EST
    maybe someone could tell Michelle who could tell him not to run. I really don't think Michelle likes being First Lady that much or at least she doesn't look like she does.

    This was provided by Capt Howdy (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    who says because of the source to take it with a grain of salt. Capt Howdy

    Key donors have told the White House that the president should decide for certain whether he's running for re-election by the end of December. Should Mr. Obama's approval ratings slip further next year, there's talk that some donors may call on him not to run, or promote an independent candidacy by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    Big money abandoning ship would be a real concrete reasons for it happening.  


    Yep (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    the donors abandoning him would definitely make the decision for him.

    But, but.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:22:29 PM EST
    I thought it was really all the little donors that gave him so much money and was unprecedented?  The $25 donors will come back to swoon at rallies and give him plenty - he won't need big corporate donors, right?

    There will be a government shutdown (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    The Republican base will absolutely insist. Ezra thinks that there will eventually be some compromise in funding healthcare, but I doubt it. The Republicans will keep the funding well dry long enough to get the President to blink--and he will.

    NOT the most progressive legislation (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    in a generation anymore, is it?

    They should have done Medicaid expansion standalone.


    Stop complaining (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    and watch the Magic Exchanges do their work. Oh, and the mandate!

    I told them so . . . (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    I don't agree (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    Obama won't let it come to that and will give away whatever he has to as to avoid a shutdown.  

    Great. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    And here I thought I left an unsecure job (academia) for a secure one (federal government).

    We know the GOP's playbook mostly (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    consists of adhering to the tenets of "my way or the highway;" when they have the majority, they just freeze the Dems out of everything.  They don't compromise, they get all their people out regurgitating the same message, and in their caucus, "whip" has more than parliamentary meaning: fail to get in line, and prepare to feel the lash.

    While in the minority these last four years, the GOP has learned that if they play hard-to-get, Dems will give on major elements of legislation; with Obama as president, that has gotten worse, not better, in large part because Obama seems not to understand that conflict and partisanship can be used to advance good policy - that being partisan means standing up for what you believe in, and believing it is worth working for, and not something always to be sacrificed on the altar of compromise.

    No, Obama does not have the stomach for the kind of showdown that may be looming; he is, for whatever reason, so conflict- and confrontation averse that I have a really, really hard time imagining him as a good poker player.  I don't see Obama breaking Boehner, or McConnell, ever.  

    Whatever happens today, I hope the Dems are giving some serious thought to who will be charged with the responsibility of leading the caucuses; if a Democrat will be Senate Majority Leader, it needs to be someone other than Harry Reid.  I'd take Pelosi as House Minority Leader over the odious Steny Hoyer, if those are the only choices, but I sure would like to see someone other than Pelosi in that position.  I know some people think she has done a great job, but I think she could have done more and she could have done it better.

    The whole thing is giving me a headache.

    As I see it (none / 0) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    Nancy is a huuuuge part of the problem. She took the best negotiating point for health care off the table and when push came to shove she pushed for 40 people to cave instead of the 12 who needed to for the biggest legislative piece this Congress had to their name.

    Nope, can't say I'll be sorry to see Speaker Pelosi go. I might have been able to forgive her for the impeachment thing but how she negotiated in the Health Insurance debacle was a fiasco.


    and you didnt even (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    mention impeachment.  or hearings about his birth status.  

    There won't be any of that (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    what makes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    you so sure?

    there are going to be some pretty crazy committee chairmen


    Issa is the only one (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:35:37 AM EST
    with that power in a committee and he is not that stupid.

    They will pay the crazies off with crazy policy, not crazy conspiracy theories.


    part of me (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:41:41 AM EST
    hopes you are wrong.  I wish no harm to Obama (and dont think there would ultimately be any) but I would love to see them rush headlong over the cliff.

    Don't (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    hang out with too many Republicans do you? The ones down here are already talking impeachment. They want to "send him back to Kenya on a plane."

    And let's see if Boehner refers (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    to them as "retards" or whiners. My bet is that he lets them have all the hearings they want. After all, the 2012 campaign starts tomorrow.

    I agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    the GOP is going to be sorry for the monster they have created.

    Yea (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    I think so too and it's a monster that they are not going to be able to control and it's going to morph into something so ugly that it's probably going to take them a long time to get out if it.

    Quite hideous (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    aren't they.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    Republicans are just downright creepy.

    And, all the former Democratic (none / 0) (#96)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    voters who decided to let the Ds on their ballots lose while they voted with a pout and a foot stomp will find out just how the Rs have evolved into more creepy than before over these two years.

    If the GOP wins 65-70 in the house and 8 in the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    senate they will be sitting pretty.

    Having the house means they can stop Obama or at least negotiate from a position of power.

    If they somehow pull off the Senate however they won't be able to claim government belongs to the democrats.

    Only having 1/3 of government under control means the dems still have 2/3 and the republicans can stall, play to the base and effectively stop any major legislation from happening.  

    Then by late 2011 the presidential campaign gets cranking and government will switch into combative campaign mode and nothing major will happen.

    Both sides will play politics, nothing will get done and it's game on for 2012 where republicans will have a great shot of winning back the Senate because dems have tons of seats to defend and a 25% shot at winning the presidency.

    Secretly I hope a neutered Obama gets his second term and we get Clinton late 90's style government, they modify the health care bill (meaning strip it down to real solutions) think NAFTA and welfare reform.    Basically my kind of government.

    Won't make any of you happy but it's the most likely scenario.

    All this blather about republicans will be held responsible for governing if they just win the house is silly.   It didn't mean anything when dems won control in 2006 and Bush was still president.   The country blamed Bush and handed more control to democrats in 2008 and swept in Obama.

    Same story here if repubs don't win the Senate.

    While I'd like to see the historic politicking if repubs win the Senate as pure entertainment I think a more pure brand of conservative/libertarian policy will arise if they win the house and then make bigger gains in 2012.

    Should be interesting.  Let the spinning begin.

    It's the economy, stupid (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:18:19 AM EST
    The fact is the GOP should be favored to take back the Presidency but it is too crazy.

    Mitt Romney would win if the crazies let Romney be Romney. They won't.


    BTW, you know who Deeds II actually is? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    Jack Conway.

    Joe Sestak actually ran a much better race than he had any right to.


    Very impressive from Sestak (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    and his team.

    He'll be back. And his team should be installed as in charge of the DNC.


    I've been telling you (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:24:13 AM EST
    that Neil Oxman is the best Dem strategist in the business. He was Ed Rendell's guy (and also Bill Richardson's. . .)

    I think his messaging and strategy is far superior to Axelrod's.


    I don't think Ed Rendell needs (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by oldpro on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:54:18 PM EST
    a strategist...and as for Richardson, the results speak for themselves.



    do you really think so? (none / 0) (#33)
    by smott on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    I thought Obama and Sestak basically dissed each other during the primary...

    Mitt Romney won't be the nominee (none / 0) (#27)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    If the republicans are smart they'll nominate Daniels, Christie or Bush II.

    Good governors who have great records on the economy and running government.

    Christie is my favorite just because he's awesome on the stump.  

    If it's Romeny, or Huckabee or Palin then Obama has a good shot because all of these three have big different kinds of baggage.

    However as I said above if unemployment is still hovering at 10% then throw out the predictions because Obama is a goner.


    Another Bush (none / 0) (#34)
    by star on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    I don't think so. His name is his biggest problem.

    Bush II (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    That would be a completely stupid choice. They would be reminding everyone of the disastrous Bush administration.

    Daniels---too much of a fundamentalist panderer to win. Christie would probably be a strong candidate but if his unemployment numbers in NJ don't improve he's not going to win either.


    Daniels (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:01:29 PM EST
    Background includes being part Syrian, busted for pot in college, married, divorced, and remarried his ex-wife, OMB Director, as governor of Indiana, he balanced the budget, designed a health plan that ended up covering 132,000 workers, etc.

    He would be a pretty attractive candidate in 2012, IMO.


    Party Syrian? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    He'll never get through the primaries in the GOP then.

    They love him (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:11:05 PM EST
    Yes, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    Indiana may love him and the business GOPer's may love him but with so many evangelicals calling the shots in the party I can't see him winning.

    They want to win (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    Whatever it takes.  

    It's not enough (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:26:54 PM EST
    for them to win. Conservatism is on a decline right now and I actually see the chance of someone like a Bloomberg winning rather than Daniels. Anyone identified with the GOP is going to have an uphill climb due to the fact that they have such a negative brand and I'm sure the incoming congress will do nothing to change that impression.

    Daniels is anti abortion (none / 0) (#75)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:28:19 PM EST
    He is an evangelical that takes a positioned stand the economic concerns are why he's in government and doesn't get caught up in the day to day culture wars.

    He rides a motorcycle and drinks budweisers.

    He is a great candidate and won in a landslide in 2008 when Obama won the state.

    How many people can say that?


    How does (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    he get out of the primaries with out pandering to the tea partiers? I mean that's what's damaged Romney so much. If the GOP would let him be the "successful businessman" from MA he would be much more acceptable to the electorate.

    Winning the governorship in Indiana doesn't mean much nationwide. If you want to look at someone like the former D gov. of VA which is a red state who won in a landslide, that would be more reasonable than someone who won in a landslide in a red state. I mean Palin won in a landslide in AK didn't she?


    Palin doesn't get out of the primaries (none / 0) (#80)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    Unless there are a ton of shenanigans by Democrats in open voting primary states.

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:24:51 PM EST
    think she has to worry about Dems. She has to worry about the GOP "elite". They have said they do not want her as the candidate and will do everything to keep her from getting it.

    they dont have (none / 0) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:34:09 PM EST
    a very good record so far of keeping the TPers from getting what they want.

    That's (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:38:08 PM EST
    exactly why I don't buy into this Palin won't be the nominee. I found an interesting link on another blog to an interview Carville did regarding the Tea Party. He said that the Tea Party now controls the GOP because the GOP has shrunk so low in numbers. He said they will demand their candidate and that the GOP will either have to give into to them and lose the election or will have to not give into them and lose because then they won't show up and he seems to think that in the end the Gop "elite" will give them what they want taking the chance that it's better to have them voting for the GOP.

    agree (none / 0) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    if she runs she wins the nomination

    Maybe (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    But the problem the Republicans face is that the Tea Partiers who win wanting to "change Washington" will get there and realize that it ain't gonna happen they way they want it to.  The establishment Republicans aren't going to bend to the will of the extreme wing on most things.  (Sound familiar?)

    And that will only lead to a) the TP'ers will assimilate into "mainstream" Republicanism or b) there will be lots of infighting within the party as to the direction of the party and who they want to lead that party.

    2 years is a long time for more Palinisms and such - enough time for indies to flee the party if she is the nominee.


    well (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 04:18:43 PM EST
    I agree that it they are going to realize that it's not going to happen eventually and that will be where things are going to get interesting. I think that they start fighting amongst themselves for the direction of the party. Actually this has been going on for quite a while underneath the surface. It all started in '92 with Pat Buchanan. W. was able to pacify them with his evangelical talk but it's now all fallen apart on the national level.

    that a pretty hilarious (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:24:47 PM EST
    caveat.  and may I say a bit early for accusations of "voter fraud"

    They already (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    have done things to support Tea Party candidates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to hopefully split the conservative vote.

    And it's not "voter fraud" if they vote in an open primary.  There won't really be Dem primaries, and if the Republican primaries are open, that means anyone can vote in them.  Watch lots of Dems turn out to vote for Palin because she can't beat Obama.


    while I tend to agree (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:35:48 PM EST
    about her chances I am reminded of Reagan and how much dems wanted to run against him.

    we live in interesting times as someone said recently.


    Yes (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:51:30 PM EST
    But Reagan didn't have 24 hour cable news or the internet to record his every breath and scare off independents.  Heck, most of the Republicans I know hate Palin too - maybe that's just the type of Republicans I know, but their hair stands on end when you talk about her being the nominee.

    honestly (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    I think it is the type of Republicans you know.  and that is actually a compliment.

    Probably (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 04:12:46 PM EST
    They are all highly educated women.

    Yep. The lack of understanding (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    of the impact of open-primary states like mine has led to a lot of ignorance about crossover voting -- especially here in flyover country, so there still is such stupidity by others elsewhere about what really has been happening here.  This really gets writ large when it's stupidity by eastern media, stupidity in research design by national pollsters, etc.  

    But it looks like the stupidity will continue, and so, so will a lot of surprises for those who don't spend only a few minutes to figure it out.


    Thought: (none / 0) (#37)
    by lilburro on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    what will the role of the blogosphere be if the GOP takes over the House?  Will they push Obama to the left?  Will the usual suspects continue cheerleading?

    You would think those that have argued Obama has done all that is politically possible would now adjust their sense of politically possible accordingly.  My guess is that that won't happen though.

    They may go back to their original mission (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:02:47 PM EST
    When they used to blog about the stuff no one else was reporting to hold the administration's feet to the fire.  From 2007 on most of the blogosphere has become, as you put it, cheerleaders.

    I think it will (none / 0) (#66)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:29:44 PM EST
    I think the "usual suspects" will lower the bar even further and continue cheering while having one more reason to excuse the failures.

    Senate Dems can filibuster. (none / 0) (#57)
    by observed on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    That may be the only hope.

    This might be the single most (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:30:24 PM EST
    amusing thing I have read today...just because while we all know that option is available to them, I don't recall them using it much when they were in the minority, do you?

    Besides, if the composition of the Senate is what many of us expect it will be, I would look for conservative Dems to resist filibustering much of anything - and without the full complement of Dems on board, they simply won't have the numbers.


    Yes, but filibustering a Democratic (none / 0) (#68)
    by observed on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    President would be easier for them, conceivably.
    It's easier to cross a spineless do-nothing President than someone who might send you anthrax love letters if you don't cooperate.

    Obama's not spineless - (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    he's doing exactly what he wants - and he's doing it with the cooperation of Congressional Dems; if they thought he lacked spine, there was nothing to keep them from "doing the right thing" by crafting better legislation.

    There's never been a reason why the Dems couldn't have done better with the legislation, regardless of the state of Obama's spine - they're an independent branch of government, after all.

    The failure of the Dems in general, in the face of owning all three branches of government, is that they've ALL been doing what they want - and as if we hadn't paid enough of a price for that, now they've set us up to suffer some more.



    You think he might use his spine (none / 0) (#97)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    and veto some of the plans the GOP has for us?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:08:56 PM EST
    PPUS will live and be a shining example now!

    isn't Matt Yglesias (none / 0) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    simply describing the last two years?

    the legislative process now consists primarily of negotiations between Barack Obama and the House GOP

    Nope (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:34:09 PM EST
    ok (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    maybe you would say that the last 2 years have been Obama & the Dems negotiating w/themselves & Obama then caving preemptively to the GOP which does not do negotiation?

    Return of the Gang of 14? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Addison on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    That's the House. What about the Senate? Are we going to see the return of a semi-formal, semi-permanent Gang of 14 acting as a gatekeeper for all Senate bills?

    President Snowe is already a one woman Gang of 14 (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    It's much easier (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:27:01 PM EST
    to get everyone to agree if the Gang of 14 is only 1 person

    Not really (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:34:37 PM EST
    The Gang of 14 no longer really exists.

    Obviously it'd be a new game... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    ...a "gritty reboot," you might say.

    New GANG. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Addison on Wed Nov 03, 2010 at 02:01:23 PM EST
    For sure obama will be investigated (none / 0) (#101)
    by pluege2 on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 08:01:58 PM EST
    and likely impeached for show and fear purposes.