According to the astute Democratic analyst Mickey Kaus, the odds are now that the Repubicans will retain the House and lose the Senate. There are enough Senate races now that are even or leaning Democratic according to the actual poll numbers to produce a Democratic takeover. And the historical tendency has been for all the close Senate races to break one way or the other in the final days. Right now, most of the close races show a slight to rather pronounced Democratic trend. But don’t despair. The trend on House races is reassuring. And the Senate races really could break either way, if the break theory really does hold up.
If Republicans have to lose a house, which one would be better to lose? If they lose the Senate then it will be impossible to appoint "conservative" judges, while if they lose the House it seems possible impeachment proceedings could begin. If either house is lost investigations will begin. Any ideas?
Depends on your primary concerns. In many respects the Dems. already have a "ideological majority" in Senate--thanks to the New England RINOs--and,, furthermore, they can block what they consider "extreme" legislation or appointments in the Senate through the filibuster.
In my view losing the House is worse, given the current ideological balance in that body. Of paramount importance is that Republicans would lose control of tax policy, since revenue bills must originate in the House. You can forget about repealing the inheritance tax or making the Bush tax cuts permanent. We’d be lucky to head off immediate tax increases, through use of the presidential veto.
I don’t really see the Dems. as stupid enough to advance impeachment in any serious way. A colossal waste of time that would blow-back on them.
It seems to me that Kaus was throwing this out as a wacky possibility rather than a held belief. Conventional wisdom still has Dems taking the house. In any event, I’m looking forward to a government with checks and balances again. The founding fathers LIKED debate and compromise.
The idea that there are no checks and balances now is completely wrong. For one thing, there is the filibuster. For another, the RINOs. For another, the often-liberal federal courts. Then, there’s the bureaucracy, and the media, both of which most Republican "leaders" live in daily fear of. Please spare us this pious nonsense about an unbalanced government. The imbalance is on the Democrats’ side. Having our small majorities in the House and Senate, and our timid president, is what gives us a seat at the table -- little more.
To Steve Sparks: I would suggest the novel idea of fighting like hell, no holds barred, and trying to keep BOTH houses.
Agreed with #4. Absence of debate? You’ve got to be kidding.
Methinks it’s the outcome of the debate that’s unwelcome, not the absence of debate. In a republic, sooner or later, the talking has to reach a conclusion, majorities coalesce to reach consensus and decisions are made. If anything, the Democrats--with a few exceptions--have exited the debate and merely joined in the chorus of hysterical negativity, with their media allies. Lately, it seems, all the "give and take" and serious debate about prosecuting the GWOT has been among Republicans.
Sorry, I guess we’re still sore about the time Sensenbrenner turned off our mics. Or the time that we traded our right to filibuster in exchange for keeping the 2/3 majority rule. Stuff like that. Oh, and the time they made our committee meet in the basement.
The Florida republican pedophile doesn’t help much though....
Well, Yippie, in your Democratic party it might be a good career move.
Too bad you guys already have the market cornered...
Let’s face it, AH in comment 7 is right. If the Rs hold on, it will be by a seat or two.
It doesn’t need to be that bad. The GOP can lose less than six. I suspect there are still miles to go in this campaign. My biggest worry is that our "leadership" will falter in the clutch. But it doesn’t have to.