Is A "Filibuster-Proof" Democratic Senate Within Reach!
By anniepa
@anniepa (27955)
United States
October 31, 2008 1:27am CST
There are more Republicans up for reelection this year than Democrats and while most of the Democrats are quite "safe" the same can't be said for the Republicans. There are some races that just a short time ago seemed to be locked in for the GOP that are now very much in doubt, with Elizabeth Dole and Norm Coleman two that come to mind immediately. It's a bit of a long-shot, but the possibility of the Democrats reaching that "magic" number of 60 is now real.
I know we have myLot members from probably every state so I'd really love to hear from anyone who cares to weigh in about what you think of a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate, if you think it will happen and what's going on in the U.S. Senate races in your own state.
Annie
5 responses
@evanslf (484)
•
31 Oct 08
Personally, I like the checks and balances that are inbuilt in the US constitution: though I can see the attraction of a 60 Dem seat majority in the Senate in terms of getting legislation pushed through at this time of crisis, on the other hand, such a large majority could lead to the Dems acting imprudently, pushing through ill-thought out legislation in haste, which could then lead to a sharp fall in their popularity and seats two years later (remember what happened to Bill Clinton back in 1994, two years into his first term and he found his party shorn of majorities in both House and Senate and for a time he was reduced to near irrelevance).
That the Dems will have a big majority in the Senate is clear (at least 57 Senators by most polling predictions) and if they work with moderate republicans (like Snowe for instance) and appeal to unity at this time of crisis, they will probably be able to get most things done.
As for info on the US presidential, house and senate races, I suggest you visit http://www.electoral-vote.com
At the top, you will see the Senate position according to the polls, with the Dems on 58, Republicans 41 and Minnesota being a tie. That 60 is within reach is certainly possible, if Franken can win in Minnessota and if the Dems can pick up at least one of the Kentucky and Georgia Senate seats, where Republican incumbents McConnell and Chambliss are only a couple of points up on their Dem opponents.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
31 Oct 08
You mean a total monopoly on power is with in reach, especialy if Obama uses his twisted backwards constitutional ideology in selecting federal judges. People have the right to elect who ever they want. It is no crime or constitutional violation to elect the entire party in the office of president or congress. However, throw in the supreme and federal courts containing politicians instead of judges and you then have a one party dictatorship.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
31 Oct 08
I understand your point, in fact it was pretty much how it was throughout most of the Bush Administration with the Republicans in Congress allowing Bush to render them irrelevant. As far as choosing judges, I think Obama will do just fine. I'd say his view is in between those of Bush, who thinks the Constitution is just a "G-D piece of paper" and Rush Limbaugh, who believes every word should be taken literally, apparently including the part about blacks being 3/5 of a person, at least judging from his attacks on Obama.
Annie
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
31 Oct 08
A one-sided government is never good. I agree with evan. Checks and balances no matter which party. Otherwise there's no one to tell them something's a bad idea and we get stuck with it.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
31 Oct 08
I have to agree with a previous post. A one sided government (no matter what side) is never good.
I think it is within reach. I do think the democrats will pick up a lot of seats. We will have to wait til election day to find out.
I would do an internal cringe if either side got "filibuster-proof". Not a good idea.
1 person likes this
