Another awesome post by Nate Silver, btw.
So, the Democrats are going to lose what tiny governing majority they had going into 2008. The brutal compromises on everything is not just because Obama is a wimp. It is mostly because of the Blue Dogs.
Nate Silver points out that if there is a 2% bias against Democrats in polling across the board, the result could be a House with 218-217 Democratic majority. (BTW, he says in 1998 there was a 5% bias against Democrats in polling across the board.) It seems to me that this is a nightmare. Still as impossible to govern as if the Republicans picked up 50 seats, but now it is completely in the interest of Republicans to shut down the government. So, even less gets done. If they have control of the House, won't there be some motive to at least do the things for which there is consensus? Maybe immigration reform? Build a big giant fence, make it a huge public works project, increase Border Agents by 10-15%, and set out penalties for entering illegally such as fines and a requirement to take citizenship classes.
Just an idea.
2 comments:
Remember that in the House, a one-seat majority is pretty meaningful. The Speaker has all sorts of power to set the debate and control it. That's why the House, even with its godawful blue dogs passed tons and tons of highly progressive legislation with very few compromises. All the compromises were forced on it by the Senate. Remember that the House health care bill had a public option, and they actually did pass cap and trade in the house. It's way easier to get stuff done in the house. And it has more budget authority (somehow; I forget.) So a one-seat dem majority could actually get some stuff done. Maybe not big liberal stuff, but pretty decent stuff.
OTOH, you posit the laughable notion that there will be "consensus" items that the Dems could do with a GOP majority. The GOP understanding of the word "compromise" is "we do it exactly my way." No, the House under Speaker Boehner (and a cadre of *very* hard core freshmen) will be highly radicalized and not interested in small-ball consensus stuff. Also remember that Obama will ultimately sign an get credit for anything the congress does and the key motivation of the congressional GOP is to deny him any accomplishments so they can make him a one-term president.
This leaves aside the full-time witch hunts and scandal-fishing that Oversight Chair Issa will undertake.
I've resigned myself to the fact that the House is all-but-gone. While the polls and that 20% possibility of pulling it out are tantalizing, I think the enthusiasm gap and turnout will kill us. it'll suck. Much as I would like to join you, I can't get on board with the fantasy that losing could somehow be tactically better than winning.
Well, ignore the notion that they might feel compelled to compromise, with the Senate losses there will be no good legislation passed in the next two year. Agreed?
Does it not help to be able to point to a divided Congress to blame for the grid lock?
You are probably right, though.
Post a Comment