Next Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

It may be after this November both the position of Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House will be changed.

While the Democrats retain the majority in the Senate there is a good chance despite the fact Tea Partyista Sharron Angle won in Nevada, Harry Reid will be defeated for reelection. If so who will be the next Senate Majority Leader?

Also if the Republicans do regain control of the House John Boehner would presumably be the Speaker.

[Jonathan Chance]

The smart money is on Reid and Pelosi.

[Marley23]

I don't think any of that's going to happen, Curtis LeMay. If it did, the obvious choices for the Republicans would be McConnell and Boehner. I wonder if DeMint would make an effort for the Senate post, though.

[Ravenman]

The House is definitely a race between Pelosi and Boehner.

If Reid is not re-elected, my money is on Chuck Schumer to be the next Majority Leader, but it's going to be a contest with Richard Durbin.

There's only a very low chance that Republicans would take the Senate, but McConnell would be a dead-solid lock for the job.

[asterion]

Even if Reid is re-elected, we may still see Schumer or Durbin take the spot.

[Munch]

Coulda been Evan Bayh...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Pelosi isn't going anywhere, and neither House is in danger of changing parties. Reid could lose (though his chances are better now that the Republicans nominated a complete nutbag to run against him). Schumer is rumored to be the most likely successor if that happens, followed by Durbin.

[flickster]

Fresh Rasmussen Nevada Poll

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Rasmussen is a joke.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Rasmussen is a joke.

Even if they aren't, it's June, and as they acknowledge right their in the first sentence, she just won her primary and is getting a bounce. She's been able to campaign against Reid during the primaries, but he didn't know his opponent.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, she's got a host of nutty positions and statements that are going to take some piss out of her campaign pretty quickly.

She wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, for instance, and in a state which derives a large amount of its income from the hospitality industry, saying she thinks alcohol should be illegal will not go over well, either.

And there's also that Scientology thing, and that bizarre statement about doing laundry and cleaning bathroom is "work that Americans won't do."

Wait until the commercials get going. And any debates that might happen.

Reid barely has any life in him as a politician anymore, but he's now become the only sane choice and should be able to win by default.

[osme]

I heard John Boehner is up next for Speaker.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He would be only if the Republicans won the majority, which is unlikely.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by flickster

Fresh Rasmussen Nevada Poll

Here is a Mason-Dixon poll taken at the same time that shows Angle up 44 to 41%.

Mason-Dixon seemed to have some lean toward McCain in 2008, but they seem to be more credible than Rasmussen.

[Chronos]

For what it's worth, Nate Silver scores Mason-Dixon as having 1.57 percentage points of pollster-induced-error, and Ramussen as 1.74 . So Mason-Dixon is a bit better, but both are actually pretty good.

[Frank]

Pelosi.

Reid's chances of winning re-election just went up significantly. Even if he does hang on, I would hope Schumer or Durbin challenges him.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Chronos

For what it's worth, Nate Silver scores Mason-Dixon as having 1.57 percentage points of pollster-induced-error, and Ramussen as 1.74 . So Mason-Dixon is a bit better, but both are actually pretty good.

Nate's ratings were based on polls taken during the last 3 weeks before an election.

Basically, the suspicion about Rasmussen is that while they poll for accuracy down the homestretch in order to maintain credibility (polls near an election can always be compared with the actual election results, after all), but that a lot of their polls earlier in the season, whose accuracy lacks such a firm benchmark, are designed to influence the narrative about the contests they're polling.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well, she's got a host of nutty positions and statements that are going to take some piss out of her campaign pretty quickly.

She wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, for instance, and in a state which derives a large amount of its income from the hospitality industry, saying she thinks alcohol should be illegal will not go over well, either.

A bit 1910ish considering banning alcohol would be a massive increase of government power?

And there's also that Scientology thing, and that bizarre statement about doing laundry and cleaning bathroom is "work that Americans won't do."

She's Scientologist?!?!

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

A bit 1910ish considering banning alcohol would be a massive increase of government power?

Banning alcohol woudl be a horrible idea, but I don't see how it would be a massive increase in government power. The government is allowed to ban things and it's banned plenty of other things. A Constitutional amendment would be required and blah blah blah.

She's Scientologist?!?!

No. But it sounds like she has supported Scientology backed "health" programs.

[Captain Amazing]

Specifically, Angle was in a video promoting the Second Chance program, and tried unsuccessfully to get it implemented in the Nevada prison system when she was in the state assembly.

The Second Chance program is a drug detox program that uses L. Ron Hubbard's "Purification Rundown". It basically involves paying a lot of money, taking enough niacin so that you suffer from mild niacin overdose, and then sitting in a sauna to sweat out your "toxins".

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

The smart money is on Reid and Pelosi.

I don't know about the smart money, but it's certainly the way I'd bet.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Banning alcohol woudl be a horrible idea, but I don't see how it would be a massive increase in government power. The government is allowed to ban things and it's banned plenty of other things. A Constitutional amendment would be required and blah blah blah.

A amendment would not be required. The 21st amendment merely repealed the 18th.

Line 2 specifically allows for dry states: "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." Dry states continued to exist for 50 years or more, and some are still semi-dry.

In addition to that, the amendment in no way prohibits the feds from including alcohol in the list of things the government is allowed to ban by law. Marijuana, cocaine, tobacco, alcohol--it's all political.

It was, in fact, a political calculus by the dry faction that selected a constitutional amendment vs. federal law during the nation's momentary lapse of reason. They thought that an amendment would have greater durability than law. They were right, but not by much.

[Captain Amazing]

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Reid gets replaced as Majority Leader even if he does win reelection. I'm not going to go far enough out on the limb to say he will, but his leadership hasn't been very effective and I think there are a lot of democrats who want him gone.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Reid gets replaced as Majority Leader even if he does win reelection. I'm not going to go far enough out on the limb to say he will, but his leadership hasn't been very effective and I think there are a lot of democrats who want him gone.

I think Reid's been pretty effective; his one lapse was giving Baucus too much time last summer to win over guys like Grassley and Enzi on health care. But unlike Pelosi, who could afford to lose a few dozen votes on any given issue, Reid's had to keep every single Dem senator on board to pass anything. And he's done that surprisingly often.

[Marley23]

I don't think Reid has done all that well - in fact it might be a plus for the Dems in some ways if he loses - but the Senate being what it is, I don't think he would be replaced. They have too much respect for seniority.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Well, she's got a host of nutty positions and statements that are going to take some piss out of her campaign pretty quickly.

She wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare, for instance, and in a state which derives a large amount of its income from the hospitality industry, saying she thinks alcohol should be illegal will not go over well, either.

And there's also that Scientology thing, and that bizarre statement about doing laundry and cleaning bathroom is "work that Americans won't do."

It gets a lot worse than that. She opposes fluoridation of public water. In 2010.

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Reid gets replaced as Majority Leader even if he does win reelection. I'm not going to go far enough out on the limb to say he will, but his leadership hasn't been very effective and I think there are a lot of democrats who want him gone.

Count me among them. He's a political klutz - twice he voted "no" on the healthcare reform bill when he meant to vote "yes." Twice! Keeps saying dumb things, too - almost as bad as Biden. Needlessly partisan, even when it's self-defeating, and doesn't have a handle on his own caucus. Seems to me he's his own worst enemy. I'd bet that Schumer will become Senate majority leader even if Reid hangs onto his seat in Nevada. I'm also confident that Pelosi will remain as Speaker.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Count me among them. He's a political klutz - twice he voted "no" on the healthcare reform bill when he meant to vote "yes." Twice!

The Majority Leader will often switch his vote so he votes with the prevailing side on a close vote. That allows him to make a motion to reconsider the vote sometime later, when he's whipped up the votes. This is a standard parliamentary tactic, not indicative of being a klutz.

[Ruby Slippers]

Is everyone just assuming that Boehner will be re-elected? I live in his district and we actually have a credible candidate running against him -- Justin Coussoule. He's a first-timer, an unknown, and I'm sure he's underfunded, but he looks like he could do a good job if he could just get his case (and name and face) out there.

Coussoule for Congress

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

The Majority Leader will often switch his vote so he votes with the prevailing side on a close vote. That allows him to make a motion to reconsider the vote sometime later, when he's whipped up the votes. This is a standard parliamentary tactic, not indicative of being a klutz.

Except, of course, when it is: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/...ffe/index.html

[Zephyurs]

*Sigh* And to think Democrats had a chance to get rid of Harry Reid... of all the races for Republicans to blow, why'd it have to be this one?

Subtraction by addition.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Ruby Slippers

Is everyone just assuming that Boehner will be re-elected? I live in his district and we actually have a credible candidate running against him -- Justin Coussoule. He's a first-timer, an unknown, and I'm sure he's underfunded, but he looks like he could do a good job if he could just get his case (and name and face) out there.

Coussoule for Congress

His bio reads like he's an ideal American political candidate, grown in a vat.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

His bio reads like he's an ideal American political candidate, grown in a vat.

Well, except for his connection with the Satanists of Proctor & Gamble . . .

[Chronos]

Interestingly, he doesn't appear to mention his party affiliation at all on his official site. Is "Democrat" that dangerous a word in his district?

[Elendil's Heir]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Interestingly, he doesn't appear to mention his party affiliation at all on his official site. Is "Democrat" that dangerous a word in his district?

Well, duh. It's a district that has regularly reelected John Boehner, after all.

ETA: Woohoo! 22,000 posts!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Interestingly, he doesn't appear to mention his party affiliation at all on his official site. Is "Democrat" that dangerous a word in his district?

His district hasn't elected a Democratic (or non-Republican, for that matter) Congressman since 1933.

[Chronos]

I have to wonder: If a district is so heavily slanted against a party that members of that party don't even mention it, is there any real chance of said members winning? I mean, the party affiliation is still going to show up on the ballot, which (it seems to me) would be the most important place.

[Elendil's Heir]

As a challenger from the minority party in that congressional district, you can always hope that the entrenched incumbent either dies or has a terrible scandal late in the campaign but insists on remaining on the ballot, such that disgusted voters go for you. But you'll have a helluva time hanging onto the seat two years later, when (as almost invariably happens) the majority party runs a much stronger candidate against you.

[Cisco]

Originally Posted by Curtis LeMay

Tea Partyista Sharron Angle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharron_Angle#Positions

Good god, the woman is a cartoon character. A plague on Nevada if they elect this ignorant animal.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance

The smart money is on Reid and Pelosi.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Pelosi isn't going anywhere, and neither House is in danger of changing parties. Reid could lose (though his chances are better now that the Republicans nominated a complete nutbag to run against him). Schumer is rumored to be the most likely successor if that happens, followed by Durbin.

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

He would be only if the Republicans won the majority, which is unlikely.

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

I don't know about the smart money, but it's certainly the way I'd bet.

Originally Posted by Ruby Slippers

Is everyone just assuming that Boehner will be re-elected? I live in his district and we actually have a credible candidate running against him -- Justin Coussoule. He's a first-timer, an unknown, and I'm sure he's underfunded, but he looks like he could do a good job if he could just get his case (and name and face) out there.

Coussoule for Congress

So now what?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So nothing. Boner will be Speaker for two years and and have to work with Obama instead of obstructing. Good outcome.

[Elendil's Heir]

Would that it were so. I suspect they'll try to provoke some vetoes and hope for a GOP capture of the White House two years hence. Boehner has plenty of uberconservatives in his caucus who won't want to give the President any bipartisan accomplishments to brag about in his reelection campaign.

[BrainGlutton]

So, does Harry Reid remain Senate Majority Leader?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Probably, though technically he doesn't have to be.

[Really Not All That Bright]

That depends. Are the Democrats going to be able to get anything done in the next two years? If so, then you want the credit to go to someone who has better long-term prospects. Are the next two years going to be as ugly as the last two? Might as well leave Reid in there as the sacrificial lamb.

I lean toward the latter.

[Ruby Slippers]

I guess it pretty much depends on what kind of punishment Reid could deliver to Democrats who didn't support his bid. At least that's what I always heard was how Robert Byrd managed to hang on to the position of Majority Leader for so long -- he was the ultimate parliamentarian and if you crossed him, your bills would probably never see the light of day. One of the funny lines I heard back in 1980, after the election where the Republicans gained control of the Senate, was "Who's going to tell Byrd he's not the Majority Leader any more?"

[Bricker]

Before:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Pelosi isn't going anywhere, and neither House is in danger of changing parties.

But the polls say!

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Rasmussen is a joke.

And then afterwards:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

So nothing. Boner will be Speaker for two years and and have to work with Obama instead of obstructing. Good outcome.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So I overestimated the intelligence of the voters. Shame on me for not being cynical enough and giving them too much credit. I should have learned from the Bush years.

Rasmussen is still a joke.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

So I overestimated the intelligence of the voters. Shame on me for not being cynical enough and giving them too much credit. I should have learned from the Bush years.

Rasmussen is still a joke.

Got it. You weren't wrong. It was the voters.

Funny how you didn't allow for the possibility of stupid voters when you said, "Pelosi isn't going anywhere, and neither House is in danger of changing parties." I guess this was the first time you'd ever encountered the phenomenon of stupid voters, and were thus unprepared for the vagaries of their whimsical ways.

[River Hippie]

Boehner has some wit and can deliver some great zingers but he is an establishment Republican to the core and is going to oversee a sellout to the corporate interests unlike anything seen before. Watch Teapublicans, as your new leader shows his true colors.