How many democrats would need to be in the congress and senate for them to wield power?

[elfkin477]

From what Obama has said in recent days, the Republican minority still wields most of the power in congress, and they have the power to block change; this must be what he means if he lays the blame for a weak economic recover at their feet. Apparently having a majority in both congress (for four years) and the senate does not make the Democrats more powerful than their foes. How many seats do they need to pick up in November to get anything done?

I'm just curious what the power ratio is Republican to Democrat. Are Democrats each 2/3rds as influential as Republicans, or are they each only half as commanding?

[BayouHazard]

I think there's two issues: conservative Dems, and an ethos of compromise within the Democratic party.The thing is, there IS no ethos of compromise on the opposing side, so I'm not sure what they have to gain through compromise.
OTOH, my paranoid side thinks it's because those who have bought both parties off don't want certain things the voters do, so both parties have to make excuses.

Note I'm saying think-this is just baseless guesswork, so feel free to disprove the above.

[Chronos]

I think there's two issues: conservative Dems, and an ethos of compromise within the Democratic party.

There's another two issues you're overlooking: First, that no matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans, if they want nothing done, can just filibuster everything as long as they have 41 seats in the Senate. Second, the Democrats didn't have 60 seats even before Brown's election: Lieberman is not a Democrat, and does not act like one, but he usually gets unfairly lumped in with them.

[elfkin477]

I know not all of them are done until this week, but how have conservative Dems done so far in the primaries? And how come Obama doesn't lump them in with the Republicans in his speeches when explaining why things aren't happening faster re: the economy?

[boytyperanma]

I figure the only way for them to wield power is for all conservatives to vanish from the face of the Earth. Even if the Democrats had 100 percent of the Senate they'd drop and run from their own ideas if Glenn Beck was critical of them.

[Uncle Jocko]

Apropos of (almost) nothing, but the Republicans don't actually filibuster anything, they just threaten to. The cloture vote, to end debate, is where they've been wielding their minority power in the Senate.

Personally, I'd enjoy seeing the Democrats call the Republicans' bluff and make 'em actually, you know, filibuster. The old style reading of the phone book thing. If they actually forced them to do it every time they threatened to, the public would most likely get fed up with the impression of whining babies holding their breath over ... what? Can you imagine the public response if Sen. Joe Plumber, R-Taliban, actually held the Senate floor reading from a cookbook or the Yellow Pages or the Bible just to prevent a vote on health care for 9/11 workers?

But as said upthread, the Democrats in Congress are usually looking for compromise. In other words, most of them are scared of their own political shadows.

[DanBlather]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

I figure the only way for them to wield power is for all conservatives to vanish from the face of the Earth. Even if the Democrats had 100 percent of the Senate they'd drop and run from their own ideas if Glenn Beck was critical of them.

This is it. I am so fucking pissed at the Democrats. They are scared of everything. I don't think most voters really understand the issues, they just want someone who acts like they have a plan and are capable of carrying it out. Compromising with Conservatives theses days is pointless. They just oppose any position that the other side takes, even if was their position yesterday.

We need shock and awe. Keep Congress in session permanently until some actual work gets done. Propose laws that strip elected officials of any healthcare, pension benefits, or vacation time that are not available to working Americans and then dare the Republicans to oppose it.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by BayouHazard

OTOH, my paranoid side thinks it's because those who have bought both parties off don't want certain things the voters do, so both parties have to make excuses.

Note I'm saying think-this is just baseless guesswork, so feel free to disprove the above.

The effect is the same. Paleo- citizens of any stripe (liberal OR conservative) don't have a choice anymore. Both parties are equivalently the same on spending, immigration, trade, and only somewhat different on the social and military issues (when you take into account the spinelessness of the Dems on certain of these issues.)

People who actually want to lower the deficit, or have an america-first trade, foreign, and immigration policy, or provide more of a social safety net, have no choice, because both parties are fine with the status quo on this, partly due to neoliberal and neoconservative ideology, and partly because the flow of money to both parties depends on those who exploit foreign workers, want lower taxes on the rich, and own powerful multinational companies.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

I know not all of them are done until this week, but how have conservative Dems done so far in the primaries? And how come Obama doesn't lump them in with the Republicans in his speeches when explaining why things aren't happening faster re: the economy?

Because they're almost all of the seats the GOP is hoping to retake in November. That's not to say there are no blue dogs with solid districts and a history in Congress. But most of the contests the GOP thinks they can win are very new Democrats who won in '06 or '08 and are now at risk of losing. Most of them haven't been reliable votes for progress because their constituencies aren't and have never been very progressive. The other "group" they're going after are open contests created by retiring Democrats where both candidates are new, and even those districts tend to be more conservative.

In other words, Obama can't go after them for not being liberal enough because he realizes the only reason they have a strong majority is because these candidates were fairly moderate to conservative. A lot of districts and states were down on the GOP and Bush so they elected Democrats, but they didn`t elect liberals.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Second, the Democrats didn't have 60 seats even before Brown's election: Lieberman is not a Democrat, and does not act like one, but he usually gets unfairly lumped in with them.

He wasn't elected under the Democratic ticket, but he's part of the Senate Democratic Caucus, and he usually votes with the Democrats. He does act like a Democrat.

[BayouHazard]

Perhaps this?
They're torn between doing stuff they'd like to do, which *might actually work* but would be used against them anyway and so get them unelected...and making sure they get re-elected at the cost of doing a crappy job;meaning they get nothing done but they still remain in congress.

Because, of course, neither you, I or anyone is 100% sure WHAT will fix the country. Better yet, there's a giant argument going on as to what a fix would look like, if it needs fixed at all(hey-the super-rich are getting theirs, right?)and since people are so gullible these days, ANYTHING that goes wrong can be blamed on any action the Dems take, at all.

They can thus pursue two main strategies in the court of public opinion: do what they think is right, regardless of consequences, or focus on what will get them reelected. They've mostly been doing the latter, very little of the former.
I'm not sure that this course is good for the party in the long term or for the American people. IMO, it makes the Dems look like a bunch of weasels. This is why I'd like a viable third party to the left of the Dems, because I can't respect them at all.

Both parties are a bunch of weevils, I just see the Dems as the lesser of the two weevils.

[alphaboi867]

Originally Posted by Captain Amazing

...He wasn't elected under the Democratic ticket, but he's part of the Senate Democratic Caucus, and he usually votes with the Democrats. He does act like a Democrat.

Well, other than endorsing John McCain back in 2008. He's not even a DINO.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by alphaboi867

Well, other than endorsing John McCain back in 2008. He's not even a DINO.

If you look at his voting record, though, Lieberman usually votes with the Democrats. He endorsed McCain because, first, they were friends, and second, because McCain was pro-Iraq war. He doesn't actually agree with McCain on most issues, though. And he actually endorsed McCain in 2007, not in 2008.

[Claverhouse]

Originally Posted by BayouHazard

Both parties are a bunch of weevils, I just see the Dems as the lesser of the two weevils.

That's perfect.

[Superhal]

I just came in to quote this:

"Liberal pundit and blogger Matthew Yglesias has ascribed to conservative advocates of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics." Yglesias characterized adherents to this "theory" as people who believe "American military might" is like a Green Lantern's power ring, "that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."" Link.

I think this idea is a very clear metaphor for the difference between Repubs and Dems: the guts to do something that is blatantly ignorant and/or repulsive to the vast majority of the thinking public. What I don't like about the Dems is that they lack the willpower to do what they are supposed to do be doing, while the Repubs are 100% willpower without thought or logic.

[GIGObuster]

Indeed, the latest crop of Republican candidates makes the ones from the Newt Gingrich era look like Einsteins.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/0...-anti-science/

That’s from a powerful editorial published today by the journal Nature titled, “Science scorned” (subs. req’d). It is an important message that, apparently, few science journals and leaders in this country have the guts to spell out.

Then again, Nature is not merely one of the top journals in the world, it is one of the rare publications of any kind that understands what we are up against — see Nature: “Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.”

Here are extended excerpts from this must-read piece:

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BayouHazard

This is why I'd like a viable third party to the left of the Dems, because I can't respect them at all.

It might also be an auspicious development, if a lot of liberal/moderate Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats got together and formed a new party-of-the-center.

[athelas]

Originally Posted by Superhal

I just came in to quote this:

"Liberal pundit and blogger Matthew Yglesias has ascribed to conservative advocates of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics." Yglesias characterized adherents to this "theory" as people who believe "American military might" is like a Green Lantern's power ring, "that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."" Link.

The theory talks about the silliness of thinking "Gee, if we could just get our act together and have enough willpower, we can do things!" This sloppy thinking anthropomorphizes what are really abstract conflicts determined largely by factors on the ground, and no amount of willpower can change. It's pleasing to the monkeybrain, but totally fails in the modern environment. This kind of thinking is exactly what is wrong with this thread. Look at the people claiming that if only the Democrats had stronger willpower they could boldly stride forward to the cheers of the liberated populace. This is idiocy; at best a projection of the feckless neighborhood hippie onto establishment politicians. You think career politicians don't know how the game is played much better than we do? If they saw political advantage they'd take it; if they don't propose whatever pet project we think they should, it's only because they know it's opposed by the American public, and supporting it will lose them votes.

Of course the narrative of the weak-willed politician is a convenient one for people pushing unpopular ideologies. If your party is out of power, then of course your ideology isn't being enacted, since the loonies in the Other Party are in control. If your party is in power, then your ideology isn't being enacted because the politicians in Our Party are wimps! By dumping the failure onto imagined character traits of the politicians, this line of thought banishes any other possibility. Thus armed with impenetrable epistemology, there's no possible set of facts that can convince the ideologue that maybe his program isn't being enacted because it's infeasible, wrong-headed, or deeply unpopular.

[rowrrbazzle]

Originally Posted by BayouHazard

I think there's two issues: conservative Dems, and an ethos of compromise within the Democratic party. The thing is, there IS no ethos of compromise on the opposing side,

Complete bullshit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6849638.shtml (emphasis added)

In July, the bill failed to win the two-thirds majority that was needed under the procedure that Democratic leaders used to bring up the bill to block potential amendments. The bill fell short, 255-159. The vote was largely along party lines, with 12 Republicans joining Democrats supporting the measure.

[Chronos]

What, we needed compromise on the issue of helping 9/11 rescue workers?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by athelas

If they saw political advantage they'd take it; if they don't propose whatever pet project we think they should, it's only because they know it's opposed by the American public, and supporting it will lose them votes.

Of course the narrative of the weak-willed politician is a convenient one for people pushing unpopular ideologies.

Performing actions for a political advantage is the very definition of a weak-willed politician.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by rowrrbazzle

Complete bullshit.

Gosh, 12 whole Republicans. Yeah, that's a rebuttal, all right.

[SirRay]

Originally Posted by Uncle Jocko

Personally, I'd enjoy seeing the Democrats call the Republicans' bluff and make 'em actually, you know, filibuster. The old style reading of the phone book thing. If they actually forced them to do it every time they threatened to, the public would most likely get fed up with the impression of whining babies holding their breath over ... what? Can you imagine the public response if Sen. Joe Plumber, R-Taliban, actually held the Senate floor reading from a cookbook or the Yellow Pages or the Bible just to prevent a vote on health care for 9/11 workers.

Actually this topic is often discussed (as you may image) on Daily Kos and the like - the reality is that since filibuster changes in 1975 (I think), there would be no reading of phone books or dictionaries or speechs or other such 'telegenic' action - all is needed is one opposed senator (in this case Republican) on the floor to object that there is no quorum

Reid's office has studied the history of the filibuster and analyzed what options are available. The resulting memo was provided to the Huffington Post and it concludes that a filibustering Senator "can be forced to sit on the Senate floor to keep us from voting on that legislation for a finite period of time according to existing rules but he/she can't be forced to keep talking for an indefinite period of time."...As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

And to answer the original OP, the answer is 100 Senate and 435 Representive - this way, you can have balanced debates between Progresseive Dems, Centralist Dems, and ConservaDems, while avoiding the extreme inanity of the Tea-baggers and the remaining current crop of Republicans who'd embarass Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower (and probably even Reagan - he'd use his "There you go again" line on them all the time)

[marshmallow]

Originally Posted by Superhal

I just came in to quote this:

"Liberal pundit and blogger Matthew Yglesias has ascribed to conservative advocates of U.S. military intervention in the Middle East the "Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics." Yglesias characterized adherents to this "theory" as people who believe "American military might" is like a Green Lantern's power ring, "that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower."" Link.

As opposed to Dems, who bomb and invade other countries for the lulz.

Originally Posted by athelas

Of course the narrative of the weak-willed politician is a convenient one for people pushing unpopular ideologies. If your party is out of power, then of course your ideology isn't being enacted, since the loonies in the Other Party are in control. If your party is in power, then your ideology isn't being enacted because the politicians in Our Party are wimps! By dumping the failure onto imagined character traits of the politicians, this line of thought banishes any other possibility. Thus armed with impenetrable epistemology, there's no possible set of facts that can convince the ideologue that maybe his program isn't being enacted because it's infeasible, wrong-headed, or deeply unpopular.

The crazy thing about the "spineless Dem" meme you see on Dem blogs is that their politicians emphatically, demonstrably do not believe what these liberal bloggers believe or hope they do. At all. Neither today or in some past distant fictionalized golden age. Then they make fun of people on the right who vote against their own interests. It's too much.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Uncle Jocko

Apropos of (almost) nothing, but the Republicans don't actually filibuster anything, they just threaten to. The cloture vote, to end debate, is where they've been wielding their minority power in the Senate.

Personally, I'd enjoy seeing the Democrats call the Republicans' bluff and make 'em actually, you know, filibuster.

The Democrats have to maintain a quorum while the filibuster is taking place. That means all the Repubs can go home, but 50 Democrats have to stay in the chamber at all times, until the filibuster fails. That isn't easy 24/7. It is as hard on the filibustees as it is on the filibusters.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by athelas

Look at the people claiming that if only the Democrats had stronger willpower they could boldly stride forward to the cheers of the liberated populace. This is idiocy; at best a projection of the feckless neighborhood hippie onto establishment politicians. You think career politicians don't know how the game is played much better than we do? If they saw political advantage they'd take it; if they don't propose whatever pet project we think they should, it's only because they know it's opposed by the American public, and supporting it will lose them votes.

Of course the narrative of the weak-willed politician is a convenient one for people pushing unpopular ideologies. If your party is out of power, then of course your ideology isn't being enacted, since the loonies in the Other Party are in control. If your party is in power, then your ideology isn't being enacted because the politicians in Our Party are wimps! By dumping the failure onto imagined character traits of the politicians, this line of thought banishes any other possibility. Thus armed with impenetrable epistemology, there's no possible set of facts that can convince the ideologue that maybe his program isn't being enacted because it's infeasible, wrong-headed, or deeply unpopular.

Except that the Democrats won't push for positions that are popular, either, if the Republicans oppose them. We saw that during the health care debate; the majority of Americans supported some kind of single payer system, but the Democrats went against the desires of the American public to suck up to the Republicans and the medical industry. The Democrats clearly either don't care what their own constituency wants, or are too weak to stand up to the Republicans for it; in either case, it isn't the opposition of the American public that's stopping them.

Do I think that these career politicians "know how the game is played much better than we do"? No. I see them as weak and corrupt to the point of sabotaging themselves. And the fact that so many look at them as weak because of their actions (or lack thereof) underlines that; people don't want to vote for weaklings, so they are electorally sabotaging themselves regardless of if they are really weak or not.

[tumbleddown]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

The Democrats have to maintain a quorum while the filibuster is taking place. That means all the Repubs can go home, but 50 Democrats have to stay in the chamber at all times, until the filibuster fails. That isn't easy 24/7. It is as hard on the filibustees as it is on the filibusters.

It's not just not easy, it's nigh unto impossible because unless a vote is scheduled (and a crucial, close one at that) there's almost always someone absent. They may be on a CoDel, they may be back at home in their state, they may be sick, they may be at their weekly diapering session with a fetish prostitute, but they ain't in the Senate chamber. That's why the threat of filibuster was so potent during the last days of Sens. Byrd and Kennedy, they couldn't drag them from their hospital beds to be there.

DerTrihs, while polling numbers said that some form of single payer was supported by a(n often small) majority, there were plenty of constituents of every senator, on both sides of the aisle, who were quite vocally opposing not just single payer, but any reform whatsoever. When the phone calls and faxes were running counter to the polls (which they were, because the antis were whipped into a frenzy, remember the town halls?) how do you suggest that the senators were to consider that voting for a single payer plan would've been a "popular" thing to do?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

DerTrihs, while polling numbers said that some form of single payer was supported by a(n often small) majority, there were plenty of constituents of every senator, on both sides of the aisle, who were quite vocally opposing not just single payer, but any reform whatsoever. When the phone calls and faxes were running counter to the polls (which they were, because the antis were whipped into a frenzy, remember the town halls?) how do you suggest that the senators were to consider that voting for a single payer plan would've been a "popular" thing to do?

The polls of course. How else?

And I really doubt it would be less popular than what really passed, which didn't solve much of anything and is unpopular with pretty much everyone but the insurance companies as far as I know. And the morons and scum* who were freaking out against the terrifying possibility of a single payer plan, still freaked out over what actually passed. So if trying to placate them was the goal, it failed utterly.




* And yes, I do think the opposition was and is driven by little more than a combination of stupidity, malice and greed.

[E-Sabbath]

I'd say about 70% in House and Senate would be needed to get roughly the same raw power the Republicans would have with 52%.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by tumbleddown

It's not just not easy, it's nigh unto impossible because unless a vote is scheduled (and a crucial, close one at that) there's almost always someone absent. They may be on a CoDel, they may be back at home in their state, they may be sick, they may be at their weekly diapering session with a fetish prostitute, but they ain't in the Senate chamber. That's why the threat of filibuster was so potent during the last days of Sens. Byrd and Kennedy, they couldn't drag them from their hospital beds to be there.

Just pull the old Jimmy Stewart trick. Have the Sergeant at Arms compel the attendance of absent members. Let a handful of Senators take naps in the cloakroom, and make sure that 51 are on the floor at all times. Each time that a minority party makes a quorum call, demand the attendance of absent members. As far and Kennedy and Byrd, no disrespect, but when you are unable to physically do your job, it's time to step aside and let someone else in who can.

[Measure for Measure]

Technically, the Dems would need 51 Senators. The filibuster is not in the constitution. Rather the founding document says that the Senate makes its rules when the session opens. The Dems could break with 100+ years of tradition in January and simply eliminate the filibuster (as well as the recently abused practice of Senate holds).

This is unlikely, but not impossible. Though if the Republicans win a majority in the Senate, I predict that inconvenient rules will be reformed forthwith.

[foolsguinea]

To add to this. The Democrats are a catch-all party. The progressives don't have 50 members. There are Democrats to the right of some Republicans.

When both parties were catch-all non-ideological parties, this was seen as not a big deal. Post-Gingrich, it is a big deal.

[Jas09]

Well, with 60, and then 59 Senators they managed to pass a large stimulus, the largest social policy bill since LBJ, and financial reform. That's at least as much legislation (and I'd argue more) than the GOP passed when they last had control of Congress. As I recall the largest bills passed (Medicare Part D and NCLB) were co-sponsered with Democrats. I don't recall Bush getting his SS reform through, for example.

So the answer is pretty much 60 in the Senate and a majority (excluding Blue Dogs) in the House.

Could more be done with a less obstructionist GOP? Sure. But that goes both way (as the GOP is about to find out if they take one or both houses in Nov). It's not like an Obamacare repeal is in the cards even if the GOP has a clean sweep this fall. Hell, even if they rout in 2012 as well it's unlikely they can overcome a Dem filibuster *then*, much less a veto (if they don't take POTUS).

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

The Dems could break with 100+ years of tradition in January and simply eliminate the filibuster (as well as the recently abused practice of Senate holds).

They don't even need to get rid of the traditional filibuster, just the new-fangled "procedural" filibuster.

I think it's worthwhile for the minority to have a way to say "we consider this matter so important that we'll STOP the government over it". But the inherent painfulness of the old-fashioned "talk all night, all other business comes to a standstill" type of filibuster meant that it was used sparingly. There are only so many times a party can take a dramatic stand before it becomes annoying showboating. The current practice of allowing the minority to painlessly stop a bill simply by announcing an intent to filibuster (rather than actually doing it) means that essentially you have to have a supermajority to accomplish anything.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Jas09

Well, with 60, and then 59 Senators they managed to pass a large stimulus, the largest social policy bill since LBJ, and financial reform.

Correction: Franken wasn't seated until July 2009; the Dems had 59 Senators most of the time. You are correct however that this Congressional session has easily been the most productive since WWII, with the possible exception of the one that passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The accomplishments of Reid and Pelosi are truly extraordinary.

Originally Posted by The Hampster King

They don't even need to get rid of the traditional filibuster, just the new-fangled "procedural" filibuster.

Apparently the filibuster that we learned about in high school never existed. The old style filibuster conducted by Strom Thurman was a matter of Senatorial courtesy, not filibuster. But even most political junkies weren't aware of this until ~2009.

I suppose the filibuster rule could be rewritten to match the legendary profile. But that, I think, would be a mistake. The nonPresidential party has every incentive to send the economy down the well, as the President will take the blame. Filibusters give them the power to do just that. Divided government only works when there is a degree of constructiveness in both parties. If it is absent in 1 of them, the theory falls apart. The original stimulus was too small: this was known by economists as it was constructed. Republicans made it still smaller. And they will reap the rewards of a weak economy of their own construction on November 2nd.

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

There are Democrats to the right of some Republicans.

Not in the Sentate. In the House, there's Cao (R) of Louisiana. But him aside, all Dems are to the left of all Republicans, at least within each legislative chamber. This is a relatively recent development: it certainly was not the case in the 1980s. (Corrections and counter-arguments are welcome.)

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Correction: Franken wasn't seated until July 2009; the Dems had 59 Senators most of the time. You are correct however that this Congressional session has easily been the most productive since WWII, with the possible exception of the one that passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. The accomplishments of Reid and Pelosi are truly extraordinary.

So are you saying they actually have power over the gop senators, but just not when it comes to doing anything about passing bills to improve the economy? Obama blames them, so surely they must have some sort of magical pull there at least.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

So are you saying they actually have power over the gop senators, but just not when it comes to doing anything about passing bills to improve the economy? Obama blames them, so surely they must have some sort of magical pull there at least.

I am saying that this Congress has been among the top 2 most muscular sessions since WWII. It has also experienced the most partisan obstructionism. So, objectively speaking, Reid and Pelosi are fairly awesome.

Starting this session, the GOP decided that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. The media typically passed over this change without comment. Yes, Republican obstructionism had been rising over time, but a key threshold was passed in 2009.

What of the economy? Obama inherited the worst financial crisis since 1930-33. Without any stimulus package, we would have entered a second Great Depression. That said, the package was not large enough to pull us out of recession and it was understood to be lacking at the time of its passage. But the Republicans decided to fillibuster everything, breaking with two centuries of Senate tradition, so Olympia Snowe got to call the shots. She took a package that was too small to begin with and then removed its most effective components. Accordingly, the Republican party will reap the rewards of a weak economy this fall, just as high unemployment will help them in 2012.