What would have happened if the Democrats had full control of the Senate in 2008? If a few close races had gone the other way in 2004 and 2006, the Democrats could have had a 63-37 advantage in the Senate. What if the following had been different? 1. Ted Kennedy doesn’t get brain cancer. 2. In 2004, Tom Daschle beats John Thune in South Dakota. 3. In 2004 Betty Castor beats Mel Martinez in Florida. 4. In 2004 Erskine Bowles beats Richard Burr in North Carolina. 5. In 2006 Harold Ford Jr beats Bob Corker in Tennessee.
Would the Democrats have been able to pass universal health care, immigration reform, etc? I think that things would be different, and better, if only the above 5 things had happened. What do you all think?
I suspect that, whatever they accomplished, they would have been beaten even more badly at the polls in 2010 than they were. There was a significant conservative backlash to the Democratically controlled government (president, both houses of Congress), and I think ti would have been even worse if the Democrats had had a veto proof majority in the Senate. Whether you agree with that backlash or not, it was definitely there (rational or not).
This is a big part of why I asked the question. I don’t see the 2010 elections as a backlash against the Democrats success. I think it was the liberals being disappointed at a lack of accomplishment in the 2009 and 2010. If the Democrats had passed several pieces of significant legislation rather than just a watered down healthcare reform, I think liberals would have rewarded their success and moderates would not have been disappointed by the lack of progress from Obama’s first two years.
In other words, people voted for Obama because he campaigned on “change”. When we got more of the same instead of substantive change, I think that is what led to he 2010 backlash.
What substantive change do you envision? A larger stimulus? What exactly did the Democrats fail to accomplish that would have the liberals fawning over the Democrats if they succeeded?
67 wouldn’t have given them control - Nelson and Lieberman would probably still have broken ranks over a lot of things (as they did any way), meaning filibusters would still have stopped anything substantive from happening. The Democrats don’t have the party discipline required to stand up to the Republicans in the modern Senate.
It doesn’t take 67 to break a filibuster - only 60. The Democrats in fact peaked at 60 2009. Obviously this was not enough, hence the OP’s wish for 63 (meaning Lieberman and the Nelsons, for example, can defect and still beat a filibuster).
67 is for a veto override, which isn’t that important with a Democratic president.
How would these make things better? It would’ve riled up the Tea Party types even more, and probably instigated a bigger swing toward conservatism since the economy would still be in the shitter.
I doubt it. The conservative backlash started as soon as Obama was inaugurated, and built up steam from there. HCR was only 6 months old at the time of the election. If a more liberal HCRB had passed, the more conservative Dems in Congress would have been even more vulnerable.
Democrats should have lost all credibility with self-respecting liberals in their complete abandonment of civil liberties. Obama is responsible for the assassination of 3 American citizens including a 16 year old boy. He is responsible for the increased use of drone warfare which kills innocent civilians with increased regularity.
Their inability to initiate a significant challenge to the Patriot Act is the result of either cowardice or lack of conviction.
I realize the conservative backlash started immediately. But I don’t think the tea party voters were the big decision makers in the 2010 election. If they were, where were they in 2006 and 2008 when the Dems had big years? I can’t imagine the tea party folks voted for Obama and all the other Democrats who won in the '08 landslide. The voters I’m thinking about are the ones who voted Democrat in 2008 but voted Republican in 2010. Why did they change their minds? I think it’s because of the lack of progress made on 2009 and 2010.
Huh? You asked what the Democrats could have done to make liberals happy. All of those things would have made liberals happy. The fact that it would have made conservatives madder is sort of the point, no?
Democratic politicians might not want to, but liberals certainly do. Those are certainly things that the Democratic party could have done to increase liberal satisfaction and enthusiasm.
Exactly. These choices upset liberals and led to lower approval ratings. Had he governed more liberally (which is easier to do with larger majorities) he might be more popular with liberals.
As someone who supports the Democratic party from a more centrist position, I’m only really upset about the health-care situation - which, in retrospect, is the one where a more liberal Senate would have helped the most.
That depends on whether or not the so-called Blue Dog conservative Democrats saw the victory as a mandate or tried to play it safe and cater to the few conservatives left in their districts.
With a fully liberal Congress and Obama at the helm, given what we already know he did, we would have Universal Health Care for sure. Of course, with more power on the left, the right may have fought back even harder. The fringe’s voice may have been louder, the conspiracies deeper, and the hate more severe.
Health care would have passed in much less time in a different form likely closer to The House bill with public option. I doubt that full opt-in universal health would have passed the House even if there were 100 Ted Kennedies in The Senate egging them on.
Immigration reform, tax reform for the top income bracket, more judge appointments, & slightly larger stimulus package would have all likely occurred.
The economy still would have sucked in 2009-2010 no matter what Obama or Congress did. The deleveraging process after Bush-era economy will continue for likely several years. Hence, the right-wing tea party backlash still would have occurred where the Republicans regained control of The House and picked up seats in The Senate. Democratic voter turnout could have been slightly better (had more legislation passed through The Senate) but likely not enough to change the outcome of many seats in a non-presidential election year where the right wing was fired up more than ever.
It would have made no difference. The Democrats’ failure was a failure of leadership, not of numbers. LBJ could have passed a kick-ass healthcare law with 50 votes.
I rather doubt it. LBJ didn’t have the Teahadists to deal with.
What would have happened? Universal health care, probably Medicare for all. Passed in weeks without the agonizing months of trying to negotiate with brick walls. The debt ceiling would have been raised to cover 8 years worth of spending. The Bush tax giveaway to billionaires would have ended in 2009. The deficit would have been much larger and more effective. Recovery would have been much quicker and the economy in much better shape today. There would be no agencies still without leaders and no filibustered appointments. The “Tea Party” would have never gotten off the ground as there would have been no prolonged health care debate. The elections of 2010 would have increased the Democratic majority and peace and harmony would have been the order of the day. Sunshine and lollipops would abound.