# How many democrats would need to be in the congress and senate for them to wield power? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 11, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384 "2010-09-11T05:46:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/1 "2010-09-11T05:46:31Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/2 "2010-09-11T05:52:45Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/3 "2010-09-11T07:04:34Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/4 "2010-09-11T07:09:14Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/5 "2010-09-11T14:02:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Uncle\_Jocko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/uncle_jocko/32/2932_2.png) [@Uncle\_Jocko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncle_Jocko)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/6 "2010-09-11T15:27:16Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/7 "2010-09-11T15:41:30Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/8 "2010-09-11T16:48:40Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/9 "2010-09-11T17:27:25Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/10 "2010-09-11T17:42:54Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![BayouHazard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@BayouHazard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BayouHazard)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/11 "2010-09-11T19:08:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/12 "2010-09-11T20:07:27Z")
> [@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. :rolleyes: He’s not even a DINO. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/13 "2010-09-11T20:19:24Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Well, other than endorsing _John McCain_ back in 2008. :rolleyes: 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. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/14 "2010-09-11T21:45:58Z")
> [@BayouHazard](#): > > Both parties are a bunch of weevils, I just see the Dems as the lesser of the two weevils. That’s perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/15 "2010-09-11T22:31:35Z")
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.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern_in_other_media#Internet) 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/16 "2010-09-11T23:48:18Z")
Indeed, the latest crop of Republican candidates makes the ones from the Newt Gingrich era look like Einsteins. [http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/09/science-scorned-journal-nature-anti-science/](http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/09/science-scorned-journal-nature-anti-science/) > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > US citizens face economic problems that are all too real, and the country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology as it faces increasing competition from China and other emerging science powers…. Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups. > > 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: > > > [@](#): > > > > The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge. > > > > ``` > > “The four corners of deceit: government, academia, science and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That’s how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.” It is tempting to laugh off this and other rhetoric broadcast by Rush Limbaugh, a conservative US radio host, but Limbaugh and similar voices are no laughing matter. > > > > There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts — including regulation of environmental and other issues and stem-cell research. Take the surprise ousting last week of Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent Republican senator for Alaska, by political unknown Joe Miller in the Republican primary for the 2 November midterm congressional elections. Miller, who is backed by the conservative ‘Tea Party movement’, called his opponent’s acknowledgement of the reality of global warming “exhibit ‘A’ for why she needs to go”. > > > > The right-wing populism that is flourishing in the current climate of economic insecurity echoes many traditional conservative themes, such as opposition to taxes, regulation and immigration. But the Tea Party and its cheerleaders, who include Limbaugh, Fox News television host Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who famously decried fruitfly research as a waste of public money), are also tapping an age-old US political impulse — a suspicion of elites and expertise. > > > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/17 "2010-09-12T01:18:04Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/18 "2010-09-12T02:30:36Z")
> [@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.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lantern_in_other_media#Internet) 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. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/19 "2010-09-12T02:32:28Z")
> [@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/2010/09/09/politics/main6849638.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/09/politics/main6849638.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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384/20 "2010-09-12T03:01:02Z")
What, we needed compromise on the issue of helping 9/11 rescue workers? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-democrats-would-need-to-be-in-the-congress-and-senate-for-them-to-wield-power/553384.md?page=2)