I’m reading more and more that it looks as if the Dems will retain control of the House, while the Repubs will gain just enough seats in the Senate to take control of it.
If that happens, what will things be like between now and the 2012 elections? Will anything get done? If so, what? And what effect will that have on the 2012 elections?
ETA: I considered putting this in the Election forum, but it’s really more about governance post-election than the election itself.
I think you have it backwards (Democrats will control the Senate and the Republicans will take the house).
Regardless, my guess is we will see serious gridlock, especially since so many of the incoming freshman Republicans are members of the Tea Party and will stand firm on their ideological principles and will never compromise with those socialists who ruined this Country over the last two years.
No significant legislation, which is good from the standpoint of no more big spending (for those of us who are fiscal conservatives).
Mixed control will be bad for Dems in 2012 if the economy does not substantially improve, b/c the status quo will be blamed on Dems. Were Republicans to control both House and Senate, they would be seen as bearing more responsibility for the 2012 status quo, unless President Obama did a lot of vetoing (in which case either he or Republicans would take the heat depending on what was happening with the economy).
In the end, it’s all about the economy when the the economy is bad. So whoever is in power when it craps out gets blamed. And if there is gridlock, the blame will go to the last group in power who had a chance to do something.
For those of us who are fiscal conservatives, this trifecta of (liberal) House, Senate and Presidency has been a terrible nightmare, so not only is gridlock a good thing, it keeps any blame away from fiscal conservatives, giving them more chance to be elected in 2012. If the Democrats hold the Senate and the 2010 economy is still limping along, the rallying cry of fiscal conservatives (generally Republicans) will be: “Give us the Presidency and the Senate also, so we can have a shot at the whole shebang.” And it will be the fiscal liberals’ turn to be terrified.
Well, some Republicans/Tea Partiers have already gone on record saying what they plan to do if they gain control of either: continue to obstruct anything this administration puts forward, organize investigations of this administration/Obama ala Clinton, and, if possible, shut down the government altogether.
Interestingly, they have NOT, to date, proposed any new, innovative plan to fix shit. :dubious: (the shit THEY BROKE with the same policies they want to implement again, yet!)
Why would they? Their goal is to take back the White House in 2012. If the economy actually improved over the next 2 years, regardless of who was President or who controlled Congress, that would give Obama a boost. So they hope to get in and do everything in their power to ensure it gets WORSE or at least stays the same so they have something to run on.
Of course, that argument fails completely since the Republicans are not even remotely fiscally conservative. Raising spending while cutting taxes like the Republicans do is not remotely fiscally conservative. Nor is Congress or the White House held by liberals. The Democrats are much closer to being fiscally conservative - you know, the whole tax and spend thing the Republicans bash them for.
There is also the real issue that the budget is currently running a deficit. Gridlock only prolongs that deficit for the next few years, as neither side is about to give up their one key selling point.
We would have good reason to be terrified, since that’s what got us into this mess in the first place. On the other hand, it’s good to see you admitting that your motivation is in avoiding blame for the mess, rather than in actually fixing it.
The Republicans are certainly making a lot of promises, like overturning health care reform and going into austerity mode. But how much of it will they actually be able to keep, and how much is being said just to get votes (as opposed to actually intending to, or thinking they can, do it)?
Actually, they’re not even promising austerity mode. They’ve already cordoned off 75% of the budget from cuts (defense, social security, medicare/medicaid) and the programs they plan to cut are the ones that the CBO thinks will save us money in the long-term (i.e. health care reform). Oh, and they want to do that while cutting taxes. But, no doubt in 2012 fiscal conservatives will again buy the GOP line that this time things are different.
“Fiscal conservatives” seem to be just like Charlie Brown… the GOP keeps holding the football, saying “This time we’re serious about fiscal restraint!” Then pulling it away after they get elected (not doing anything to balance the budget). Yet voters seem to keep falling for the same trick over and over again.
One thing I’m curious about is how the problems presented by our infrastructure would be dealt with.
To my eyes, at least here in southern Nevada, quite a bit of road work is being done under the ARRA. And IIRC, even after the disaster in Minnesota, little was done about funding infrastructure maintenance. Which makes it seem like, as long as the Dems are in control, it’s at least a possibility, but once Repubs are able to stonewall, they will.
And it won’t take many bridge/tunnel/crumbling road/flooding/etc. disasters to seriously begin to affect the national psyche, but I’m unsure as to exactly what the fallout would be.
If the Repuglicans control either chamber, they will likely get whatever they want if only because the Democrats have proven that they’re nothing but a bunch of pussies.
Yep, and sounds good to me. Doing nothing is very much preferable over doing something ridiculous, short-sighted, and stupid (i.e., what the current crop of idiots in Washington have been doing under Obama).
My big fear is they will use government shutdown to repeal laws passed in the 111th congress. Health reform, financial reform, credit card reform, etc.
Health reform isn’t perfect, but it is meant to improve how health care in the US works and make it more affordable in the long run by reducing the rate of medical inflation over time. And in 2014 pre-existing conditions were set to be eliminated (which is pathetic, but still better than nothing). Repealing the law would probably repeal that aspect of it too.
I seriously hope Obama has learned a lesson about bipartisanship with these people. I don’t know if he seriously thought they were interested in bipartisan solutions to the nation’s problems when he first became president. I think he was, which shows how naive he is. I hope he knows what he is getting into now and what the goal of the GOP and tea party is. Hint: it isn’t solving the countries problems using pragmatic solutions. They have none of those.
I hope Bill Clinton will be an advisor to Obama, to help him through this part. Gingrich thought Clinton would fold and not let a gov. shutdown happen. But Clinton did rather than let deep cuts to medicare & education pass.