Nate Silver did startlingly well in predicting the 2012 elections, now he predicts that the GOP stands a 60 percent chance of taking control of the Senate, gaining exactly six seats, the minimum number needed to do so. Here’s a Huffington Post story about it.
Two questions occur: what, if anything, can the Democrats do to turn things around and retain control of the Senate?
And should the worst happen, and it certainly looks like it WILL happen, how does this change the Democratic game plan with regard to retaining the gains made in the last six years and turning things around in 2016?
I personally think Obama will have to do a LOT of vetoing. I doubt the Republicans will be able to get the 2/3 majority needed to override a veto in the Senate, and that’s all that will save Obamacare and a lot of other legislation, too.
I don’t really have a strong preference as to the existence of the rule, in whole or on part.
I have a very strong preference that the same rules, or lack of same, should exist no matter which party is in the majority.
Other luminaries, such as the New York Times editorial page, have expressed firm support for the rule when Republicans controlled the Senate and urged its removal when Democrats did.
It’s true that the so-called nuclear option exercised last year was pretty safe for Democrats, since it involved only executive branch nominees and non-Supreme Court judicial nominees. Obama will still be President, after all.
Should the Republicans take the next step and erase the rest of the rule?
I think I’d like to see them go back to the older system where if you were gonna filibuster you’d have to deliver an actual filibuster. Given enough hot air, we might finally see someone break Strom Thurmond’s record.
I don’t think it matters whether or not we or any member of the Democratic Party in the Senate agree with them getting rid of the rest of the rule – they’re going to do it. Genie, bottle, out. And it’s probably about time. So I’m in agreement with you here, Brainglutton.
It’s most odd for someone who has spent so much time and effort, in the voter-suppression threads, proclaiming the absolute importance of the absolute rule of the majority of the day, however slim, to refuse to denounce the Senate filibuster rule. Most odd indeed. As if some other consideration were in play.
Why would the Dems care? They aren’t likely to want to filibuster Obama’s appointments. Lets see what happens in 2016. If either side sweeps to full control of Congress and the White House then the filibuster will matter. Otherwise one party still has to compromise with the other.
Domestically, for my political interests - sure. I am not a fan of Obama’s agenda, so if he accomplishes nothing for the rest of the term, I will be happy. Internationally, he is projecting weakness all over the place already and, I presume, will continue to do so.
LOL. I’ll take this supposed “weakness” if it means less war, way WAY less Americans dying, and way WAY higher popularity and approval for the US as a country, abroad.
I think he might be right. I think he also made the same prediction in 2012, though, and he’s not making a huge statement by saying slightly favored. So, the GOP might win, chances are good, and the quality of the candidates will probably matter a lot.
Silver seems about right, although I’d actually put it at more like 75% chance of a GOP takeover. I think he’s too conservative in assuming a more even divide in results while I think it’s more likely that the GOP will take either a ton of seats or very few than that they will end up with exactly 50.
It will be very interesting to see what a GOP-controlled Senate featuring 2-4 Republican Presidential candidates attempts to pass. Obamacare repeal obviously, but whither immigration reform Senator Rubio? How about a nice tasty Medicare-cutting budget sponsored by Rand Paul and Ted Cruz?