I predict that either way, more votes in the aggregate will be cast for Dem than for Pub Senate candidates. FWIW.
Seems likely. Although Texas having an election while neither CA nor NY does might even things up a bit. MA, NJ, and IL are probably big enough to tilt it. Have you actually run the likely numbers on this?
No, but from what I’ve read it wouldn’t be the first time.
And I think I can make the same prediction with even greater confidence WRT the House midterms, gerrymandered as the red states are lately.
It’s almost like you don’t know that the GOP was engaging in record levels of obstruction.
From what you wrote, it seems like you might think the Dems did what they did for purely nefarious reasons. Not in response to unprecedented tantrum throwing by the Republicans.
Liberals won’t make the same mistakes conservatives did. For one thing, most liberals are smarter than that. For another, they don’t live in an echo chamber. What looks like a circle jerk to conservatives is reality agreeing with liberals on most things. While I don’t like the prediction, I have absolute faith that its conducted with the utmost of statistical validity so I hope it will give Dems a kick in the butt to work harder.
Of course you don’t find that even a little be disingenuous :rolleyes:
The reason why the Dems had to get rid of a portion of the filibuster is because it was being abused by Republicans who used it more than any party in any Congress ever in the history of the US. They also used it for stupid and hypocritical reasons. You can be sure that the Democrats will not abuse that power, therefore there is no reason to get rid of it. In fact, if we want to return to civility and trust in government again, the Republicans should restore the filibuster. Of course, those lowlifes will not do that, they want to reduce the public’s faith in government.
Yog, you have said upfront, IIRC, that you believe rules like this should exist when there is a Democratic minority but not when there’s a GOP minority – yes?
I think the OP is making too much of this. A statement like “…and it certainly looks like it WILL happen” to me implies a probability of much greater than 60%. You can say that it might happen, you can say that it’s more likely than not, but it’s not up to the standard of a capitalized WILL.
Don’t know about him, but I believe it should exist when its use is in line with its historical purpose - whichever party is in power. However, the GOP seems to be taking a giant shit on that, so yeah, take it away from them. The Democrats have (so far) restrained themselves to a much greater extent and therefore should get to play with it a bit longer.
Of course, the GOP’s utter childishness will break this model. It’ll be “if we can’t play with it, we’ll break it so you can’t either!” I swear my five year old shows greater maturity than a party that wants people to let them run the country.
Do you spam refresh in the politics forums all day in the hopes that a new thread comes up where you can immediately respond with political jabs? Undoubtedly, you’re patting yourself on the back for being the Conservative Voice Of Reason in a liberal echo chamber. Do you really think a post like this adds to the substance of the discussion, or do you understand that your compulsive need to score partisan points above all else is poison to democratic governments?
Besides which, you know better. You’ve participated in threads over the filibuster in which many, many people have said that the procedural filibuster is bullshit, regardless of which side is using it, and they favor abolishing it. Furthermore, there was good reason to abolish it even beyond that - it’s objective fact, and not merely partisan sniping, that the current republican minority has used the procedural filibuster at a far, far greater rate than any previous congressional minority. It’s part of a deliberate, stated goal of gumming up the works of government by any means at their disposal. So even if someone believed that the filibuster should be removed during times when the minority party failed to use it responsibly - a case no one made because you jumped in here 4 minutes after the OP with a worthless political snipe - that’s not necessarily hypocritical.
Last year was the least productive Congress since the U.S declared independence of Great Britain. I don’t think the Founders intended Article One of the Constitution to be interpreted as an optional exercise of power. Do you? In my view, Republican behavior in Congress is borderline seditious and Democrat intervention was necessary to preserve the function of Congress; if you don’t like government, fine, good, and a hearty applause to you but don’t run for government for the sole purpose of fucking it up. And if you’re unable to see the difference between partisan bickering and outright obstruction, then well, keep voting the way you do.
Likely. The electorate will vote for any pretty face or handsome smile runs on the boilerplate platform of low taxes and limited government. Perhaps the Republican party is different at the local level but at the national level they are just a contemporary incarnation of the KKK. The party just exchanged their hoods and burning crosses for Ivy League diplomas and seats in Congress. It’s precisely why these previous slave-holding States will send anti-government representatives to D.C but will send tax-and-spend liberals to their State Capitol or the Governor’s Mansion. Hypocrites. All of them.
I’m one of them. I think it’s nonsense and should never have existed.
And yes, that might hurt “my side” at times. But it aids my ideology nonetheless.
I agree and so does Nate: Headline: FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast: GOP Is Slight Favorite in Race for Senate Control
Concluding paragraph: So our forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The balance has shifted slightly toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010. 60% is pretty close to 50-50: I don’t know whether it’s significantly different than that. It’s still pretty early.
That said, the Dems have a problem with midterm turnout.
Continuing the (cough) hijack:
Actually according to the constitution, the majority sets whatever damn rules they want in the beginning of the session. And in a parliamentary system (which we don’t have) that is wholly appropriate. (FTR, if the Republicans ever gain the Senate and Presidency, I predict that they will abolish the filibuster anyway).
That would be a dumb move for conservatism. Gotta look at the big picture. For conservatives, it’s more important to stop things than to do things.
Although looking at what’s happening with Obama’s appointments lately, it looks like ending the filibuster hasn’t done Democrats many favors. Used to be they could just let those appointments die and blame Republicans. Now they actually have to vote against them.
Based on the assumption that most Democrats recoil in horror at Obama’s nominations, and hope not to suffer the embarrassment of voting against them? As their conscience would compel them to do, the nominees being as odious as they are?
Outside of a vibrant and creative imagination, can you offer any support for this extravagant notion?
Two nominees have been rejected by up or down votes recently. With the filibuster, all the Democrats could vote for those nominees and let the Republicans kill the nominations.
The GOP will of COURSE get rid of all the filibuster rules if they take the Senate, this is how the GOP operates now, if they have power, they use it. The Democrats were damned fools not to end the filibuster rules after the GOP had demonstrated that they were willing to use them to block every judicial and administrative appointment Obama made. The days of the Senate as a collegial body are over. The only thing both parties agree on is getting absolutely as much money from Wall Street as possible without doing anything that would get them thrown out of office, now that bribery via PAC has been legalized and can be done in mass quantities.
What possible benefit could there have been for the Democrats to ending the legislative filibuster? They still have to bargain with the Republican House either way so what bills are the Senate Republicans are preventing them from passing? None. If they sweep to full control of the Congress in 2014 then things have changed and that’s the time to consider what legislation could be passed if there were no filibuster.
The GOP has even less reason to end the legislative filibuster. They have no chance to sweep to full control in Washington in 2014. No matter what they will still have to deal with President Obama to get legislation passed. And even if they do win the White House and the House and Senate in 2016 they don’t need to kill the legislative filibuster for their eternal primary policy goal: tax cuts, because they can use reconciliation to pass those out of the Senate with only 51 votes. And their caucus is traditionally more unified than the Democrats so they are better prepared to utilize the filibuster when in the Minority. The likes of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are gone but I still wouldn’t be surprised if some GOP “mavericks” would be able to recruit some Dem “mavericks” for a Group of Howevermanynecessary to come together to let some pressing GOP bills come to a vote in exchange for little or nothing. Individual senators have an interest in keeping the filibuster even in its limited form, after all. It empowers them.
Not really seeing how this thread is different from this thread, so I’ll repeat what I said there:
I’m not really seeing that as a prediction that the GOP will take the the Senate.
I’m sure Silver is too wise to say in March what WILL happen in November. Eight months is forever in politics.
You can safely ignore anything said by anybody that starts with “If the election were being held today …”