TrophyHusband 0 #1 October 17, 2008 currently the senate is made up of 49 reps, 49 dems, and 2 independants who usually side with the dems. the reps have 23 seat and the dems have 12 seats for a total of 35 senate races in this election. i predict that the reps will win 17 and the dems will win 18. that will give the senate a make-up of 43 reps, 55 dems, and 2 independants. my predictions don't have to be very far off to reach a 2/3 super-majority. if mccain wins, of course i wouldn't want to see this, but if obama wins, it may not be a bad thing. i think that with obama, pelosi, and reed running the country and a 2/3 democrat majority in the senate, the dems could run completely unchecked and this country would turn left so fast that we'd get whiplash. two years the reps could get congress back. the left turn may still happen without the 2/3 majority, but at least the reps could make a little noise in the process. i haven't taken into account the house because i just don't have the time to analize 435 races and so many of them are a toss-up that i couldn't make an accrurate prediction. with 40 dems either running unopposed or against third party candidates versus only 13 reps running unopposed or against a third party, its safe to say that dems will keep control. if any of my numbers are wrong, let me know (as if i had to ask) "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #2 October 17, 2008 I think the Dems will win more than 18 of the 35 Senate races, but I don't think they'll break 60 seats (and I consider that a good thing). Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #3 October 17, 2008 Heck no. I'd rather see a slight GOP majority in the Senate. The last thing we need is a congress/president who can pass any laws they want with no one slowing them down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #4 October 17, 2008 ideally i would always like to see a slight majority for the party opposite the party in the white house. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #5 October 17, 2008 Quoteideally i would always like to see a slight majority for the party opposite the party in the white house. So what's your opinion of parliamentary systems in which the PM is always the leader of the majority party of the legislature? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #6 October 17, 2008 i don't really know enough about that system to form an opinion, but in general, i don't think its good for any one party to go unchecked. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #7 October 17, 2008 Quoteideally i would always like to see a slight majority for the party opposite the party in the white house. That. It's not so important to me that I'd vote for a candidate I didn't favor, but I generally think its a good balance to have. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #8 October 17, 2008 QuoteHeck no. I'd rather see a slight GOP majority in the Senate. The last thing we need is a congress/president who can pass any laws they want with no one slowing them down. I want to agree with you but there's the vindictive side of me that wants to see the D's get to 60 and for Obama to give a speech thanking the previous administration and enabling Congressmen for the supreme executive powers of opaqueness and unaccountability that they've bestowed upon his office. Then I wake up and get a bit worried. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #9 October 17, 2008 I take the opposite track. If McCain wins I want a senate supermajority for the Dems. If Obama then I want a supermajority for the GOP. I think government works best when there is a popular president and a strong Congress from the opposite party. Look at the 1990's. Clinton sucked ass when Congress was in his favor. When the GOP swept in Clinton was checked and he checked Congress. I am less interested in government doing more. I am far more interested in government doing less. With powerful checks and balances, we will have a government that does less. But it'll do better. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #10 October 17, 2008 >I think government works best when there is a popular president and a strong >Congress from the opposite party. I agree. However, a supermajority basically results in one side having no say whatsoever in legislation, and that's not great in my mind. The more checks and balances the better. >When the GOP swept in Clinton was checked and he checked Congress. Right. But the GOP never got a supermajority under Clinton, which is one reason (IMO) the check-and-balance system worked better durign the 104th to 106th Congresses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alw 0 #11 October 17, 2008 No --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 October 17, 2008 I see your point. And my mind may be a changing on that basis My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #13 October 17, 2008 A GOP strategist (whatever that means) was on the radio yesterday saying that at this point the GOP should devote all its resources to the Senate races instead of blowing them on the presidential race.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #14 October 17, 2008 Quote if mccain wins, of course i wouldn't want to see this, but if obama wins, it may not be a bad thing. i think that with obama, pelosi, and reed running the country and a 2/3 democrat majority in the senate, the dems could run completely unchecked and this country would turn left so fast that we'd get whiplash. two years the reps could get congress back. the left turn may still happen without the 2/3 majority, but at least the reps could make a little noise in the process. What's the breakdown of GOP versus Dem seats (contestable seats) in the midterm election? The Democrats hit their recent high water mark of 57 in 1992, which would be 3 6 year terms later in 2010, but those aren't Senators that are highly vunerable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #15 October 17, 2008 Quotei don't really know enough about that system to form an opinion, but in general, i don't think its good for any one party to go unchecked. The Bush Administration is all the proof anyone needs with the rubber stamp rePUBICan congress. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #16 October 17, 2008 In a parliamentary system with a majority the press tends to become the real opposition. The advantage of the system is that when things get fucked up there is a clear responsibility trail. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #17 October 17, 2008 QuoteQuote if mccain wins, of course i wouldn't want to see this, but if obama wins, it may not be a bad thing. i think that with obama, pelosi, and reed running the country and a 2/3 democrat majority in the senate, the dems could run completely unchecked and this country would turn left so fast that we'd get whiplash. two years the reps could get congress back. the left turn may still happen without the 2/3 majority, but at least the reps could make a little noise in the process. What's the breakdown of GOP versus Dem seats (contestable seats) in the midterm election? The Democrats hit their recent high water mark of 57 in 1992, which would be 3 6 year terms later in 2010, but those aren't Senators that are highly vunerable. There are 34 seats up for grabs in 2010. Of them, 19 are currently held by Republicans (McCain's seat is one of them) and 15 are held by Democrats. I'm not sure how important it is, but Arizona, Delaware, and Illinois all currently have Democratic governors. So regardless of who wins this Presidential election, any replacement will likely have a (D) after his name. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 October 18, 2008 Great point, but when Bush won in 00, Senator Jeffords then went from R to I to lessen the monolpoly, but look what happened - still a nighmare. The R's have hammered shit for 8 years straight and all that happened was for them to lose the House and tie teh Senate at the very end of that run, so what makes you think that if teh D's hypothetically hammer shit back that they would be removed in 2 years from Congress? I think people will give the D's a good 4 years, maybe more if things start comming around before they pull the plug. The R's need to reinvent themselves as the Dem's have, rather than to wait for the D's mto self-destruct, with the D's did/are benefitting from that too. I hope it's a huge sweep for the D's, I generally want balance, but now I want to get back to center so we need to go radical left to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
