Posted on 11/10/2010 7:08:12 AM PST by SeekAndFind
On paper, the numbers tell you the Democrats held on to a majority in the Senate last week.
In reality, things won't be quite that neat. In fact, on some issues the Republicans actually may have a functional majority, given the sentiments likely to prevail among certain Democrats who face the voters in two years.
Here's the situation. After last week's midterm election, the Senate next year will have 51 Democrats, two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and 47 Republicans. (The Republican from Alaska could be either Joe Miller, the tea-party candidate who was the official GOP nominee, or write-in incumbent Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski. It appears Ms. Murkowski got enough votes to stick around, but all her write-in votes haven't been counted yet.)
So, in theory, that means Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid, having survived his own election-day near-death experience, should be able to muster 53 votes if he keeps his troops in line.
But life is never that simple in the Senate and certainly won't be now. Among the Senate Democrats, 23 will face re-election in just two years, and, having just witnessed the drubbing some in their party took at the polls, they likely will be even less willing now to toe the party line. Independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who caucuses with Democrats, often leans rightward, anyway.
More important, among those 23 Democrats who face voters in 2012 are a handful of incumbents from the kind of moderate to conservative states where Democrats took a beating last week: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia and Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Joe Manchin, who just won a Senate race in West Virginia by separating himself from President Barack Obama and his party's congressional leaders,
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
They forgot to take into account all the Rinos who will be reaching across the aisle: Snowe, Collins, Brown, Kirk, McLame, Gramnesty, Myrrhkauskeigh et al.
What planet is this guy living on? Lieberman is a dyed in the wool Leftist who ocassionally votes the right way on national security issues.
Doesn’t help much on scotus.
For a while at least, both blue dogs and rinos will lean right. After the MSM has had a few months of mud-slinging that might change.
theory?
how about they get some actual Democrats to say that before publishing it?
based on what theory?
I see no evidence that “blue dogs” whatever that is, are going to lean right in the lame duck session. The left has not been chastened at all by the election.
Sounds a lot like wishful thinking to me.
Getting the rinocrats to stand behind their (R) is going to be a much harder trick than for hairy screed to keep his minions in line.
So, in other words, Lieberman is the last ‘old-school’ Democrat.
He’ll vote just like McCain tells him to.......OK, you’re right they both are lefties, sorry. /sarc
Don't expect major legislation this year or next.
Be careful what you wish for Harry Reid, you stole it, you live with it...
This session will be a mess herding cats, IMHO it will wear at him and age him even more....He is the king of nothing.
Nothing will get done, as even the Maine Step Sisters will be watching their back as Tea Partiers are already gearing up to end their political careers, and may tend to vote more center right IMHO...
The Republicans have had “controll” since Obama lost Teddy’s seat.
47
+ Manchin of WV - I suspect he will switch in conjunction with running for re-election
= 48
+ Ben Nelson of NE? Nelson has voted with Republicans on only a few issues. He has no chance of winning re-election. I don’t think there’s any bargaining possibility. This is a very iffy vote.
+ Jim Webb of VA? Webb has talked conservative, but hasn’t voted conservative. I don’t think he’d win either the Republican or the Democratic primary. Like Ben Nelson, this fellow will be free to vote his true preferences whatever they are. This is another very iffy vote.
In my opinion, neither of these Senators is personally committed to the socialist agenda and could be persuaded to vote with the Republicans on selected issues. But, because neither has any chance of re-election, they aren’t forced to so by political considerations.
+ Claire McCaskill of MO? No way. This person is sold-out for the agenda. She’s thinking she’ll be the next Hairy Reid not the next Rusty Feingold.
+ Joe Lieberman of CT? Pre-2000, I might have thought this is a possible vote on economic issues as well as on national security issues. But, they did something to him that year. So, we’re talking only national security issues. Besides. he’s from a deep blue state and has to maintain his bone fides as a moderate Democrat.
Who else??
Mark Pryor of Arkansas? Blue Dogs look like an endangered species. Just a very few nowadays. If you’re trolling for votes, don’t overlook this possibility. The key with Pryor is that he probably doesn’t have to worry about a challenge from the left within his party and and I don’t think he’s sold out to the socialist aganeda. Therefore, he might re-position himself as a moderate and work with the Republicans at least on selected votes.
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana? What I said about Pryor might apply to Mary Landrieu.
Kent Conrad of ND? I just don’t think he’s smart enough to figure any of this out.
Bottom Line: I think the Republicans could hold the line on the budget, prevent Stimulus Package 2, prevent any further bailout of problem states, and pass a continuing budget resolution that holds spending to the amount that was in the last budget that was actually passed, which was maybe in 2006.
But, this will not prevent continuing mega-deficits and will not relieve the Federal Reserve from having to print up massive amounts of new money to soak up the debt issues when nobody in their right mind will want to hold onto dollar-denominated debt.
Therefore, we will have double digit inflation AND double digit unemployment in 2012. Probably also rioting by the masses cut off from their government lifeline and strikes by public employees in the big states that go bust.
2010 will seem like the good old days for Democrats.
It would be sold as being needed because "the people have spoken" and what they asked for was not Harry Reid and another session of hard left policies.
It's a no-lose deal for the Republicans. If the Dems like Nelson, Manchin and Landrieu don't go along with it, they will create an election issue--they chose Harry Reid over the will of the people. If they do go along, we get a Senate that can accomplish a few things--perhaps extending the Bush tax cuts, cooperating with the House on the budget cuts, etc. It would drive Obama and the marxists over the edge.
The only downside would be that it might give Obama an opportunity to blame the Republicans for his economy. But if we send him repeal of health care and budgets that call for more responsible spending, and which call for divestment of GM and oversight of his czars, etc., and force him to veto them, it makes an even better campaign issue for Republicans. They'd have to have some cojones to go this route, though.
Democrats did this in California in 1994 when they lost the legislature. Willie Brown got a weak Pubbie to organize with the Dems if they would vote for him as leader. That way, they destroyed the brief GOP majority and kept them from doing anything.
Joe Manchin is quite important, because he takes office as soon as his state's secretary of state certifies his election. His votes could be used in a lame duck session to prevent radical legislation from being passed. I think I'll write an email to Senator Cornyn to hold Manchin's feet to the fire.
I like your thinking. Of course, “majority leader” and “minority leader” are party officials. Maybe life can be breathed into the post of President Pro-Tempore of the Senate, in a rules deal with moderate Democrats from red states so that he, rather than the majority leader has control over what comes to the floor, and is selected by the GOP plus a handful of centrist Democrats.
People forget that, just like there are Rino’s, there are also Dino’s. The southern states have a few of those.
I don't think you can get enough Dems to get this done, but that is ok. If Manchin or Nelson don't go along, they have just become responsible for everything Harry Reid does the next 2 year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.