At this point would having the House be better? Flip a Coin

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In the struggle over big important things the difference between the Republicans and the mainstream-left hasn't been this stark since the 1960s. The pug agenda would, if enacted literally, push the world into a deflationary stag-pression.

So it is horrid for such people to *win* anything.

But when I consider the alternative of Dems holding the house by two or three votes I am not sure I would give us the House if I were able to. It's a close call. The problem is that either way the pug-center coalition would control the results.

(The center-right controls the Senate also, but our organizational hold on the Senate is a very good thing. It is the difference between a few liberal judges versus zero liberal judges and some center judges versus center-right judges.)

The worst thing President Obama has done was to politically de-legitimize activist government and Keynesian economics, perhaps for a long time. If we still had the House that trend would have continued. We would have continued to own worthless center-right solutions that would be seen as "liberal solutions." They fail, as compromise-centrism must fail in a crisis, and then we have "learned" that liberal solutions don't work.

Perhaps more Dems in the House minority will feel free to propose what is right since they are no longer forced to pretend to think the cold gruel that has masqueraded as liberal activism is acceptable.

Also, losing the House does make Obama's re-election somewhat more likely. President Obama is not my cup of tea but the Presidency is very, very, very important.

If Dems could have gained seats a bunch of seats I'd jump all over that option, but if given the choice between blue-dog/pug rule with a D label and blue-dog/pug rule with an R label... it's a mixed argument in the big picture.

[thereismore]

1. Obama has made good SCOTUS appointments, IMO. Presidency is indeed important. nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Agreed. He frustrates me but the judiciary is always vital.

[Warpy]

2. In the short term it's a disaster because they'll insist on doing the wrong things

and be aided by all the conservative dead wood in the Senate, both parties of it.

In the long term, they'll convince people that continuing to do all the wrong things is a very, very bad idea and people will eventually start to vote accordingly.

Conservatives have always been our worst enemies. Now they've got a chance to be their own worst enemies and I think they'll likely take that chance.

Just hold onto your hats. It's going to be a very bumpy economy.

[DCKit]

8. Exactly. Their asses are hanging out for all the world to see.

Two years of (R)s making all the wrong choices with the backing of (D)-Corporates is (I sincerely hope) the best medicine.

[HopeHoops]

4. There are disadvantages, but if the GOP doesn't fix everything in 2 years - well....

[groundloop]

5. I disagree with this assesment. Our problem is not the House but rather the Senate....

The House has passed a lot of legislation that languished in the Senate. If it weren't for the Senate we'd have gotten public option in the healthcare bill, etc. etc. etc. The repugs have used the idiotic Senate fillibuster rules to block everything, and just one or two Senators (gee, I'm kind of thinkig of Lie-berman, followed by Baucus, Nelson, and Landreau) are able to pitch a hissy fit and screw us over just because they want to piss off liberals.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. True, but that has to be part of the calculation

Nancy Pelosi got a lot of stuff through the House that will never be passed in the Senate (or even considered in some cases).

If we know the Senate will block any liberal legislation the House produces then the value of having the House is reduced.

[Lasher]

6. Good analysis.

My best hope for the next two years lie in the Senate, potentially the best place in the world to make sure nothing gets done. But enthusiastic capitulation is in vogue for elected Democrats, so this might just turn out to be wishful thinking.

[sweetapogee]

9. I think

we make a mistake if we depend on the republicans automatically getting the blame if the economy doesn't improve before the 2012 elections. President Obama will have to run against his record and so will the senate dems. How do they blame one house in puke hands for half of the 4 years term for a lousy economy?

The President and Senate dems have to craft policy that sets the economy on fire and do it right quick. 2012 will be here before you know it and the momentum is not on our side.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. I do not think they will get the blame...

but I know that we would get the blame. So it may be a neutral versus loss choice. (With no win option.)

[sweetapogee]

11. right

I think dems took the house in 2006, not sure about the senate. But in 2008, the economy was already tanking and shrub correctly got the blame. Why would 2012 be any different for us? The president usually gets the blame for a bad economy which is not always fair because the house spends the money. It really depends on who and how the argument is made but I keep saying this, if Obama and the rest of the dem leadership are serious about re-taking and/or keeping majority in both houses and the executive, they must do everything possible to get the economy rolling. Anything less than a robust economy is going to cost us dearly in two years.

As I see it we haven't hit economic bedrock . We (the country overall) still don't appreciate the beating the economy has taken. I just hope that dems are not planning on simply blaming bush or the pukes, this is a loosing strategy in my opinion. Our message has to be positive and we have to start showing real results. If we don't I expect that we will get our * handed to us next time.