Tomorrow's GOP "victory" is a phyrric one.

[Writer]

If they, as polls suggest, capture only the House of Representatives, their ability to promote an agenda will be limited. Democrats will still have the presidency and the upper house.

Sorry, folks. And 2012 won't go the GOP's way, either. Obama is too conscientious at governing to merely let a bunch of bozos who are in control of only ONE chamber of Congress to control the agenda.

Furthermore, and to underscore how rare this year is: This will be the first time since 1930 that the out-party will only be able to capture only one of two chambers.

That's sad.

We really should keep this in perspective. I 'ain't' spooked one bit.

[paulk]

1. they will be able to completely block Obama's agenda

nothing will get done for another 2 years

the actions needed to fix the economy will not happen.

this election is a disaster for the Dems and Obama

[theoldman]

5. I disagree.

The Republican party is divided and will not work together. They don't have Tom DeLay to beat them with a rubber hose. Don't forget that it takes a two thirds vote to overcome the president's veto.

[paulk]

8. I didn't say anything about them being able to pass their own

agenda.


Of course they can't override a veto - but that's not what I'm talking about.

Their ability to stop any initiatives by the Obama administration will be strengthened - that's the disaster - not just for the Dems, but for the country. The things that need to be done to pull the country out of it's economic depression won't happen - things will get worse.

And it's quite likely that Obama will get the blame heading into 2012, much like he's gotten the blame in 2010 for the economy. This could mean even more Republican gains, and their economic plans are more of the same nonsense that got us into this mess.

[Ken Burch]

12. Well, that's what we'll need to use AGAINST them.

Obama can bring back Harry Truman's old line about the "do-nothing Republican Congress"(or Republican House, in this case).

He can use their refusal to pass legislation and the pointless investigations they want to waste taxpayers' money on against them.

And he can tell the public "if you'll return Democrats to control of the House in 2012, here's the REAL stuff we'll get through then"(this will require the DCCC to have the stones NOT to recruit Blue Dogs to open seats, of course).

[paulk]

26. re: blue dogs

there's a real danger that the lesson the Dems will learn from this is to move even farther to the right.

Especially since Citizens United won't be overturned through legislation (the Republicans will make sure of that) getting corporate cash will become even more of a priority. The DLC/New Dems will become even stronger.

imho.

I think we are totally fucked.

[FrenchieCat]

13. That will teach us!

[Ken Burch]

28. Give it a rest, Frenchie. In the end, no progressives actually went through with their threats

to withhold their votes.

It's your precious "independents" who took their ball and went home.

[monmouth]

2. I like your style...n/t

[Ian David]

3. We already have a huge backlog of bills that have passed in the house, but not yet in the Senate. nt

[Radical Activist]

4. No serious action on climate change for two years.

The consequences are deadly and catastrophically so.

[joshcryer]

11. No serious efforts to produce jobs, either. No energy policy. We're fucked.

[unblock]

6. what WILL change if republicans get control is the media stories

instead of obama trying an republicans preventing, we'll get republicans holding hearings and crying "scandal" and democrats looking defensive.

either way, nothing productive will come of it, but republicans will be in a far better positioned for 2012 if they have the power to set the legislative agenda in the house, even if none of it has a chance of becoming law. hell, so much the better for them, it frees them to propose things they don't even WANT to become law.

[Tesha]

7. Democrats *DON'T HAVE* the upper house now.

The Republicans, through their lackeys the "Blue Dog Democrats",
already control the Senate. That's why none of the aggressive
agenda passed by the House actually made it through to the
voters.

Tesha

[geek tragedy]

9. Um, Democrats didn't capture either body in 2002. nt

[joshcryer]

10. They *have no agenda to promote*. All they want to do is *block the agenda of the Administration*.

That is their one, singular, goal. Period.

[LatteLibertine]

14. In any case, vote!

I just did.

Fuck the narrative.

[VMI Dem]

15. Bozos in the minority controlled the agenda.

First order of business - extend Bush tax cuts.

[KossackRealityCheck]

16. It's the budgets. And probably government shutdown.

The House controls the budget process. They will enact budget bills giving massive tax breaks to the rich, which the Senate won't (or maybe will) reconcile with. I can't see budgets getting passed, given how ideological the Repugs are.

Either the Senate will shoot them down or Obama will veto them. But they are crazy suicide bombers and simply won't enact a budget without tax cuts for the rich. Either Obama will head into 2012 with the corporate media screaming that he raised taxes (by not cutting them for the rich), or the Dems will have to cave simply because they are not as crazy and suicidal as the Repugs.

[GSLevel9]

17. your analysis is off.

and by the way it's Pyrrhic.

For the TeaBaggers and Pubs this isn't about MAKING LEGISLATION.

It's about attacking Obama and blocking his agenda.

That's all. If nothing good comes out of this Congress for 2 years the Pubs will call it a victory.

This is the first time in memory that supporters don't give a shit about bipartisanship, progress or the "common good".




They will do crap like sending budget slashing bills to the Senate to die...

And then get up in front of the cameras and scream "SOCIALIST"!!!!

They will use THIS as a political wedge for 2012. Let's face it... the economy's not coming around any time soon... the Pubs are HAPPY to play the blocker, they'll BLAME it all on the DEMS because they didn't have enough legislative POWER to stop Obama.

2012 preview right there...

[GSLevel9]

18. in fact...

I'll go one step further...

I don't think they WANT to win the Senate.

If the Pubs have too much power in DC they will look responsible for the bad economy. They still want to hang this albatross from the DEMS necks so they can use it to take the Senate in 2012.

[ProSense]

19. "I don't think they WANT to win the Senate." Wait,

you don't think they want to win, but elsewhere you're speculating about who they will try to flip to get 51?

I think the OP is closer to a realistic assessment.

[GSLevel9]

20. well....

let's just say that if they fail to capture the Senate they'll make the most out of it.

This is going to be complete fucking gridlock for 2 years. Mud slinging, investigations, more TeaBaggery... and all while the economy is in a funk.

[ProSense]

21. Well,

"This is going to be complete fucking gridlock for 2 years. Mud slinging, investigations, more TeaBaggery... and all while the economy is in a funk."

...I think people are going to be surprised and the teabaggers disappointed.

[GSLevel9]

22. and I'll be the first to thank you for the advice

if everything ends up peachy tonight.

[ProSense]

25. Peachy?

The scenarios aren't peachy or disastrous. The landscape will be complicated, but the notion that Republicans are going to swoop in and investigate everything and obstruct the President's agenda on their way to victory in 2012 is unrealistic. People can't claim that Democrats are taking the brunt of the blame because they're in charge and things haven't improved, but then claim that Republicans will take charge, do nothing and escape blame. It didn't work in 1994, and it's unlikely to work now.

[paulk]

27. We had a good economy by 1996

I don't think you can draw a straight line comparison between '96 and 2012 - the economy is always the biggest factor in any election.

It's not unlikely that the economy in 2012 will be even worse than it is now - and the public, after 4 years of Obama as President, will blame him. IMO it is the Republican strategy to make it worse, if they can, and I don't see this as a "path to victory" as unrealistic.

[karynnj]

23. What about 2002 - the Democrats (the out party) captured neither House

There are likely other exceptions, but I have no interest in looking having already found one.

[LatteLibertine]

24. I hope

I don't have to listen to the words "Speaker Boehner" anytime soon.

Well, I've done my part to prevent it.