A Republican-Controlled Senate?

And the obligatory “the sky is falling on the Dem/Rep Party” pendulum has swung to the left. Expect more woe-is-us stories about the Dems for another six months, then it’ll swing the other way.

So all right, cool.

We’ve moved on from the election where the winners have not yet been sworn in, to worrying about the one two years down the road!

Gosh who do you think will be in the Iowa caucuses? Rick Man on Dog is working the room.

How did the Republicans who were elected do with their legislative initiatives to solve all the problems of the country? Anything beside tax cuts? How did those billions added to the deficit for the tax cuts go over? Guess it didn’t really matter.

So many things to discuss. Can’t wait.

And what are the chances of Lieberman surviving the next campaign, regardless of what he does?
.
The man has all of the popularity in his party (and outside) of a pair of soiled underwear.

I’ll look forward to that. Haven’t read any woe-is-us about the Rs. Everything Obama did was always good for John McCain.

Gosh what startling news! Every progressive figured this out some time back. But it takes the mighty pundocracy to take note.
You might remember that the Dems have had a healthy majority for sometime and thanks to the filabuster and spineless Dems, it has meant the Reps have been in control for awhile. Why would anything change with less Dems.
Of course, the cw now is Pelosi is too liberal to lead and Obama must go further right. It doesn’t matter what is actually done to our country as long as it fits the pundits and corporate meme.

Crowley’s analysis is incredibly superficial. I’m not saying that he is wrong…Democrats could react exactly as he suggests. But he fails to look at a number of factors that are relevant.

The most important question to ask is whether liberal Democrats will mount any grassroots organization — analogous to the Teabaggers — that will primary many Senate Democrats from the left.

Rank-and-file Democrats don’t have the cash of the Koch brothers or Swampland Alum Dick Armey. But they are pissed. And they have proven — as they did against Blanche Lincoln — that they are willing to go after the corrupt corporatists in the party.

I doubt Lieberman believes that he can ever be re-elected in CT as a Democrat. So, either he will retire or he will switch parties. Nelson probably would newer move left for re-election either.

But I would not be shocked if many Senate Democrats got scared by a revolt on their left flank and pandered for the next two years to shore it up.

Remember, Dodd was briefly a liberal darling for opposing he FISA amendments, before giving up and resuming his role as Wall Street slut.

Leaving aside the things that might make the climate more favorable for Democrats in 2012 (an improving economy, increased turnout – particularly young and minority – in a presidential year, ACA provisions taking hold), what happened to all the stories from last week about Tea Party challengers to Republican incumbents in the next cycle? I’m originally from Indiana and I always thought that Senator Lugar’s seat was as close as you could get to a lifetime sinecure outside of the Supreme Court. But his moderation – particularly on foreign policy – could well lead to a challenge from some Hoosier loony tune. (Like I said, I grew up there and believe me they aren’t hard to find.) There could be bloodletting on the right in the GOP that could either weaken Republican incumbents or spew forth (and I do mean spew) a whole new crop of O’Donnells and Angles.

I agree that too few journalists accept the narrative that the GOP may learn a disastrous lesson from 2010.
.
The tea-baggery may have cost the GOP the Senate in this election.
.
But, going forward, this is likely the high-water mark for the GOP. Demographically, things are against them. Their core constituency is getting old. And pandering to whites only will become increasingly difficult. Right now, the GOP absolutely MUST depress the Democratic turnout and terrify their base just to overcome their demographic disadvantages.

Going into 2012, unless the Democratic Party just hates Obama — in which case he might get primaried out — the GOP will get slaughtered in an election with higher turnout.

Before you decide to become a DINO, you might want to see how that played out with Blanche Lincoln. Trying to please everyone by going right and steopping all over her base, a lot of her base wouldn’t vote Republican but did vote Green and now we have Boozman, who has no feel for most of the state but he had the right party after his name.

After two years of Republican nonsense, I see no reason why Democrats should not be on the attack. With an electoral profile closer to what obtained in 2008, who is say that Democrats cannot defend their seats plus eject the scandal plagued John Ensign in Nevada, an eternally waffling Scott Brown in Massachusetts and the Tea Party candidate that unceremoniously dumps Richard Lugar in Indiana. Obviously, this is assuming the everything “goes right” for the Democrats in the coming years, but I think the “tea leaves” are favorable now that the GOP has to make good on its mindless rhetoric.

It’s amazing how they are still trying to blame Obama on the Left. To the redneck liberals the fact that they were almost totally wiped out is evidence that they ought to have even more power than they already have.

Democrats controlled the Senate?

I think if the Dems agree (in public, anyway), that yes, the Emperor (insert favorite Bagger here) DOES have new clothes – and that those aren’t his or her naughty bits swinging in the breeze – the Repubs will agree to stop scaring poor Obama & Harry Reid!

The Baggers just want their country back, for heaven’s sake: “The Whited States of America” and the “Republic of Massive Denial” for which it stands.

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.

What the f*ck is he talking about? The ones who bucked the party line — like Blanche Lincoln — were the ones who lost, while the ones who toed the line — like, say, Harry Reid — were re-elected.
.
I know the WSJ editorial page has a pretty low threshold for entry, but it’s like they’re giving out op-ed columns as prizes in Happy Meals lately.

“The ones who bucked the party line — like Blanche Lincoln — were the ones who lost”

Blanche didn’t buck Obama. If she had she would not have been crushed. You have at least 6 Senators from states where the democrat just got crushed like Ohio and Missouri. VA has gone very red. Webb can hardly support more spending or tax increases. Casey just watched the GOP run the table in PA. Unless these people are ready for retirement they have no choice but to move to the center.

The media are like trained seals when it comes to blaming the mythical power of the Left. They have lost any measure of credibility they ever had.

To be fair, Scherer was predicting two years ahead on the very night of the election:
,
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/11/03/democrats-keep-the-senate-for-now/
.
At least Crowley waited until there were a few other bobbleheads nodding along with the new conventional wisdom before commenting on it.
.
(I guess that’s a plus.)

It was Harold Wilson back in the sixties who pointed out that a week was a long time in politics. Two years is an eternity.

Blanche didn’t buck Obama.
.
What are you talking about?
.
Lincoln was the key vote against the public option in the health care reform debate, she was one of the prime factors in the reduction of the stimulus package’s size, she provided bipartisan cover for an extension of the estate tax, and on countless procedural motions — ranging from the use of reconciliation on HCR to a number of other issues — she was the one who threw a wrench in the works.
.
She lost the general election because she was first badly wounded in a tough primary fight against Halter, and when she won that, she was immediately abandoned by donors and GOTV campaigns in the state.

Obama had no shot as single payer or a larger stimulus with or without Lincoln. She is from a state that despises big govt and high taxes. It was exceedingly poor leadership by Obama and Reid that forced her into impossible votes. She was crushed because she was to the left of her state and you wanted her to go further left.

You are soon going to find that Obama doesn’t have the votes to raise taxes on any group nor extend different groups for different times. He’s either going to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently or for two years and they will not be called the Obama tax cuts.

The next huge problem for Obama will be a stimulus that includes bailouts the public sector unions in states such as CA, NY and MI. He’s going to find Casey in PA, Nelson in NB and Sherrod in OH are not going to be able to tell the voters in their states they have to bail out blue states. Think of the stakes here. This is a critical issue between the states and the unions are critical to the Democrat party. This is about economics and politics. The people of Virginia are not about to subsidize a bloated NYS and the idea of a bankrupt state means Va has a solid shot at attracting businesses from NY looking for a growing, low-tax environment. This is the sort of competitive advantage that makes for permanent higher growth that compounded into greater wealth. Michigan and NY are getting hallowed out.

“Jim Webb, meanwhile, isn’t even sure he wants to run again (although that could be better for Democrats, legislatively, than if Webb stays but tilts rightward in a survival bid).”
.
Yeah that rightward tilt is scary.
.
“Webb’s one of the last FDR Democrats. An economic populist. Liberals also admire the populist Webb. The same cannot be said for the Democratic establishment. Webb has pushed for a onetime windfall profits tax on Wall Street’s record bonuses. He talks about the “unusual circumstances of the bailout,” that the bonuses wouldn’t be there without the bailout.
.
“I couldn’t even get a vote,” Webb says. “And it wasn’t because of the Republicans. I mean they obviously weren’t going to vote for it. But I got so much froth from Democrats saying that any vote like that was going to screw up fundraising.
.
“People look up say, what’s the difference between these two parties? Neither of them is really going to take on Wall Street. If they don’t have the guts to take them on, and they’ve got all these other programs that exclude me, well to hell with them. I’m going to vote for the other people who can at least satisfy me on other issues, like abortion. Screw you guys. I understand that mindset.
.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/08/jim_webb_why_reagan_dems_still_matter_107875.html

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.
.
But, wait, wasn’t it the Blue Dog Democrats who got slaughtered at the polls? Shouldn’t that be an incentive not to be wishy-washy on party dogma?

You are soon going to find that Obama doesn’t have the votes to raise taxes on any group
.
He’s not going to need a vote to raise taxes on any group, because he’s not going to try to raise taxes on any group.
.
According to the sleight-of-hand that the Republicans did when they passed the Bush tax cuts — and passed them by the evil, never-used process of reconciliation — the tax cuts were set to expire at the end of this year. If taxes go up on any group at the end of this year, it will be because the Republicans set it up to happen that way.
.
Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for everyone — every single American — on all their income up to $250,000 a year. Republicans, however, want to hold out for the whole thing, even though extending all the cuts to include the very richest will add $700 billion to the deficit.
.
And please, don’t tell me extending the top tax cuts is necessary to create jobs, because every single piece of data points in the other direction. Put simply, job creation was humming along in the ’90s with a top marginal tax rate that Obama wants us to return to, while job creation flatlined during Bush’s two terms when we were lavishing tax cuts on the billionaires who don’t need them. If tax cuts for the rich were the key to a boom in job creation, unemployment would be at 1% right now.

I just read that at Greenwald’s. Webb’s read his Thomas Frank, that’s for sure.

You are soon going to find that Obama doesn’t have the votes to raise taxes on any group nor extend different groups for different times. He’s either going to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently or for two years and they will not be called the Obama tax cuts.
.
rdw56, there is another option. Let the tax cuts expire as the republicans had originally set them up to do. I certainly really don’t want to see my taxes go up, but I would rather that than have a $700 Billion deficit because some rich guys got an extension on a tax cut they didn’t need in the first place. Obama and the Dems should let the tax cuts expire and then start the new year with a proposal for new tax cuts; which the Republicans would probably filibuster. All this bluster about these Bush tax cuts being needed to help small businesses create jobs is just that–bluster. These small businesses the republicans keep saying need help include hedge fund managers and law firms with 2, 3, 4 partners. They wouldn’t be hiring anyway. And there aren’t that many ‘mom and pop’ businesses that gross $250 grand a year.

Dear e angel, you are seriously understating the deficit darling. The national debt is about 14 trillion, but who knows what the real number is. Could be 50-60 trillion or the entire value of all the assets in the country. Don’t sweat the small stuff. By the way in history no country ever pays off its debt and it always ends badly. I guess that’s the big stuff. Most wars are over debts and not paying them.
.
And taxes are based on net sales not gross. You could have gross sales of $250 grand and still have a loss. Don’t try economics if you don’t know the subject.

And keep an eye on Joe Lieberman, who has far less patience for diplomacy with Iran than Obama does.
.
Much as most of us reading this (on both ends of the spectrum) don’t like the man, can you give us some facts, Michael Crowley? How many times in the last two years has Joe Lieberman voted against party leadership (in percentage of votes, if not in raw numbers)? How many of the major policy initiatives enacted by the Democratic Party did Joe Lieberman vote against – not speak out against, but actually cast a vote with the GOP?
.
Also, how often has the Senate issued declarations of war on its own origination, that is, without the prior request of the President? What power does Joe Lieberman have to order any armed forces into hostile action?

Isn’t it enough already!? It’s about time that both republicans and democrats to combine their effort for the good of this nation and not for non-sense. It’s the citizens that suffer not them, who just sit by and conduct a popularity contest.

http://www.pathtoasia.com/jobs/

Kevin, it’s about jobs. The people making over 250K create jobs. Webb, Nelson and Leirbeman to name just 3 Dems have already said they want an extension of ALL tax cuts. You have ALREADY lost this vote.

Keeping the Economy Growing in 2011
November 9, 2010 5:00 P.M.
By Katrina Trinko

When Congress returns on Monday for the lame-duck session, politicians are expected to decide whether to extend all, some, or none of the Bush tax cuts. Wavering lawmakers may want to consider this prediction from Citigroup’s chief U.S. equity strategist Tobias Levkovich, as reported by Reuters:

Political issues will remain a key factor for Wall Street in 2011, particularly Bush-era tax cuts that expire at the end of 2010. “The market will want clarity on that,” Levkovich said, expecting Congress to ultimately approve a two-year extension for Americans earning less than $1 million a year.

Citi forecasts U.S. economic growth of 2.2 percent in 2011 but “if Bush tax cuts expire, at least 1 percent gets knocked off that forecast,” he said.

They got slaughtered because they moved to the left of their state. Jim Webb is not going to support tax increases because the people of Virginia are strongly against. On a national level there’s not majority support. Strip out CA and NY and there’s no support. Look at the vote in liberal Washington State on the Gates proposal to raise taxes on the rich. This is a very blue state and it lost 2 to 1.

it’s not going to happen that way. The GOP understands. They will nominate fiscal conservatives.

You are creating a logistical nightmare that will piss everyone off and make him look even more incompetent. You need to give advance notice of changes in tax rates. The last thing they want to do is jump taxes in January and then watch a bitter-partisan fight that could last several months. Markets would react very badly as would investor and business sentiment. People will be outraged they dwadled so long.

The scenario is easy to predict. The house will extend the tax cuts for two years. The Senate won’t have much choice. There are at least 6 Democrats who will support this. The choice to Reid will be to filibuster but if he does the blame goes to Democrat and he screws the 6. He will almost certainly allows the bill to pass and it’s Obama’s choice to veto it. I cannot imagine he’s going to pass the largest tax increases on all Americans to start 2011. He will get blamed. You can bet markets will tank. He can kiss re-election goodbye.

Citibank just released it’s estimate for 2011 GDP growth as 2.2% with a caveat. If the Bush tax cuts expire drop it a full percent. There’s no need to get into the weeds on this. they will not pass tax increases in a weak economy.

Ok, 23 Senate Dems up for re-election in 2012. Move to the right. That will SURELY save your seats. Anyway, what’s “the party line” to be towed these days, anyway? President Obama, that liberal socialist Kenyan, is to the right of just about all pre-1990 moderate Republicans.

Progressives will use the Tea Party model and primary a lot of these conservadems. Maybe these candidates will get slaughtered in the general, but they can’t do much worse than who the Democrats have got now.