It’s looking more and more likely that Obama will win reelection and that the Democrats will retain control of the Senate by a narrow margin, but almost no one has given the Democrats any chance at all of retaking control of the House. Sam Wang of the Princeton Election Consortium thinks there’s a good chance of that happening now.
Conditions through August showed a 2% lead on the generic Congressional ballot for Democrats. As of September 20th, in the wake of the Democratic convention, the lead has widened to 4.0 +/- 2.0%. Although it has yet to be appreciated by pundits, this could well translate to a November loss of the House of Representatives by Republicans. Based on the generic Congressional ballot, the probability of a Democratic takeover is 74% with a median 16-seat majority. Whichever party is in control, the seat margin is headed for being narrower than the current Congress. Like any probability in the 20-80% range, this is a knife-edge situation, and the picture may well change over the coming six weeks as more information, especially district-level polls, becomes available.
That last sentence is an important one, of course. There just isn’t much polling yet on the actual House races, and those races tend to be surveyed by smaller, state-level polling companies that just aren’t as good at it as the big national polling firms. But if current trends continue, and especially if big money starts to flow from Romney to Obama as it looks more and more certain that he’s going to win, the effect on the downticket races becomes greater.
Any such predictions now are dicey, especially without good district-level polling to rely on. But if the Democrats took control of the House, the situation in Washington changes a lot. How much? Well, the Senate’s arcane rules will still be a major impediment to Obama getting his agenda pushed through, and it will be even harder if they only control the Senate by a single vote (which seems likely). With the 60% rule to end debate, they’ll have to convince even more Republicans to break ranks than they’ve needed to do for the last 2 years. And I would expect the Republican leadership in the Senate to become even more intransigent than they’ve been in the past — and that’s saying a lot.
28 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 24, 2012 at 11:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I read somewhere that the Democrats have been letting the Republicans get away with far more than they need to in respect of filibustering in the Senate, and far more than used to be allowed. I don’t recall the source or the details. Can anyone shed light on this?
If it isn’t so, this would seem to be yet another way in which the US constitution is broke: if a party that wins both the executive and majorities in both houses of the legislature still can’t get anything done, you no longer have a functioning democracy.
gshelley
September 24, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If they fail to prevent Obama being a one term president, won’t that take away a lot of their motivation for trying to block anything that might make him look good?
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
September 24, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@gshelley, #2:
What on Earth makes you think they need a motivation beyond his existence?
Stevarious
September 24, 2012 at 12:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Honestly I think this is where the voter-supression laws are going to hit hardest. I don’t think it’s likely that they will cause Obama to lose reelection at this point. But they could have a much bigger effect on the smaller races.
John Phillips, FCD
September 24, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Nick Gotts, don’t quote me, but I remember a discussion on TRMS where the party in charge can change the rules on a majority vote within a certain period of a new session. Thus they could modify or even eliminate the filibuster if they really wanted to.
Jordan Genso
September 24, 2012 at 12:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think what is being missed so far in this analysis is the impact that the latest redistricting will have on the House.
Since many of the states (including Michigan) were taken over by the Tea Party Republicans in 2010, the conservatives were in total control of redrawing the congressional districts, and that gives the Republican candidates a strong advantage. The Democrats may be able to overcome the disadvantage in some districts, but how many, and will it be enough?
whheydt
September 24, 2012 at 12:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As regards Senate rules… What I would like to see is a change to a former way that filibusters were handled. Right now, all some group has to is announce a filibuster and no further action takes place, unless cloture passes.
It *used* to be that, if a filibuster was started, the Senators doing it had to keep talking continuously. When they couldn’t talk any more, the debate would move on…usually to a vote.
Reverting to requiring that filibustering Senators actually filibuster would probably go a long way towards ending the effectiveness of the current tactics.
gshelley
September 24, 2012 at 12:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@3
Well, there has to be something driving them. I can see them thinking “if we compromise and help, the economy might improve and he’ll get a second term” Thinking “If we work with him this time, then in 50 years time, people won’t view him as a failure” seems less likely to me, but perhaps I am just ascribing logical motivation where there is none.
holytape
September 24, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I agree with #6. Gerry-manding in most states will keep the status quo for some time.
cry4turtles
September 24, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
gshelly, that’s exactly what Obama said on 60 minutes last night.
Randomfactor
September 24, 2012 at 1:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On Day One after the election, the Republicans’ focus will be on preventing Obama from winning another term.
THIS time they’ll do it, by cracky.
tomh
September 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ #5
That is true. However, neither party will eliminate the filibuster when they are in the majority because they could easily be the minority in the near future.
@#1 It has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Synfandel
September 24, 2012 at 1:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s what filibuster means to me as a Canadian. How is it done in Congress?
laurentweppe
September 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sometimes I wonder why the democrats never answer to the threat of filibusters with something like “Alright, we’ll bring blankets and thai food and sudokus, crosswords and handhelg games and just wait until you’re too exhausted to keep on talking then pass the law anyway“
lofgren
September 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The same way they do everything: sneakily, through the back door, and without the consent of the other party.
Synfandel
September 24, 2012 at 1:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s what they do in Canada. Members of Parliament have to take washroom breaks and cat naps on a rotating basis. If a vote is called, anyone who is out of the room has to rush back. So, again, what do they do in Congress? And is it really a filibuster?
Jordan Genso
September 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Synfandel
They simply say “We are filibustering until further notice” and leave it at that. No additional action needed.
I asked a Democratic Senator about the possibility of getting rid of the filibuster after the election, and he made it clear there was no chance of it. They may try to put restraints on its use, but they definitely won’t get rid of it.
lofgren
September 24, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are a few ways of filibustering in Congress. I think the most common is to assign the crafting of the legislation to a committee, then require that the head of the committee assent before it can be brought to a vote. Then you put somebody who doesn’t want the bill to ever come to a vote in charge of the committee. Another method is to refer something for further research, then not fund the research. The bill is then never qualified to come up for a vote because nothing has changed since the research was requested.
Even if you are desperate enough to go the talking method, you now only have to talk through half of the business day of Congress. After that, they move on to other business. This is intended to allow Congress to keep working even as a filibuster continues. In effect, it makes filibustering a lot easier.
dingojack
September 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Did you know that ‘filibuster’* is derived from Spanish filibustero and the Middle French flibustier, variant of fribustier and is connected with ‘freebooter’ from the Dutch vrijbuiter – a pritate or buccaneer?
This has been Fun Fact #3,274,781. Collect all of them.
Dingo
—–
* Yes, with only one letter ‘l’
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven
September 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*slowclap*
lpetrich
September 24, 2012 at 2:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The US-Senate filibuster has become like the fake war in ST:TOS “A Taste of Armageddon”, where Eminiar VII and Vendikar run a computer-simulated war, and where their citizens turn themselves in to get disintegrated if they are “targeted”. They do so because they are afraid of a real war.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG)
September 24, 2012 at 3:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for all the info on the filibuster; #7 corresponds closely to what I’d heard. So, it’s another case of the Democrats being spineless.
tacitus
September 24, 2012 at 8:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Harry Reid admits it was a mistake not to reform the filibuster in 2010 (they did a deal with the Republicans instead that was a complete waste of time). And he’s promised to do it next January, if he’s the majority leader:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/17/harry-reid-promises-filibuster-reform-if-dems-win-the-election/
Now, I have little confidence that they will actually do meaningful reforms even though they only needs a simple majority vote to do, but at this is further than he’s ever gone before on the subject, so maybe, just maybe things things have gotten so bad that he’s willing to do it this time.
One can always hope.
BTW: the argument that you don’t want to get rid of it because you may be in the minority at some point is bogus. If you have confidence in your agenda, you want to be able to carry out that agenda and then live or die by its success (or failure) not some horrible mishmash of lukewarm compromises that we get out of the Senate these days.
And if the other side gets in and does their thing, so what? You run for election next time and you have the ability to repeal and reform their work without being blocked at every turn by the filibuster. That’s how most other nations do it.
Modusoperandi
September 24, 2012 at 9:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ref. Filibuster: Keep in mind that anything advantaging the Democrats when they’re the majority advantages the Republicans more when they are. If the general disarray of the former and the lock-step formation of the other isn’t a clue, I don’t know what is.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG) “If it isn’t so, this would seem to be yet another way in which the US constitution is broke: if a party that wins both the executive and majorities in both houses of the legislature still can’t get anything done, you no longer have a functioning democracy.”
Sure, but they’re the Democrats. I’m glad I could clear that up.
Synfandel “That’s what filibuster means to me as a Canadian.”
Lies! “Filibuster” is Canadian for “sofa”.
lofgren “The same way they do everything: sneakily, through the back door, and without the consent of the other party.”
And that’s different from Canada how?
tacitus
September 24, 2012 at 10:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The idea of the filibuster in the Senate is that it’s supposed to be the stick to push them toward consensus. Well, given that the Republicans have escalated the use of the filibuster way beyond anything that’s ever happen before (and the Dems then reciprocate) then it’s clear that the filibuster isn’t working anymore (not least because the backlog of judges is now, to put it mildly, criminal — I’m surprised the isn’t considered unconstitutional, not that it would help.)
So, it’s time to change the rules.
fifthdentist
September 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“It *used* to be that, if a filibuster was started, the Senators doing it had to keep talking continuously. When they couldn’t talk any more, the debate would move on…usually to a vote.”
Plus, it will be entertaining watching the ‘Pubes read from their favorite books: Atlas Shrugged, My Pet Goat, Mein Kampf …
Zeno
September 25, 2012 at 12:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Any Republicans in the U.S. Senate next year will continue with their reflexive tendency to obstruct anything that Obama dares to support. Since there will almost certainly be enough of them to jam the gears of government with their legislative maneuvers, the only chance that a Democratic majority (especially if it’s reduced from today’s majority) would have to get anything done is right at the start of the new Congress, when the two houses get organized and adopt rules. Last time the Democrats punted instead of adopting new rules (by simple majority) to stiffen the requirements for filibusters. Nowadays the GOP members just declare an intention to filibuster and don’t ever actually have to do it. If the Democrats impose new restrictions on filibusters and don’t give in to Republican threats, the GOP would actually have to stand at the podium and gabble around the clock. With luck, a few of them would drop dead from exhaustion and a few others would throw in the towel.
Modusoperandi
September 25, 2012 at 12:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
fifthdentist, or the Constitution*. Heck, if the Dems keep the Senate, the GOP will end up reading it so many times that it will lose all meaning. So…no change, really.
* “It says here ‘The chief constable shall receive one pig every month and two comely lasses of virtue true’.”