General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo we really want to control the house by only one seat?
The more i think about it the worse it feels. Several Manchins in the caucus would wreak havoc on any policy agenda. If we don't get things done the backlash in '24 might lose us the Presidency. If Republicans have the one seat advantage and can't get their shit together, or if they try and pass things (involving SS and Medicare) that causes division among their caucus... all to the better outcome for '24. Thoughts here?
Here's Josh at TPM thinking these thoughts too?:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/yes-she-might-still-be-speaker-in-january
"Let me add one sort of odd note here. Theres actually a pretty good argument that its in Democrats political interests not to get the majority here.
Ive said repeatedly that the coming debt ceiling fight is the whole thing. Its everything. It is. But there are also liabilities to holding a narrow majority. When you control everything in Washington or appear to, every problem is on you. Every election at least defaults to a referendum on how you did rather than a choice between two options. As weve just seen, it doesnt always end up that way. But thats the default. You also build up a certain thermostatic, partisan pressure for a shift in power. If Democrats hold both houses of Congress, you go into 2024 with Republicans shut out of power in Washington for four years. And as weve discussed, 2024 is the big deal. Thats when everything will be on the line. Not just the Congress but the White House too."
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)elleng
(131,102 posts)TlalocW
(15,391 posts)Who has multiple sharp sticks in my eye, I'm offended.
republianmushroom
(13,677 posts)50 Shades Of Blue
(10,043 posts)texasfiddler
(1,990 posts)I would rather have the Democrats hold the house so that the committees are led by Democrats and commissions are formed by Democrats. At least a one vote majority gives us that. Plus, the 2024 election is coming up, I want a normal approach to the process.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)but i don't want that to be when we have a majority. I have seen people her on DU blame Democrats for not getting shit passed when we had a "majority" in the Senate with Lieberman. For like 6 months before Kennedy got sick. I just worry that our team will crap out with the slimmest of majorities in both houses. I'm a Mets fan, so forgive me if i'm accustomed to anticipating bad news even if it seems good.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)Especially the ones coming up for re-election who might think its time to listen to the will of their constituents and not their corporate sponsors.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)got primaried and lost. In some cases we picked up that seat which is GREAT! But the people who replaced those people who got primaried are more extreme and less likely to step to our side. We live in a highly polarized political climate. I do not expect to be able to "chip" any Republican votes away.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)was just elected/re-elected.
Qutzupalotl
(14,327 posts)The Republicans have been making themselves look bad for years. Their voters do not care. They love it, in fact. They're sticking it to the deep state, or something.
Pelosi has been completely disciplined. Democrats understand that they need to deliver, and they have been. Suddenly stopping that would reflect badly on Biden in 2024.
dem4decades
(11,304 posts)3catwoman3
(24,041 posts)I dont want that loudmouth jackass in charge of anything.
TheBeam19
(344 posts)of to answer this question.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)All it would take is one RINO vote to make it 218.
dem4decades
(11,304 posts)Sky Jewels
(7,137 posts)Hyper_Eye
(675 posts)They have to actually show evidence, call witnesses, present a report/case. Once the American people get a direct presentation of how stupid the whole thing is it could really backfire.
In It to Win It
(8,283 posts)They still chased it and turned into a political weapon. It clearly didn't backfire.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)
while doing so.
Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)but it beats the alternative.
Do you want Joe Biden impeached multiple times?
Do you want Jim Jordan to be chair of the Judicial committee? (Not to mention other wackos chairing all the other commirrees)
Do you want to see more investigations of Hillary's Emails?
Do you want to see endless investigations of Hunter Biden's laptop?
Do you want to see Trump or Matt Gaetz be Speaker of the House?
Do you want to see the J6 Committee ended?
I could list a lot more, but you get the idea.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)you anticipate all those problems? With McCarthy as Speaker? Maybe exposing the circus is a good idea. We would have the Senate as a stopgap. I do get the idea though. Honestly, I just don't know what to think. That's why i ask the question here. Josh Marshall over at TPM has had a couple of posts about this on his Prime blog. He seems to think it would be better for Dems in '24 to have a 218-217 R house than a 218-217 D house. I wasn't sure i agreed.
LakeArenal
(28,845 posts)druidity33
(6,446 posts)I'm kinda sorry i presented it. But like i said upthread, i'm a Mets fan (and a Knicks fan and a Bills fan)... so i am used to looking ahead for heartbreak. To be honest i find the Josh Marshall editorial comments mostly academic and pin pointed. But this suggestion he made yesterday about a one vote margin House has been nagging me. Again...
Mr.Bill
(24,319 posts)And the Senate can't prevent anything on my list.
In It to Win It
(8,283 posts)LeftInTX
(25,551 posts)Bev54
(10,072 posts)And have before managed to get some republicans to vote with them.
JohnSJ
(92,394 posts)accepting that "premise", would be saying that we are not fit to govern.
This is not a f**king game we are playing, but trying to save Democracy
Glad I don' subscribe to TPM
Joinfortmill
(14,456 posts)is way beyond a dumb suggestion. That falls in the insanely stupid category.
Effete Snob
(8,387 posts)Yes. Sure, there will be votes that will be difficult, but thats life. Every single committee will be chaired by a democrat, and that matters.
kairos12
(12,872 posts)2 years.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)druidity33
(6,446 posts)Kaleva
(36,341 posts)brooklynite
(94,727 posts)From what I see the left-wing members were far more disruptive, especially with their delaying of the infrastructure bill.
emulatorloo
(44,182 posts)Besides that, Manchin worked hard w Biden to get the IRA of 2022 passed, which is really signature legislation for Democrats and Biden. I believe that law is one of the reasons we did well in the midterm.
druidity33
(6,446 posts)and the parallel i am making, ie. the "subject of this thread" is the margin of one member for control of the chamber. Which both Sinema and Manchin took FULL advantage of. What makes us think the House is different?
Response to druidity33 (Reply #55)
emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)All over the map here. You asked about the house and now are switching to the Senate. Those are 2 completely different bodies. So are you now suggesting R's should control the senate AND the house?
druidity33
(6,446 posts)"Several Manchins in the caucus would wreak havoc on any policy agenda"...
as i said several posts above...
the "subject of this thread" is the margin of one member for control of the chamber. Which both Sinema and Manchin took FULL advantage of. What makes us think the House is different?
So unless you're being intentionally obtuse... the question "So are you now suggesting R's should control the senate AND the house?" is totally off the mark. I never said I WANTED, I asked the question WOULD YOU RATHER. Hey maybe try answering the question without the associated agenda?
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)Since they are not in the house.
Wounded Bear
(58,706 posts)rubbersole
(6,725 posts)Just been through a November hurricane in Florida. Still rare. But the beach in New Smyrna is gone.
czarjak
(11,289 posts)blogslug
(38,016 posts)Yes. A thousand times yes.
Ferrets are Cool
(21,110 posts)denbot
(9,901 posts)RussBLib
(9,035 posts)Better the majority than minority. Control committees and so much more, not to mention sidestep tons of GOP bullshit.
I give the voters credit to be aware of the situation and realize that a tiny majority is no guarantee of victory or success.
There have always been some mavericks and freethinkers in Congress mucking up the works.
This strikes me as purely spurious and unnecessary. Analysis for analysis sake. Gotta say something.
Ellipsis
(9,124 posts)Celerity
(43,497 posts)imavoter
(646 posts)Nope nope nope.
Speaker would be R. Nope nope.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)Why?
Because it is not only better to have them as a nemesis, but also because they will not be able to do anything except piss off more voters, giving control of the House back to the Democrats in 2024, depending on who is the presidential candidate?
Well did that work out in 2016?
druidity33
(6,446 posts)so if that's your metric, i don't think you can refute the point of the OP... which is, we need to be looking 2 years ahead.
Joinfortmill
(14,456 posts)So, here goes... Yes, we goddamn need to win the Senate, and the House while we're at it, if we can do it. Biden needs to appoint judges, lots and lots of judges. Maybe he'll even consider expanding the SCOTUS since they pulled that bullshit with Roe. You do remember Roe? We need to protect the right to choose. We need to pass better voting rights laws, including laws restricting gerrymandering. We also need to change the filibuster rules. And the DOJ needs to indict Trump and every M*F*cker who enabled him.
Anyone have anything to add to the list?
Orrex
(63,224 posts)Think of how much better that'll be for us in '24.
Seriously? Was Josh awake and sober when he wrote that?
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Meowmee
(5,164 posts)DFW
(54,436 posts)Better it be us than them.
Yes, I know, there will be self-righteous groups fully willing to trash positive initiatives. There will be Justice this and Squad that, and they will love the headlines and the interviews on CNN. They have their mirror images on the Republican side, too, waiting to make life hell for whoever their unfortunate speaker is.
If one takes it as given that the next Speaker will have a miserable time, and that legislative failures will be laid at their door, I'd STILL prefer it be a Democratic Speaker. Otherwise, except for confirmations, and matters the Senate can do on their own, budget matters and the like are dead in the water with a Republican Speaker. We can at least still talk to reps like AOC and Cori Bush. We can NOT talk to the likes of MTG or LoBooboo (if she returns).
Emile
(22,906 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,621 posts)honest.abe
(8,685 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 14, 2022, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)
But having the majority is always better than not having the majority.
However, I would not surprised that we might actually come out better in the 2024 election if the GOP has the House majority during these next two years.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Think about it, please.
Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)I'm perplexed by some here and in the left wing social media wanting to spin this as a win. It was a loss; the loss might have been smaller than expected, keeping the Senate was a big plus, but at the end of the day we will almost certainly lose the People's House which controls the purse strings and everything else that goes with it (Speaker, committee chairs, etc.).
It could have been worse and without Dobbs and the Trump effect it certainly would have been. But there is no chalking this one up as a W.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)you come to that "almost certainly" conclusion on the house and this was not a win but a loss? I seem to remember just a few short weeks ago the "almost certainly" conclusion was that dems would lose 40+ seats in the house and at least 3-4 in the senate. Yet the NOTHING changed in the senate other than Dems might pick up a seat and the house is far from decided. Calling that a loss is mind boggling.
Zeitghost
(3,868 posts)We had the House and the Senate, now we will in all likelihood have only the Senate.
If that holds, I'm not sure how anyone could spin it as a win.
Wednesdays
(17,408 posts)controls the gavel -- that is, all committee chairs, etc. will be headed by Democrats, as well as scheduling and slate of voting.
You'd rather that, than committees controlled by MTG, Gym Jordan, and their ilk, wouldn't you?
themaguffin
(3,826 posts)Iggo
(47,565 posts)What an utterly stupid fucking question.
Bettie
(16,124 posts)and either way, we (the people who aren't in government) will suffer the results of Republicans blocking anything that will help people.
WarGamer
(12,483 posts)"Who wants to hold the House by a single seat...??"
Answer:
I'll take anything to keep it out of GOP control.