2004: What happens if we win the WH but not the House?

[liberalpragmatist]

Let's say that after a close race, the DemoKeratic candidatery (ok, sry, I had to throw in my little subliminal pitch for Kerry) wins the presidency. Let's also say that in the senate, we pick up Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Alaska, but lose only South Carolina -- result: a 51-49 Senate under Democratic control.

But, alas, the House. It looks unlikely to actually fall to us, even if we make major gains. Under such a scenario, there would probably be enough votes to enact the legislative program of whoever the new Democratic president is, when you group together both the vast majority of Democrats (there are likely to be a few conservative holdouts) plus abt 30-40 centrist and liberal republicans. The problem is, that in a House where Republicans are numerically greater, the Republican leadership will stay entrenched. Delay keeps his troops in line, so much that the 30-40 centrist/liberal republicans (that's the estimate of most political analysts) are scared stiff of voting against the party. Add to that the fact that Delay sorely limits debate and pretty much only allows the his conservative Republican agenda to be presented.

In an environment like that, how can our Democratic president ever get any legislative achievements? Esp. w/ the partisan nature of politics getting worse and worse, the House will likely be even more of a black hole than under Clinton. Will the new president be forced to basically become how Clinton was after '94? Essentially acting as a brake on the extreme proposals of the right, acting as a check on them, rather than being able to present hisown full legislative program?

What'd you all think would happen?

[Iluvleiberman]

1. The House is going to do to a Dem prez what the senate dems are doing

(rightfully) to Bush. Don't expect any pro-choice, pro-gay judges to be confirmed. Period. Not with Hastert and De-Lay in charge again.

[Democrats unite]

6. The house does not vote...

on Judicial nominations. Only the senate does.

[newyawker99]

9. Hi Democrats unite!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Yupster]

8. House has nothing to do with confirming judges

but I think your basic point is right. This filibustering judges thing will get very out of hand. I would not expect the Repulicans to be nicer than the Democrats. I would expect every judge nominee for at least the first few years to be filibustered if there is a Democratic president.

[carpetbagger]

2. It depends on how persuasive he is at the bully pulpit.

If he does well enough at painting the GOP as obstructing what he's been elected to do, they will either cave in or they'll tank in 2006. I see a government shutdown. In this case, look to the moderates to ditch DeLay/Hastert/Frist. Remember, they can force a bill to the floor with 218 signatures.

If it's an unimpressive victory, or if the new president oversteps his bounds and begins to advocate unpopular things, look for the GOP to largely get what they want.

[Syrinx]

3. launch of impeachment proceedings

Against President Dean or Kucinich or Kerry...

[Iluvleiberman]

4. Man that's scary..........and so realistic

We need to take the House back. I'm getting chills just thinking about that. ALTHOUGH it would end the Repub stranglehold on the House.

The Murikan people wouldn't tolerate it.

[AWD]

15. And that's why I'm running....

...to not only help take the House back, but to participate in it.

[dusty64]

10. and it will be 24/7

coverage of every lie, slander, and rumor that the VRWC spews out reported as truth by our wonderful repuke media.

[Droopy]

5. I see a vast improvement even if we don't get either side of congress

For one, there's just plain leadership issues. And like you inferred, there's always the veto.

There will be a whole new cabinet. That means no more PNAC bozos, so we won't have this radical right agenda influencing matters.

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Control of the Presidency and Senate is enough for now

It prevents the further right wing swing of federal judgeships, and at least moves things toward the center on everything else. And as someone else said, if they become obstructionist, we can take control in 2006 by running against the obstructionism.

[sybylla]

11. You get what we have in Wisconsin right now, with a slight exception

A governor with veto power and slim to decent margins in both houses to maintain them. Fortunately we have a line-item veto so the repugs can mess with the legislation all they want and the gov can veto out the parts he doesn't like. So far, the vetos have held but there haven't been too many of them to challenge.

The real problem is getting legislation through the houses that is put up by the dems. Most of it isn't making it out of the repug-controlled committees. We are only six months into this governorship so it is a little early to tell but I suspect the next year and a half until the 2004 election will be very unproductive with loads of partisan bitching.

Most of us dems are just crossing our fingers hoping that the dems have a strong coalition to keep fighting the vetoes. If they smell blood in the water, we dems will go down under our own friendly fire. We've already had two dems cave near Milwaukee, where in a special election the seat which was in dem hands for decades went repug. Now they are afraid of loosing their seats too. Instead of profering a PR campaign to support their dem ideals, they are caving.

[Perky]

12. I will tell you how we canWIN the House!!!

Remember the Contract on America?

My Version is Rescuing America.

Bill Clinton should "run" for Speaker.

Yes the Speaker is not elected. But he is selected by the majority party. He does not have to be a member of the House and while Clionton would be theoretically in the the succession line for Prez. He would skipped over unless he is still eligble for a two-year stint shold calamity happen.

Clinton could lead the Conressional party back to power with a kitchen table agenda on health care issues and the budget deficit. Get the base excited. in Key close districts, force Bush off mesage to go protect Seats at risk and in the process weaken his own chances at re-election.

Politically , it is opening a second front..

[samsingh]

13. it would still be a good start

we also need to win more Governerships.

[Nederland]

14. I think I'd jump for joy...

What'd you all think would happen?

The odds of us taking back the Senate are next to nothing, the House is simply not going to happen. If we won the Senate I'd be ecstatic.

[kskiska]

16. In 2000 the Dems bailed out on Gore

saying it was more important to capture the House and Senate. Too late, they discovered that without a Democratic president, they had no voice, and ended up with nothing.