I'm more optimistic that you on the House and Senate majority because I'm more optimistic about Obama's ability to build concensus.
First, let's understand Obama will start in far, far better position that Clinton, Carter, or even Kennedy. Clinton is celebrated for his disciplined campaigning but he didn't get his white house organized until mid-1995 or so. His transition and the first few months were a raging disaster, with no policy focus, all kinds of turmoil in the nomination process, etc. He failed to build any bridges with the Democratic party Congress, and specifically ignored adviced from senior members like Moynahan in terms of his approach.
Carter ran a better transition but he showed up in Washington with a serious attitude problem and quickly alienated his own party in Congress. Tip O'Neill took to calling Carter's COS "Hamilton Jerkin".
Obama will do neither. His transition team has already set up an increibly detailed book, including potential nominees, policy issues in priority order, etc. But more to the point, he's been quietly building bridges and consensus in both houses all this year. His refusal to take nasty personal shots at Republicans is paying dividends, and will continue to do so (few Republicans mind anything he's said about McCain because McCain is truely loathed in his own party). He will be able to build super majorities when needed in the Senate.
He has specifically been courting the blue dogs. His "pay as you go" line in the 3rd debate was something they suggested he say in that debate, and his doing so is helping them in their reelection campaigns.
Then there is the honeymoon effect. I don't know if you remember, but when Reagan showed up there was a palatable sense of relief from even the Democrats that they felt like they had someone they could work with, unlike Carter, even though they knew the policy fights would be tougher. The same thing is going to happen when we see the transition from Bush to Obama, not only for Democrats but for the Republicans who are tired of being whipped into compliance. This will be especially true if McConnell loses, as all of Rove's old Senate enforcers will be gone allowing for a new atmosphere to prevail on the Republican side.
All in all I see Obama setting clear priorities and doing most of the negotiating and concensus building quietly, without a lot of rancor.
Posted by Anonny at October 29, 2008 07:54 AMParadox, not only is your caution correct, but also Obama will face a right wing rabidly opposed to anything he says or does. This will be the result of the McCain negativity which has stoked the fires of the nuts. Just listen to the delusional comments of people at McCain rallies--or Hannity, for that matter.
Posted by at October 29, 2008 08:16 AMAnonny's got a better point I think. I'm not quite sure of his (her?) history support, my own education is weak on the timeframe, but I think one of the unwritten stories of the campaign has been Obama's courting of the legislators during the campaign. In a way, he had to do it - since he left public campaign financing and was attracting huge dollar amounts, his campaign threatened to suck all the oxygen out of the donation pool. Nixon in his second campaign run did something similar in its efforts to beat the tar out of it's Democratic opponent - and his party lost seats in the Senate and the Democrats controlled both houses while the GOP minority was fairly disenchanted with the President.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 29, 2008 08:20 AM"Filibuster proof" is always a fuzzy line, not something dictated by the split in the caucuses. There probably won't be alot of desire on the part of Democrats to block their party's agenda, but a couple of those senators we would need to get to 60, Musgrove or Lunsford, could be against the party on some important issues. Democrats will sometimes pull Snowe, Collins, or Specter off from the other side. Feinstein is often annoying, but she is the least of our worries when it comes to the filibuster. She will probably end up supporting whatever health care and energy bills come up through the next Congress.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at October 29, 2008 08:28 AMWhen a Roman general had a Triumph, as he rode his chariot around Rome, a slave rode with him. The slave's function was to keep whispering in the general's ear that life is fleeting and disappointing so that the cheers would not become irrevocably lodged in the leader's ears.
Thanks for taking on the slave's part. Hope we're listening.
--ml
What para speaks of is exactly why Biden was such a masterful pick for VP. Not too long ago Kennedy set the tone, but it took Johnson to accomplish anything.
Hillary will lead as the Lion of the Senate (although I'm unsure of who will lead the House, Pelosi has proven to be an ineffective clusterfuck and will be replaced). Hillary and Biden, along with the change Americans are demanding, will make all the difference in the world. Besides, House Dems and 1/3 of the Senate are up again in '10. Given the mood, Blue Dogs should play with extreme caution.
Posted by phidipides at October 29, 2008 08:37 AMYou forget -- Feinstein might be running for governor of California in 2010 and thus her attention might be diverted elsewhere.
Posted by wilder at October 29, 2008 09:13 AMI'm not quite sure of his (her?)
His.
Posted by Anonny at October 29, 2008 10:04 AMI disagree with the assement on Lieberman. Lieberman is all about Lieberman. He ran to make buddiesnon the right in a tantrum acted being kicked to the curb. Now that his dreams of his exec. branch office gone poof and the coming of Dem majorities, and a danger of losing what power he does have he starts rolling out the platitudes.
He'll caucus with the dems and Ried doesn't have the balls to expel him or remove him from his committee chairs.
He'll then use what power he has to monkey wrench things. He has clearly shown that he'll weild his grudge as a mace at every opportunity he can.
Strip him of his power, kick him to the curb, and sit back and laugh at his tantrums.
Posted by Sump at October 29, 2008 10:13 AMPlease correct me if I am wrong ....
It has been a few years since my High School Civics class {smirk}
This theory of "a filibuster-proof majority" is just that a theory. Any Senator may filibuster. The filibuster invokes the right of senators to debate any matter indefinitely unless 60 senators vote to end the discussion . Most times a filibuster is never overridden, simply because many Senator's do not want to "give into" another Senator's "privilege” or “right” to filibuster – since they may wish to do so (filibuster) at some point. Usually, the Senator who “controls the floor”, will yield once they get the 1) attention they wanted or 2) a “side-deal” or whatever. Then you have “party filibusters” -- which is a group of Senators … “controlling the floor of the Senate” with needless talk – until they get what they wish.
Majority filibusters ended with a side-deal or compromise, some filibusters never occur – they are simply threaten.
KJS: that was a pretty accurate assessment as of a few years ago. However, during the civil rights era the filibuster rule and traditions were curtailed quite a bit. Originally there was no way to end a filibuster (see: Mr. Smith goes to Washington). The Senate could literally sit inactive for days while a handful of Senators yielded to each other.
Recently the practice of cloiture votes, once a rare exception, have become fairly routine. One side threatens the filibuster, the other side counts vote for cloiture, and if it is close the filibuster is held in hopes that it can survive cloiture. If it does, everyone agrees to table the issue and move on.
Furthermore, there is no longer a universal acceptance of the filibuster rule as a sacred cow. When the Republicans held the Senate recently they talked of changing the majority needed to overcome a filibuster to 55 or even 51. Such a chance can happen at any time with a simple rules change. The Republicans held off, only because a minority of Republican Senators felt that such a move would short-sighted, and indeed the Republicans used the filibuster or the threat of same to stop legislation during the last few years (there is a reason this congress was "do-nothing", and that is it).
Posted by Anonny at October 29, 2008 11:06 AMwhat is the mechanism for replacing Biden and Obama's senate seats?
Posted by T2 at October 29, 2008 11:35 AMgah, sorry about the incoherence.
no more posting while waking up from the mobile.
Posted by Simp at October 29, 2008 11:56 AMwhat is the mechanism for replacing Biden and Obama's senate seats?
Constitutionally it's up to the state legislature. In the vast majority of states the Governor appoints a replacement who holds the seat until the next national election, which in this case would be November, 2010. At that time a special election would be held for the last 4 years of Biden's term in Delaware, and the regular election for Obama's seat would be held on schedule.
Both states have Democratic governors so both will appoint Democrats. There is a lot of speculation about who will be appointed.
The only state I know of that has a different rule is Massachusetts. I believe they passed a law 4 years ago to mandate an immediate special election, because in the event Kerry won they wanted to prevent then-Governor Romney from appointing a Republican.
Posted by Anonny at October 29, 2008 12:09 PMI just early voted in a very large southern university...lines 20 minutes long and apparently have been like that all week. If this is an indication of the youth turnout, it could be very decisive.
Posted by T2 at October 29, 2008 12:53 PM