If the whole Senate were up for grabs, the Republicans would have a filibuster-proof majority. I can even imagine a veto-proof one. But that’s not how the Senate works. Flushing the rest of the turds will have to wait another two and then four years. And of course, a lot can change in two and four years.
25 thoughts on “This Doesn’t Surprise Me At All”
Comments are closed.
Jebus! Read the comments there — half of them are whackos claiming that it’s all the result of a conspiracy by the eeeeevil RethugliKKKans, the reich-wing Chamber of Commerce, and the ultra-conservative New York Times, and the rest are going “LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”
I gotta second Mike G. Read the comments there and feel the love.
I read the comments there and I feel IQ points slipping away.
I particularly appreciate the claim that the New York Times is now cheerleading for the Dems defeat. (Comment 6).
Or the one that said that the Tea Party candidates will do the bidding of Karl Rove. (#10, if you count from oldest first.)
Somehow, I think Christine O’Donnell has a different take on that.
I loved the response following a particularly ridiculous talking point:
“Don’t forget to vote next Wednesday”
The article says that that in the hypothetical case, the Republicans are favored to win a filibuster-proof majority. Not that they would have it, which implies a much higher level of certainty.
And the hypothetical is so far from reality that it doesn’t mean much.
Yeah, that’s what she said, Will.
The implicit provision to this projections is:
Absent electoral fraud.
Which is by no means a given.
I am concerned that the democrats may be willing to use completely unprecedented levels of outright cheating to steal elections everywhere they can.
It isn’t like they have anything to worry about from the current DoJ.
People are starting to go a little wild-eyed here in Pennsylvania. I don’t have cable, so I’m avoiding much of the crazy-making political advertising, but apparently it’s saturation-bombing time here in the commonwealth.
Whichever party controls the Senate in January should immediately get rid of the filibuster. Elections should have consequences.
I am concerned that the democrats may be willing to use completely unprecedented levels of outright cheating to steal elections everywhere they can.
Do yourself a favor, and find something real to worry about.
Elections should have consequences.
They should, but it doesn’t logically follow that getting rid of the filibuster should be one of them.
What kind of consequences, Jim? If you’re hell-bent on straight democracy, then why don’t you favor allowing the entire Senate to be up for election this year — thus guaranteeing a faster sweep of your friends into the dustbin of history, no chance to triangulate over the next 2 years? Heck, why not allow a recall election for the President! Why wait until 2012 and let him screw up still further?
If your answer is tradition — well, the filibuster is a tradition, too.
Also, Beam’s article is typical FUD straw-man bullshit. The problem is not outrageous obvious criminal voter fraud, the problem is shady barely technically perhaps within the letter of the law shenanigans, such as the games that were played in both the Florida 2000 election recount and the Minnesota recount that seated Senator Frankendoofus.
(Indeed, that Beam can claim that a mere few hundred votes “aren’t ever worth it” when within Internet memory a mere few hundred votes saw George Bush instead of Al Gore elected, and the Democrats briefly achieve a 60-vote filibuster proof majority, demonstrates an unusually high level of oblivious cluelessness, even for a Democratic shill.)
It’s kind of like the real problem in Pentagon procurement is not defense contractors out and out committing armed robbery against the Treasury, but rather cutting corners and being sneaky in ways that only a vigorous application of sunshine and scrutiny can turn up. This is that in which Democratic ground operators specalize, the sleazy skate through grayish areas of the law. Oh dear! All the absentee ballots for military voters weren’t returned on time? I don’t understand it! We mailed them (to Afghanistan) a full 10 days before the election! Et cetera.
I am concerned that the democrats may be willing to use completely unprecedented levels of outright cheating to steal elections everywhere they can.
Like the voting machines in Nevada, which just happen to be maintained by SEIU thugs, automatically selecting Harry Reid’s name?
Do yourself a favor, and find something real to worry about.
Word has it that $1.5 billion might be spent on an off-year election cycle. If people are willing to spend that kind of money on over the counter electioneering, then what are they willing to spend to throw an election? My view on such things is that it is naive to claim that election fraud isn’t going to happen. Makes the stakes big enough, and frankly they’ve been big enough for centuries, and you’ll get at least the attempt.
Good news — there’s an app for that.
They should, but it doesn’t logically follow that getting rid of the filibuster should be one of them.
Getting rid of the filibuster would make it easier for the winners of elections to enact the program they ran on, and thus for elections to have their intended consequences. Getting rid of the filibuster is a means, not an end.
What kind of consequences, Jim? If you’re hell-bent on straight democracy, then why don’t you favor allowing the entire Senate to be up for election this year
I’d go further than that — I’d favor getting rid of the Senate altogether.
The problem is not outrageous obvious criminal voter fraud, the problem is shady barely technically perhaps within the letter of the law shenanigans, such as the games that were played in both the Florida 2000 election recount and the Minnesota recount that seated Senator Frankendoofus.
Charlie, above, is worried about “outright cheating”, not “within the letter of the law shenanigans.” The recount jockeying that you are referring to is carried on by both parties, and is only useful when the vote margin is freakishly close. We could make such things less of an issue in national elections by adopting the National Popular Vote.
Indeed, that Beam can claim that a mere few hundred votes “aren’t ever worth it” when within Internet memory a mere few hundred votes saw George Bush instead of Al Gore elected, and the Democrats briefly achieve a 60-vote filibuster proof majority, demonstrates an unusually high level of oblivious cluelessness, even for a Democratic shill.
You’ve misunderstood the argument. A criminal conspiracy to swing a few hundred votes is not worth it because you don’t know ahead of time that the election will come down to that slim margin. If you want to swing the odd election that comes down to such a small margin you have to cheat in all of them, which requires a massive, national criminal conspiracy with tens of thousands of members, and consequently enormous risk of discovery and prosecution. The odds that you will get away with it, and that your effort will make the difference in a freakish Franken-Coleman race, are vanishingly small. You would be much better off directing your money and volunteers towards (completely legal) get out the vote efforts.
cutting corners and being sneaky in ways that only a vigorous application of sunshine and scrutiny can turn up. This is that in which Democratic ground operators specalize, the sleazy skate through grayish areas of the law. Oh dear! All the absentee ballots for military voters weren’t returned on time?
Why would you think that party operators have anything to do with mailing absentee ballots?!?
Getting rid of the filibuster would make it easier for the winners of elections to enact the program they ran on, and thus for elections to have their intended consequences. Getting rid of the filibuster is a means, not an end.
Hell, if we’re going for “easy”, just put me in charge of everything. Why bother with a democracy, balance of power, or any of that garbage? But if you want to use the few brain cells you have left to do something other than run away from lions in my 2:1 scale model of the Colosseum, maybe you should consider why we have rules like the filibuster in the first place. Here’s a broad hint, it’s not to make things “easier” to enact.
I’d go further than that — I’d favor getting rid of the Senate altogether.
Put MEEEE in charge and you don’t have to worry about anything other than running faster than the other guy!
You’ve misunderstood the argument. A criminal conspiracy to swing a few hundred votes is not worth it because you don’t know ahead of time that the election will come down to that slim margin. If you want to swing the odd election that comes down to such a small margin you have to cheat in all of them, which requires a massive, national criminal conspiracy with tens of thousands of members, and consequently enormous risk of discovery and prosecution. The odds that you will get away with it, and that your effort will make the difference in a freakish Franken-Coleman race, are vanishingly small. You would be much better off directing your money and volunteers towards (completely legal) get out the vote efforts.
Or conduct a few quick polls to figure out the regions where the elections will be close and focus your efforts there. Or focus effects on post-election counting at which point you’ll know where the close elections will be.
Jim, America is a representative republic, not a dictatorship, much as you seem to want otherwise. Winning an election DOES NOT give the majority party carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants, opposing viewpoints be damned.
Perhaps you’d be more comfortable moving to North Korea or Cuba?
.
.
.
Karl, will there be betting at your Colosseum? If so, I’d like $100 on the lions.
Why bother with a democracy, balance of power, or any of that garbage?
Nebraska dropped one of its legislative houses, and has not turned into tyranny.
Or conduct a few quick polls to figure out the regions where the elections will be close and focus your efforts there.
Right now we’re a few days from the election, and there are 8 Senate races — that’s a quarter of them — where the polling is within 5%; any of them could turn into a squeaker. To steal a close election you’d need to start months ahead of time, when there were even more races that were potentially in play. It would be a massive undertaking.
America is a representative republic, not a dictatorship
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, and is not a dictatorship.
Winning an election DOES NOT give the majority party carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants
But it should give the majority party the power to do what it promised. As things stand, the GOP will take the House, everything passed in the House will get killed in the Senate, and very little will change. By contrast, in England the Tories ran against Labor policies, won the election, and now can actually change the policies they ran against, and implement the new policies they promised. That’s how democracy should work.
Nebraska dropped one of its legislative houses, and has not turned into tyranny.
Nebraska doesn’t have the power to turn into a tyranny. It still is subject to the conditions of the Constitution including the Bill of Rights.
The US government does have the power to turn into a tyranny. It’d do well for you to remember that, if you can.
Right now we’re a few days from the election, and there are 8 Senate races — that’s a quarter of them — where the polling is within 5%; any of them could turn into a squeaker. To steal a close election you’d need to start months ahead of time, when there were even more races that were potentially in play. It would be a massive undertaking.
And? We already know there’s enough money in this race to justify such a massive undertaking.
But it should give the majority party the power to do what it promised. As things stand, the GOP will take the House, everything passed in the House will get killed in the Senate, and very little will change. By contrast, in England the Tories ran against Labor policies, won the election, and now can actually change the policies they ran against, and implement the new policies they promised. That’s how democracy should work.
No. Just because someone wins an election doesn’t mean they get or deserve the power to do what they promised. They get to try, but you know what? Even a minority party can try to implement policy. I have no problems with the Senate blocking law from the House. That’s how it’s supposed to work and I approve of it.
You remember how the House and Senate were designed to work? The House was supposed to represent the populace and had short terms. The Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states. They have much longer terms and a more deliberate process. The Senate is the stabler branch of the legislature and less subject to fads of the moment (such as the Hope and Change thing that went through in 2008 or the Tea Party thing this year). I see no reason that it shouldn’t be there, just for that reason alone.
But the Senate also is a significant part of the balance of federalism in the US. The US is a deliberate balance of power between state and federal level. Doing away with the Senate tips things towards the federal government and increases centralization of power.
Remember, Nebraska can’t be a tyranny, but the federal government can.
Karl, will there be betting at your Colosseum? If so, I’d like $100 on the lions.
I like to encourage the free market whenever I can. Of course, there will be betting.
To steal a close election you’d need to start months ahead of time
Or years even.
America is a representative republic, not a dictatorship
Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, and is not a dictatorship.
Non sequitur. Despite being unicameral and non-partisan, Nebraska’s legislators still debate, form consensuses, and filibuster like every other governing body.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is the suppression of opposing viewpoints post-election.
Winning an election DOES NOT give the majority party carte blanche to do whatever the hell it wants
But it should give the majority party the power to do what it promised.
That’s not how a constitutional republic (like the United States) works.
As things stand, the GOP will take the House, everything passed in the House will get killed in the Senate, and very little will change.
You’re assuming the GOP won’t take the Senate too. You know what happens when you assume…
By contrast, in England the Tories ran against Labor policies, won the election, and now can actually change the policies they ran against, and implement the new policies they promised.
So? You might not know this, but we fought a war against England a couple hundred years back because we didn’t like how they ran things.
Again, MOVE THERE if you want to live under another country’s form of government, the rest of us do not.
That’s how democracy should work.
America IS NOT (and never should be) a direct democracy.