During last year’s US elections, Democrat supporters weren’t just watching the margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain. They were also hoping to see their party gain 60 seats in the United States Senate. While they were assured of a majority, 60 votes are necessary to override “fillibusters” – speeches by opposition politicians that go on so long that a law never comes to a vote. With a 60 senators or more, the Democrats would be able to avoid these stalling tactics by passing a motion moving to a vote.
Democrats picked up the seats they wanted in North Carolina, Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Virginia. However, that took them to just 58. Hopes of ousting Mitch McConnell, Republican Senate leader, in Kentucky were unmet. Even though the battle in Minnesota – still dogged by recounts and legal challenges today – has looked more and more likely to go to Democrat Al Franken, they would be tantalizingly short of their 60 seats.
As things stand, they have just 59 seats. But today there were rumours, reported by the Huffington Post, that Obama may appoint senior New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg as his Secretary of Commerce. Gregg, a Republican, has since admitted that he is under consideration for the post. He would vacate his senate seat if chosen and his successor would be chosen by appointment rather than a by-election. The Democrats would have had a good shot at winning a by-election in New Hampshire, but they don’t have to: the Governor, John Lynch, is a Democrat and could replace him with one of his own party.
So, Obama may be about to secure a so-called “super majority” in the Senate after all.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dem Conference Highlights
Liverpool should build communities and not just houses
Write a guest post for Liberal England
MP and farmer
Home Secretary to ask UN to help her pull up the drawbridge
Perth Road environmental improvements get go-ahead #dundeewestend
Home
Fiona
Chris Moore
Barry Lofty
Nonconformistradical
Peter Martin
6 Comments
I always wanted Obama to be elected & he has impressed me more & more.
However, it is vital that a strong opposition emerges as soon as possible. All governments must be opposed vigorously. Obama is less vulnerable to hubris than most, as he is much more guided by the facts & his moral compass than Bliar ever was, but he isn’t some magic exception to the rule.
I live in hope that the sane elements of the GOP, if any of them have withstood Bush & Palin’s assault, will make themselves known soon.
Obama is a big enough man not to have an obsession with being supreme ruler & having all his own way, he wants to test his mettle & prove himself worthy against opposition.
We suffered in this country between 1979-87 & 1997-2005 from the lack of effective opposition &, while I don’t think America is at as much risk as we were then, I am still against Democrat dominance of everything.
538.com also queries whether hitting 60 Senators is all good news for the Dems themselves. And I seem to remember Francis Pym bemoaning his own party’s landslide in ’83, bless him.
>He (the (Republian) would vacate his senate seat if chosen and his successor would be chosen by appointment rather than a by-election. The Democrats would have had a good shot at winning a by-election in New Hampshire, but they don’t have to: the Governor, John Lynch, is a Democrat and could replace him with one of his own party.
That explains in two sentences why a super-majority would not be good. Too much would then be left to political whim (who – however he is liked – is an unknown quantity) and the internal party machinery.
Any Governor worth his salt should insist on an election.
Asquith:
Whilst I agree that a strong opposition is generally a good thing, I think what Obama is doing right now is probably a more immediately healthy thing for America: driving a wedge right through the middle of the Bush Republican party. In bringing on board some of the more sensible Republicans, he is broadening his administration’s ideological base and looking bipartisan. Meanwhile, he is doing all he can to encourage people like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to be the “voice” of the remaining Republican party.
If successful, this strategy would reduce the Republican party to a rump of southern crazies, and bring a divorce to the marriage of traditional conservatism, neoconservatism, and the religious right that got Bush elected.
The Republicans were always going to have a while in the wilderness following the Bush presidency. By steering their path in the way Obama is trying to do, he will at least make sure that they come out the other side of it in a state that is ultimately going to be much better for America. Or unelectable, depending on which parts of the party come out on top. If the latter happens, then it will be a prelude to a more fundamental rearrangement of US politics, I would imagine.
Meanwhile, the question of it being unhealthy for the Democrats not to have an effective, sensible opposition at the moment. Two points on that:
1. The bipartisan approach Obama adopted over his $800bn stimulus package recently was thrown back in his face by most of the Republicans: having secured changes they wanted made, they voted against it anyway. Clearly, the Republicans aren’t ready to behave sensibly yet.
2. The Democrats themselves are not a monolith. The existence of both the “Blue Dog” tendency and the more traditionally “liberal” wing of the party, means there will be some degree of healthy debate within the party, as well as between Congress and the administration (which, as mentioned above, is also reasonably diverse).
So yes, in general, good opposition is a good thing. But I’m not sure the Republicans are in any position to provide it right now anyway.
On second thoughts, the above probably ought to have included more of a recognition of a distinction between House and Senate Republicans, because there is a significant reasonable-ness gap between the two.
Excellent points, Andy Hinton. Another fissure, which is not often talked about by is likely to make itself known, is between unions, “liberals” (in the US sense) & greens in the Democrat party. The former will often oppose matters which the latter two support, & the latter will probably prevail, but don’t expect unions to be celebrating over it.
I am very slightly disquieted by Obama’s technocratic, bipartisan approach. I’m ecstatic at the end of the war on science & the appointment of the best wo/man for the job, but there is always a danger. Chile was the ultimate technocracy. There’s no danger of the USA going the same way, but it may not produce optimum results.
Obama pinned McCain into a corner by forcing him to take a me-too approach, which didn’t work, but the Palin way would have been even more of a wipeous. I suppose it was Bush’s legacy which made this happen.
As I said, I’m very optimistic about Obama & view him much more positively than I did in about September sort of time. My criticisms are very minor.
We’ll see 🙂