Does this make sense?

[william the wie]

I was reading a columnist on the Bloomberg web site and she reasoned that the only reason Reid acted now instead of a week ago or a month from now was that the Democratic party would not be in control of the Senate after 2015.

Yeah, Obamacare is a total disaster and the Ds are headed for the political wilderness. However this only really makes sense if Reid is certain that the Rs will be above 60 votes or even 67 through 2019. Is that even possible? If so, what is the polling data that indicates that near to death of a disaster suddenly made this decision sensible?

 

[Jackson]

I was reading a columnist on the Bloomberg web site and she reasoned that the only reason Reid acted now instead of a week ago or a month from now was that the Democratic party would not be in control of the Senate after 2015.

Yeah, Obamacare is a total disaster and the Ds are headed for the political wilderness. However this only really makes sense if Reid is certain that the Rs will be above 60 votes or even 67 through 2019. Is that even possible? If so, what is the polling data that indicates that near to death of a disaster suddenly made this decision sensible?

The actions he taking would not be beneficial for his party if the Republicans had the majority after 2014.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I was reading a columnist on the Bloomberg web site and she reasoned that the only reason Reid acted now instead of a week ago or a month from now was that the Democratic party would not be in control of the Senate after 2015.

Yeah, Obamacare is a total disaster and the Ds are headed for the political wilderness. However this only really makes sense if Reid is certain that the Rs will be above 60 votes or even 67 through 2019. Is that even possible? If so, what is the polling data that indicates that near to death of a disaster suddenly made this decision sensible?

No polling data is valid out to 2019. But since you asked let's bring in an expert ( [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] ) to tell you what the polls are currently saying about the future of the Senate.

 

[william the wie]

I was reading a columnist on the Bloomberg web site and she reasoned that the only reason Reid acted now instead of a week ago or a month from now was that the Democratic party would not be in control of the Senate after 2015.

Yeah, Obamacare is a total disaster and the Ds are headed for the political wilderness. However this only really makes sense if Reid is certain that the Rs will be above 60 votes or even 67 through 2019. Is that even possible? If so, what is the polling data that indicates that near to death of a disaster suddenly made this decision sensible?

No polling data is valid out to 2019. But since you asked let's bring in an expert ( [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] ) to tell you what the polls are currently saying about the future of the Senate.

I would tend to agree. Yeah nearly 10% of the majority are more radical independents so the Ds have a much bigger problem with their radicals than the GOP. However I don't see how an increase from the roughly 20% caucus of socialists (both Ds and Is) as Senate candidates would have that big of an effect on elections in other states.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I was reading a columnist on the Bloomberg web site and she reasoned that the only reason Reid acted now instead of a week ago or a month from now was that the Democratic party would not be in control of the Senate after 2015.

Yeah, Obamacare is a total disaster and the Ds are headed for the political wilderness. However this only really makes sense if Reid is certain that the Rs will be above 60 votes or even 67 through 2019. Is that even possible? If so, what is the polling data that indicates that near to death of a disaster suddenly made this decision sensible?

No polling data is valid out to 2019. But since you asked let's bring in an expert ( [MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION] ) to tell you what the polls are currently saying about the future of the Senate.

[MENTION=42916]Derideo_Te[/MENTION]

Did someone call?

Oh, that's an easy one: there is no polling for anything father than 2016. I just put out a link for that data HERE. That data, however, is only presidential data. I am just starting to compile the Senatorial numbers for 2014.

As for the claim about 2019, I suppose anything is possible, but the person who said it has no data on his or her side to back that claim up. First, to get to 66 seats for the GOP (which has never had more than 61 seats in the US Senate, ever) would require that the GOP pick up 7 seats in each cycle: 2014, 2016 and 2018, respectively. That has never happened with the GOP, ever, and I can prove it:

Composition of Congress by Party 1855?2013 | Infoplease.com

Only from 1871-1873 did the GOP have 61 seats in a Senate comprised of 74 seats. That represents the absolute High-Water mark for the GOP in all of it's history since 1856. Since Ike in 1955 (the 1954 mid-terms), the GOP was the minority party in the Senate until 1981, 26 years straight, it could not get over 47 seats. With the Reagan Revolution of 1980 and a +9.74% NPV win over Jimmy Carter, the coattails of that win netted the party of Lincoln 12 seats in the Senate, a gain that is the largest in the GOP's history and has not since been repeated. In 1984, Reagan trounced Walter Mondale by a much larger, nay, a whalloping +18.22% margin, but the GOP actually LOST one seat in the Senate that year. No coattails for the Great Communicator in his re-election, one of the largest, and statistically, the most evenly spread-out, of our history.

Look at the chart yourself. Since the nuclear age, the GOP has not been able to get over 55 seats.

Talk of 66 GOP seats by 2019 is just plain old bullshit. Ain't gonna happen. And it is not going to happen for the Democratic Party, either.

Now, in the House, anything can happen. Flip a coin. The House is, because of gerrymandering, essentially gridlocked, 90% of incumbents retain their seats and it will take a +15% landslide in a presidential election to get that to change. We once saw 200 seat shifts in the House. Today, a +63 seat shift is considered a political Taifun.

Harry Reid did what he did because he was sick and tired of being dicked around by Republicans who had already promised to not block any more nominees.

Hope that information helps.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The key rests on two things politically for domestic seating in the House and Senate.

(1) will Americans become familiar with and supportive of ACA

(2) will the GOP continue to allow the far right TeaPs to pull stuff like govt shut down and default debt

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you Willie and Statistikhengst for your responses.

Personally I believe that Reid opted to relegate the filibuster to history because voting demographic changes favor the Dems over the GOP moving forward. Without a filibuster the GOP has no option but to win elections instead. In order to win elections they will need to move away from the extreme right in order to attract a more diverse and moderate group of voters.

Failure to do so relegates the GOP to political irrelevancy in the Senate since it is impossible to gerrymander States. Reid is putting his money on the future and time will tell if he is right.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Thank you Willie and Statistikhengst for your responses.

Personally I believe that Reid opted to relegate the filibuster to history because voting demographic changes favor the Dems over the GOP moving forward. Without a filibuster the GOP has no option but to win elections instead. In order to win elections they will need to move away from the extreme right in order to attract a more diverse and moderate group of voters.

Failure to do so relegates the GOP to political irrelevancy in the Senate since it is impossible to gerrymander States. Reid is putting his money on the future and time will tell if he is right.

But that is also a misnomer. Reid employed a procedural tactic to get this vote, a tactic he will need to employ each and every time, and it only applies to presidential nominees other than those for the USSC.

Mark my words, the filibuster is still there. And that shitty, undemocratic mechanism needs to be rooted out for once and for all.

Where else in the world does 60% mean an absolute majority? That is just plain old fucked up math!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Thank you Willie and Statistikhengst for your responses.

Personally I believe that Reid opted to relegate the filibuster to history because voting demographic changes favor the Dems over the GOP moving forward. Without a filibuster the GOP has no option but to win elections instead. In order to win elections they will need to move away from the extreme right in order to attract a more diverse and moderate group of voters.

Failure to do so relegates the GOP to political irrelevancy in the Senate since it is impossible to gerrymander States. Reid is putting his money on the future and time will tell if he is right.

But that is also a misnomer. Reid employed a procedural tactic to get this vote, a tactic he will need to employ each and every time, and it only applies to presidential nominees other than those for the USSC.

Mark my words, the filibuster is still there. And that shitty, undemocratic mechanism needs to be rooted out for once and for all.

Where else in the world does 60% mean an absolute majority? That is just plain old fucked up math!

I suspect that Reid is taking "baby steps". If he had wanted to eliminate the entire filibuster he would have encountered serious opposition, even from his own side. Instead he opted for doing something relatively uncontroversial and obtained the support he needed.

Assuming that this not only works but that the Dems retain the Senate majority in 2015 Reid can turn around to his caucus and recap the benefits of no longer having the filibuster. His chances of gaining support at that point in time are significantly greater.