Long-Term Senate Democratic Majority?
 |
James Joyner | Friday, December 15, 2006 |
Perhaps weirdly ironic in light of the Tim Johnson health watch, but Hotline editor Chuck Todd argues that “the party may not have another realistic shot at getting the majority back until 2012.”
Todd’s race-by-race analysis of the 2008 contested seats is interesting and plausible, although as he himself notes early forecasts had the Democrats gaining zero seats in 2006. Still, he’s right that the likely competitive and/or open seat alignment favors the Democrats next cycle. Predicting 2010, let alone 2012, this early, though, borders on silly.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
If a conservative really wants to scare themselves, image a Clinton or Obama administration with Speaker Pelosi and a 60 vote majority in the Senate. When that happens, national politics is reduce to the politics of New Jersey, Mass, or DC. The Democrats can do whatever they want and the Republicans will be irrelevant.
The Democrats can do whatever they want and the Republicans will be irrelevant.
Yeah -- until the Democrats actually start doing whatever they want.
"image a Clinton or Obama administration with Speaker Pelosi and a 60 vote majority in the Senate. When that happens, national politics is reduce to the politics of New Jersey, Mass, or DC."
Huh?
You care to explain how the Dems could win the WH, the House, and 60 seats in the Senate without winning the votes of Americans throughout the land?
I don't think there will be a long term democratic majority.
Comments are Closed
