Currently, the makeup of the Senate is 53-47, democrats. Of those 53, two are independents who causus with and are in fact democrats. There are really only 5 contested seats open as the rest have been decided. Those are Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. The republidcans will have to take 4 to gain control of the Senate. So even if they do they won't have cloture as Obama did his first 2 years as President. The House is safe for this election for the republicans. So if Congress becomes fully controlled by the GOP, will Obama do as Clinton did and move to the center and work with them or continue his defiance?
If that happens, I think the answer is yes he will move to the right. I think Missouri goes to the Democrats
I tend to think he'll start with his current 'my way or the highway' style of compromise but after a while to begrudgingly learn to really compromise.
It will be interesting to see how he would deal with the left wing of his party (and, I guess, his own political goals and legacy aspirations). He can either work with Congress (whether both houses are GOP-controlled or not) or he can work through executive orders and administrative law. It's tough to tell which way he'd go. Ed O.
No. He has already shown that he believes that he is the smartest guy in the room, and could be that he is. He has shown that he can do what ever he wants without the congress. The only use that he has had for congress is to have someone to blame for any failures, why should that change?
?? I'd think Massachusetts would be on that list. Michigan isn't really close. Missouri is probably a lock for D. Montana is close. Virginia is close. barfo
Considering this was supposed to be a wipeout for the Democrats, I'm kind of surprised how well they are doing. I suspect there will be a lot of obstruction fatigue on both sides. Politicians want to win elections because they want to change things. Year after year of failing to act gets old. Obama can do some stuff by executive order, but the really big, legacy-building programs require legislation. All that coupled with the coming "fiscal cliff" makes me think no matter how the elections shake out we'll see some breaks in the logjam. Hopefully meaningful tax reform and shoring up some of the problems with the ACA come out of this, although that might be hoping for too much.
I think that THE reason that many Republicans ran for office is because they wanted to stop the growth of the federal government--or even to shrink it. I don't think that they see failure to spend as a failure, and I don't think that they will get tired of doing what they see as successful activity. Ed O.
Failing to do anything isn't necessarily going to save the US any money or accomplish any Republican goals of decreasing the size of government. Entitlements will continue to grow, and Bush tax cuts will sunset. With the fiscal cliff looming, there will also be across-the-board cuts in defense. Hard to see how Republicans would find this satisfying.
That's not how defense appropriation works. Congress can say "we're cutting X billions from the military", and can approve or deny budget requests, but SecDef can reprioritize funding to the branches. There won't (at least not in the approved POM, which runs through 2018) be any across-the-board cuts, because CJCS has already informed the services that some will be hit harder than others.
