I hate to say it, but we all might have to get used to saying "Speaker Boehner" pretty soon. But what is this going to mean -- for Republicans, for Democrats, for President Barack Obama, and for the country at large? At this point, these questions are worth examination, because while Democrats may yet avert disaster in the midterms, denying the real possibility of a Republican House next year is now little better than wishful thinking, or (even worse) intentionally burying our collective heads in the sand.
I should start by saying that a Republican takeover of the House is by no means a foregone conclusion. Democrats might indeed stage an upset "victory" (in other words, not losing as much as has been prophesied) and retain a slim margin under Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But at this point, it seems more likely -- from looking at the polls -- that Republicans are going to pick up the net 39 seats that they need to grab power in the lower house of Congress.
Democratic chances of retaining control look far better over in the Senate, thanks to some Republican primary-winners who are proving themselves "not quite ready for primetime" (yes, Delaware, I am looking in your direction... ). But this may prove to be largely immaterial, since neither side is poised to grab 60 seats -- and the Republicans have now successfully made 60 votes the minimum threshold that must be reached to pass any legislation. Which means that either party is going to be able to use the same tactics for the next two years (as Republicans have used in the past two years) to virtually gridlock the Senate, no matter who is nominally in control. Even if the Democrats do retain a slight edge in the Senate, it's going to be even harder for them to get anything done with more Republicans in the chamber.
But the makeup of the Senate is a subject for a different day. Today, we're more concerned with what would happen if the Republicans do gain control of the House. The first result would be -- as must have made some readers shudder in this article's first sentence -- "Speaker of the House John Boehner." I seriously doubt that Boehner would face a leadership challenge if Republicans take the House; meaning "Speaker Boehner" should be seen as almost a foregone conclusion if the House goes Republican. No matter how many Tea Party candidates win in the House, I just don't see "Speaker Ron Paul" in an upset leadership vote, for instance.
The irony of the Democrats losing the House would be twofold, in my opinion. The first ironic result is that the House actually did a pretty good job for the last two years. They tackled tough legislation, Speaker Pelosi corralled very difficult votes, and they produced a flood of good bills. Unfortunately for them, the Senate refused to act on an astounding 420 bills that the House approved. If some of these had managed to make it through the Senate, the House Democrats might be in a better position right now, in terms of their chances of getting reelected. The House Democrats acted, the Senate Democrats couldn't produce, and the House Democrats are going to pay the price at the polls. Like I said, irony. Of course, this is the way the system is supposed to work, so it's a built-in irony. The House is supposed to be "closer to The People" -- meaning if they (or their party, in modern times) annoy the public, then they are the first to be voted out of office.
The second bit of irony is who, exactly, will pay the price in the House. Largely, it will be the "Blue Dog Democrats" who will be losing their seats. This is ironic because, to Democrats further to the Left, the Blue Dogs have been the problem all along. Lefties have been tearing their hair out at the Blue Dog's timidity for the past two years now. Getting rid of the Blue Dogs has been a secret dream on the left for a while. The only problem is, this dream scenario was supposed to happen by progressives taking Blue Dogs out in the primaries -- and not by Blue Dogs being voted out in favor of Republican candidates. But, either way, if the Blue Dogs (especially in the House, although there are a few Blue Dog senators who won't be coming back, either) do bear the brunt of the Republican wave, then what's left of the Democratic Party will be a lot more cohesive (and a lot more chastened about keeping the party together on critical issues, one hopes). This could eventually be a net positive for the Democratic Party, starting about a year from now, when they survey the landscape for the 2012 election cycle and decide which new congressional candidates to get behind. Especially since Rahm Emanuel will have nothing to do with making these decisions anymore.
But Democrats in the House will largely spend two years wandering in the wilderness of being the minority party, in the house of Congress where the majority absolutely rules the roost. Much more important to consider is what effect winning the House is going to have on the Republican Party. Because my guess is that this is going to be a very wild ride for them.
Republicans, in general, tend to overestimate their "voter mandate" when they win at the polls. Democrats, in contrast, tend to underestimate their mandate, but that's a whole different subject. Republicans, abetted by the mainstream media, will be crowing about how the country "has moved right" and "has given us a mandate to do everything we want to do" and similar-sounding themes. Stripped of window-dressing, they'll be saying: "America loves Republicans, so just watch us now!" There's only one problem with this -- it's not exactly true. Pundits (the ones who actually pay attention to what's going on out there) have been saying for a while now that this is going to be a very odd election, because while midterms normally result in losses for the "in" party, this usually goes hand-in-hand with the "out" party being much more well-liked by the public at the same time. This is simply not true right now for Republicans. President Barack Obama's approval rating is in the high 40s. The Democratic Party's approval rating is lower than Obama's. But the Republican Party's approval rating is the most dismal of all (unless you count Congress as a whole, which is truly scraping the bottom of the approval barrel), clocking in lower than even the Democratic Party's approval. In other words, the voters are about to vote into power a party that they like less than the party which is currently in power -- which may not be completely unprecedented in American electoral politics, but is decidedly unusual even if it isn't. Republican politicians, however, are going to assume that the voters love them and (by extension) love their plans for the future, and are going to forcefully act as if this were true. This may lead them into some serious trouble, but it'll take awhile for them to realize it (that's my guess, anyway).
This is going to lead to some serious overreach by a Republican House. The voters are finally going to see what, exactly, Republicans would do about the deficit, about the federal budget, and about taxes. Republicans, by taking the House, are going to be forced into "having a dog in the fight" instead of being able to merely criticize from the sidelines as the "Party of 'No,'" because they're going to be the ones to produce legislation and budgets, instead of having the luxury of just opposing everything the other party comes up with.
This is going to lead to some serious problems within the Republican Party. Putting aside the question of what happens in the Senate for now, the House Republicans are going to be expected to get some things done. But even before looking deeper, this is going to cause a very basic problem for Republicans. Say President Obama works out a moderate bill on something (a budget bill, for example) with the Senate (no matter who is in control). The House Republicans will be faced with a choice: accept a compromise that has already passed with some Republican support in the Senate, or refuse to budge one inch on their hardliners' goals. If they do compromise, they're going to "hand President Obama a political victory" (which, it goes without saying, they're going to be loath to do). They're also going to absolutely enrage their Tea Party supporters (otherwise known as "the base" for Republicans from this election cycle onwards) -- who will decry any sort of legislative compromise whatsoever as "surrender."
The "Tea Party/Republican base" faction is in the midst of an intra-party insurgency. They are, ideologically at least, taking over the Republican Party as a whole. The establishment Republicans are downright terrified of these interlopers, because they have seen what the Tea Party folks can do at the polls, for better or for worse. Incumbent Republican Party politicians are going to live in fear of saying anything the Tea Partiers will denounce as insufficiently devoted to their revolutionary cause (as they see it). Meaning that, if the Republicans do take the House, Speaker Boehner is not really going to be driving the bus -- the Tea Partiers are. Boehner, it should be noted, is not exactly thrilled about this turn of events, but he's going to have to get used to it.
This is going to be an even bigger problem for Republicans than the Blue Dogs were for the Democrats. The Blue Dogs, remember, were the ones pushing the Democrats against giving red meat to their base. The Tea Partiers are going to be the ones absolutely demanding such red meat. The dynamic is the opposite of what Democrats had to contend with, in other words.
Now, Tea Partiers may be somewhat mollified by Republicans launching investigations against the Obama administration at the drop of an innuendo on Fox News, but that will likely prove to not be enough for them (although they certainly will enjoy the sideshow). Because, while entertaining to them, this is not what they consider "political red meat" at all. The real showdown is going to be over the budget. Republicans are going to have to produce some budgetary legislation which must be vetted by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, who puts official numbers on these things. And the numbers are virtually guaranteed to disappoint one faction of the Tea Party or another. Either the deficit is going to keep going up, or the tax cuts aren't going to be as big. But the real backlash isn't going to come from the Tea Party faction, but from the public at large. Because they're going to find out how serious Republicans are about "cutting government spending," and it's not going to be pretty for Republicans. To significantly cut the deficit, Republicans will have to go beyond crowd-pleasing statements and cut not just "fraud, waste, and abuse," but actually cut some sacred government programs to the bone. And this is where the Republican propensity to overstate their mandate is going to smack them in the face -- when they attempt to slash Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Pentagon. Because those four are really where the big money is in the federal budget, and "attacking the deficit" means attacking at least one (if not all) of these programs -- which is going to annoy a large portion of the public.
Establishment Republicans realize this. Fire-breathing freshmen House members may not. And they may have a Republican civil war over the issue, when it comes time to draw up the budget next year. If they follow this road to its inevitable conclusion, we're going to see a repeat of Newt Gingrich's "shut down the government" -- as House Republicans dig in their heels, refuse to compromise, and also refuse to pass "continuing resolutions" that keep the government checks from bouncing while politicians play games on Capitol Hill. For those too young to remember the first time this happened, it didn't turn out too good politically for Newt and his House Republicans. History may repeat itself in this regard.
Of course, a lot depends on how President Obama handles things. President Clinton was seen by the public as the "winner" of the showdown with Newt, but that's largely because of the way he handled it. Obama would have to get a lot stronger in the veto-issuing category before this could happen, to be honest.
Even if we don't face a government-closing showdown, how Obama reacts to a Republican House is also going to be interesting. Obama, to the left's dismay, really did believe in all the "bipartisan" talk early on. He may now have a chance to see whether it is possible, and what would result from such bipartisanship with a Republican House not willing to make many concessions. Will Obama cave, and give the Republican House everything it wants? Will he practice Clintonian "triangulation" of peeling off just enough Republicans to win a close vote? Will he attempt to move to the mythical "center" of American politics, as the entire mainstream media will be telling him to do?
These are open and perhaps unanswerable questions at this point, but how the White House reacts to a Republican House is going to be a key ingredient in what happens to both (and to the whole country) in the next two years, and in the 2012 elections. The direction a new Republican House will take is easier to see than the direction the White House takes in response, at this point. But one thing I am sure of -- they'd better be discussing this very question right now within the West Wing of the White House. Because while all Democratic politicians everywhere at this point (including Obama) are absolutely politically required to present a public face of confidence that Democrats will retain the House, those who don't have to speak publicly are surely looking at the numbers which confront them, one week away from the election. And those numbers show quite clearly that the chances right now of Republicans taking the House are greater than the chances that Democrats will retain power. Meaning that it may stick in the throat, but Obama better at least be contemplating right now how exactly he's going to deal with Speaker Boehner come January.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
---Why "Speaker Boehner?" They could pick someone less controversial (Paul Ryan or Thad McCotter, for example) from their caucus. They could also go outside the House and have "Speaker Daniels" or "Speaker Romney" or even "Speaker Petraeus." The Speaker is NOT required to be a voting member under the Constitution.
---This would be a good chance to implement a lot of good ideas like Ryan's ideas on entitlement reform. The success of these inititives could get Pres. Obama re-elected, unless the Republicans can do what Gingritch was unable to do: make the Speaker the de facto Prime Minister. Hence, Speaker, for example, Daniels; someone popular, non-controversial and able.
---The success the FRG has had with its recovery with less spending and a net reduction in government jobs is a good sign that the Republicans ahve the right idea. The government is sucking up resources the private sector needs, as in teh late 1980s. The Republicans have the right formula.
So, what you're saying then is that their bark is worse than their bite. That's great! And, I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious here.
When Clinton lost the congress, he didn't suffer for it, the vulnerable did.
people need to be honest with themselves. they didn't vote in this president because they wanted to do him a favour, they voted him in to fix things the republicans wouldn't fix.
the republicans, with a free pass from the media, calculated that 2 years of partial gridlock would be enough to make the voters angry, and if they blamed it all on the president, the left wing and independents would desert him.
And it turns out they were right.
Now, they're writing the post mortem of an election that hasn't happened yet, and democrats are actually letting them.
it's pathetic.
How come the media weren't so certain that democrats would win in 2008 as they are that republicans will now?
If Obama has done so little, how come the right wing hate him so much?
How come the economy has produced more jobs since he became president than in all of Bush's 8 years, yet nobody talks about this?
Democrats are about to leave the partner who forgot their birthday, and spite him by returning to the partner who used to beat them.
It's immature, and, given how america's fortunes impact the world, it's irresponsible as well.
And tax cuts for the wealthy plays to the American people? I think not.
For Republicans to pull a win off in this election is nothing short of a miracle of disinformation, propaganda and obstruction. Cheif among the disinformation ploys is Repubs leading in LIKELY voter polls while Dems lead in registered voter polls. If Dems would get out and vote, Weigants scenario might yet prove to be moot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-herrington/the-invisible-six-point-d_b_757555.html
Of course just the fact that the GOP exists at all displays the true heart-of-darkness of American citizens.
The incessant criticism and flat out ignorance emanating from this group and directed towards this administration will have played no small role in Democrats losing control of the House or worse.
But, the point you make is a valid one and I shall check out your linked piece and archive!
How big was their budget proposal last time? 30 pages or so?
They will, of course, try to impeach Obama. Nothing like trying to make sure that millions of people get adequate health care to make a "high crime or misdemeanor". Wait, they don't even need that much. Just being "uppity" enough to win the Presidency as a black man is enough for their lynching fervor.
The Republicans know they need to stage the revolution now. Incite the racial hatreds and social fears of an older generation before the younger generation gets politically mobilized. Then after they destroy the older generation's social support they can appeal to the younger generation by pointing to all the taxes they have been spared.
Then comes the part where public lands and properties are given to rich corporations for a pittance, repeal of the right to vote for Senators, repeal of civil rights and civil liberties, repeal of the 14th Amendment and reinstitution of slavery, deconstruction of all regulatory agencies, and Voila! We shall have a third world social structure, a dictatorship of the oligarchy, and the Republican rulers will call themselves blessed by God with the divine right of Kings.
Exaggeration? Maybe not so much as you think. Recall position statements by various Tea Partiers. If you put them all together, you get ...
...but then again, I am an optimist....
There are eternal optimists on the Left as well, who hope that the Tea Partiers begin to focus on Populism and join forces with the Populist Left.
My take on both their scenario and yours: hey, anything's possible in politics!
:-)
-CW
While Olympia Snowe does little good to the Republican Party in a voting sense, but by caucusing with the Republicans she would give them an edge if they had 51 senate seats to take over the senate leadership and the important positions of President Pro Tempore, and Senate Majority leader.
I think the Senate will end up 48 or 49 Republican seats, so losing Delaware won't matter much, if it ends up with 50 seats and as I expect O'Donnel loses then losing the seat becomes a set back.
Instead of putting a moderate Republican in the seat we GIVE the seat to a progressive Liberal for SIX years, and while I am NOT a huge fan of moderate Republicans if it means the difference between having control of the senate or not having it, we shot ourselves in the foot with her election.
I do not think it is her politics that are the problem as much as the perception of her incompetence that prevails. A good Solid tea party candidate could have won but just putting in ANYONE who claims the Tea party Mantra is not going to cut it.
Says who? Have all the votes that were such a sure "lock" on the seat for Castle suddenly vanished? Will they stay home and GIVE the seat to a progressive liberal because Castle isn't on the ballot, or even more unlikely, vote for the "Bearded Marxist"? We won't know for sure until Nov 3, but I hardly think so. My local Tea party candidate for Congress did not win in the primary, but that doesn't mean the establishment Republican won't get the full support of Republican Tea partiers. Why should the opposite be true for O'Donnell with non-Tea party Republicans? As you point out with Olympia Snowe, an R is still an R even if it is a moderate R, and while not a "moderate", O'Donnell is still an R.
Secondly, there is a lot more enthusiasm for electing a Tea party candidate than merely voting for the GOP, and exponentially more than voting for a Democrat. As Chris points out, approval numbers for Republicans are very low. Voting to dump the Democrat ruling class only to reinstall the Republican ruling class does not reflect the "Republican wave" this year. Writing off O'Donnell as a "loss" may be premature, and certainly concedes defeat before the votes are counted.
Hey, you could probably convince Lieberman to switch if it was that close. Heh. Sorry, that may be too scary for some Lefties to read, but then Hallowe'en is right around the corner, right?
:-)
-CW
One thing we likely agree on: Word limits are lame!
:-)
-CW
Actually, I got fairly average grades in school. I'd do a good job on the essays and tests (lots of "A" grades there), but I never did my homework (didn't see the point, which dragged my overall grade WAY down) and got lots of "does not play well with others" and "does not live up to his potential" type of comments, because I was a wise-ass in class. This probably comes as no surprise to anyone who reads not just my columns, but my comment responses as well.
Just to be strictly honest, in case any of my former teachers are reading this... heh.
As for the rest of your comment, that was the nicest backhanded compliment I have ever received. But tell me, what do you think is going to happen? Ignore the Senate and Obama's veto pen -- what do you think a Republican House will do in the next year? Enlighten me.
-CW
I don't believe that for a second!
By the way, I've decided ... I'll be cheering for the Giants. This is California's year, after all. :)
His confidence gap is further undermined by his secrecy. When we are promised open government and every big thing starts out with a behind closed doors sell out, we catch on. We have learned, through experience, that this administration is not to be trusted.
Now for the first time this guy is really working hard at doing something, and it's just preserving his own power. In a tied contest, that might just be he push the Republicans are needing. We already had no confidence in Congress, this election is a no confidence vote on Obama. The Republicans tried to make him the issue, and he, good bipartisan that he is, is out there being the issue.
I think it will actually help President Obama to have some stooges to play off of, and man, he has some crazies to work with.
The Republicans will have to see about those 8 MILLION jobs they managed to lose in 8 years. They are going to be pointed out as not being able to manage the larges deficits they handed Obama. When the people figure out that they can't say poof, and any jobs will appear, then the pitchforks will come out and Obama can look really good beside them.
When the bankster keep wallowing in their morass of tainted mortgages, while collecting billions in salaries and bonuses, and the Republicans want to give them more money to spend, think what American are going to think.
I'm looking forward to the Blue Dogs being gone. At least we know the enemy we are fighting is an (R).
It's a shame to see this country going to the dogs, with Republicans, once more driving us over the cliff, but hey, Americans ask for them back. There is no excuse to forget who got them in the shape they and we are in. No excuse for INSANITY or AMNESIA.
And....there is no excuse for the billionaires buying the democracy, NONE. OR for the Conservative Supremes pulling a second coup in just 10 years.
IF: insanity is doing the same thing over again and again and expecting a different result
THEN: individuals who vote for Republicans in hopes of improving the situation in Washington are...
Every democracy is as strong as its weakest link. Sometimes I wonder whether the US voters will prove to be the weakest link in the US. I hope not!