Tweet
The big news of the week is that the presidential election has tightened up significantly, but ironically this closeness may make this entire election cycle less consequential.
I’m not saying who wins the presidential contest is meaningless. The executive branch has a lot of discretion to make unilateral decisions. In addition, the bully pulpit can be a powerful tool for setting the debate or changing popular opinion. Who wins the White House will have a real impact on some policies, but as a country we are likely to see truly significantly shifts only if one party wins full control of Washington this election.
As it currently stands, Democrats are in a solid position to narrowly hold onto control of the Senate, while Republicans are likely to keep control of the House. A big win for Mitt Romney could have enough of a coattail effect to help Republicans take control of the Senate, while a very large win for President Obama might help Democrats take the House. A close Presidential election, though, is most likely to leave Congress in its current divided state.
The deals a Republican president would negotiate with a Democratic Senate will be different from the deals a Democratic president will reach with a Republican-controlled House, but the difference in policy outcomes will be likely small compared to what we would get from unified Republican or Democratic government.
The close election may have gotten more interesting to watch but is less likely to produce significant policy changes.
18 Comments
consequential?
Democrats controlled the Senate?
Despite the political polls recently, the electoral landscape has not changed. It will likely NOT change. Romney is still stuck on 191 and Obama is certain to garner at least 300 electoral votes no matter what. Let’s not forget Romney’s big drawback is still his Romneyism.
I do thinkg that there is a good chance that the reverse of 2010 will occur and that the dim-witted democrats will retake the house and pick up 3 senate seats. What will that mean??? Could mean a lot.
Continued excellent reporting and commentary Jon.
No way fearless leader would want an all dem congress. That would force them to perform and produce some smart laws
Shit. I looked it up. Who’d a thunk?
I think we can all agree THAT’s not gonna happen.
Like it did in ’09!
I did say dim-witted you noticed.
Re: “a lot”,depends on what yuour definition of “is” is. :-)
It’s inconsequential because both parties have the same agenda. Rip off the middle class and poor and give it to the rich.
That’s why we have single payer now and health care costs are under control and everybody’s covered because in 2009 Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate…um wait remember cloture required 60 fucking votes and we only had 58 nominal Democrats so we had to COMPROMISE on everything and here we are at the tipping point of disaster.
We shouldn’t use the word control but we can be mathematically correct to say 51 is a majority out of 100. Too bad Democrats aren’t like Republicans who used 51 as the decider.
Right.
If one party had the Pres, House and Sen then things would really get done.
Oops.
Don’t worry. The Dems will not get rid of the filibuster and even if they have 60 in the caucus they’d still have enough Blue Dogs willing to be the villain de jour to side with the Republicans to stop them from having to fulfill their campaign promises, unless those promises are to cut Social Security or expand drilling or attack Iran.
Pundit of the day!
And provide precious little cover for implementing his long planned cuts to SS “entitlements.”
Agreed. Split the difference; doesn’t matter; same thing, different day.
Good reporting, but… color me beyond cynical.
I think that falls under the old “With friends like that who needs enemies?” category.
As TS said in #9…..we be screwed.
Call it despair.
As in despair of candidates suck.