Will a majority in the House and Senate help Dems in '08?

[Bluzmann57]

That is assuming that the Dems take the aforemetioned bodies, of course. I am not really sure if it would help a Democratic candidate for President or not. I mean, look how screwed up things are with one party rule now. People will remember this and perhaps not want to elect a Democratic President for this reason. Therefore, the Democratic House and Senate, if it comes to pass, must work three times harder than they are promising just to show that the Democratic way is indeed the correct way. We simply cannot afford any more bush types in office. Ever.
on edit-Please delete this thread. Nobody ever reads or answers anyway.

[Bluzmann57]

1. Screw it

Who cares? Thread killer checking in here. I guess if anyone ever answers my posts, they have to be controversial. Therefore, this one is getting deleted.

[CitizenLeft]

2. I just read it...

...it's a good question.

It depends on a lot of things.

(1) How much will Bush work with Pelosi in the next 2 years (or whomever the House Leader will be?) Answer: he won't. He'll look like the obstructionist imperialist that he is. This will hurt Republicans, not Dems - because if we take both houses, it's A MANDATE, GEORGE. A REAL one.

(2) How far to the center with the GOP allow their '08 candidate to be? Will they nominate the tainted McCain or the pro-choice Guiliani? Or will they continue to APPEAR to cater to their extremist right wing and go for another imperialist? Either way, they're fucked, because if the moderates are allowed to regain control, they will lose fundie support. On the other hand... a lot of pissed of moderate Republicans might "go home," too. We'll have to see.

If it's a McCain nomination, as much as I detest his two-faced opportunistic bowing to Bush, he did it because he wants to be President. If he wins the '08 election, he will not be the extremist Bush and his neocons are, and he will work with a Democratic Congress much more willingly than this "president"... which is not ideal for us, but it's better than gridlock.

Just my take on it.

[newyawker99]

4. Hi CitizenLeft!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[NV Whino]

3. It depends on how much a Democratic Congress

can get done (or undo) in two years. My take on it is, if the dems win both houses, we will be tied up in legal battles for the next two years and get nothing done. If the dems take only one house, we will be tied up just as we are now and no progress will be made. I haven't a clue how either of those scenarios will affect the presidential election in 08.

Do forgive me for being paranoid, depressed and just plain down in the dumps, but I don't see a lot of hope whatever the outcome of this election.

[caledesi]

5. Get real man! Win just in the house will give us tremendous

power in stopping this idiot. Hello? Ever hear of subpoena power? We will have it. All the committees will be headed by Dems, need I say more?


We will finally have power!

[Infinite Hope]

6. Both parties are aided in 2008 by a Democratic Congress in 2006 now n/t

[Dob Bole]

7. Not necessarily.

Voters seem to like Congress and the presidency to be divided between parties. If I were in charge of things, I would use exactly the same electoral strategy that Democrats have used this year: tie the incumbent candidates to Bush. Republicans will be defending more Senate seats next time.

A Democratic congress would help by forcing President Bush to state his position on a number of issues, such as the minimum wage. If he vetoes these, this position could be used against the candidates running to replace him in 2008.

[Pepperbelly]

8. In the midst of horse races, it is easy to forget that ...

the purpose of the whole thing is to affect the direction of law and government policy. If a Democratic majority in either or both houses adds oversight and accountability to these fucking gop pirates, then it is sufficient unto itself.

[Donna Zen]

9. Absolutely

Taking the House especially gives the Dems. the lead in formulating bills. Thus, in 2008, we will have issues to run on whether or not the legislation has actually been passed. That same control over the agenda keeps the republicans from putting the the Dems on the defensive with their crack-headed wedge issues. Let's say that the House put forward a minimum wage increase bill. In a republican led house, the republicans get to claim the bragging rights, even if every Dem. voted "yes." Or if there is pending legislation, the candidate gets the chance to support that bill on the stump. A Democratic house means that the bill will follow a Democratic candidate's platform.

Finally, the talking heads are most likely to book the chairs of the various committees. Today, the public is treated (sic) to the republican version of events. All of that changes with a Democratically lead house. The investigative power goes without saying, except that, the Democrats would have to be very smart about how and when they use that power.

I would think that electing a Democrat in '08 will be very difficult without this election securing at least one house of congress.