Ironically, House Democrats have been much more progressive than Senate Democrats...

[scheming daemons]

...but the Senate is probably a pretty safe bet to stay in Democratic hands.


The House... which passed a HCR bill WITH a public option.... which passed a strong FinReg bill... which passed Cap-and-Trade... which passed many, many bills that progressives would like.... is the chamber that is more likely to fall into Republican control after November.


It doesn't make sense. For the most part, our House members have been doing EXACTLY what we've wanted them to do, and Nancy has gotten them to vote on the issues that matter to progressives the most. And these bills have passed!


Then the bills go to the Senate and die, or get watered down.


So... why is it that the Democratic majority in the House is in danger, but the Democratic majority in the Senate seems to be safe? (Nate Silver has it as a less than 5% chance that the GOP takes over the Senate... he has it at 50-50 for the House).



Shouldn't it be the other way around? If the problem is that the left is upset with the Democrats in congress being too "moderate", shouldn't their ire be more directed at the Senators, and LESS against the House of Representatives members?



Pick an issue.. and the Dems in the House have been pretty good about it, from a progressive's perspective. So why are we facing the real possibility of a having to utter the words "Speaker of the House Boehner"?

[Radical Activist]

1. Yes, the Senate is the main problem, much more than the House or Obama.

Blaming watered down legislation on Obama is misplaced anger.

The reason for the House being in danger is simple. The entire House is up for re-election every two years. Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election. That's all there is to it.

[Radical Activist]

3. I'll take one point back.

There's a little more to it than that. The overemphasis on blaming every compromise and legislative failure on Obama is confusing people. The blame isn't being laid where it belongs, so people are unaware that it's the Senate they should be trying to change most.

The simplistic focus on Obama, as though he's the only person in Washington, isn't helping progressive causes.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Take a couple of aspirins and go lay down.

You'll feel better in the morning.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Only 33% of Senators are up for reelection this year

That means that 66% of Senate seats (barring unforeseen circumstances, like Robert Byrd's death) are going to remain in the control of whatever party holds them now. On the other hand, every seat in the House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years, so if there is particular anti-incumbent sentiment nationwide, the House would theoretically be more vulnerable.

[glowing]

5. Senate length is 6 yrs, congress 2.

[jobycom]

6. It was pretty much designed that way.

The Senate was designed to be more stable and less subject to public whims. That's why they are only elected every six years, and only a third is up for election every two years.

Also, since senators are elected state wide, they are beholden to more factions, so they have to tow a middle line to please more people. Remember, elections are generally won in the middle. If you lose a vote on the extremity, that voter will stay home or vote for a third party. If you lose a vote in the middle, that voter will vote for the Republican. It takes two votes to overcome that lost vote, so the middle votes count twice. Thus, senators campaign in the middle, and generally reflect the average of their state's voters.

Representatives are generally from districts drawn to fit one party or the other. The Republicans have been in power in the states for a long time, so most districts are drawn to favor Republicans. The Republicans try to isolate the Democrats in their states, so they create a few strong Democratic districts, and they draw the rest to combine Republican majorities with Democratic minorities, to split up Democratic voting blocks. Austin, for instance, is a liberal city surrounded by conservatives, so the Repubs divided Austin's one district into four, combining each district with a surrounding Republican area to destroy the Democratic vote. So, one Democratic Representative is destroyed and four conservatives move in (They actually failed, because one of the districts went Dem, anyway, but that's not really the point).

So, the House is predesigned to go Republican. The fact that it went Democrat shows just how much Bush was hated. Now that the hatred is evening out a bit, many of those districts may go back to the Republicans.

So the issue isn't really who is pleasing their constituency. It's more about who drew the boundaries in the House, and who can please the middle in the Senate.

Sometimes in an individual district--Congressional or statewide--the balance can be such that a far left voting record helps a candidate, or hurts a candidate. I've seen districts made up of extremists from both parties, and very few moderates, usually because of some fluke of nature--say a rural area that borders a liberal city--like around Austin. Then a party can lose that district by angering its edge. But those aren't the main issue with this election.

What we need is to win the state houses, and then we can draw our own districts, and that's when a change really begins to settle in.

[KonaKane]

7. the Senate has traditionally been a more conservative body

than the House, and for obvious reasons. The House is much closer to the populace, and is much more frequently cycled.