The most consequential President of the last 40 years had an opposition house and won two landslides

[Politics_Guy25]

Something to remember:

Ronald Reagan had a House that was on the verge of impeaching him a couple of times between 1980-1986 and was quite hostile with a huge dem majority. What he did have, however, was United States Senate control for 6 of his 8 years, and was able to implement his agenda.

The United States Senate is where it is at people. And once again, we have an enormously talented and consequential president, this time from the correct side of the political equation, who will have an oppositon house but who will retain senate control.

Reagan was evil and created this current mess but there's no doubt that he was talented at his evil and was consequential.

The Senate is everything and the fact that we're likely to hold it means that the Obama agenda is alive and well in 2011 and speaks very kindly to his re-election chances in 2012. Having a senate majority also reflects how the electoral college will turn out in 2 years time as well imo

Interesting that the two most beloved presidents of modern times both are likely to have had opposition houses but who are/were both very well positioned for re-election and both had/have senate control.

Did Reagan's presidency collapse because he lost the House? NO!!! Unfortunately.

Will Obama's presidency collapse if he loses the house but holds the senate? NO!! Fortunately!! Plus the Obama surge voters will return the house to us in 2012 anyway even if we do lose it this time.

"Change has come to America" will continue.

P.S.: All of the coverage, even on FNC, is on the senate. That shows where the real power base lies.

[kestrel91316]

1. Obama has had a Dem-"controlled" Senate for 2 years and has been able to do nothing very progressive

with it. Sigh.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. ditto x 10 n/t

[msongs]

3. reagan wasn't obssessed with bipartisanship and ran on a republican agenda nt

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Reagan had the press licking his boots

And lots of spineless Dems in Congress.

[doc03]

5. [phone]

[Cosmocat]

14. Oh, there is NO comparison here, NONE ...

Just no comparison to older school democrats (from a time when parties actually did WORK together on things at times) and the current foaming at the mouth, absolutely NO desire to govern and the supeonas already printed up deranged repubicans of today ...

It will be a flaming DISASTER if the Rs get either chamber, this country has NEVER seen a party, in TOTAL, and I mean every stinking member bowing to the party ring, that has been this extreme, this out of control, focused STRICTLY on politics and with ZERO interest in governance ...

and, as noted, a media that has given up any pretense of being a media, and is all in on republican boot licking ...

[joshcryer]

6. The senate is disallowed from making appropriation bills / increasing taxes.

Therefore for a Democratic administration, controlling the congress is the best and only way to inact progressive policy.

[stray cat]

7. What else has changed since 1980?

[madinmaryland]

8. When did the House nearly impeach Reagan. Tip O'Niell would not

have let that happen.

[Politics_Guy25]

9. Iran-Contra nearly ended Reagan's presidency

Impeachment was very SERIOUSLY on the table.

[kath]

10. Iran-Contra was TREASON, and he damned well *should* have been impeached for it!

[dsc]

11. Reagan didn't lose the House

Democrats had it coming in and going out of his Presidency.

[ruggerson]

12. Reagan played a President who was avuncular and likable

and at the same time was ferociously partisan and not afraid to take strong positions on social issues where he was in the minority (abortion), understanding that Americans like a President with convictions.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. The Only Reason Reagan Won Reeelection In 1984 Is Because The Economy Turned Around

Everything else is commentary...