bbauska

There were 60 Dem and independent caucusing senators for some of his first two years.

For a criticism of the precision of my comment to have affect it would be great if you didn't use the word "some". And actually told us what you mean by some.
To calculate, first you'd have to account for the following:

2.An election dispute over the Minnesota seat previously held by Norm Coleman (R), between Coleman and challenger Al Franken (D), was decided in late June 2009 in favor of Franken,[6] who was sworn in on July 7, 2009.[7]

Then you have to calculate the number of days that Ted Kennedy could actually show up. noty many, as you'll recall he was busy with brain cancer.... And he was replaced by Brown. So the ability to beat the filibuster was only a hanful of votes.
As it says in the article I linked:

"Republicans have ratcheted use of the filibuster up to completely unheard of levels. Look at the things that the House (of Representatives) has passed that can't make it through the Senate. The list just keeps growing," said Norman Ornstein, an expert on Congress at the American Enterprise Institute, a center-right policy organization.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/12/8 ... rylink=cpy

Are you refuting the fact that the Dems had a 3/5ths majority for a great deal of the time? 59-39 qualifies.

From July 7th 2009 to February 4th 2010 the had a majority (with the exception of 2 weeks in September).

Now for the numbers from earlier. When looked at WIKI numbers for 2010 population I found 310,973,900. Then I tabulated the populations of all states that had only 1 Republican Senator, and divided in half for a split electorate (based upon 2009/10 senate makeup) That was 37,222,500. Then I added the states that had both Republican senators. That totaled up to 115,383,500 when added to the earlier 37 million number.

Divide115,383,500 by 310,973,900 and you get....

Wait for it....

37.2%

Golly! That is really close to the Constitutionally mandated 2/5ths +1 to filibuster. It is also 33% higher than RickyP's data point of 28%.

Purple, could you also take the 21 MOST populous states and get a filibuster? I believe so. Your example, although intriguing, is not based upon fact, but a manipulation of statistics. Do I need to calculate the population of the 21 most populous?

bbauska

Are you refuting the fact that the Dems had a 3/5ths majority for a great deal of the time? 59-39 qualifies

No. I'm disputing the idea that 59 Democratic senators could attend to vote. Or 60 when 60 was required...

bbauska

From July 7th 2009 to February 4th 2010 the had a majority (with the exception of 2 weeks in September

Ted Kennedy could not attend to vote from about march 2009 till his death in August...

So, my point stands: Republicans successfully filibustered in the Senate for most of the first two years of Obamas term. There were a couple of victories... For example: m Kennedy, was wheeled into the Senate to break the filibuster on the Stimulus package...
Blaming Obama for inaction when the Senate filibuster was so effective at blocking legislation is dishonest.

When did I say Obama was the problem? I said Reid is the problem.

Are you saying Kennedy could not vote, but he voted?

Who is being dishonest?

The stimulus passed in Februay B. I said kennedy was pretty much indisposed from MArch. In fact he attended and voted only a few times in January and Fenruary as well.
You could check this yourself before saying something stupid like Who is being dishonest?

I certainly hope Rush is right, but they need to go to the Constitution Party, not the LP. We want no such thing to do with the likes of Limbaugh.

Sassenach wrote:Sure, he's a conservatve. He did at least come across as being sane, considered and willing to at least talk about compromise. You don't have to agree with all of a candidate's policy positions to regard them as being a decent candidate for office.

This is FUNDAMENTAL to having a good candidate for a general election. I respect a reasoned pro-life position, I may not agree with it, but I respect it. I respect differing opinions about tax policy. it's not all about positions on issues. Reasonable people disagree all the time and that's OK, but you first have to start with a reasonable person.

danivon wrote:ARJ - I didn't think Huntsman was a moderate. Just that he was credible. Which exceeds the standing of his rivals, frankly. After him, Romney was the best of a bad bunch. We all know that the real heavyweights, those with conviction, experience and some personal appeal (regardless of how ideologically pure or impure they are) sat this one out. Perhaps they were wrong, and they could have beaten Obama this year. Mind you, this strikes me as an election the Republicans might want to lose - the next four years are going to be tough.

Sorry I just saw this. I somewhat agree with what you are saying, though I think I might say that Huntsman was better then Romney but had an incompetent running his campaign. Honestly, in the back of my mind I had felt that I wouldn't be terribly upset is Obama was reelected as long as both Houses went Republican. That way Obama wouldn't be able to do anything and we could get a better candidate in 4 years.

Huntsman will be the DNC Candidate in 2016

Guapo wrote:Huntsman will be the DNC Candidate in 2016

Thus proving what a pinko he is?

Nah. He's only medium rare. I think that if/when the GOP dies, the DNC will have to move toward the middle. Even though I don't see Obama as a hard-core leftist, he's got that image and the party will move toward the authoritarian "center". They will need to appear as the party of compromise.

If the GOP folds, they will split into the Constitution Party (social conservatives), Libertarian Party (economic hawks), and possibly one more. But the DNC will move to bring in the centrists. I don't see any up-and-coming Democrats, either. Huntsman is the guy.

But hey, I am making a prediction WAY ahead of schedule, and it's based on some assumptions about the GOP.

Why would the Democrats need to move if their main opposition is split? The electoral system would favour the Democrats massively already, and they could probably veer a little left. Cf the UK Conservative Party in 1983 following the creation of the SDP, splitting the centre-left vote that had previously been stuck with Labour as the only choice.

The end result was actually that Labour had to move toward the centre to get back to contention, and it still took until 1997 and a totally incompetent Tory government to win.

Mind you, I doubt that the Republicans will split. Perhaps a breakaway will emerge and it might possibly last more than a few years, but I think the end of the GOP is just one of Rush's Oxy delusions.

Because 4 more years of Obama will have a negative effect on the Dems. He's highly unliked, and just because the Republicans might fade, it doesn't mean the dems will automatically win. Obama has been terrible on many of the issues that civil libertarians and anti-war democrats deem important. The LP will continue to grow, and they will draw from the Democrats.

Not to mention, any party will not settle. They will see the opportunity to bring in "moderate" Republicans as an opportunity to become a political juggernaut.

Guapo wrote:Because 4 more years of Obama will have a negative effect on the Dems. He's highly unliked, and just because the Republicans might fade, it doesn't mean the dems will automatically win.

I agree that nothing is automatic, but consider the following:

1) Obama will not be the candidate in 2016
2) Four years can change a lot in terms of Obama's or the Democrats's popularity
3) If both the LP and the CP become viable and successors to the GOP, it would take at least one major election to shake out the effects. In the meantime, split voting would benefit the Democrats. Indeed, if only 10% of votes move from the Republicans to a third party, unless marginal states and districts were completely unaffected, the Dems would be in landslide territory.

Obama has been terrible on many of the issues that civil libertarians and anti-war democrats deem important. The LP will continue to grow, and they will draw from the Democrats.

Potentially. But I think it's not likely if the LP becomes a haven for Republicans, who would push more on the economic liberty side, and less on social liberty.

Not to mention, any party will not settle. They will see the opportunity to bring in "moderate" Republicans as an opportunity to become a political juggernaut.

Maybe so, but I suspect if they see their opposition split, they'd not need to pick a former Republican as candidate. Indeed, they would 'declare victory' over the Republicans, and likely see it as vindication of their current position. Hillary would be a good bet.