Lame Duck Senate Worries

"The upcoming midterm elections are likely to change the party numbers in both houses of Congress, but this may happen faster than most people now realize in the Senate. Because while most incoming members of the new Congress will get sworn in on the traditional timeline (i.e., next January), there are a handful of Senate races whose victors will be sworn in immediately after the election. This could alter the balance of power between the parties for the "lame duck" session -- the period between the election and next January. Which could have consequences for any legislation being put off until then (such as just happened with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, and the DREAM Act).

...even in the best case, Democrats will basically have the balance of power they now enjoy -- which hasn't done them a whole lot of good in the past few months to move their agenda. There's no reason to think (except possibly on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," after the Pentagon issues their report in late November) that any particular item on the Democratic agenda is going to suddenly have any more support after the election than now. In other words, unless Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe suddenly switches party registration (which is just not going to happen), Democrats won't be any more able to move bills through the Senate after the election than they are now." (Because they will still be short of 60 votes)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-..._b_735834.html

We all know what happened in Massachusett's 'special' election: Republican victory. October 1st is next Friday. Can we get DREAM act voted on before that? I feel like crying. This is a very real and truthful warning of what's at stake. There are four special elections coming up and every winning senator in those races assumes the senate seat immediately because they are replacements. All others wait until next Congress.

I wouldn't despair about this yet. It would really depend on where the changes happened and if a Democrat actually lost a seat in that district.

Its also possible Dems may gain more seats.

you are so darn...positive it's annoying -_-

No it's true there are more people that consider themselves democrats over republicans. In truth it's just speculators saying the Republicans will win more seats.

When it comes to elections, t's not about how many people in the United States consider themselves as Democrats or Republicans. It's about how enthusiastic they are. Polls show that Republicans are much more enthusiastic about the upcoming midterm elections right now. If people of a certain political party are more enthusiastic about elections, they are more likely to show up to vote. That is not a good sign. And, the enthusiasm gap between the Democrats and the Republicans is huge according to Gallup.

I like DA User's optimism, but it is not good to be so detached from reality.

It will really depend on these moderate and/or retiring Republicans. If the Democrats are able to convince them, they might be able to vote for the DREAM Act or the Defense Authorization bill. But, I'm not sure whether they will suddenly change their positions on the Defense Authorization or the DREAM Act. The Democrats will have to satisfy them by allowing the moderate/retiring Republicans to introduce certain amendments. As you saw, the Republicans strongly opposed to Senator Reid's way of dealing with the defense bill. There are two problems to this. One is that there is not enough time. There are many other important bills to consider after the elections. Of course, the defense bill is one of them. We know that Senator Reid tried to attach the DREAM Act to the bill. The Republicans are arguing that the Defense Authorization Bill should not include the DREAM Act. If the Democrats are not that willing to pass the DREAM Act, they might just give up attaching it to the defense bill to avoid the Republican opposition.

So, passing the DREAM Act as a standalone bill might be a better option. But, the other problem is that the Republicans might oppose to do anything other than critical bills like the defense bill. They might say, "Oh. You saw the election results. American people showed their will against your agenda. We won't do anything until next year." In that case, the Democratic leaders might not be willing to introduce it as a standalone bill. Especially, Senator Reid might not be willing to do that if he loses his re-election bid and wants to avoid any large fight with the Republicans.

So, my conclusion is that we should convince Senator Reid and Senator Durbin to strongly convince their moderate/retiring Republican colleagues to vote for the cloture of the defense bill and the attachment of the DREAM Act to it or to vote for the DREAM Act as a standalone bill.

man I'm starting to think it's all bs... We had 57 votes.. 1 could of been Reid but he supposedly voted no strategically.. But with his vote and the votes of the 2 democrats that voted no from some midwestern state over there we would of had 60.. Why didn't the president have his party in line like the republicans do? If they really wanted it you don't think they could of passed it?

Really, duke? haha he initially voted YES. But he had to change it last minute so that he could bring it up again at some other point in this congress.

Now lets see if you can follow along. 57 (including Reid's) + 2 (Lincoln/Pryor)= 59.

And since NO republican voted, there would be NO debate on the bill.

you'd think itd be simple enough.

oh really DA User? please tell me how democrats can gain more seats if all 4 seats are currently held by democrats. (Burris-D, Kaufmann-D, Bennet-D, and Goodwin-D). Either its no gain for the democrats if they defend all seats or they lose some.. please go get a clue

well appearantly I am misinformed... I wanst aware the 57 included Reid but thanks for putting it in such a nice and colorful way for me to understand. You lint licker.