the R's would oppose. But that's not true. The Dems won't do anything that the Republicans don't approve of. The Dems will give the Repubs veto power over anything. This process has already in fact started, as this analysis by the WSWS makes clear:

....A principal concern of Obama and his key strategists is that a large-scale Democratic victory will arouse popular expectations that they have no intention of meeting.

The disavowal of any political mandate in Tuesday’s voting was spelled out by the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry, in an appearance as an Obama surrogate on the NBC Sunday interview program “Meet the Press.” Program host Tom Brokaw asked Kerry about statements from House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat, that Obama should move rapidly on tax cuts for middle-income and low-income families, health care reform and a substantive program to promote alternative energy.

Asked how he would pay for such policies, Rangel had replied, “Don’t ask me where the money will come from. I’m going to go to the same place that Paulson went”—referring to the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street authored by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Brokaw asked Kerry, “Is that responsible fiscal policy?” The senator responded, “I don’t agree with all of that and nor does Barack Obama. Barack Obama is the person running for president and he’s made it very clear we’re going to have to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington.”

Kerry added that Obama would seek significant Republican input and involvement in his administration. “He’s going to govern in a way that brings the country together, and no matter what our majority, he’s going to seek to reach a broader consensus because that’s the only way we can govern America at this time.” The senator suggested that the Democrats would not seek to use their majority to push through policies opposed by the Republicans. “We don’t need to pass things by 51 votes or 60 votes,” he said, referring to the Senate. “We need to build 85-vote majorities.”

This statement deserves serious consideration. Insistence on “85-vote majorities” in the Senate means giving the Republican minority veto power over government policy. It amounts to a repudiation of any conception of democracy...

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:59:06 PM

  (0+)

The Repug's passed all of their "urgent" legislation with a small minority.  FISA,Patriot Act, Off-Shore Drilling, Bailout; but the Dems need fillibuste-proof majority to accomplish anything?  The only legislation which has or will get  passes will be pro BIG BUSINESS legislation. Both Dems and Repugs have the same Master, and it is not the people they purportedly have sworn to represent. 
We are merely a nuisance

by kato krause (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 216 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:26:47 PM

  (0+)

They are almost the same Party when it comes to stealing our money and most of our Freedoms. The Dems didn't stand up to The Patriot Act, or Protect America. They voted for both and blamed the Republicans for "Name Calling" and "They Made Us Vote Yes!" was their battle cry. Lets see if they reverse those laws now. That'll be the proof. The more people that begin to realize this, the better for our children. If Obama wants to destroy the country, maybe we should let him. Then we can start all over as Jefferson predicted would be necessary.

by V.Austin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:39:51 PM

  (0+)

First Obama has to GET elected, and that's far from certain unless EVERYBODY gets off their butts and out from behind their keyboards and spends Tuesday in line voting.  Hey, it's just ONE day out of your life to change the world, right?

Second, perhaps Obama's talk about "working with the Republicans" is as true as Bush's talk was.  The first sign will be if Obama puts a VERY challenging nomination out there early and DARES the Rethuglicans to stop it.  This is what Bush did with Ashcroft, basically saying: "Hey, you have to give me who I want."

The Rethuglicans will be running scared if they aren't able to steal this election with a TEN MILLION vote head start.  They will realize that if the Democrats get some election reform in, they are a DEAD party and they will have to start cooperating.

At least, that's what I HOPE.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:10:44 PM

  (0+)

First Obama has to GET elected, and that's far from certain unless EVERYBODY gets off their butts and out from behind their keyboards and spends Tuesday in line voting.  Hey, it's just ONE day out of your life to change the world, right?

Second, perhaps Obama's talk about "working with the Republicans" is as true as Bush's talk was.  The first sign will be if Obama puts a VERY challenging nomination out there early and DARES the Rethuglicans to stop it.  This is what Bush did with Ashcroft, basically saying: "Hey, you have to give me who I want."

The Rethuglicans will be running scared if they aren't able to steal this election with a TEN MILLION vote head start.  They will realize that if the Democrats get some election reform in, they are a DEAD party and they will have to start cooperating.

At least, that's what I HOPE.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:10:56 PM

  (0+)

This 110th democratic senate, with their 51 votes, certainly didn't have the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican Mitch McConnell's orchestrated campaign of obstructionism with his 90 plus successful filibusters, but when their offense failed those democratic senators should have played a good defense, which they failed to do. These cowardly spineless senate democrats didn't even launch one filibuster and it would have taken only 41 votes to block Bushco's agenda. Instead of blocking they gave in and gave Bushco everything even more than was asked for at every turn. That's how the these donkeys are planning to get their 60 seat majority-"by being more like Republicans, we can win more elections", as Hoyer predicts. They should be run out of town on a rail (figuretively speaking of course).

by Gene Cappa (43 articles, 28 quicklinks, 113 diaries, 347 comments [33 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:12:17 PM

  (0+)

If they get 60, we will eventually have a Civil War.  There are two Americas.  One that wants small governent and real freedoms, and one that wants big government and Socialism.  With big government comes loss of freedoms and more control.  They will attempt to change The Constitution to fit their idea of a Socialistic society.  This is unacceptable to most Americans as The Constitution only exists to limit government powers.  Obama hates the idea of limiting government power.  We all hate Bush as he grew government and expanded government power.  He was never a real Republican.  We will now cut off our nose to spite our face and then we will all pay the price. Good luck to all.

by V.Austin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 94 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:27:50 PM

  (0+)

This article begins with the incorrect assumption that the only reason the Dems don't pass lots of wondeful legislation was the threat of the filibuster by the Republicans.  While that makes good Dem campaign propaganda, there is nothing to indicate that it is true.

Notice that the Dems have proposed very little decent legislation while holding the majority.  The key fact to know is that the majority controls the agenda.  But, when you look, the agenda has still basically been a Republican one.  Every bill that Bush and the Republicans wanted always got fast tracked for a vote.  While bills the far left wanted either were killed by sending to a committee, or never saw the light of day.

As an election strategy, this made no sense.  One would think the Dems would want to force the Republicans 'on the record' on key votes.  So, one would have expected that the Dem leadership would have put bill after bill on the agenda to do just that.

What's happened the last two years however makes perfect sense when you realize the Dems have now based their party on big money.  Look at the $600 million plus that Obama has raised just in his official Potus campaign account.  Then look beyond at all the other money lurking behind.

The Republicans have always represented big money.  Today the Democrats represent big money.  Amazingly, the two parties agree almost entirely.  There's been very little division in this Congress.  And the Obama-McCain faux-debates have been a love-fest of the two candidates agreeing with each other.

But, we shall see.  If the Greens can't pull an upset, then I hope the Dems do get a filibuster-proof majority.  Then, there will be no excuses and we'll know exactly where the Dems stand by the 2010 elections.  My guess is that it won't be a pretty sight for anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan.

by Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 49 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:42:33 PM

  (0+)

PS ... there's a second point to be made here.  There are a lot of sitting Dem Senators that are basically Republicans.  As far as I know, few if any of them are leaving the Senate.  There were certainly no progressive primary victories which replaced any of them.

One example is my Sen ... Salazar of CO.  He's always been a sure Republican vote on any key issue.  He's back next session.

The only one I know of that we might get rid of is Sen. Biden.  He is always a sure vote for corporate America on economic issues.  He serves corporate America's HQ state, and he always is on the wrong side.  At least that's one "DINO" we are getting out of the Senate.  But, I'd doubt the governor of America's corporate HQ state would appoint anyone any better.

One key sign I was looking for in terms of change this year was a series of primary fights within the Dem party where the DINO's who always oppose us had tough fights and maybe lost.  Instead, this was a very quiet year within the Democrats.  Which just shows that this goal of being just like the Republicans seems popular with the Democrats.

Unless a bunch of Dems get convicted of say corruption charges, and then get replaced by a bunch of populist progressive Dems, don't expect anything different from this Congress than in the last .... until we kick them all out in the 2010 elections.

by Samson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 49 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 7:48:43 PM

  (0+)

another DINO, Stenny Hoyer, replaces Biden?

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Nov 3, 2008 at 9:26:53 PM

  (0+)

what strikes me in these comments is the passivity of the writers.  there is no sense that a popular organized effort to pressure the dems and keep obama's toes to the fire is in anyone's thoughts.  it seems that is the core of the issue--the passive, dumbed down, and impotent public.  being bright is just not enough.  without action, the corporate shills do get there way. 

i am assuming that the voting machines will be fixed and 100,000's of votes will be discarded--possibly over 1 million of them.  in harlem, during the primary, no votes were recorded for obama in at least 1 district.  the news reported 6 districts in nyc that had this occurrance, districts of people of color!  my daughter's vote was one of these. what was the reaction?  NONE!!!  and these were mechanical lever machines.  nonetheless, i think obama will get it. i think all those high profile republicans jumping into the obama ship is the keynote to this election.  i think the ultimate fix is in for obama, but by a small majority.  this will ensure that the news pundits will claim there was no major mandate for change and will also allow the democrats to continue on their merry spineless way.

the only hope for real change includes major organizing efforts.  these efforts need to include pushing for Clean Election legislation; ridding of us of the electoral college; demanding a more representative form of government which would allow 3rd party candidates to acutally win seats.  this on top of the usual organized high pressure concerning the issues of welfare for the wealthy vs social security and financial protection for the workingand middle classes; judicial protection for people of color; worker's protection on the job and single-payer health care that includes choice of holistic health care instead of the support for the medical industry of insurance companies and big pharma.

by tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 7:05:19 AM

  (0+)

& "demanding a more representative form of government which would allow 3rd party candidates to acutally win seats" etc, has it occurred to you that the current governmental set-up will never permit this to happen?

The 2 parties are very aware that they have a monopoly. They understand quite clearly that letting 3rd parties compete in the system would diminish their power. Therefore, they will never permit it to happen. Why would they? They're not stupid, and they like it just the way it is.

All the nice ideas you mentioned are examples of putting the cart before the horse. One can't "push for" various types of progressive legislation until one has confronted the problem of how power is actually held & distributed in our society. It's wishful thinking to imagine that either of the 2 parties would ever do anything that amounts to surrendering their own power to the citizenry. This is not a democracy, it's a corporate plutocracy -- and corporate plutocracies don't surrender power.

Clean Election legislation and Third Parties would indeed be very nice. But precisely because they'd be so nice, our rulers won't ever permit us to have them. It's not being "defeatist" or "passive" to recognize this. It's simply being realistic about the nature of the political set-up. Any campaign to get such nice progressive goodies must have a far more specific battle plan than simply "pushing for" the desired goals & hoping for the best. We could have marches & writing letters to congressmen from now until Kingdom Come, without it yielding the slightest positive result.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:18:39 AM

  (0+)

Sorry Rob, but it looks like your readers, writers, and commenters are more realistic than you.

The Dems aren't going to do squat, with or without 60 Senators --- they will just invent new EXCUSES as to why they can't help working class Americans (and our dead democracy) survive against the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' that IS this phony two-party, 'Vichy' facade of faux democracy.

Sure the EXCUSES might have to get more creative to keep a majority of the rubes fooled, but anyone who is awake, breathing through the nose (instead of mouth), and can walk and crew gum at the same time already knows that the DEMs are a pro-empire, pro-corporate, pro-elite party -- just like the Repugs.

As the first post noted from the attached WSWS article, "ain't nothin gona change with phony 'change-man' and a larger number of complicit pimping DEMs in Congress.".

2008 box score ---- Corporatist Empire 530     We the People 5 (or so)

Like the 1923 Black Sox, the 'fix' is in.

But let's by all means keep that heat under Obama's feet.  With heating oil being what it is, he'll appreciate the warmth for his fireside chats with Exxon and Wall Street while we freeze, eating cat food in the houses we used to own.

by Alan MacDonald (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 131 comments [43 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:20:52 AM

  (0+)

Socialism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with the size of government or taking away people's freedoms. Actually people would have far greater freedom in a socialist society than a capitalist society. Capitalism is what leads to fascism and global government.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 10:18:04 AM

  (0+)

If this is a landslide election for Obama but the Democrats do not get quite 60 senators, my prediction is that there will be a widespread belief that this election represents a major realignment of the country that will favor Democrats for many years to come.

The result will be quite a number of elected officials jumping from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.  In short order, Democrats will have their 60 vote filibuster-proof majority.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 510 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM

  (0+)

If they want to keep Republicans from filibustering all they have to do is change the rules in the Senate.  The 60 votes required to cut off filibusters is a Senate rule.  They can change that rule to be that it requires just a majority vote to cut off filibusters.  Changing the Senate rules requires just a simple majority vote.

The Republicans could have done the same in the last congress to keep Democrats from filibustering judicial nominations.   They didn't.  I don't know if it is likely the Democrats will vote to change the rules or not.  If they get a Democratic President they very well might so they can ram rod through a bunch of legislation their base favors.  There are some good reasons why they shouldn't change the rules, but these people (Ds and Rs in Congress  ) aren't known for their ability to think about consequences.

Whatever happens it is going to be interesting to see what unfolds.  

Personally I hope they change the filibuster rules and pass new laws concerning guns - taking them from everyone,  government paid for abortions, Fairness Doctrine, immigration leading to amnesty and open borders, free heathcare, for everyone, a higher minimum wage ($15/hr at least),  higher taxes on the rich and businesses, doubling the capital gains tax, required unionization of any company with 1000 employees or more, prohibit drilling off shore, end all nuclear and coal power generation, carbon offset taxes, end IRAs and 401ks, tax social security, a citizen army, reinstate the draft,  new campaign finance laws, ending trade agreements, outlaw vouchers, rescind NCLB, reduce the size of military by 1/4 to 1/2, immediately removing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. etc.  

by Mad Jayhawk (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 652 comments [56 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:20:13 PM

  (0+)