I have been watching the US election campaign but, frankly, there has not been much in what is one of the most corrupt and decadent political systems among the major "democratic" countries that has jumped out and said "Blog me!" The following table covers the latest predictions from our associate and master election predictor, Greg Morrow over at democraticSpace. If Greg is as accurate at predicting the outcome of American elections as he is at predicting Canadian elections, you can pretty well take this to the bank. There is a good chance that Greg will do another update Sunday or Monday and I will update this table as soon as I have the information
|
U.S.Election 2006 |
|||
|
SENATE |
Republican |
Democrat |
Independent |
|
Pre-election |
55 |
44 |
1 |
|
Change |
-6 |
+5 |
+1 |
|
Projected |
49 |
49 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
HOUSE |
|
|
|
|
Pre-election |
230 |
202 |
3 |
|
Change |
-19 |
+22 |
-3 |
|
Projected |
211 |
224 |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
GOVERNORS |
|
|
|
|
Pre-election |
28 |
22 |
0 |
|
Change |
-7 |
+7 |
0 |
|
Projected |
21 |
29 |
0 |
|
Seat projections provided by democraticSpace |
|||
Like the vast majority of Canadians, I believe that it would be extremely difficult to find something worse than the current cabal of crazies that hold all three levels of the US government. But how much of a difference will the outcome of this election really make to us in practical terms? My guess? Not much - for several reasons.
First, we are stuck with two more years of Bush in the Whitehouse unless he is impeached or resigns - in which case we get Dick Cheney who could scarcely be called an improvement.
Second, a Democrat takeover of the House is an improvement but the Senate, if Greg's predictions are correct is a mess. A 49 - 49 split means the Dems will have to often have to rely on getting both Independents to vote with them. One of them usually does but the second Indy would be DINO Joe Lieberfink who can be expected to vote with the Republicans most of the time. The outcome of Senate votes is likely to be determined by who is too sick to be wheeled into the chamber for a vote on any given day. To turn Bush into a terminally lame duck, the Dems need to pick up at least two more of those tight senate seats than Greg thinks they will.
Third, even if the Democrats take both houses of Congress, that is hardly comparable to the NDP getting a majority in Parliament. Most so-called "progressive" Dems are to the right of the Liberal Party and a significant number will be well to the right of that. A Democratic Congress might eliminate or, at least curtail, some of the more egregious excesses of the current Congress but probably not much more. Even if the Democrats had all three levels of government filled with real progressives, it would take at least ten years to root out the partisan hacks installed by the Republicans and undo the damage that Bush and company have caused
It is unlikely that much will be done to limit the rampant paranoia in the country. I also don't expect there to be a massive shift in US foreign policy. Once again, some changes will be made and the tone will be more polite when dealing with other countries but I wouldl be surprised to wake up one day and discover that US foreign policy has changed beyond recognition.
One area where we can expect more trouble (and in direct proportion to Democratic control) is in the area of trade. Keep in mind that all of our trade problems in recent years have come with the supposed free traders running the government. There is a strong protectionist streak in the Democratic Party along with a lot of anti NAFTA sentiment. There is nothing inherently bad about that except that successive Canadian governments have over emphasized trade with the US and failed to pursue alternative markets leaving us entirely too vulnerable to protectionist sentiment south of the border.
All in all I'm cautiously optimistic about the implications of this election but a fundamental change in the approach of the US government? Not so much.
So, with those Senate numbers Sanders of Vermont balances out Big Time and......
Joementum holds the balance of power?
Sheesh.
Big Time (aka Cheney) only votes if there's a tie. Still Lieberman could hold the balance of power if he forces a tie and lets Cheney decide, I suppose.
Those look like plausible numbers. But let's not forget they probably don't take widespread fraud into account.
Lieberman is supposed to be a Standard American Liberal on most issues other than foreign policy. Of course, foreign policy is pretty important. But it's not clear how is presence will pan out.
Yo Mahigan:
What is the national impact of Governors race? I know that the Premiers of Atlantic Provinces meet with the New England Governors once a year and it is often pointed out that the American element of this meeting eat their hearts out at the power and authority of their provincial counterparts.
croghan27
Mandos--
I don't think so.
If joementum is elected it will be with Republican votes and Republican money and even Republican volunteers.
Oh, ya, and Michael Bloomberg.
____
Cottonwood--
Right, so all Lieberman has to do is vote against Sanders, force the tie, and there goes the ballgame.
Go Lamont!
.
The problem is that foreign policy has become entangled with constitutional issues, and the executive's assault on the constitution (as well as Congress's failure to defend) has become one of the scariest developments of the last year.
I think that guys like Lieberman, because of their foreign-policy views, have also shifted on civil liberties, and that is dire.
Something similar is happening here too, of course. Very depressing.
First, my apologies to everyone for the table which for some reason is rendering properly only in Internet Exploder. I don't know why this is because it is the same table I have used before and it has rendered properly in all browsers. Unfortunately I don't have time to mess with it right now.
croghan27 - regarding the importance of the governorships. I think there are a few reasons why they are important. I'm sure there is someone who will correct me if I'm wrong but I think that constitutional amendments require the approval of 2/3 of the states so Dem control of governorships and state legislatures is important in that regard. Also a large percentage of presidential/VP candidates come from those ranks. The more Dem governors, the bigger the pool of experienced future candidates.
The house and senate in the united states very rarely vote along party lines. control of the house and the senate is at most an illusion. despite views to the opposite, the real power in these elections is held by the voters, who get to vote on various issues at the state levels, (eg. same sex marrige, gun control, legalization, etc.) its this part of the system that makes the united states a far more democratic country than ours.
the control of the house and senate does, however, greatly effect the appointment of the supreme court, which is the real seat of power in US law.
american politicians are more aware of the fact that they must take a stand on issues that their constituants back. Not at all like our "democracy" where our last majority goverment resulted in unstoppable arrogance, robbery, fraud, corruption and elitism.
i think the democrats will take the house, the republicans the senate, and you will NEVER NEVER see a fudamental change in the approach of the US government. If anything, you'll see them manipulate other countries in different ways, but to the same end.
Although votes in the House and Senate may not be strictly along party lines when a bill gets to the floor, they frequently are in committees, where the real work is done.
By controlling the committees, the majority party wields great power over what issues get to the floor of the House or the Senate.
For example, this year the Senate Select Panel on Intelligence voted along party lines to quash a Democratic proposal to investigate Bush's wiretapping program.
When the House and Senate are controlled by the same party occupying the White House, the opportunity for untrammeled power leads to....pretty much what you've seen for the last six years.
In many ways the politicians owe their allegiance not to the voters, but to the corporations who finance their elections and whose interests they really represent. The issues take a backseat to character assasination in these increasingly more expensive and ugly campaigns.
The Supreme Court is more reflective of the President's power than the Senate's. Unless the opposition party has 60 Senate seats, a popular President has fairly wide leeway in his choices. As long as he can convince the Senate Majority Leader to work for confirmation of his choice, he's in good shape. Of course when he nominates such a loser that even his own party won't work for her nomination, as in the case of Harriet Meiers, it doesn't matter who controls the Senate.
While I generally agree with the thrust of your post Mahigan, I do think it will have one important effect if the Dems take either or both Houses of Congress, especially the House. It will allow them to subpoena the real records of what has been going on the last six years ago that the GOP and the Bush WH have been hidden from public view. One of my responses to the question GOP supporters have about what Dems would do differently is that the Dems have been shown time and again to have not been provided the same access to information regarding the activities of the government that the GOP have seen and therefore cannot be expected to have plans to solve the problems they do not even have a full understanding of thanks to the information being hidden from their eyes.
I want to see the real information regarding Abu Ghraib brought into the public domain. I want to see the real information regarding abuse of intelligence to launch the Iraq war finally brought into the public domain instead of repeatedly buried by the GOP. I want to see the real evaluations of the intelligence the torture policies have provided and their credibility brought into the public domain. For those reasons alone the Dems winning the Congress could be significant for us, because the more the corruption and inhumanity of the GOP is brought into the public domain the more can be hung around the GOP's supporters/admirers/mimicers in Canadian politics, the CPC.
I also think that if the real facts start coming out there may finally be a real repudiation of such barbaric and inhuman practices instituted by the GOP since 9/11/01. This is something needed for America to ever regain any credibility internationally, and I see that as a necessary step since whether we like it or not the American power (economic/military) is still needed to help stabilize the world as it has done when employed in a responsible manner (yes, I know, not exactly something we have seen much of as of late, but think of Kosovo as one example and the first GW as another which made the transition from Cold War a lot less turbulent in the 90s than it otherwise could easily have been given the pent up pressures from the Cold War, especially nationalistic pressures).
That's my basis for wanting to see a Dem win tomorrow.
The election tomorrow is, after all, that of another country. Not my decision to make there. Yet from what I have seen and experienced -
I must agree with some blogger I read somewhere that pointed out Pete Townsend is correct in saying: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss,"
Is there a difference between the Republicans and Democrats other than style? I think not.
croghan27
Please note that we have uploaded our FINAL predictions -- slight changes from your original post:
SENATE
Repubican - 51 (-4)
Democrat - 47 (+3)
Independent - 2 (+1)
HOUSE
Democrat - 225 (+23)
Repubican - 210 (-20)
GOVERNORS
Democrat - 29 (+7)
Repubican - 21 (-7)
Full details at:
http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/usa2006