The new Republican House Majority

Final Results

Obviously you can see the numbers elsewhere. But what happened is that Republicans did substantially better-than-expected in the House. The Douglas Hibbs projection forecast about a 45 seat pickup, the generic ballot polling forecast about a 55 seat pickup, and in reality they got a 65 seat pickup which I believe will create the largest House Republican caucus since the Great Depression. Given the vagaries of Southern politics, I’m pretty confident we’ve seen bigger conservative majorities in the past but the point is it’s a big win.

Conversely in the Senate the GOP has underperformed. Harry Reid survived in Nevada. Michael Bennet looks like he’ll probably hang on in Colorado. A likely Republican win in Delaware was turned into an easy win for Chris Coons.

Realistically, I think the House margin matters much more. If the GOP had pulled off a very small majority, the White House could hope to attempt to govern via negotiations with a small block of relatively moderate representatives. With a big majority, legislative negotiations need to run through John Boehner. And any Obama-Boehner deal that could pass a Senate with 53 Democrats could also pass a Senate with 51 Democrats or even 48 Democrats. For a bill to become a law under this configuration you’d need a really substantial level of cross-party agreement that’s a bit hard to imagine at the moment. But that means that the days of the 111th Congress when things would come down to intense negotiations with individual Senators are probably over. Deals will be big picture or else more likely the deals won’t be done.

Republicans now have control of the House and have chipped away at the Democrats’ majority in the Senate. What they likely won’t have control over is the badly broken housing market, persistently high unemployment and runaway government spending.

Politicians’ promises aside, solving those issues will take much more than just a change on the nameplates at congressional offices. And the gridlock in Washington is likely to make solving the nation’s economic problems even more difficult. Source

i predict that, if nothing else, it won't be dull the next two years

The Republicans have expressed a committment to stand firm on their opposition to key aspects of Obamacare and their committment to reduce government spending - while at the same time affirming a willingness to work with the oposition.

One key leadership change will put Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in charge of the House Budget Committee, which proposes spending targets and estimates tax revenues. A vocal opponent of record federal budget deficits, Ryan has proposed " A Roadmap for America's Future" that would bring deep cuts in spending.

Probably just as serious as the analogous statements that will probably be forthcoming from the President. His earlier promise to keep them - in his words - in "the back seat of the car" don't promise very much either.

There's lots of hypocrisy on both sides of this divide, Cyclo.

Quote:

One key leadership change will put Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., in charge of the House Budget Committee, which proposes spending targets and estimates tax revenues. A vocal opponent of record federal budget deficits, Ryan has proposed " A Roadmap for America's Future" that would bring deep cuts in spending.

This, I think, is a good thing. I've listened to Paul Ryan for a few years now. I think he has a good head on his shoulders and some good ideas as a fiscal conservative. I don't like his position on social issues, however.

I've just printed out the mega version and will read through it. From the Executive Summary and the high point versions of each section, though, I don't see much I disagree with (and, I'm currently under 55 and in the target group to expect less public support as I age).

His own party can't embrace it because it's politically dangerous for Republicans to talk about reducing benefits to the elderly --- even the future elderly. They get all jumpy about unplugging grandma and death panels and crap.

georgeob1 wrote:

Probably just as serious as the analogous statements that will probably be forthcoming from the President. His earlier promise to keep them - in his words - in "the back seat of the car" don't promise very much either.

There's lots of hypocrisy on both sides of this divide, Cyclo.

I doubt you can point out any examples of the Republicans offering meaningful compromises on major bills over the last few years, yet you pretend equivalence in this matter. Why joke around like this? Nobody who seriously follows politics is buying this line.

I know that Fox News and others tried to raise a keruffle over Obama talking about the 'back seat of the car,' but I hardly expected knowledgeable observers such as yourself to blithely parrot such obvious tripe. Sadly surprised.

Cycloptichorn

Both sides have promised to stand firm on principle and cooperate on everything else, and both sides claim fidelity to these promises, with equal objective supporting evidence. The single payer insurance optiuon in the health care process died at the hands of Democrats in the Senate.

True, they claim that they were doing this in hopes of Republican support. However, the claim defies credence, and most Dem. legislators emphasized their skepticism and reluctance - and not their support for the left wing approaches to this issue during the recent campaign.

Apparently you put more importance on the fact that Fox news (among others) reported this fairly constant mantra ("back seat of ther car") in Obama's stump speeches these last few months, than you do to the obvious fact that he himself repeated the prase at every turn during the recent cvampaign.

Why do you consider the fact that Fox (as well as every other network) reported the stock phrase from a stump speech that was repeated many times to be more significant than the fact that the President of the United States repeatedly said it?

What conclusion would you draw from the phrase if you were a Republican legislator?