If the actual vote is anything like what the polls now suggest, we’re talking about the Democrats holding a larger majority in the House than the Republicans have held at any point since their 1994 takeover.
So if the Democrats win, they’ll probably have a substantial majority. Whether they’ll be able to keep that majority is another question. But be prepared to wake up less than four weeks from now and learn that everything you’ve been told about American politics — liberalism is dead, whoever controls the South controls Washington, only Republicans know “the way to win” — is wrong. (Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?)
Krugman is really talking only about the House of Representatives. There is not much prospect of the Democrats gaining some earthshaking majority in the Senate. In a perfect storm we might sweep up all the currently competitive seats, plus Arizona and Nevada. But there is no way we are going to beat Trent Lott or Orrin Hatch or Olympia Snowe, or Craig Thomas. No one is even running against Richard Lugar. Our best possible outcome is for Lamont to win in Connecticut and for our candidates to win in Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona. That would give us 53 seats plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont. Our majority would be one seat less than the current Republican majority. The Democratic caucus would be slightly more progressive than it is now.
While we would pick up noted progressives in Sanders and Sherrod Brown, we would also pick up the rabidly pro-life Casey, the militaristic Ford, the pro-gun Tester, and the ex-Republican Webb. Lamont would occupy a space far to the left of Lieberman. Carter, McCaskill, and Pederson would probably wind up somewhere in the middle of the caucus.
The main effect on the party would come from the likely chairmanships for Boxer on Environment, Leahy on Judiciary, and Kennedy on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The House, however, is another matter.
As many bigoted GOP bloggers have noted, the House would not only be infused with a new generation of anti-Bush Democrats, their committees would be infused with quite a bit of color and estrogen. African-Americans would be in line to chair the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Ways and Means, House Administration, and (possibly) Intelligence committees. Nydia M. Velazquez would probably chair the Small Business Committee. What’s more, several noted white liberals would also gain committee chairs. Barney Frank would be in line to chair Financial Services. Henry Waxman would chair Government Reform (a White House nightmare). David Obey would head up Appropriations. Tom Lantos would chair Internation Relations. Louise McIntosh Slaughter would head up the powerful Rules committee.
The overall trend of the House would be sharply to the left on budget, on domestic policy, on foreign relations, and on the war.
We also have to consider the other side of the equation. Tom DeLay is gone. Denny Hastert is disgraced. RCCC Chair Tom Reynolds is probably going to lose his seat. If there is a landslide, the whole leadership will be in shambles and lacking credibility within the caucus. There is also the morale problem. Many of the Republicans in the House have never been in the minority. A lot of them will probably retire if they don’t think they can win the House back in 2008.
Then there is the whole north/south thing. Krugman asks, “Are we seeing the birth of a new New Deal coalition, in which the solid Northeast takes the place of the solid South?”
Not exactly. Our majority will be heavily reliant on the Pacific coast, nothern plains, and elements of the mountain states and southwest. We’ll also hold a bunch of seats in Florida, and spots of seats throughout the Confederacy. But it will be the first time we’ve had a majority where the majority of our seats were not from the south. And that will lead to more polarization of the country unless we find a way to appeal to southern voters.
The potential implosion of the evangelical/GOP relationship could fundamentally alter American politics. But that hasn’t happened yet. And the Dems have no plan to pick up those voters.
In any case, this could be interesting.
Another one I’m excited about is my congressman, John Dingell, is in line to be the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
He’s endorsed by the Sierra Club and has a 100% rating from the LCV. He represents my uber-liberal Ann Arbor area so you know he’s good. Well, unless you’re a wingnut.
who’s older? Moses or Dingell? When was that guy first elected?
He’s been in the House since 1955…he took over the seat from his dad, John Dingell Sr., who had held it since 1933 (I think).
So there has been a John Dingell representing Michigan’s 15th for 73 years.
well I guess he has the necessary experience to be Chairman. You think?
that if he doesn’t, nobody does.
It seems possible that the House will be more liberal-leaning than a count of members suggests — assuming, of course, that the Big Shift takes place as hoped. Let’s face it, a lot of “centrist” Dems are there not out of conviction but out of electoral calculation. With a liberal Dem majority providing cover, we may see more “conversions” when it comes to voting than is apparent based on past performance. We’ll see.
I think that is definitely the case.
I mean, let’s just look at the investagatory part of it. In the Senate we’re looking at Rockefeller, Lieberman, and Leahy. In the House at Conyers, Waxman, and Alcee Hastings (maybe Jane Harman, we’ll see).
Slaughter on Rules. That determines how many amendments can be attached, and all kinds of critical things.
Lantos on International Relations.
George Miller on Education.
It’s a very liberal crew.
You guys should go outside, turn around three times, curse, and spit.
You’re tempting the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing.
We can talk about this stuff very, very soon, but not quite yet.
noted progressives … Sherrod Brown
Yup, nothing says “progressive” louder than voted for the destruction of the Great Writ.
there are lines that should not be crossed.
about the pro-Israel Lantos becoming chair of International Relations (my district is not that far from his), but I can reluctantly live with it.
And the Democrats don’t have to pick up the evangelical voters right away — we just have to convince them to stay home in November. In a couple of years, when they see that a Democratic Congress has not brought about Armaggedon, they might actually start thinking more about Jesus’ admonition to care for the least of His bretheren (and sisteren) and notice who does a better job at that…
Just like in the 80’s MI gets screwed again! Not all of MI=A2. There’s Detroit (born and raised.) and Flint, the UP, all of which are shadows of their former selves.
We have a monolithic national tide against the Republicans. Yet in liberal CT, where it all started, things seem to be in a time warp, with Joe and the Republican congresspeople seeminly ahead.