Nate Silver (translated): Yeah, the GOP is going to take the Senate back.

When a partisan writes something like this: “The past 14 years have featured a number of exceptionally exciting elections with control of the federal government at stake. This year, it probably isn’t” …then you know that things look grim for the party that the partisan is a partisan for.  If you can’t spin for the win, spin away the loss: it’s a trick as old as Aesop.  In this case, Nate Silver’s argument is that since the GOP already has veto power over everything (except for non-Supreme Court nominations, now that Harry Reid killed the filibuster for them*), then what difference does it make if the GOP does well this year? And sure, it makes no difference…

  • Except for judicial nominations, of course.  Which Nate Silver mentions.
  • And treaties. Silver mentions that, too.
  • Not to mention that of course the better we do this year, the more margin we have in 2016.  Silver’s aware of that, as well.
  • And then there’s the prospect of another hammer-blow to state Democrats, which will keep them in useful disarray for the rest of the decade, probably.  Still something that Silver notes; why does he think that this election isn’t a big deal, again?

Oh, right: arguably, the biggest X-factor of all: Republican control of both houses of Congress will severely limit the administration’s ability to stonewall investigations into federal bureaucrats acting badly. For the last six years the Senate under Harry Reid has been utterly unconcerned with any kind of meaningful oversight – Reid has spent much more time looking for the Koch brothers under his bed – and that will abruptly change in January. Nate Silver apparently managed to overlook that little detail: either he didn’t consider it, or he has his own reasons for wanting the 2015 Republican agenda to come as an abrupt shock to Democratic partisans.  I know which one I believe, but I admittedly have a weakness for narrative and drama**.

At any rate: don’t trust too much anybody who tells you that an election isn’t too consequential or too important.  If a elected position wasn’t important, they wouldn’t have an election to see who gets to do it.

Moe Lane

*Stupidly, in my opinion.  And in the opinion of a bunch of Democrats, albeit they’re being quiet about it.

**As they say: truth is stranger than fiction, because fiction has to make sense.

22 thoughts on “Nate Silver (translated): Yeah, the GOP is going to take the Senate back.”

  1. I look forward to drinking in more bitter D tears in the months to come.

    1. I’m glad they’re good for something.. tried watering a garden with ’em once, and it all came up dandelions.
      .
      Mew

      1. Yeah, that never works; it’s like trying to use pencil-neck geeks as fishbait.

  2. Another thing Silver forgot: Reid has obstructed every vote that puts Democrats on record by forcing them to make a public choice.
    Republicans will be able to use that to shine a light on the cockroach party.

  3. In one sense he is right: who holds office is not that important as long as the bureaucracy is partisan and on auto-pilot. Still voting here, Boss!

  4. McCain is chair of the investigations committee, so don’t expect much help from the Senate ( unless McConnell is pro-active in proving himself to conservatives by removing McCain from that)

    But at least the Senate won’t stonewall us, and there are some good Senators who will be getting chairmanships ( Sessions, Grassley, Inhofe)

  5. Correction, McCain is the ranking member of the investigations committee and in the event of an R Majority, the likely chairman.

    1. With McCain in charge, what could go wrong?

      I live in Arizona. McCain is up for re-election (should he choose to run) in 2016. I view that as my opportunity to send a message.

      1. I viewed 2010 as a similar opportunity and was disappointed Arizonans did not agree, but .. moving on…
        .
        Mew

        1. My parents live here; they’re “don’t rock the boat” Republicans. Even they’re sick of McCain and his antics, and as I said, they’re no “bomb throwers.”
          I just got into local politics, but I think conservatives have made a push statewide to take over control of the party machine.
          Both the state GOP and Maricopa county (i.e. Phoenix) have already censured McCain for being too liberal and opposing the will of the party.

          Such public repudiations should make it much harder for him to attract support.

  6. Moe, I would like to see more of this disarray at the State level.
    .
    Specifically, I would like to see statehouse GOP actions that would affect the Federal level, stuff beyond tweaking gerrymandering, leaning toward proportional allocation of electoral votes, increasing fraud enforcement for welfare recipients, etc. etc. Meaningful stuff that used to be called “common sense conservatism”.
    .
    Mew

    1. I believe, lineholder, that Team Mitch would “like to have their cake and eat it too”.
      .
      Mew

  8. The Institutional Republicans really don’t want the Senate. Control of the Senate means that they would have to do something other than surrender. Between promises by the Institutional “leadership” to move Amnesty and Permanent Open Borders in August before the election, and now reports that they will move it either in the lame duck session or in the new session if they win; they are leaving no hope that the Institutionals will ever respond to their Base.

    What the Institutionals really want is to get rid of those nasty Conservatives and TEA Party types, so that they can be a nice, tame, controlled pet “opposition” party without interference.

    I suspect that they will get their wish, either before or after the elections with Amnesty. They will do what they are going to do. And we will react, and do what we are going to do. The chips will fall where they may.

    1. I think that you are underestimating just how pettily the Senate is being run these days. Mitch McConnell wants the Senate leadership, if only for getting his own back.

      1. Yes, but against who, Moe? I’d guess it’s against those insurgent Republicans.

      2. I am more interested in the Senate doing its’ constitutionally described job than of Mitch’s payback.
        .
        If the two coincide nicely, that’s great, but Team Mitch have made it quite plain that amnesty is on the table … which I am not okay with.
        .
        Mew

    2. Here’s the thing: I’m not sure the establishment cares if they even stay in office or not. If they’ve been promised sinecures for passing amnesty, then it makes little difference to them if voters are angered or not.
      This essentially is the state (or its representatives) buying off the opposition.

      The thing we’re counting on is that they value their offices more than any “revolving door” position. But if we’ve signaled that we’re going to remove them anyway, than incentive will have been removed. In that case, they may just “get theirs” while the gettin’ is good.

  9. I’m in favor of all corrispondence to Ried’s office from any Republican be on Koth Brothers letterhead, just to mess with him.

    1. Great, just great. What am I going to do with all this left over Vast Right Wing Conspiracy letterhead?
      .
      *grumble grumble grumble*
      .
      Mew

Comments are closed.