| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Attention, Democrats! The Senate Is Now in Play. |
| 2010-07-16 |
| As if things weren't bad enough for Democrats, something I didn't believe possible six months ago has happened: The Senate is now in play. You don't believe it, dear reader? Let's look at the numbers. To retain control, Democrats need at least 50 seats. They start with 45 seats that are safe or not up for election this year, and there are three more races (NY, CT, and OR) that they are likely to win, for a total of 48. (The comparable number for Republicans is 41.) That leaves 11 seats in play. Here they are, along with the most recent survey results: CA Fiorina (R) 47, Boxer (D) 45Apply whatever discount you want to individual surveys of varying quality and provenance; the overall picture is pretty clear. A few things stand out: There are some elections years (1980, 1986, and 2006 come to mind) when most of the close races tip in the same direction, producing a shift of control. 2010 could be another. It's entirely possible that when the dust settles this November, Republicans will have hit the trifecta--President Obama's former seat, Vice President Biden's former seat, plus the Senate majority leader's seat. For much of the past year the Tea Party has preoccupied pundits, who consider it to be the locus of energy in the conservative movement and the source of the "enthusiasm gap" between Republicans and Democrats heading into the fall election. In this context, which might turn several blue states red in a low-turnout midterm, it would be a delicious irony if Democrats manage to hold on to the Senate by defeating the Tea Party's iconic candidate in deep-red Kentucky. Stay tuned. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #9 Lex, this may surprise you but Silicon valley accounts for a very small portion of the workforce. Personally I'm surprised Obama didn't copy FDR and create some sort of CCC's to get people working. Fixing roads and/or building a wall along the border (yeah I know he wouldn't). Anything to get (a) Voters working (b) expand government hiring (c) Get credit for fixing infrastructure. I'm also surprised that he hasn't tried to buy up foreclosed properties and rented them back to the owners or some such system to avoid Voters being evicted and keep the housing market from being awash with unsellable homes. I mean it's not as if he cares about deficits. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-07-16 23:17 |
| #8 In any case, it's the big employers who really matter- Everything I've read says it's the small employers that do most of the new hiring as they see the opportunity to expand sales, even if at lower wages and benefits that the big companies. But the big companies have been down-sizing, rationalizing, and right-sizing for years, getting more work out of fewer employees at every level. So while actual pay and benefits may not have changed, the output per work hour -- and for salaried employees, the number of hours worked -- at all levels has gone up significantly. The big companies are not going to be the ones to drive reductions in unemployment. Hopefully they will join in the trend once its clear we're in the recovery phase, because I'm not the only one who'd like his/her spouse to be able to come home a bit earlier and work while at home a bit less. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-07-16 19:42 |
| #7 If the Rethuglicons want to get elected, they can do so by making AND KEEPING one promise - to reduce the regulatory burden on citizens and business. If they want to stay in power for decades, they can do so by reducing the size, scope, and POWER of non-congressional regulatory agencies and their "mandates". Start with the EPA. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2010-07-16 19:12 |
| #6 Small employers aren't likely to make a difference if the employers need access to loans in order to expand/hire. The banks aren't lending. Tax cuts won't affect the determination of the huge banks to hoard their massive reserves. In any case, it's the big employers who really matter-- they're the ones who offer decent benefits, significantly higher salary and better security. As Andy Grove points out, the dearth in jobs creation started long BEFORE the recession. Silicon Valley's tech companies have not created any net new jobs since 2000. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-16 15:32 |
| #5 Okay, Lex, here you go: 1) cut all remaining 'stimulus' plan spending that isn't yet out the door 2) make the 2001 and 2002 personal income tax cuts permanent 3) do not change personal income tax rates 4) don't do cap and tax 5) repeal ObamaCare Do those five things and small/mid-sized businesses will get the idea that government isn't going to snatch everything away from them. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2010-07-16 14:08 |
| #4 The jabberwock has the answers |
| Posted by: No I am The Other Beldar 2010-07-16 10:49 |
| #3 I'm not going to get too excited until I hear a serious, credible, well thought-out plan from the minority party regarding how to get big employers and banks to stop sitting on their multi-trillion dollar cash/reserves hoards and start hiring and lending to Americans again. Just slashing the deficit won't increase hiring anytime soon. This is a structural problem for which neither Tweedledum nor Tweedledee has an answer. |
| Posted by: lex 2010-07-16 10:27 |
| #2 Provided you have free elections. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-07-16 08:17 |
| #1 I'm not going to get too excited until I hear it from Robert Gibbs. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-07-16 03:19 |