Do we really want to control the house by only one seat?

[druidity33]

The more i think about it the worse it feels. Several Manchins in the caucus would wreak havoc on any policy agenda. If we don't get things done the backlash in '24 might lose us the Presidency. If Republicans have the one seat advantage and can't get their shit together, or if they try and pass things (involving SS and Medicare) that causes division among their caucus... all to the better outcome for '24. Thoughts here?

Here's Josh at TPM thinking these thoughts too?:

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/yes-she-might-still-be-speaker-in-january

"Let me add one sort of odd note here. There’s actually a pretty good argument that it’s in Democrats’ political interests not to get the majority here.

I’ve said repeatedly that the coming debt ceiling fight is the whole thing. It’s everything. It is. But there are also liabilities to holding a narrow majority. When you control everything in Washington or appear to, every problem is on you. Every election at least defaults to a referendum on how you did rather than a choice between two options. As we’ve just seen, it doesn’t always end up that way. But that’s the default. You also build up a certain thermostatic, partisan pressure for a shift in power. If Democrats hold both houses of Congress, you go into 2024 with Republicans shut out of power in Washington for four years. And as we’ve discussed, 2024 is the big deal. That’s when everything will be on the line. Not just the Congress but the White House too."

[CentralMass]

1. It would beat a sharp stick in the eye.

[elleng]

2. Thanks

[TlalocW]

7. As someone

Who has multiple sharp sticks in my eye, I'm offended.

[republianmushroom]

3. YES

[50 Shades Of Blue]

4. OF COURSE!!!!

[texasfiddler]

5. I am of the thought that not much will get passed in the next two years.

I would rather have the Democrats hold the house so that the committees are led by Democrats and commissions are formed by Democrats. At least a one vote majority gives us that. Plus, the 2024 election is coming up, I want a normal approach to the process.

[druidity33]

14. I also think not much will get passed...

but i don't want that to be when we have a majority. I have seen people her on DU blame Democrats for not getting shit passed when we had a "majority" in the Senate with Lieberman. For like 6 months before Kennedy got sick. I just worry that our team will crap out with the slimmest of majorities in both houses. I'm a Mets fan, so forgive me if i'm accustomed to anticipating bad news even if it seems good.

[LakeArenal]

22. We are closer than ever to chip a few Republican votes away.

Especially the ones coming up for re-election who might think it’s time to listen to the will of their constituents and not their corporate sponsors.

[druidity33]

32. Every Republican that we chipped away last term...

got primaried and lost. In some cases we picked up that seat which is GREAT! But the people who replaced those people who got primaried are more extreme and less likely to step to our side. We live in a highly polarized political climate. I do not expect to be able to "chip" any Republican votes away.

[LakeArenal]

40. Then it's a good thing that you aren't our elected official.

[Zeitghost]

61. Every member of the House

was just elected/re-elected.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Yes. Chairmanships and Democratic agenda.

The Republicans have been making themselves look bad for years. Their voters do not care. They love it, in fact. They're sticking it to the deep state, or something.

Pelosi has been completely disciplined. Democrats understand that they need to deliver, and they have been. Suddenly stopping that would reflect badly on Biden in 2024.

[dem4decades]

8. It would keep Jim Jordan from being the chair of the Judiciary. There's that.

[3catwoman3]

27. Reason enough right there, IMO.

I don’t want that loudmouth jackass in charge of anything.

[TheBeam19]

45. Yep. That's all I needed to be reminded

of to answer this question.

[roamer65]

9. Could Nancy Pelosi still end up being Speaker?

All it would take is one RINO vote to make it 218.

[dem4decades]

49. That would be a no.

[Sky Jewels]

10. What, you want to sit through two years of Hunter Biden laptop investigations?

[Hyper_Eye]

12. That could actually be beneficial.

They have to actually show evidence, call witnesses, present a report/case. Once the American people get a direct presentation of how stupid the whole thing is it could really backfire.

[In It to Win It]

15. Hillary's emails was stupid

They still chased it and turned into a political weapon. It clearly didn't backfire.

[Hekate]

52. In case you hadn't noticed, the GOP just makes shit up, & they waste millions of taxpayer dollars

… while doing so.

[uponit7771]

58. +1,

[Mr.Bill]

11. It will have it's problems,

but it beats the alternative.

Do you want Joe Biden impeached multiple times?
Do you want Jim Jordan to be chair of the Judicial committee? (Not to mention other wackos chairing all the other commirrees)
Do you want to see more investigations of Hillary's Emails?
Do you want to see endless investigations of Hunter Biden's laptop?
Do you want to see Trump or Matt Gaetz be Speaker of the House?
Do you want to see the J6 Committee ended?

I could list a lot more, but you get the idea.

[druidity33]

21. with a one vote margin?

you anticipate all those problems? With McCarthy as Speaker? Maybe exposing the circus is a good idea. We would have the Senate as a stopgap. I do get the idea though. Honestly, I just don't know what to think. That's why i ask the question here. Josh Marshall over at TPM has had a couple of posts about this on his Prime blog. He seems to think it would be better for Dems in '24 to have a 218-217 R house than a 218-217 D house. I wasn't sure i agreed.

[LakeArenal]

24. Well we can all disagree on a TPM opinion.

[druidity33]

30. yup. looks pretty universal here on DU...

I'm kinda sorry i presented it. But like i said upthread, i'm a Mets fan (and a Knicks fan and a Bills fan)... so i am used to looking ahead for heartbreak. To be honest i find the Josh Marshall editorial comments mostly academic and pin pointed. But this suggestion he made yesterday about a one vote margin House has been nagging me. Again...

[Mr.Bill]

26. Yes, absolutely.

And the Senate can't prevent anything on my list.

[In It to Win It]

13. Yes

[LeftInTX]

16. Yes

[Bev54]

17. Yes if dems control the house they decide what is brought to the floor for a vote

And have before managed to get some republicans to vote with them.

[JohnSJ]

18. WHAT!!! That is the dumbest suggestion I have heard on so many levels, the most basic is that

accepting that "premise", would be saying that we are not fit to govern.

This is not a f**king game we are playing, but trying to save Democracy

Glad I don' subscribe to TPM

[Joinfortmill]

47. I'm with you.

[inthewind21]

62. That

is way beyond a dumb suggestion. That falls in the insanely stupid category.

[Effete Snob]

19. What a bizarre question

Yes. Sure, there will be votes that will be difficult, but that’s life. Every single committee will be chaired by a democrat, and that matters.

[kairos12]

20. Yes. Among other things, no Traitor Green for committee assignments for another

2 years.

[brooklynite]

23. Name something the Dem conservatives did to interfere with the Biden-Pelosi agenda

[druidity33]

36. So i can't mention Manchin or Sinema? nt.

[Kaleva]

37. Your OP was about the House

[brooklynite]

38. No because you were discussing the House.

From what I see the left-wing members were far more disruptive, especially with their delaying of the infrastructure bill.

[emulatorloo]

39. They aren't in the House, which I believe is your subject in this thread.

Besides that, Manchin worked hard w Biden to get the IRA of 2022 passed, which is really signature legislation for Democrats and Biden. I believe that law is one of the reasons we did well in the midterm.

[druidity33]

55. But he crippled every other major legislation...

and the parallel i am making, ie. the "subject of this thread" is the margin of one member for control of the chamber. Which both Sinema and Manchin took FULL advantage of. What makes us think the House is different?

[inthewind21]

64. You're

All over the map here. You asked about the house and now are switching to the Senate. Those are 2 completely different bodies. So are you now suggesting R's should control the senate AND the house?

[druidity33]

73. Did you even read my OP?

"Several Manchins in the caucus would wreak havoc on any policy agenda"...

as i said several posts above...

the "subject of this thread" is the margin of one member for control of the chamber. Which both Sinema and Manchin took FULL advantage of. What makes us think the House is different?

So unless you're being intentionally obtuse... the question "So are you now suggesting R's should control the senate AND the house?" is totally off the mark. I never said I WANTED, I asked the question WOULD YOU RATHER. Hey maybe try answering the question without the associated agenda?

[inthewind21]

63. No

Since they are not in the house.

[Wounded Bear]

25. Better than losing it by one seat...

[rubbersole]

28. The climate doesn't need 2 years of repub incompetence.

Just been through a November hurricane in Florida. Still rare. But the beach in New Smyrna is gone.

[czarjak]

33. Could it possibly be fake news?

[blogslug]

29. Yes

Yes. A thousand times yes.

[Ferrets are Cool]

31. This is a trick question, right?

[denbot]

34. Yes

[RussBLib]

35. Hell yeah

Better the majority than minority. Control committees and so much more, not to mention sidestep tons of GOP bullshit.

I give the voters credit to be aware of the situation and realize that a tiny majority is no guarantee of victory or success.

There have always been some mavericks and freethinkers in Congress mucking up the works.

This strikes me as purely spurious and unnecessary. Analysis for analysis sake. Gotta say something.

[Ellipsis]

41. Fuck yes...

[Celerity]

42. hell

[imavoter]

43. Republicans would control committee appointments and the purse.

Nope nope nope.
Speaker would be R. Nope nope.

[kentuck]

44. It would be better if the Republicans were in charge for the next two years, in my opinion...

Why?

Because it is not only better to have them as a nemesis, but also because they will not be able to do anything except piss off more voters, giving control of the House back to the Democrats in 2024, depending on who is the presidential candidate?

[inthewind21]

66. How

Well did that work out in 2016?

[druidity33]

75. Um, we took the House in 2018...

so if that's your metric, i don't think you can refute the point of the OP... which is, we need to be looking 2 years ahead.

[Joinfortmill]

46. Only an old woman, but may I say politely, WTF people? This isn't a time for academic arguments.

So, here goes... Yes, we goddamn need to win the Senate, and the House while we're at it, if we can do it. Biden needs to appoint judges, lots and lots of judges. Maybe he'll even consider expanding the SCOTUS since they pulled that bullshit with Roe. You do remember Roe? We need to protect the right to choose. We need to pass better voting rights laws, including laws restricting gerrymandering. We also need to change the filibuster rules. And the DOJ needs to indict Trump and every M*F*cker who enabled him.

Anyone have anything to add to the list?

[Orrex]

48. Fuck it. Let's give Republikkkans the Senate, too.

Think of how much better that'll be for us in '24.



Seriously? Was Josh awake and sober when he wrote that?

[Hekate]

50. It is a whole lot better than losing by one seat

[Meowmee]

51. Yes nt

[DFW]

53. Obviously we would prefer to control it by 40, but if ONE party has to be the majority

Better it be us than them.

Yes, I know, there will be self-righteous groups fully willing to trash positive initiatives. There will be Justice this and Squad that, and they will love the headlines and the interviews on CNN. They have their mirror images on the Republican side, too, waiting to make life hell for whoever their unfortunate speaker is.

If one takes it as given that the next Speaker will have a miserable time, and that legislative failures will be laid at their door, I'd STILL prefer it be a Democratic Speaker. Otherwise, except for confirmations, and matters the Senate can do on their own, budget matters and the like are dead in the water with a Republican Speaker. We can at least still talk to reps like AOC and Cori Bush. We can NOT talk to the likes of MTG or LoBooboo (if she returns).

[Emile]

54. OMG seriously? You want Hunter Biden's laptop investigation for the next two years?

[Judi Lynn]

56. Of course, yes. Good grief. n/t

[honest.abe]

57. Its will be a mess either way.

Last edited Mon Nov 14, 2022, 09:51 AM - Edit history (1)

But having the majority is always better than not having the majority.

However, I would not surprised that we might actually come out better in the 2024 election if the GOP has the House majority during these next two years.

[MineralMan]

60. Beats the hell out of losing it by only one seat.

Think about it, please.

[Zeitghost]

65. of course we do.

I'm perplexed by some here and in the left wing social media wanting to spin this as a win. It was a loss; the loss might have been smaller than expected, keeping the Senate was a big plus, but at the end of the day we will almost certainly lose the People's House which controls the purse strings and everything else that goes with it (Speaker, committee chairs, etc.).

It could have been worse and without Dobbs and the Trump effect it certainly would have been. But there is no chalking this one up as a W.

[inthewind21]

68. How do

you come to that "almost certainly" conclusion on the house and this was not a win but a loss? I seem to remember just a few short weeks ago the "almost certainly" conclusion was that dems would lose 40+ seats in the house and at least 3-4 in the senate. Yet the NOTHING changed in the senate other than Dems might pick up a seat and the house is far from decided. Calling that a loss is mind boggling.

[Zeitghost]

69. Math and Propability

We had the House and the Senate, now we will in all likelihood have only the Senate.

If that holds, I'm not sure how anyone could spin it as a win.

[Wednesdays]

67. Whoever has majority in the House, even by ONE VOTE

controls the gavel -- that is, all committee chairs, etc. will be headed by Democrats, as well as scheduling and slate of voting.
You'd rather that, than committees controlled by MTG, Gym Jordan, and their ilk, wouldn't you?

[themaguffin]

70. Do you know how committees work?

[Iggo]

71. Yes.

What an utterly stupid fucking question.

[Bettie]

72. I can see both viewpoints

and either way, we (the people who aren't in government) will suffer the results of Republicans blocking anything that will help people.

[WarGamer]

74. total "sour grapes" fable...

"Who wants to hold the House by a single seat...??"


Answer:

I'll take anything to keep it out of GOP control.