Democrats Now Govern the Country

According to this article, Democrats not only took the Presidency and added to their majorities in the House and Senate in this last election, but the party now also holds the majority of Governorships and state legislatures across the country. There is no doubt that Democrats hold power across the US.

It's a shift in power that has been in the works for about 4 years. In 2004 both parties had the same percentage proportion of the population, 37%. Now 39% identify themselves as Democrats and 32% as Republicans. Democrats made modest gains in the 2004 election, major gains in 2006, and even more now in 2008. So this must be a very troubling trend for Republicans, and encouraging for the future of Democrats.

But as I learned from Spider Man, with power comes responsibility. So Democrats will have to deliver, or there will be no doubt who screwed up, and the pendulum will swing back again. Personally, I think the Democrats have the right policies for these times, and as long they can focus on the right priorities and avoid abusing their power, they will hold it for a long time.

Here is the article: From coast to coast, Democrats rule the day - CNN.com

From coast to coast, Democrats rule the day

(CNN) -- Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's historic and convincing victory in the race for the White House wasn't the only good news for Democrats on Tuesday.

In 2006, Democrats swept into the majority in both the House and Senate, riding on a wave of change. Two years later, Democrats continued the trend, electing Obama as the first African-American president and growing their majorities by significant margins in both chambers of Congress.

In many ways, voters never closed the book on the 2006 elections, as the national atmospherics went from bad to worse for the GOP, according to exit polls. Only 20 percent of voters this year believe the country is headed in the right direction, while 75 percent believe we're headed off on the wrong track.

In 2006, 55 percent thought the country was on the wrong track, compared with 46 percent in 2004.

Four years ago, 53 percent of voters approved of the job President Bush was doing. The number declined to 43 percent in 2006, when Republicans suffered significant losses in the midterm election, and plummeted to 27 percent Tuesday. Public sentiment on the war in Iraq has also dipped, from 51 percent approval four years ago to 36 percent today.

For Republicans, Bush's shadow looms everywhere. In 2004, the two parties were even, with 37 percent of voters self-identifying with each party. On Tuesday, Democrats held a 39 percent to 32 percent edge. Amazingly, self-identified ideology has been stable over the past four years among moderates, conservatives and liberals.

For much of the presidential general election, the race remained competitive, despite widespread national dissatisfaction. But September's economic crisis virtually sealed the deal for Obama, as his subsequent actions made people comfortable with him as commander in chief.

On Election Day, 63 percent of voters said the economy was the most important issue, and they favored Obama by nine points. Obama also led on Iraq (a distant second place as most important issue, with 10 percent) by 20 points and health care (9 percent) by almost 50 points. McCain led with 86 percent on terrorism, but only 9 percent of voters made the issue a priority.

Beginning with the primary, Obama ran a virtually flawless campaign, capitalizing on the call for change. He inspired African-Americans, who made up 13 percent of the electorate (up two points from 2004), from whom he received 95 percent of the vote. Obama also did slightly better among white voters, garnering 43 percent, compared with John Kerry's 41 percent four years ago.

Young voters did not dramatically increase their percentage of the electorate, but they did vote overwhelmingly for Obama. The Illinois senator won voters ages 18 to 29 with 66 percent, compared with 54 percent for Kerry.

Maybe more importantly, young voters made up a larger share of the electorate than voters ages 65 and older, who were more receptive to McCain.

Obama quickly locked up a number of smaller states, such as New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico, forcing the presidential contest to larger, more expensive battleground states such as Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia, where he could exploit his financial advantage, after opting out of the public financing system.

In the end, Obama had a decisive electoral vote victory, winning well over 300 electoral votes while carrying all of the nation's largest states except Texas.

Obama's decisive electoral vote victory was significant, but the popular vote demonstrates the partisan nature of our country. The Illinois senator won 53 percent to 46 percent, the first time since 1976 that a Democratic presidential candidate took more than 50 percent in a general election.

It's also about five points better than the 48 percent that Kerry and Al Gore received.

At least a couple of pre-election campaign story lines never came to fruition.

There was plenty of talk about Obama drawing massive amounts of new voters to the polls. But in both 2008 and 2004, new voters made up 11 percent of the electorate. New voters did boost Obama, voting for the Democrat 69 percent to 30 percent, compared with four years ago, when they split more evenly, 53 percent to 46 percent for Kerry.

Just as surprising, and noteworthy, is that the expected surge in total turnout never occurred. With votes still being counted, roughly the same number of Americans voted in 2008 as in 2004.

Obama did slightly better with white evangelical/born-again voters, but not equal to the amount of attention that the Democrats' concerted outreach to faith voters received.

In 2004, Bush won white evangelical/born-again voters 78 percent to 21 percent, while McCain won them 74 percent to 24 percent. Obama's percentage among white evangelicals was actually lower than the 28 percent that Democratic House and Senate candidates received in 2006.

Democrats had another big night in the Senate, but it looks like they'll fall short of the 60-seat majority they sought. Obama's party has picked up at least six seats, with votes still being counted in Alaska, Minnesota going to a runoff, and Georgia headed for a December 2 runoff. Democrats need to win all three to get to 60, an extremely difficult task.

Even a six-seat Senate gain would be the most seats to come in with a winning presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan's Republicans netted 12 in 1980. Combined with Democrats' 2006 victories, they've captured at least a dozen seats in the last two elections, and haven't lost a single Senate seat over the same span. That hasn't happened in at least 50 years.

Democrats also had another big night in the House. A handful of races are still too close to call, but they are likely to net at least 20 seats, bringing their two-cycle total to at least 50.

Their 2008 gain is the most by a winning presidential candidate's party since Republicans netted 22 seats in 1952 while Americans elected Dwight Eisenhower.

Some Republicans are actually breathing a sigh of relief, believing that their House losses could have been bigger in the face of an unpopular president, terrible political environment, their defense of far more open seats and dramatic financial disadvantage.

Through November 3, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent over $75 million on 64 congressional districts, compared with $21 million on 35 districts from the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.

Republicans were able to fight Democrats to a draw in many toss-up seats and keep losses relatively low.

It's still unclear whether this has been a transformational cycle, or if Democrats just had a great four-year run against Bush.

But with the White House, huge majorities in the House and the Senate, a majority of governors nationwide, and even a considerable majority of state legislators, there is no question that the Democrats rule the country.

We'll see how they do the next 4 years. They have no excuses this time.

the dems aren't that much different than the republicans, are they? it seems like more of a style difference than a policy difference

Everyone out there probably thinks this is all Democrats' idea of a dream, this majority rule situation. I want to go on the record saying that's not true for me. The reality is it'll be less hard for the chief executive and both houses to get legislation passed, etc. But it'll still be slow at times. It's Washington. There'll still be opposing forces within the party and people arguing over projects and priorities (and pork).

I'm a moderate Demo, and I'm uneasy with this whole thing. For one thing, my money and everyone else's always does better when there's some balanced power somewhere in the executive-legislative branch. The stock market would like it a lot better if at least one house of Congress were still Republican. Plus this is just a damn hard economic time for the country to be passing too much tax-break or social program legislation. We're living beyond our spending means now.

This victory was impressive because it happened. It's still going to be slow going to deliver on all that promised change in this environment. At the rate the businesses and banks are failing and people are losing their jobs and homes, we may all end up living in tents. I hope the new president and Congress will wow us all and pull our nuts out of the fire but I think the next two years are going to be downright scary. Two other things are keeping me on edge, too: the extra vulnerability of this president to the haters and neo-Nazi skinhead types. Plus our country's vulnerability while it's in a recession and while we're still so dependent on foreign oil, to an act of terrorism either here or in the mid-East.

Your right. A lot of people are still covering their eyes with the landslide victory and not looking at the reality of the situation. Obama may or may not come through and save America but one thing can't be argued and that is he's got a lot to bare and it may be too much to handle at this point. I really think its not a matter of electing a new president but rather re-evaluating our entire system and making completely new changes to them. The idea's are good like the FDA, Monetary system, welfare, education, and whatnot, however, its the way they are currently running which is flawed. What is more important at this point which we lost was this system of checks and balances not just in Congress or the Executive Branch but also with many of our systems. Such things as the Lobbying Disclosure Act which has a weak monitoring system right now due to understaffing or how we lend too much control over the FDA, NSA, CIA, Federal Reserve, and so on.

But as Dave Stated there are also many other problems as well. Even with Democratic majority there will still be the butting of heads on certain decisions, polarization of our own society, dependence on oil, global changes. This is gonna be tough and if Obama slips up this could be the breaking point in civility as we know it.

The Dems are certainly corrupt and inefficient liars, but definitely the lesser of the two evils.

what, you'd rather have an effective liar??

I Think the opposition to some of the upcoming Administrations Polices is expected and welcomed. That is the basis of any Democracy

President Elect Obama on 11/4/08...

"The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you - we as a people will get there.
There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won't agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can't solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it's been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Byrd

Everyone out there probably thinks this is all Democrats' idea of a dream, this majority rule situation. I want to go on the record saying that's not true for me. The reality is it'll be less hard for the chief executive and both houses to get legislation passed, etc. But it'll still be slow at times. It's Washington. There'll still be opposing forces within the party and people arguing over projects and priorities (and pork).

I'm a moderate Demo, and I'm uneasy with this whole thing. For one thing, my money and everyone else's always does better when there's some balanced power somewhere in the executive-legislative branch. The stock market would like it a lot better if at least one house of Congress were still Republican. Plus this is just a damn hard economic time for the country to be passing too much tax-break or social program legislation. We're living beyond our spending means now.

This victory was impressive because it happened. It's still going to be slow going to deliver on all that promised change in this environment. At the rate the businesses and banks are failing and people are losing their jobs and homes, we may all end up living in tents. I hope the new president and Congress will wow us all and pull our nuts out of the fire but I think the next two years are going to be downright scary. Two other things are keeping me on edge, too: the extra vulnerability of this president to the haters and neo-Nazi skinhead types. Plus our country's vulnerability while it's in a recession and while we're still so dependent on foreign oil, to an act of terrorism either here or in the mid-East.

---

I have my misgivings about the concentration of power too. But I support most of Obama's platform, so if the majorities in congress can help get that agenda moved quickly I will be happy about that.

Honestly, I trust Obama to be measured, bipartisan and restrained a lot more than I trust the Democratic House and Senate, so I will be lookng to him to keep them on a short leash. He's going to have more difficulties with his own party overreaching than he is with the minority being obstructionist, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

what, you'd rather have an effective liar??

---

Haha nice one. Yeah, the bigger fools the powers that be, the more hope for those like us who despise everything they stand for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Haha nice one. Yeah, the bigger fools the powers that be, the more hope for those like us who despise everything they stand for.

---

Nay. The bigger the fools in power, the more susceptible they are to manipulations, both good and bad. ultimately it is no better to have an easily manipulable figurehead than it is to have an overly bullheaded one.


When? When will the people be free to govern themselves, and be able to take responsibility for themselves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I have my misgivings about the concentration of power too. But I support most of Obama's platform, so if the majorities in congress can help get that agenda moved quickly I will be happy about that.

Honestly, I trust Obama to be measured, bipartisan and restrained a lot more than I trust the Democratic House and Senate, so I will be lookng to him to keep them on a short leash. He's going to have more difficulties with his own party overreaching than he is with the minority being obstructionist, I think.

---

While Obama may be able to keep them on a short leash due to the fact that most of the house/senate are in the same party as him.. you realize that the President actually has no authority over the House or the Senate correct?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The president is not responsible for everything nor does he have power over all. Therefore all things good, or negative cannot all be attributed to him.

We should be expecting a lot of attempted philibusters from the right over the next 4 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

While Obama may be able to keep them on a short leash due to the fact that most of the house/senate are in the same party as him.. you realize that the President actually has no authority over the House or the Senate correct?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The president is not responsible for everything nor does he have power over all. Therefore all things good, or negative cannot all be attributed to him.

We should be expecting a lot of attempted philibusters from the right over the next 4 years.

---

I know the President has no Constitutional authority over the House or the Senate, but the President has some political power that he can use for agenda control and a greater bully pulpit than the congress. Any control he can exert will be more about politics than about Constitutional authority. It will be a challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

I know the President has no Constitutional authority over the House or the Senate, but the President has some political power that he can use for agenda control and a greater bully pulpit than the congress. Any control he can exert will be more about politics than about Constitutional authority. It will be a challenge.

---

The problem I have with your statement is that you place too much of your expectations on the presidents shoulders when the government does not work that way.

Leveraging your position against congress is a tool available by that office however that is not how you use your executive power nor is it the means in which you should govern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

The problem I have with your statement is that you place too much of your expectations on the presidents shoulders when the government does not work that way.

Leveraging your position against congress is a tool available by that office however that is not how you use your executive power nor is it the means in which you should govern.

---

Do you mean IDEALLY the government does not work that way, or do you mean in REALITY the government does not work that way? Because I think in reality the House, Senate and President often have competing political interests that are not perfectly aligned, even if they are controled by the same party, and DEFINITELY if they are controled by different parties. The Constitutional systems of checks and balances provide different kinds of institutional leverage, for example the veto and the veto override. And political power that comes from things like election mandates and popularity provides another kind of leverage. The different branches of government definitely use their leverage to get their way when they can.

I may be placing too many expectations on the President's shoulders. And who knows how it will really turn out? But I think President Obama has more political clout right now than Congress, and I think he also has more political interest in keeping a more centrist approach than the Congress right now. So I think he will probably use some of that clout to steer the Congress on a more centrist path than they would follow on their own.

I'm with you, Dragonrider. If there's anyone who thinks the government doesn't work by unofficial influence-pressing and exerting their interests on others, that's someone who's not read enough history or watched government actually function. I hope we'll have less of that influence on the executive and legislative branches under Obama from lobbyists and special interests (who wrote the book on how that works). But influence-pressing is what politicians do--in all directions--to get things done and to get their own way. LBJ was a master at pressing and influencing. So were Kennedy and Clinton. Reagan and Bush II are said to have been very effective at picking up the phone and pressing a few key senators and congressman to get them to vote their way on things, promising various actions in return. Carter, Bush I and Ford were said to be less inclined to exert power this way.

I think this influence-pressing business is why matters will still be slow even under a same-party government. Obama will move from the left to the center, as we've already seen him touch on. All executives and leaders have to do this to be able to reach out to both extremes of those they work with, and in the new president's case, he wants to do that anyway because the last administration was so diametrically opposed to functioning in bipartisan fashion. When the center is the anchor point, that makes the extreme-leaners underneath more contentious. So there'll be a lot of pulling from those ends of the spectrum on legislation. It's going to be Obama's ability to influence those extreme factions that'll prevent filibusters and keep legislation moving. Be interesting to see if he can do that. They almost always give a new president a honeymoon where everyone cooperates and gets along nicely before they start fussing and holding out like three-year-olds. Tell you what, though, they'd better get their acts together to do something about this economy.