FiveThirtyEight has posted its latest prognostications, which show that, in its simulations, Democrats take the Senate a little more often, but Republicans take the House a lot more often. Remember, these simulations have presumably factored in Biden’s latest legislative victory as well as the overturning of Roe and the widespread disapproval of that decision. Remember, we have 3 months to go before round #1, and 27 months before round #2, so we’re just having fun here. My question to readers is below:
Here’s the question. It looks like either both houses of Congress will be Republican after the 2024 elections, or the Senate will be Democratic and the House Republican. The chances that both will be Democratic seems to me almost zero.
Two hypothetical questions:
If the Senate and House are dominated by different parties, which house of Congress would you prefer be Democratic, and which Republican?
and
Does your answer change if the President is a Democrat or a Republican?
Let’s assume that the President (knock on wood) is a Democrat. If the Senate were highly Democratic (60% or more), then Republicans voting as a group couldn’t filibuster to prohibit Democratic legislation from passing the Senate. But 60% Democrats is out of the question. But even if only half the Senate were Democratic, as it is now, ties on reconciliation bills could be broken by the VP’s vote.
The problem, of course, is that the question hypothesizes a Republican House, which wouldn’t vote for any bill approved by a Democratic Senate (I’m assuming near-unanimity of party votes here, which seems likely). The ultimate result is that unless substantial bipartisanship arises, we’re screwed. And because of the President’s veto power, no Republican-initiated legislation could overcome that veto. (It takes a 2/3 vote of both houses to override a veto.)
Now let’s assume that the President is a Republican. A Republican Senate would be the same as the Democratic Senate is now: it could pass reconciliation bills but unless there are more than 60 Republicans, which seems unlikely, they couldn’t prevent a Democratic filibuster and bring “normal” bills to a vote. And since this hypothetical includes a Democratic House, no Republican bills would be passed there anyway.
If the House were Republican but the Senate Democratic, legislation is again stymied. There is no chance of a Democratic VP breaking a tie, and even if reconciliation bills are passed by a simple majority in the Democratic Senate, they’d be voted down by the House.
In fact, under a Republican President, a split congress could never pass any Democrat-approved legislation because the President would simply veto it.
The way things look now, if the Congress is split, Democrats could never get their agenda passed, and that doesn’t depend on the party of the President. But the same goes for Republicans. This is because legislation must be approved by both houses of Congress, and neither party is in the mood for bipartisanship. Only the most innocuous bills could be passed.
A split Congress is a recipe for disaster, particularly if a Republican President begins issuing executive orders.
I’m so tired that I have a feeling I made a mistake, but I can’t find one.
Out here in the boondocks the FBI raid on Mar-al-Lago is not playing well and will influence elections in favor of Republican retributionists.
What makes you think so? Any data?
Too early for data; that would possibly come from future polling. However it does seem to have fired up the Trump base and it potentially gives the GOP a rallying point. It’s not unreasonable to think this could influence polling in the same way Dodds decision seems to have improved the Democrats chances.
“Remember, we have one and two years to go before the elections, so we’re just having fun here.”
Hm?? The midterm elections are in 91 days (November 8th), and will determine control of Congress.
Sorry, fixed.
Note that the numbers in both houses are liable to change again by the time an RP president could be elected.
I have no faith in my ability to predict any of these things, or in anybody else’s ability either. Note even 538’s.
My fears are that the RP will gain at least the House, perhaps the Senate too, and that in either case the US will be seriously (more seriously, than we already have been) screwed.
My hope, which may be nothing more than foolish, is that, as has happened more frequently in recent years, the actual midterm results will be a surprise and that the DP will retain both Houses and maybe even gain a bit. This seems possible to me, but likely just a false hope.
Well, of course, Presidents have been abusing Executive Orders since Obama. We should stop treating them as if they had the force of law. In the past I have actually preferred divided government, as it made it less likely that things would get done. If there were only to be one House that was controlled by Republicans, I would say it would be best if it were the Senate, because of their role in appointments and treaties.
Dr Brydon, Presidents have been (ab)using EOs well before Obama. In fact, Obama (ab)used less executive orders per year than any president since 1901 (and after his presidency too).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1125024/us-presidents-executive-orders/
The notion that Obama ‘ruled by executive order’ is 100%, completely at odds with the facts. I guess it is just a Republican idiotic talking point.
I deleted my first comment agreeing with you since I bored myself with my response. Then I read the article on mandatory university DEI statements and decided to take the plunge. As a national political party, Republicans do seem to be nuts right now, believing weird conspiracies and following a narcissistic montebank. Beyond the craziness, they also have opposed social policies that I hold dear: gay marriage, early abortion on demand and the equal rights amendment. Democrats also seem to be nuts, catering to their progressive wing, bowing to DEI and CRT dieties, rationing medications and resources by race, and cancelling the word woman, the politically incorrect and pronouns. Can’t see much difference in craziness between the two groups. Both groups want to impose their values on the entire country through our national government. So I too believe in split government and in 2022 hope Congress is split between the two parties. With that in mind, I prefer a Democratic house and Republican Senate. Here’s why. Nancy Pelosi and her team do a remarkable job of getting her caucus to pass legislation the D’s want. The House R’s have been ungovernable since at least 2010 so would be useless, spending most of their time investigating the D’s. So, the D’s should keep the House. Senate Republicans have helped broker several of President Biden’s legislative accomplishments so have shown they can perform in a split government. The R’s should win the Senate and confirm all ethical, sane and centrist nominees of the Biden administration. Won’t happen that way but that’s my hope.
“I’m so tired that I have a feeling I made a mistake, but I can’t find one.” My personal-interpersonal experience with conversations about politics is similar. (The most “written works” about politics I’ve done over the last several years is on this site’s comments -so not much.) I find that if I’m physically and/or mentally tired while debating opposing views (or even if I feel someone’s “preaching to the choir”) I tend to be less apt to speak up and use potentially hazardous terms like “tRumpkinomics” or worse. Anyhow, for what it’s worth, I don’t see any mistakes on PCC(E)’s entry here and for that reason I appreciate this post.
If Congress is split, it is preferable for the Dems to control the Senate, because of the need for Senate confirmation of positions (especially judicial ones) nominated by the executive branch. From that perspective, the 5-38 simulations are less discouraging than they might be.
Agreed. It seems to me that controlling the Supreme Court is more important than pretty much anything else. I’d argue that this is a sign of a broken system. The Supreme Court is not the body that should be determining policy, but it is the system it is and the USA is stuck with it, for now.
Small note of pedantry: It’s 538, not 5-38. The name is derived from the number of delegates in the Electoral College.
Yes, for jeremy pereira’s reasons. Senate confirms not only Supremes but also “lesser” judges, who may be lower in hierarchy, but collectively decide far more cases. The Senate’s role on treaties is also important.
I doubt that. 538’s simulations are based on opinion polls and thus there is always a lag. The opinion polls have to be taken, analysed and then published before 538 can incorporate them into the model. Older opinion polls will also still have an effect.
I think you’ll need to wait several days to see anything like the full effect of the new legislation passing.
Seems very unlikely that Fivethirtyeights current simulations based on polling for House and Senate are (yet) taking into account Biden’s recent legislative wins.
The House and Senate elections are highly correlated, though not perfectly so, as many voters tend to vote for the same party for each. Given that the House projection is so lopsided in favor of the Republicans, if the House goes Democratic, that would mean such a “blue wave” that the Senate would likely be Democratic too. Thus P(House and Senate both Democratic) here is approximately P(House Democratic), i.e. 20% (a little less due to imperfect correlation, but not near zero).
From the other perspective, a Republican Senate would indicate a Republican House.
Democratic Senate / Republican House is the only other likely case.
Forgive me for posting again, but I have to modify my first comment. The 5-38 simulations are profoundly discouraging from a long-term perspective, because they predict that the Republican party as it is now has significant electoral prospects. A civilized democracy needs a respectable
center-right party, like the German CDU or the Swedish Moderaterna. The conservative writer George F. Will has pointed out that return of the GOP to this condition requires that the present form of the GOP suffer crushing electoral defeats. A related question for sociologists: how did the GOP evolve
from center-right into first bitter-right, and then into kooky, anti-election cartoon fascism?
“…how did the GOP evolve from center-right into first bitter-right, and then into kooky, anti-election cartoon fascism?”
This is the ultimate question that future historians and other scholars will grapple with for decades, perhaps centuries. However, I will be so foolish as to give a tentative answer. The descent of the Republican Party into fascism was not caused primarily by economic anxiety, but rather by cultural anxiety, although in historical analysis, both must play a role. Fascism gains adherents by its appeal to irrationality and fear. Today, that fear is characterized by the argument that the world today is devolving from what was a prior golden age: whites held all the power, immigrants and minorities did not challenge that power, women understood that their role in society was to stay at home and raise babies, and that religion was not challenged by secularism. For fascists, authoritarian rule will solve these problems. Economic anxiety and the excesses of the far left fuel the panic of the fascists. The result is the greatest societal crisis since the Civil War.
The descent of the RP into fascism has been wholly manufactured by the RP with malice aforethought since about the Reagan administration. As you noted a primary lever was the RP’s appeal to the worst aspects of human nature, which they achieved via deliberate and studied propaganda efforts. They also deliberately adopted Big Lie tactics with the stated purpose of lying to voters in order to achieve a dominance over the DP that could never be overcome (see Karl Rove). And much more of course, such as committing to refusing to participate in the processes of government by categorically opposing anything the DP attempted to do, and doing a very good job of holding their members to that.
And the kicker is that the RP is also largely responsible, again with malice aforethought, for any actual economic hardships that have occurred in the US since at least Reagan. The evidence on that is crystal clear for anyone to see, regardless of the RP lies that so many believe. The statistical data is available and lots of places have organized it and made it available for any who care to look it up. Our own regular jblilie has shown the data here at WEIT several times before over the past few years. The economy always tanks when the RP is in control and always improves when the DP is, since at least Reagan.
The RP has not only stoked the fears of it’s constituents but has orchestrated the hardships that make people susceptible to such political manipulations.
That the senate remain Democratic, no question about it. If Mitch McConnell were to get his hands on the senate majority leadership again, you can forget about Biden getting any federal judicial nominees confirmed (including, especially, any vacancy that might occur on SCOTUS — which seems unlikely, but you never know). Also, Mitch would put the kibosh on the confirmation of any replacement Biden might need to make to his cabinet (or to any of the other 1,400 or so executive appointments that require senate confirmation).
Good point; I was too tired to think of it.
I think you’ve got it right. At the bottom of it all is the filibuster. If Congress is split, I would prefer that the Democrats hold the Senate.
If the Democrats hold the Senate…
…and the President is a Democrat, we have what we have now. The benefit of the Senate being Democratic is that the Democrats have had four years to hone their skills against the filibuster. They have probably learned something, so their experience probably helps the Dems overall.
…and the President is a Republican, the Democratic Senate can use the filibuster and prevent the Republicans from passing stupid legislation. The Dems know very well how the filibuster works. They’ve had to endure it these past four years.
In a split Congress, it is more critical that the Dems hold the Senate to secure judicial appointments at all levels. I would also not put it past McConnell, if the Republicans gain a 51 seat majority, to kill the filibuster. He was just taken out to the woodshed by Schumer and Mitch never forgives and never forgets.
I agree, the Senate, undemocratically elected (a vote Wyoming carries 70+ times the weight of a vote in California), has way more weight than the House of representatives. I’m not sure how 538 reached these prognostics, but they are generally pretty good.
They gave Trump a 30% chance of winning in 2016, which he did (although I still have my doubts he actually did (based on exit polls at difference with the counts, well outside the MoE’s in several states)).
Plus, the House members can be replaced in one fell swoop every two years; only a third of Senate seats come up for reelection every two years.
Thus, it is harder to regain control of the Senate (although ruthless Republican gerrymandering of House districts also means that Republicans can control the House even if they get millions fewer votes for House seats nationwide).
The GOP is no longer a party with any respect at all for majority-rule representative democracy. It cares only for grasping power despite its minority-party status.
Yes Ken, sad as it is (there being no more respectable conservative party in the US), I can’t but agree. But it would be great if the Democrats would get the Senate, that would be the silver lining to the ominous clouds.
If the houses are split then I assume virtually no legislation will get passed in the current political environment. Given that, then I think the best outcome is for Democrats control the Senate, if only to stop McConnell from further packing the courts with far right judges.
Even a highly divided Congress is able to forward helpful legislation.
For example, Congress passed the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan including hundreds of billions of dollars towards upgrading American infrastructure. It approved the first major piece of gun reform in decades, also legislation boosting domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and expanding health care benefits to millions of veterans. And Congress is on track to have authorized hundreds of billions of dollars in green energy and health care subsidies. At least part of these measures were passed by bi-partisan approval.
And I’d argue that the climate legislation is better because of the need to temper the policy extremes.