While I’ve not been wowed by the performance of the Dems in Congress to date (I really dislike the Democratic leadership, and, hampered by GOP obstructions in the Senate, they’ve not really gotten much accomplished aside from being not quite so much of a rubber stamp for Bush), I’m pleased that it looks like the House will remain in their hands.
Representative Tom Davis, a moderate from Northern Virginia, on Wednesday became the fifth House Republican in the last week to announce that he would not seek re-election.
That puts the roster of retirees at 28, one of the highest numbers recorded for the party in the House.
With only five Democratic seats opening so far, party strategists and independent analysts say the disparity in open seats — typically the most competitive House fights, as voters oust relatively few incumbents — makes it highly unlikely that Republicans could seize the seats necessary to regain the House. The current House has 199 Republicans and 232 Democrats, with four vacancies to be filled by special elections.
Beyond that, at least one of the Dem seats is for Mark Udall, who’s vacating it to run for Senate.
Four of the 28 Republicans who are so far leaving the House quit before their terms ended. They will be replaced in special elections before November, giving the winners of those races at least the technical mantle of incumbency in the general election.
That leaves 24 open Republican seats, though leaders of both parties expect at least a few more Republican retirements as state filing deadlines arrive. The high point for end-of-session Republican retirements is 27 in 1952, according to Congressional records.
Fund-raising has, to date, also been lopsided — though I suspect that may change once the presidential candidates are settled.
The Senate may also swing away from the sliver majority that the Dems have, though not enough to force cloture.
In the Senate, Republican retirements have also shifted the playing field, with six Republicans leaving and no Democrats retiring so far.
I’ve traditionally been in favor of a mixed Congress/President combo, with no one party holding both houses and the White House. Less likelihood of harm that way. But, honestly, I’ve been frustrated enough with the past several years that it might be time to let “single party rule” swing the other way, at least for a few years, to chart some serious course changes.
We’ll see.
(via Ginny)
We have had recent stretches where both the White House and Congress were in Democratic hands (early Clinton era 1993-94) and in Republican hands (GWBush 2003-2006).
“Party In Power – Congress and Presidency: 1945-2008”
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm
I don’t recall that things were significantly better during those times. Like you, I think a divided government is probably the best we can realistically hope for, when both parties moderate each other’s excesses. I once heard that government spending is least out of control under a Democratic president and a Republican congress, so that might be the best of the four possible combinations.
Senate rules provide a brake of some sort, even when there’s an majority rule all around. I do feel like I’d like, if not a rubber stamp, at least an opportunity to get some things done, without the GOP acting as too much of a spoiler in the minority, so I’d probably prefer, at least for a few years, a three-house win for the Dems.
I may come to regret that, however.