|
CNN (and others no doubt) has projected Democrats will retain their Senate majority. Not really enormous news given the very low odds the various prognosticators gave the Republicans of taking the 10 seats they'd need, but in fact Democrats may do better than the 52-48 most likely outcome that Chris Bowers had in his model, and if they win the races they're currently leading (WA, NV, CO) and pull of the upset in AK, they'll end up with 54. IL looks like a loss to me, but who knows.
Back in 2006, there was a wingnut talking point brewing about Congressional power switches, which claimed that no party had ever won control over the House without also taking the Senate. As it appeared quite plausible the Democrats would take only the House then and fall just shy on the Senate, this talking point was a typical bizarre wingnut way to try and preemptively deflate the value of 2006 or something. I never looked it up to confirm it was correct, but I can't think of a time when party control of only the House changed hands. In 1980, Republicans took the Senate but not the House, and in 1986 Dems took it back, but every other change of power in Congress I can recall has seen both chambers go at once.
Assuming that's correct, the irony is that in 2010, for the first time in US history, the US Senate will fulfill its intended function as the body resistant to rapid swings in public mood during a Congressional election. That it does so for once in favour of the party slightly less amenable to the interests of the rich is at least some kind of small irony, but really speaks to the utter failure that is the Senate from the very beginning. It never worked the way the founders claimed, and its disfunction over the past 2 years is significantly responsible for what we just saw.
Good night.
[Update]: 12:30 AM -- via Free Speech TV, Grijalva & DeFazio are now up.
[Update]: 12:42 AM -- NBC calls Harry Reid the victor in NV Senate race.
|
