Originally Posted By Mr X So, is this a good thing or a bad thing that the Democrats are within spitting distance of complete control? Given the strong leadership Obama is likely to wield, would this simply be the ticket to getting stuff done, or as VB fears will it just lead to an inbred mess of competing agendas (I guess that assumes Obama won't be wielding much power as the leader). Thoughts?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 No, that's not the assumption re: Obama at all - no one person runs everything or can control everybody - not even Barack. So it's not a lack of power at all - but power doesn't always equate to concensus. I can just base this on the 'supermajority' here in Illinois. The general assumption would be that things would get done, I thought so too, but really it hasn't worked that way at all. In fact quite the opposite, the party here is as fractured as can be- and the only ones paying the price are the residents. There is more than one 'base' within the Democratic party. It is not groupthink. Watch the interaction between Pelosi and Emmanuel as one example. There are more potential Lieberman's in the party. I am just saying absolute majority scares me as I have seen it as dysfunctional as it can get here, and the potential for either abuse of power or what we have here is greater than I am comfortable with.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<the party here is as fractured as can be- and the only ones paying the price are the residents.>> It doesn't really sound all that different from what we have now, so I don't know that it's really anything to be scared of. Right now, we have two parties who are fighting it out, and nothing gets done. If the Dem Supermajority ends up the same way, we won't really be any worse off than we are now.
