US Elections: Democrats take control of House, possibly Senate [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : US Elections: Democrats take control of House, possibly Senate

FutureWorm
8 Nov 2006, 19:32
Americans finally got fed up with George Bush and his incompetent party line on everything related to the Iraq war, and as a result, Democrats took control of the US House in a sweeping landslide - current totals have (out of 435) 228 Democrats in the House, with only 196 Republicans. 11 are still undecided.
The Senate is also pretty close, with a 50 to 49 lead by the Democrats out of 100 seats. If Democratic Senate candidate Jon Tester is elected (and he is currently ahead by about 3000 votes), it will give the Democrats control of both chambers of Congress.
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, every House committee from intelligence to budget will be restructured to include Democrats as head officers, making it significantly more difficult for the Bush administration to push forward their policies on anti-terrorist activities and the war in Iraq. Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California is widely considered to be the next Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representati ves), a position some consider more important than the Presidency. If the Senate goes to the Democrats, Bush basically has to compromise on anything related to the war in Iraq. In other words, the unchecked executive power he has been enjoying for the past four years, when both the Senate and House were Republican-controlled, is over.
In other great news, Bush announced at a 1:00 news conference that he's going to be booting Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense whom many consider to be primarily responsible for the quagmire in Iraq and the Abu Gharaib scandal. Whee.

Xinos
8 Nov 2006, 20:10
It's great news. Though George Bush is staying for two more years.
But they can finally be charged for their evil doings, so he might get kicked out sooner =)

Star Worms
8 Nov 2006, 22:18
Rumsfeld has been sacked in an attempt to save Bush's ass.

thomasp
8 Nov 2006, 22:54
For a naïve brit, could someone please explain what all this means to the rest of the world?

Pigbuster
8 Nov 2006, 23:12
For a naïve brit, could someone please explain what all this means to the rest of the world?
What does this mean? Well, for one thing, every House committee from intelligence to budget will be restructured to include Democrats as head officers, making it significantly more difficult for the Bush administration to push forward their policies on anti-terrorist activities and the war in Iraq. Democrat Nancy Pelosi of California is widely considered to be the next Speaker of the House, a position some consider more important than the Presidency. If the Senate goes to the Democrats, Bush basically has to compromise on anything related to the war in Iraq. In other words, the unchecked executive power he has been enjoying for the past four years, when both the Senate and House were Republican-controlled, is over.
The house and the senate are where the power actually lies. They pass the amendments and the declarations of war and such (I don't remember very much since I took a class on this in middle school). The senate is the more important one of the two.
The dems control the house for the first time in a long while, and the country will head in a whole other direction, away from the capitalists.
So, good things.

Glenn
8 Nov 2006, 23:22
The Senate is also pretty close, with a 50 to 49 lead by the Democrats out of 100 seats.
Wrong. It's 49-49-2. It's just naturally assumed that one or both independents will swing over to Democrat to give them the Senate majority.
declarations of war and such
There was no actual declaration of war, since you can't declare war on a concept. According to current law (no, I'm not looking up the specific act), with Congressional consent the President can deploy and keep troops in an area indefinantly. However, if they revoke that consent, he has 60 days to remove all troops from the area.

Pigbuster
8 Nov 2006, 23:29
I knew that I'd get something wrong somehow. :p

Pickleworm
9 Nov 2006, 01:20
Hooray for Santorum losing

FutureWorm
9 Nov 2006, 04:34
Okay, so for those confused, here's a fairly brief explanation of the American Congress and the election system on a whole.
The US has two main parties: the Republicans and the Democrats. Other parties exist, but never win. Republicans tend to be more conservative, while Democrats are more liberal. Bush is a Republican, and for the past four years Republicans had control of the two chambers of Congress: the House of Representatives and the Senate.
"But wait, what's a House and Senate, and what's the difference?" you ask. Well, back when America was young and stupid, there were only thirteen colonies and they couldn't figure out how to come up with a good system of representation. Virginia, a large colony with a lot of people, wanted a government where representatives were elected proportional to population - for instance, one representative for every 100,000 people or something to that effect. On the other hand, tiny New Jersey wanted equal representation to the other, larger states so that they could protect their interests. In the end, they compromised and created two chambers - the House of Representatives, with proportional representation, and the Senate, with two senators for each state.
Senators are elected every six years, Representatives every two. Therefore, only some of the states had some of the 100 Senate positions up for grabs, while all 435 House seats were open.
As I mentioned before, the House and Senate both have various committees such as intelligence and military, which research information and draft bills. The majority of the legislation comes from these committees rather than individual Representatives or Senators. The majority party gets to decide who will head up these committees, and thanks to the previous Republican control, many people in control of the committees were hawkish Republicans.
The Senate is generally considered to be more powerful than the House, both in terms of
influence on government and the power of congressmen. However, a bill must pass both chambers in order to go to the President of the United States, meaning that a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate will pretty much block anything too conservative. The previous Republican majority in both chambers is why Bush pretty much was able to pass any legislation he wanted. Now the Democrats control both chambers, and you can expect to see them keeping Bush in check for the last two years of his term.
Wrong. It's 49-49-2. It's just naturally assumed that one or both independents will swing over to Democrat to give them the Senate majority.
Apparently, independents have to declare a party. They'll be swinging lefty.
Also on the ballot every two years in many states are Proposals, which are drafted by citizens. Once a proposal gets enough signatures in a petition, it is put on the ballot.
Good news in proposals: South Dakota's ridiculously strict abortion law got shot down and Missouri supported stem-cell research.
Bad news in proposals: Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin all enacted proposals to ban gay marriage.

Zero72
9 Nov 2006, 09:47
Anything that's bad news for Bush has to be good news for the rest of the world.

AndrewTaylor
9 Nov 2006, 15:48
Bad news in proposals: Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin all enacted proposals to ban gay marriage.
For ****'s sake. Even China has less weird and backward laws than the USA nowadays.

Glenn
9 Nov 2006, 15:49
Apparently, independents have to declare a party. They'll be swinging lefty.
Actually, no. In the 107th Congress (early Bush administration) there was 50-49-1, because Jim Jeffords changed from Republican to Independent to give Democrats the majority. That would eventually lead to a Democrat defection to tie it bac up at 49-49-2, and finally another Democrat defection that gave the Republicans the majority with 50-48-2 during the final two months.

FutureWorm
9 Nov 2006, 16:22
Actually, no. In the 107th Congress (early Bush administration) there was 50-49-1, because Jim Jeffords changed from Republican to Independent to give Democrats the majority. That would eventually lead to a Democrat defection to tie it bac up at 49-49-2, and finally another Democrat defection that gave the Republicans the majority with 50-48-2 during the final two months.
Ah, all right. Thanks for clearing that up.
CNN, though, is projecting that they'll be going with the Democrats.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.