Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
It seems likely that which party controls the U.S. Senate for the next two years will not be decided on Election Day.
I'm not only thinking about the possibility that two close races - in Louisiana and Georgia - could end up requiring runoffs. If candidates do not get more than 50 percent of the vote because fringe opponents siphon off votes from the pair running neck and neck, Louisiana's runoff would be in December and Georgia's not until Jan 6, 2015.
Former President Bill Clinton waves to voters next to Senator Mary Landrieu during an early voting rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
The uncertainty that's more intriguing is that even after those runoffs, if they happen, there might be three independent senators who could swing the majority to one party or the other.
One, Vermont's Bernie Sanders, is a staunch liberal who will certainly cast his lot with the Democrats, as he has in the past. But Maine independent Angus King has not said for sure that he will continue to caucus with Democrats. And Kansas's Greg Orman, an independent businessman who is locked in a tight race with incumbent Republican Pat Roberts, has steadfastly refused to say which party he would vote with.
Another longer-shot wild card is former Senator Larry Pressler of South Dakota. He is also running has an independent, but his rise in the polls has subsided recently.
One can only imagine what Orman and King will be promised by both sides if one or both become swing votes. Beyond that, there is a Democratic senator in a red state (John Tester in Montana) and even one or two moderate Republicans in a blue state and a swing state (Mark Kirk in Illinois and Susan Collins in Maine) who might be persuaded to flip.
Still more intriguing is the fact that anyone could flip at any time, or even flip back. Their all-important vote to caucus with one party or the other can also change at any time. Vermont's late Senator Jim Jeffords proved this when he left the Republican Party in May 2001. He declared himself an independent who was going to caucus with the Democrats, and instantly caused upheaval in Washington by turning control of the Senate over to the Democrats.
As longtime moderate Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania demonstrated when he jumped the aisle in 2009, moderate senators in both parties are finding themselves endangered in primaries or being tagged in general elections by the baggage of having their party affiliation identified with positions less moderate than theirs. So the prospect that some senators can live comfortably on either side of the aisle is becoming increasingly untenable.
Which means that as Election Day approaches, one or more of our best political reporters ought to try to map out the scenarios for what could become hand-to-hand combat for a Senate majority even after the polls close.
Where did the rifle used in Ottawa come from?
I keep expecting to see stories explaining how alleged Ottawa terrorist Michael Zehaf-Bibeau managed to get what the New York Times reported is a "Winchester rifle, a firearm his criminal conviction had prohibited him from owning."
Canada, unlike the United States, has strict laws requiring all gun owners to be licensed following a rigorous background check - that presumably would have blocked Zehaf-Bibeau because of his criminal record and history of drug abuse.
A Vox story provided a good summary of the Canadian gun-control regime compared to the lack of controls in the United States. But so far there has been nothing on why the Canadian law didn't work in this case.
In Mexico there is a vibrant black market in all kinds of firearms that are brought into the country from the United States.
The United States supplies guns to countries south of the border much the way those countries supply drugs to America. Is that how Zehaf-Bibeau got the weapon that terrorized downtown Ottawa?
Who's Lisa Monaco?
In the aftermath of the killing in Ottawa, I noticed that White House Homeland Security Adviser Lisa Monaco did some television interviews outlining the Obama administration's reaction to the apparent lone-wolf attack.
A former federal prosecutor who ran the Justice Department's National Security Division before moving to the White House, Monaco has had little written about her, except for this brief National Journal profile in April 2013, following the Boston Marathon bombing.
Monaco has also been in the news lately because administration officials explained that one reason for appointing Ron Klain as the "Ebola czar" was that Monaco had so many other issues on her plate related to Islamic State and other security matters that she couldn't devote full time to dealing with the effort to contain the virus.
It's time to find out more about Monaco and what her role coordinating homeland-security issues entails. She seems to be the White House liaison to a wide range of turf-conscious agencies that have roles in issues that run the gamut from airport security to disease control to cyber attacks.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
16 Comments
Login to comment
nath
Saw Angus King on Bill Maher on Friday. There's no way he would want to do a "screw the poor" platform, if my sense of him being a man of conscience is any indicator. Also clearly not a "bomb 'em if ya got 'em" person.
Illyas
So let me get this straight. A crime involving a gun occurs in Canada, which has stricter gun control laws than the US. Then, the author, with absolutely zero evidence, chooses to link this to US gun control, effectively blaming the US for a crime that occurred in Canada. Rather than see this as proof that gun control, no matter how strict, cannot stop a criminal from acquiring guns if they choose to (as if someone contemplating a mass murder would care to obey gun control laws), the author instead blames US gun control. Will liberals stop at nothing to strip US citizens of their 2nd amendment rights? Do you have no decency, linking a terrible murder to the US with zero proof?
nath
@Illyas Japan does a good job with gun control. When you say it can't be done, that just causes me to say, "sounds like a challenge to me!"
nath
If your premise was correct, you would see an equivalent amount of gun deaths in Japan and Canada as you do in the US. So if you want to talk about proof, there is your proof that gun control laws do in fact prevent most criminals from acquiring guns, and there is your proof that American gun control laws are screwed up.
Todd Topolski
What does a gun in Canada have to Do with the US Senate? So the author is just throwing in fluff to somehow legitimize his nonsense article?
As to why Canadian gun laws failed? Easy. Gun control laws like any prohibition law or controlling access and rights regulations, only apply to law abiding, decent people who don't break laws. Anyone else, like a crazed moron joining Islam to commit murder, control laws have No effect.
For the rest, there are No so called independent politicians. If this author's wishful thinking is remotely true, the two democrat leaning politicians won't change. There is simply No room for critical thought in the mind of socialists. If you can bring yourself to suspend reality and pretend the democrats are not the former slave owning segregationists imposing socialism on American, then this non thinking person will never see the Democrats for anything other than saints who can Do No wrong. But it hardly matters, there wont be any party jumpers this,time. The battle between the socialism of the Democrats and the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is simply too extreme for Anyone to ride the middle ground.
GalapagosnoGairaishu
What does a gun in Canada have to Do with the US Senate? So the author is just throwing in fluff to somehow legitimize his nonsense article?
The piece contains three separate articles and a caption for a photo that was deleted. (Former President Bill Clinton waves to voters next to Senator Mary Landrieu during an early voting rally in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.) I guess the editor posted the article without reading it first.
nath
@Todd Topolski Some people believe that masses deserve more than just dying free and homeless. It is your party that runs the deep south. You think that is a coincidence that is where the slaves were?
sangetsu03
The gun control issue is not relevant to this campaign. In fact, if it were, senate democrats would face an even harder election year. The number of guns in America is nearly equal to the population, and if you go to a gun range or on a deer hunt, you will find many democrats there carrying their guns. Not every democrat is a knee-jerk liberal who lives in Seattle, San Francisco, or Washington DC. We can't forget that many "red" states also have, or had, a majority of voters registered as democrats. Lastly, after Sandy Hook, Obama proposed many sweeping gun control regulations. Every single one was shot down by the senate, which his party controlled, and, for the moment, still controls. The republican-led congress never had a chance to debate the issue.
This campaign is about economics, and that is what it should be about. And on this front, Obama's party has a lot of 'splaining to do. Obama harps that unemployment is down to 6,5%, but glosses over the fact that workforce participation (at 62.8%) is lower now than at any time in the last forty years. He points to the increases in the stock markets, yet glosses over the fact that his easy-money policies have encouraged companies to issue debt to borrow this easy money, which they use to buy back their own stock, driving up the price. Since CEO and other executive pay is largely based on stock performance, these people have found a way to bump up their stock prices and salaries, even when their companies are seeing little growth. But the government can't complain, because it is doing the exact same thing. Obama can claim to have "cut deficit spending", but he hasn't actually cut spending, or reduced the debt, he has merely cut projected deficit spending, which means nothing. The national debt has quadrupled during his first five years in office, no matter how much he has claimed to "cut deficits."
I am not a democrat or a republican, because the goal of either party is to screw the people for their own advantage. What should happen over the next two or three elections is that every single incumbent sitting in office be voted out and replaced, regardless of their party. No matter which party wins, we all lose. If you want to see "change we can believe in", enact term limits for the senate and house.
Serrano
I know exactly who will control the Senate and the House for the next two years - a bunch of self-serving politicians.
sangetsu03
Actually, the exact opposite is true, the democrat party controlled all of the south from the time of the civil war, Lincoln was a republican. It was a republican administration that freed the slaves over staunch opposition of the democrat party. Democrats controlled the south until the Bush came to office, and in many southern states still have a majority of registered democrats. Don't forget that the civil rights act of 1964 was resisted by the democrat party, who attempted a filibuster to defeat it. The only reason the filibuster failed was because their were enough republicans to defeat it, and LBJ was under the thumb of J Edgar Hoover.
Doesn't anyone study history anymore?
yabits
sangetsu03 asks: "Doesn't anyone study history anymore?"
Answer: Obviously not sangetsu03.
This is not true. Check your history. During the 15~20 years following the Civil War, during Reconstruction, the Republican Party controlled the South. The Republicans of that time were the party of liberals and progressives, and liberal whites in states like North Carolina worked together with freed blacks to draft a new state constitution in 1868. Two years later, the General Assembly passed voting rights laws, criminal justice laws, labor laws, and created the first public school system in the United States.
Who opposed them? The business owners and powerful former slave-holders / land-holders. Not your "liberal" types.
Again, not true. Southern Democrats (aka Future Republicans) started moving away from the national Democratic Party when FDR passed mild civil rights reforms, and even more when Democratic president Harry Truman forcibly integrated the US Armed Forces. Let's not forget one of the most racist politicians of all time, Strom Thurmond, leaving the "Democrat" party and eventually finding a warm welcome with the Republicans -- much to the delight of people like Trent Lott.
To the point, look at the convention of 1964 and that election. It was Goldwater who carried most of the southern states. Why? Because he openly opposed civil rights. (Nixon won southern states in '72, as did Reagan in 80 and 84.)
Keep in mind that Klansman, David Duke, chose to be a Republican, ran as a Republican, and won a state seat as a Republican. The fact that racist whites once registered as southern democrats doesn't really mean a lot.
Again, future Republican -- who had already left the national Democratic party -- Strom Thurmond, led the filibuster. The person everyone acknowledges as helping get civil rights passed is Minnesota Senator (and vice president) Hubert Humphrey -- a Democrat.
nath
@sangetsu03 I'm talking about TODAY not 40 years ago! >.< Anybody that thinks the racist vote didn't turn conservative after LBJ (a democrat!) pushed through the civil rights act doesn't have their head screwed on right.
sangetsu03
They were not liberals or progressives, the republican party even then was the "grand old party", being the first party orgainzed. Have you been to the south? Do you think it was the "progressive republicans" who rebuilt all of the town halls to face south?
Who was the party in power in the south at the height of the Klan's "glory" days of lynchings and burnings? You can learn a lot by looking up "disenfranchisement after the restoration"? It's quite ironic that entire classes of people have decided to forget what the democrat party promoted for generations in return for handouts.
But Thurmond was a democrat when he led the filibuster, not a republican, and the filibuster was implemented by the democrat party, was it not? Tell me the name of a single, real, republican that took part in the filibuster? A few democrats did not, Humphrey being one, but were it not for united opposition of republicans, would the filibuster have succeeded?
David Duke would have run as Satan to win his seat, as would any politician worth his salt. The fact that the southern democrat party as an organisation went to any lengths to suppress the rights of blacks to votes means quite a lot, doesn't it?
yabits
LOL! The Repubican Party was founded around 1854 -- and so ten years later, it was still a very new party, despite what they wanted to call it. All "good old boys" are not necessarily old. Also, let's point out that as late as the 1920s, the Republicans had a significant Progressive faction, let by Teddy Roosevelt.
Dude, I have lived in Georgia most of my life. I'm pretty aware of the history in these parts.
The southern faction of the Democratic Party -- which was very different from the national party. Note that they came to power when the national Republicans -- under Hayes -- were successfully bribed to end Reconstruction early and pull out federal troops. The business and planter class -- anything but liberal -- helped form the Klan and overturned voting rights and civil rights. Which party wants to restrict voting rights and civil rights today? (That's right, the Republicans.)
Strom Thurmond led the racists out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican party -- it was called "the southern strategy." Recent Republican leaders admitted their southern strategy was openly racist, but that didn't stop them from reaping the benefits. Oh, and we're talking 1970s and 1980s -- not a century earlier, which is what you think actually matters.
But he actually ran as a Republican. And racist southern Republican whites voted him in. Yes, those whites would have voted in Satan too. It's part of their pattern.
nath
@sangetsu03 FDR, JFK and Thomas Jefferson were also the equivalent of democrats today. I'll take those over grandpa Reagan who talked to the curtains any day.
bass4funk
Love you, Yabits, you just keep trying and trying and trying. Funny how the party that CLAIMS to be non-racist is THE MOST racist party, but once that tingle is over and the realization kicks in that Reid is no longer majority leader and the Dems are finally out and that there was a complete repudiation of what was and is failed policies, no matter what is said here in JT, the people have spoken and I hope both parties can come together and that the Dems, shut their mouths for once and just listen to the other side and have some moral clarity.