What about Congress?

[Denver]

I couldn't find a thread focused on this, so...

All I see on the political news are discussions of the presidential election. But there are also a lot of congressional elections about to occur. 2 years ago, the public turned over congress, more or less, to the Democrats. But, with only a 51-49 simple majority in the Senate.

The same is true in the House, in that the Democrats have a simple majority only.

My feeling is that, in the last election, many voters went down the list and voted out as many republicans as they could. This time, will it be any different?

I completely expect the Democrats to achieve a super-majority, at least in the Senate, in the upcoming election.

Any other bets or opinions there?

[Upchurch]

electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) currently puts
Senate: Dem 58, GOP 41, Ties 1
House: Dem 250, GOP 184, Ties 1

Just short of a veto proof, but with Obama in, why would they need one?

For the record, I'm always nervous when one party controls the whole thing. My preference is for a Democratic President and a Republican legislature. Or at least, Republicans before they went crazy during the Bush admin.

[Denver]

I don't know why they would need one, or why we would want them to have one.
But from what I could glean about the rules:

1) It would allow invoking cloture to break a filibuster.
2) It would support the requirements for impeachment.

[Kestrel]

electoral-vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) currently puts
Senate: Dem 58, GOP 41, Ties 1
House: Dem 250, GOP 184, Ties 1

Just short of a veto proof, but with Obama in, why would they need one?

For the record, I'm always nervous when one party controls the whole thing. My preference is for a Democratic President and a Republican legislature. Or at least, Republicans before they went crazy during the Bush admin.

With 58 seats, Democrats will not have enough votes to override a Republican filibuster in the Senate.

[Upchurch]

With 58 seats, Democrats will not have enough votes to override a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
IMHO: Good. Dissension needs a voice, even if it has to drone on and on.

I trust Obama way more than I ever trusted Bush, but there is no reason to (continue to) completely thwart the checks and balances.

[Peephole]

With 58 seats, Democrats will not have enough votes to override a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
It's looking like they're more likely to get 59 seats, with the possibility of upsets in Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi. It'll be hard for the Republicans to stage filibusters, even if the Democrats don't reach the magic number.

And they're gonna pick up a whole bunch more seats in 2010.

[MattusMaximus]

The Iowa Electronic Market (IEM) has a prediction market (http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Congress08_Quotes.html) on this question...

Congressional Control
DH-DS 97.5
DH-RS 1.9
RH-DS 3.2
RH-RS 0.6

House Control
Dem-Gain 94.4
Dem-Hold 3.8
Dem-Lose 8.7

Senate Control
Dem-Gain 95.1
Dem-Hold 1.9
Dem-Lose 4.0

In addition, FiveThirtyEight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com) has a projection of how many seats the Democrats will have in the Senate post-election. Two weeks ago, their model showed a 15% chance the Dems would get 60 seats in the Senate; today it is showing a 33% chance of the Dems cracking the filibuster-proof majority. Wow :eye-poppi