I looked at our Democratic Senators and divided them up between about three different eras.
Pre-1980 and Post 2006, 1980-1994, and 1994-2005.
Pre-1980 and Post 2006 represents Democrats use to the idea of a majority, who are mostly prepared to govern that way.
1980-1994 represents Democrats who were in a majority but wound up being pushed around by Reagan and the Republicans, demoralized by three straight losses for President, rejecting the ideas of the new left and the McGovern wing of the party.
1994-2005 represent Democrats who were elected into a minority. Most are use to the idea of having to ask permission from the Republicans to legislate.
Pre-'80 and Post-'06= 26
1980-1994= 13
1994-2005= 26
As you can see the "But what will the Republicans think?" caucus isn't enough on its own but can do some real damage if they get enough of the "We might begin to discuss starting to begin discussing reform" caucus to side with them.
Now clearly there are good Progressives in each group as are there Blue Dogs in each group but I think when you are use to thinking one way for years, it's hard to start thinking the opposite way right off the bat. Businesses often struggle "under new management".
But what's really interesting is to take a look at when the troublemakers were elected:
Lincoln-'98, Lieberman-'88, Bayh-'98, Landrieu-'96, Ben Nelson-'00, Conrad- '94 and even Harry Reid-'86. They're all either in the "Powerless minority" caucus or the "Reagan Revolution's victims" caucus.
This data (to me at least) indicates why we need to continue to elect newer and better Democrats to get the job done. We can't complete our great work with leftover relics of a by-gone era. People use to being told to "sit down, shut up and let the Right run the show".
The '94-'05 caucus have done their job, they got us into the majority. But until we give more votes to the "Pre-'80, Post '06" caucus, then our agenda gets held up and held hostage. If you count Pryor, Dorgan, Bill Nelson and Baucus among those willing to bail on us then right now we have a 49 seat majority instead of the 60 we're told we have.
So, fellow Democrats and Progressives, I propose that we give it one more cycle. We work and deliver to the Senate, candidates ready to work in a majority and maybe even thin out the '94-'05 caucus a little with some primaries.
One more cycle and then I promise we can all sit at home in 2012 and watch the Democrats "rue the day they crossed us!" if they don't deliver some real progress. Until then don't give up! Never surrender! No quarter taken, no quarter given!
It took some rather large majorities to deliver change in '30s.
Here's a history lesson:
- Senate
* Republican (R): 48 (majority)
* Democratic (D): 47
* Farmer-Labor (FL): 1
TOTAL members: 96
House of Representatives
* Democratic (D): 217 (majority)[2]
* Republican (R): 217
* Farmer-Labor (FL): 1
TOTAL members: 435
- Senate
* Republican (R): 35
* Democratic (D): 60(majority)
TOTAL members: 96
[edit] House of Representatives
* Democratic (D): 312 (majority)
* Republican (R): 114
TOTAL members: 435
- Senate
Democrats 69
Republicans 25
Farmer-Labor 1
Progressive 1
Total 96
House
Democrats 322
Republicans 103
Progressive 7
Farmer-Labor 3
Total 435
- Senate
* Democratic (D): 76 (majority)
* Republican (R): 17
* Farmer-Labor (FL): 2
* Progressive (P): 1
TOTAL members: 96
House of Representatives
* Democratic (D): 334 (majority)
* Republican (R): 88
* Progressive (P): 8
* Farmer-Labor (FL): 5
TOTAL members: 435
Major legislation:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/...