What happens if in '04 we win the WH but not the House?

I posted this on the general discussion forum, but it doesn't seem to be getting very far: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=159973

> Let's say that after a close race, the DemoKeratic candidatery (ok, sry, I had to throw in my little subliminal pitch for Kerry :) ) wins the presidency. Let's also say that in the senate, we pick up Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Alaska, but lose only South Carolina -- result: a 51-49 Senate under Democratic control.

But, alas, the House. It looks unlikely to actually fall to us, even if we make major gains. Under such a scenario, there would probably be enough votes to enact the legislative program of whoever the new Democratic president is, when you group together both the vast majority of Democrats (there are likely to be a few conservative holdouts) plus abt 30-40 centrist and liberal republicans. The problem is, that in a House where Republicans are numerically greater, the Republican leadership will stay entrenched. Delay keeps his troops in line, so much that the 30-40 centrist/liberal republicans (that's the estimate of most political analysts) are scared stiff of voting against the party. Add to that the fact that Delay sorely limits debate and pretty much only allows the his conservative Republican agenda to be presented.

In an environment like that, how can our Democratic president ever get any legislative achievements? Esp. w/ the partisan nature of politics getting worse and worse, the House will likely be even more of a black hole than under Clinton. Will the new president be forced to basically become how Clinton was after '94? Essentially acting as a brake on the extreme proposals of the right, acting as a check on them, rather than being able to present hisown full legislative program?

What'd you all think would happen?

.

One branch of the government would at least be able to shut down the fascists for a little while.

The bigger question is what do we do about the fascists over time? I've thought about this, too -- even if we win, these people are still there, and they're still very rich and very powerful and will be pulling whatever dirty tricks and nasty crimes to get their way.

Evil only understands force. We need to put people in jail. That's the bottom line.

YOu know, the kind of guy he can destroy before the general election. As far as I can tell, a lot of Dems are dumb enough to give Bush what he needs. We need to really concentrate on taking back Congress. The trouble is that if we pick someone whose honesty is questionable, no one will trust any of the Democrats.

We can't possibly make gains in Congress without a decent candidate for president. Morale among Democrats would be low, and there would be less interest in them going to the polls.

In 2000, when we had a really close race (Al Gore's), we did make huge gains in the Congress. In the Senate alone, we beat 5 incumbents (yes 5! (Roth, Ashcroft, Grams, Gorton, and Abraham), we won open seats in New York, Nebraska, Florida, and New Jersey. We only lost one incumbent (Chuck Robb, who came from behind and nearly won) and only lost one other seat (Nevada). Additionally, we nearly beat Conrad Burns. All of this wouldn't have been possible without a really close race.

And while Tom DeLay may not let much legislation through, it will be he (not Kerry) who will be viewed as an obstructionist. The House is within reach in 2004, but it will be hard. In reality, it would be much easier to view winning the House in 2 elections. However, we have to try in the next election to take the House.

But anything's gotta be better than having nothing. :(

eom