Reaction to an Article - Masters of the Senate, Sept 22 Edition of the Economist

This post drafted and accidentally not published several weeks ago. Oops.

Basically, the article posits that the presidential race gets the press but the Senate race is where the real massacre will be. Several reasons are given: 21 republican seats are up for reelection, to only 12 democrat seats. Many of the republicans won their seats at the height of republican popularity under Bush, which has changed a bit, shall we say. At least 8 republicans are retiring. Republicans have raised only a third (nationally) of what democrats have raised for the 2008 senate race. Republicans are scandal-ridden, ethically, sexually, financially... Most polls show around a 10% margin in favor of the democrats for 2008 in the senate.

So that's nice.

Does it matter? e has concerns here, shall we say... it doesn't matter if the democrats win their way in if they do nothing. That is, do nothing in terms of accomplishing things, rather than merely seeking to consolidate power, hold power, reward friends, spend money for their districts, etc ...

I think that a democratic congress coupled with a democratic president would have to see change, if for no other reason than the presidential candidates all have such sweeping healthcare reform plans, etc, and to not have any follow through would result in a giant BOOT four years later.

To not believe that change could happen - where does that leave you?