The morning after Election Day, there’s still some uncertainty about partisan control on Capitol Hill, though as NBC News reported, there’s no doubt as to which party will control the upper chamber.
Senate Republicans ousted Democrats in red states to secure the majority, flipping seats in West Virginia, Montana and Ohio, states that have swung heavily to the GOP. And they held their ground in friendly states like Texas and Florida, assuring them at least 51 seats when the new Congress is sworn in next January.
As I type, the incoming Republican majority in the chamber will have at least 52 seats. That total might yet grow: Senate races in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Arizona have not yet been called. Though Democrats are likely to prevail in some of these contests, no one in either party would be surprised at this point to see the GOP end up with more than 52 seats when the new Congress begins in January.
What difference does it make how big of a majority it is? If there are 51 Senate Republicans, members such as Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins can, at least theoretically, curtail some of their party’s most radical instincts. If there are, say, 54 Senate Republicans, the party’s far-right will be able to do whatever it wants.
As a legislative matter, control of the House is obviously of profound importance: A Democratic majority, which is not impossible, would not only be able to thwart key elements of Trump’s agenda, it would also be in a position to at least try to hold the president-elect accountable for expected abuses.
A Republican majority in the lower chamber, meanwhile, would give the GOP control over all of the levers of federal power.
Yes — to answer the question some readers are probably asking — the filibuster rule is likely to endure, which in turn would give the Democratic Senate minority some options for blocking legislation backed by the incoming Trump White House.
But (and you had to know a “but” was coming) much of what Republicans want won’t be subject to a filibuster. If GOP officials control Capitol Hill, for example, they’ll approve tax breaks for billionaires through the budget reconciliation process, which requires simple majorities in both chambers. The party might very well try to gut the Affordable Care Act in the same way.
Just as notably, the filibuster rule no longer applies to the confirmation process, which means that no matter what happens with House control, Republicans can spend at least two years stacking the courts with young, far-right reactionaries — while awaiting some Supreme Court retirements.
As for Trump administration nominees, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a former Trump critic who’s become a rather pitiful Trump sycophant, appeared on CNN after the race was called and was asked whether a GOP-led Senate would be comfortable confirming conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a powerful federal role.
“Well, I think the Senate is going to give great deference to a president that just won a stunning, what I think is an electoral college landslide, when all is said and done, and a mandate,” Rubio replied. “He’s being given a mandate to govern. And I think presidents given a mandate to govern deserve from the Senate the opportunity to surround themselves with people that are going to help them execute their policies.”
Putting aside the obvious fact that Rubio and his Republican colleagues had a very different perspective when Barack Obama won by a far larger margin, the Floridian was effectively saying that a GOP-led Senate probably would confirm fringe radicals to positions of authority, serving as a rubber stamp for Trump’s choices.
In July, The Bulwark talked to a congressional lobbyist who said something that’s lingered in my mind for months. “There is a huge difference between 54 and 51 GOP senators,” the lobbyist said. “At 54, Ric Grenell is getting confirmed as secretary of state.”
Watch this space.
