That said, sometimes they write things that are just absurd. Like this article, for example, citing a survey that shows that Congress uses social media more than millennials. It’s the same story we hear all the time, throwing out a “shocking” social media statistic that isn’t really shocking because it’s naively considered newsworthy and tends to drive pageviews. Here’s a quote from the article:

About 80 percent of House and Senate members have social media accounts, reports The Associated Press, more than that of 18- 29-year-olds, the age cohort with the highest usage of social media. Only 75 percent of so-called millenials have social media accounts.

At first glance, of course this sounds like a great story.

But let’s keep in mind three things:

• Politicians are trying to get elected. Millennials—for the most part—are just having fun.
• There are 535 people in Congress. There are countless millennials, all from very different demographics. Of course there is going to be a higher percentage on the former than the latter.
• If you are just now figuring out that social media is important for politicians running for office, you’re about five years behind.

I mean really, guys, how is this news? Of course, politicians are on social media. Of course, there is a significant portion of millennials who are not on social media (contrary to popular belief). I don’t know about you, but I don’t need a survey to tell me that.

I’m beginning to grow weary of the “____ survey says ____ demographic uses ____ social media ____ amount” article template. I mean “shocking social media stats” are just cookie cutter media at this point. How about we talk about how social media is affecting the issues? Or what innovative things one of these audiences is doing with social media to make an impact on politics? Now that, I think, would be worth reading.

Hence, the title of this post: is 56 is the new 60? If the Democrats can keep 56 of their own seats in the new Senate — which will be a bit tough, but is far from out of the question — then they may frequently be able to cobble together a coalition between the 56 Democrats and the four moderate Republicans — Brown, Collins, Snowe and Castle. There are other Republican whose votes might be in play on particular issues — Linsday Graham on climate change, Dick Lugar on foreign policy stuff — but those the Snowe/Brown/Collins/Castle block should be up for grabs on almost every issue.

I have a couple points I want to make here.

First, it’s absolutely appalling that there are only four serious contenders to qualify as “moderates” for the 112th Congress. Two paragraphs down in his post, Silver even says, “That’s about it, though — most of the Republicans running for office are conservatives.” The radicals conservatives and the tea party are in control. We’re witnessing a literal coup d’état of the Republican party.

Despite the potential benefits this may have for Democrats–particularly in the long run–this just isn’t a good thing. Sure, if Obama’s initiatives succeed in the next two years, Democrats will come out looking like moderates as the country shifts to the left, while Republicans wither away as the radical group in American politics. That’s good for me and my views, but is it good for democracy? I don’t think so. The idea of a purity test for a political party, particularly one of the two parties in our strictly two-party system, is just sad.

Secondly, and more to the point of my title, why are we talking about 56 as the new 60? We should be talking 50 as the new 60.

The filibuster rule is in shambles. It’s been used and abused by both parties for two decades now–although much worse in the past year by Republicans than ever before–and it’s tearing away the very fabric of our democracy. Let’s remember how Congress used to work. To pass a bill, it was required to pass the House and earn a majority of votes from the Senate. Simple definition from google:

majority /mədʒ’ɒrɪti/ /-dʒ’ɔːr-/ US

1. The majority of people or things in a group is more than half of them.

So let me ask you this: how the hell is passing a bill with 51+ votes “undemocratic?” That’s the very definition of a majority-based system, and conservatives have flipped the messaging to make 51 votes seem like not enough people agree with it to be the “will of the people.”

Ezra Klein made an excellent point about the filibuster and it’s ridiculousness in a post from February 19th:

When 41 senators representing less than 20 percent of the population can block legislation, that’s not a democratic state of affairs, no matter the issues involved.

How can conservatives actually argue against eliminating the filibuster? Now let me be clear, I recognize that Democrats have done this in the past too, and, should they become the minority at any point in the future while the filibuster still exists, they’ll likely do it again. But I don’t agree with it. And, were I a Senator, I absolutely, positively would not take part in it.

Anyway, enjoy the links, let me know what you think. Is the filibuster guaranteeing the “rights of the minority?” Or is it holding back our democracy and tearing away the very system that used to keep our government running (at least semi-) smoothly?

I think it’s time for a change. I think we need more moderates. I think we need a system where 51 votes passes a bill, because that’s a majority of what the people elected. But hey, what do I know.

Could he save 2010 for the Democrats? Two things that have happened in the past 24 hours suggest, to me, that he may be figuring out the strategies it takes to salvage these midterms. Simply put, he’s figuring out the winning issues (hint: health care is not one of them).

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been a divisive issue for a long time. For years, it was accepted by the majority, while it infuriated gays and allies behind the scenes. Upon Obama’s election, he pledged to repeal the policy, but last year saw little action on that front. This week we’ve seen the action liberals have been waiting for and it’s making the GOP look petty, homophobic and, especially in the case of Senator John McCain, lacking convictions on the issue. Three things that make this one a winner for Obama and the democrats:

1. Public opinion has shifted and a majority now favor repealing the policy
2. Top defense officials support an end to the policy
3. Republicans can’t make up their mind–John McCain, in particular, flip-flopping on the issue since October 2006

Keep pushing this until it happens, Obama. This shifts focus away from the economy a bit, gives you a lot of support from your liberal base (which you desperately need if you want to mobilize voters come November), and will make for plenty of heart-warming stories about gays being able to be “themselves” when the policy is finally ended.

AIG Bonuses

Now this could really go either way, but with Obama holding the momentum and public approval on the rise since the State of the Union, I’m feeling confident this will, ultimately, work in democrats favor.

As most of us know, AIG is readying another $100 million round of bonuses for its executives. Naturally, this infuriates about 99% of all Americans. Here’s the deal, three things to remember for this one:

1. Obama didn’t start the bank bailouts, Bush did, way back in 2008
2. Everyone hates AIG, and democrats have been doing a better job showing outrage over this issue than Republicans have–Republicans have to worry about losing wealthy, corporate donors and voters for November
3. This adds support for Obama’s proposed financial regulations–regulations Republicans have been pretty adamantly opposed to thus far

Keep up Obama. If you can show that this is your issue and that you’re willing to tackle it head on–as opposed to the Republican skirting around the issue–you can make this a real winner and start pulling around your approval rating on economic issues.

Behind the Scenes: Demonizing Las Vegas

Now this is pure conjecture on my part, but I’ve got a feeling Obama’s recent flap on Las Vegas, and subsequent apology in response to Senator Harry Reid’s outrage, are very planned events

First of all, this isn’t the first time this has happened. Now I’m not about to suggest Obama is above making the same mistake twice, but this is a tense political climate and he knows his good friend Harry Reid is up for re-election. Now what could possibly help Senator Reid at this juncture in the race…?

How about a show of strength? A little bravado from our fearless Senate Majority Leader? Well that’s what he got. Obama’s comment on Las Vegas gave Senator Reid an excellent opportunity to complain–loudly–and Obama immediately issued a formal apology for the comment.

Not only does this help Senator Reid immensely–now he can say he fights hard for his state’s largest city, and he’s willing to stand up to President Obama, and he understands the pain Nevadans are feeling and wants to help fix it–but it’s an event that, outside of Nevada, will only last in this news cycle for about two hours. The majority of Americans will ignore the story altogether, and even less will care. Nevadans are the only ones who will hear it, the only ones who will care, and Reid’s approval rating will go up. This might not help Obama’s approval in the state, but really, who cares? Politics is a short-term game, and Obama’s got almost three years before Nevada voters go back to the polls for him. There’s time.