.
October 24th, 2008
05:50 PM ET

What’s the risk of one party controlling Federal Government?

 Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's entirely possible the New Year will find the White House and the Congress controlled by the Democrats.

Virtually all the polls indicate it could be a big year for the Democrats. Some fearless forecasters are predicting Democrats could even wind up with the all-important 60 vote majority in the Senate. That would render Republicans virtually powerless to stop legislation there. Right now– the Democrats barely have the upper hand in the Senate– 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats.

Watch: Cafferty: One party Federal Government?

In the House, Democrats hold a 235 to 199 majority with one vacancy. A 270-seat majority this election is probably out of reach but the Democrats are expected to pick up some seats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi predicts Democrats will control 250 seats when all the votes are counted.

And Barack Obama, another Democrat, is the current favorite to be the next president. So what would that mean for the rest of us? It means the Democrats would suddenly have the power to push about any agenda they want to–from raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting them for the middle class to steering more federal benefits to low-income families to expanding health care coverage to anything else they might decide suits their fancy.

Here’s my question to you: What's the risk of one party controlling Congress and the White House?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Linda from Bentley Spring, Maryland writes:
Well, there might be a risk, but if Democrats can get over the bitterness of the past 8 years, they can form a coalition with Republicans to make this truly a collaborative effort. I'm dreaming, I know, but perhaps a President Obama can bring his calm reason to bear, regardless.

Brian from Moscow, Idaho writes:
It means there will be a clear mandate for the Democrats to fix the economy, much like Clinton did in the 90s. If they can't deliver, there will be a massive backlash against Democratic leadership that could tank the careers of Pelosi, Reid and Obama as well. They have four years and more responsibility than either party has ever had in recent history. We'll see if they deliver.

V. writes:
Jack, this administration and their very wealthy buddies on Wall Street, in the oil business and the banking industry have brought America to its knees. The economy is issue #1 and far ahead of any other issue in this election. It will dictate who will win this election no matter their color, race or anything else they are.

Bruce writes:
The risk of course is that some unpopular initiatives could become law. On the other hand, there would certainly be less gridlock in Congress and more would get accomplished.

Dave from Atlanta, Georgia writes:
Jack, I am a registered Democrat and I would normally be concerned with this type of control, however, we need to move in the opposite direction from where this circus in Washington has taken the country. Senator Obama is a well-educated man and I would stake what remains of my 401(k) that he can't be worse than what we have seen over the past eight years.

Janis from Lafayette, Indiana writes:
What have we got to lose? It has taken a crisis, whether it be 9-11, the war in Iraq or the economic collapse, to get our Congress to move faster than a snail's pace. Maybe with one party in control, we can get policy through without unnecessary debate and delay.


Filed under: US Federal Government
soundoff (683 Responses)
  1. Laurie in Lawrence, KS

    Well, that would depend on which party gets control. If the republicans win it all, then the US is going to continue to decline. If the democrats win it all, then hopefullly we will see some real, positive changes for this country.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
  2. Jenny Rome Ga

    Jack,
    It is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The founding fathers set up three forms of government so there wowuld be a system of checks and balances. A Democratic Congress and a Democratic Congress throws that off a bit. But at this point I am willing to run the risk.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  3. Kees van Eck

    It's an extension of the risk of a two party system, which means voters choose red or blue, never green, purple or orange as we do in Holland. Compromise is the evident outcome.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  4. Richard Kaminski

    Jack we have already seen what one party controlling both houses has done for the last two years. Absolutely NOTHING.

    Here is something to think about. No politician will ever do anything for you cheaper then you could do it for yourself.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  5. Cal L - California

    Jack: The only risk is that something may get done if it is a one-party democratic government led by OBAMA!

    LayLo
    Calif.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
  6. Anna - Santa Teresa, NM

    Absolutely power corrupts–no matter which party. Look what the Republicans did when they had all three! But please don't let it be a deterrent from voting in Obama. We need him.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  7. voter in Kansas

    The risk, Jack, is that we might get something accomplished for a change.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  8. johnie in Col. Oh

    Jack, well when it hits the fan we will know whom to blame!

    October 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  9. Rebecca in SC

    The risk is continued gridlock if Republicans have enough Senate votes to continue blocking everything that comes up. For years the Republican definition of bi-partisanship has been "You do it my way." Democrats are far more likely to give the opposition a place at the table, so I don't think there is danger in one party control.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:50 pm |
  10. Jane (Minnesota)

    Check the results of 2001 – 2006.

    I missed the start year in my first comment.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  11. Lauren Phoenix Az.

    The only risk I can see is that some legislation would get pushed through that doesn't meet the GOP's "high" standards. We might actually get some work done in this country of ours.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:51 pm |
  12. Kyle- DuPont, WA

    Jack, the good thing is that legislation is passed in an efficient manner.when one Party controls the White House and Congress. The trouble is that only one party's agenda is being addressed which means that either way half of America is disenfranchised. Give me Democratic President and a Republican Congress anytime.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
  13. Jim

    Frankly, I don't care about what effect the economy has on the election.
    I want to know who is going to repair and return our economy to what it should be...honest government, honest businessmen, honest media, and simply, honest people. Neither candidate will be able to get our economy back on track because they don't have the capabilities to do so.

    Jim
    Greensboro, NC

    October 24, 2008 at 1:52 pm |
  14. Raymond Duke/Gatesville,Tx.

    Jack : that really is a stupid question, but being the liberal you are you will get your wish if Obama and the democrats get elected and take control. You can expect higher taxes, you can expect a weak military and all of the slugs and welfare recipents will be jumping with joy with bigger goverment handouts . It will be the Jimmy Carter years again. To prove my pont who do you see in the line for early voting. I will tell you, very little retired people , hardly no working people, of course they are working, so what do you see left turning out in mass. It ia even obvious to a liberal.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
  15. Conor in Chicago

    I suppose the risk of that is that the Dems could screw things up the same way the Reps did when they had full control. On the other hand, with how extremley partisan this country's government has become in their constant struggle for overall control of power, nothing gets done unless one party is in control. The party in the minority sabatoges everything the majority party tries to do simply so they can say "look at that do nothing congress" and then they try to win House and Senate seats. I blame this fact more than anything on why our government is so ineffective and this is EXACTLY why people need to open their minds to 3rd and 4th party candidates for all levels of government. I'd like to add that I support Obama over McCain but have no illusions that Obama's message is going to change any of this. Especially since a 3rd of the electorate now thinks he's Al-Qaida's Manchurian Candidate thanks to McCain and Palin.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:54 pm |
  16. Rhoda Auerbach

    The risk is, as always, that the world is not black or white. We have a spectrum and it's important to look at all the colors. If one party remains in control, then there is a great danger that, in the pursuit of what they see as their cause, they might fail to notice all the footnotes by the side of the road. It’s like the old story about all the alligators making you forget that your original objective was to clear the swamp. The alligators are there because you tried to clear the swamp! Every action has a reaction and therefore your plan must be focused and yet take into consideration all the fallout it may cause.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  17. Judy, Exeter, Calif,

    It may work out well in the beginning if Obama is elected and we have a democratic majority, that said there is a definitive need for checks and balances, no matter who we elect. Our next president will have inherited a huge mess, and we will need congressional oversight as well as bipartisan cooperation.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  18. Dale, Phoenix

    Jack,
    The potential for one party to be control, could be frightening. However, given the state that the economy and the general health of our nation is in. To have a Democratic congress and a Republican President, would mean virtually nothing would get done on capitol hill.
    In these troubled times, I believe we need action! Not the inaction, that a Republican president and a Democratic congress would create.

    Dale, Phoenix, AZ

    October 24, 2008 at 1:55 pm |
  19. JD in NH

    Normally, I would say it's a good thing for both parties to have a say in the government, but this isn't normal times. The Republicans had total control for 6 of the 8 Bush years. For the final 2 years, they filibustered nearly everything the Democrats wanted to do, resulting in gridlock. We can't live with gridlock and ever expect to fix the problems in this country. Give it all to the Democrats for awhile and see what happens. One thing is for sure – it can't get any worse.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
  20. Precious Coker

    None!!!!

    Is this the first time it will be in America?

    If the tables were turned in favour of the Republicans, will you be asking this question?

    In the next few days before Nov. 4th all kinds of punditing and meaningless questions will arise, why ? to give the silly and empty Republican ticket some talking points. However, it is already too late.

    These vermins that have ruined the polical fabic of America with their insensitivity will be voted out of office for as long as it takes to repair the damage.

    God bless America.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm |
  21. lisadee from Ft. Lauderdale, FL

    Jack...It's a risk I am willing to take and looking forward too. Obama/Biden 08

    October 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm |
  22. Mike Ryan

    Isn’t last eight years of Bush and the republicans self explanatory!!!!!!!

    MIKE
    SNELLVILLE, GA

    October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  23. Rosalynd Florida

    Instead of bipaartisan bickering and political jockeying something may actually get done! That is a risk I am willing to take.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  24. Charlie (Bethpage, NY)

    I think we have already experienced that risk. Bush as President and 6 years of a Republican Congress brought nothing but terrible things for America. We need to get back to a system of checks and balances where both parties work together for the common good. Clinton managed to get things accomplished post 1994 when the Republicans took control of Congress. We need the same effort come January.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  25. Brett in Oriskany,Va

    When our founding fathers formulated the constitution,intially the vice president was from the other party. that was changed and I'm sure those wise men allowed for one party control because sometimes its necessary. The republican party has one more damage to this nation in 8 years than at any other time in history, except maybe the Civil War. Its time for change and if the democrats can't handle than we'll vote them out of office too. Perhaps what we need is a new party, a Populist party, to represent the majority of Americans( Are you listening, Lou Dobbs?)

    October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  26. george c paree

    It looks like we will find out soon,I dont like there ideas yet I am democrat I dont want all investment being payed out as ss check .That will give government total control bad idea.The alowing of expaned leveage financeing and morages bad ideas we need to go back to lincons time make it ours ans simple

    October 24, 2008 at 1:58 pm |
  27. brian

    Missed you Jack!
    It would be nice to have the Dems control all. Postive change would be likely, opposed to closed minded views based on religion and 1950s mind set.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  28. Catherine in New Hampshire

    The risk of one party control, as we have seen in 6 of the last 8 years, is that a party will put their own agenda ahead of what most Americans really need. There is also the risk, as we have seen, that there will be no policing or oversight, so that corruption abounds. The risk of a two party government, as we have seen in the last two years, is that nothing will be accomplished, that the government will gridlock while the president does nothing more than pull out his veto pen. Also, as happened in the Clinton administration, the investigation committees into the other party can become so numerous as to paralyze the government. Whether we have a one or a two party government, we must have an honorable president, a government that believes in transparency from the beginning of the administration, and cooperation between the executive and legislative branches by people who know how the Constitution operates.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  29. Jay-Mississippi

    Honestly Jack very little. In fact, it will force them to consider many of their actions before blindly acting. If they are careful and not make the mistakes of the past it can be good for the country.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  30. Bruce St Paul MN

    It requires strong leadership, so that Congress keeps the President (or Vice President) from making illegal power grabs or trampling the constitution, and at the same time the President has to make the Congress do the people's business, not monkey business. If you have weak leadership, you might end up with.. oh.. an illegal war, torture, wiretapping, and an economic tsunami.

    October 24, 2008 at 1:59 pm |
  31. BG

    No risk as long as it is not the Republicans ...

    October 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  32. Tom, The Heart of Democracy, Avon, Maine

    With Obama in the White House the risk is that something will get done.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:00 pm |
  33. Beartrack Truckee,CA

    We have already seen what can happen if one party is in control–
    It's called a disaster. In this case a Bush disaster that now is bringing down the whole world. This should be the time that serious people consider a third and fourth party. Or better yet, get rid of all the parties. You don't have to be in a "club" of fools to be a "real American".

    October 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm |
  34. JR in Norfolk VA

    In a word – disastrous. Look at damage already done to our economy by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, who were supposed to oversee the financial industry. You think this will improve with Obama in the White House and the same corruptocrats in the Congress? Think again. Government needs to have less power, not more. Let's keep our fate out of the hands of the idiots.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  35. Rosa Lake City. SC

    The Bush admin. and the republicans spent so much time blocking anything that the dems. tried to do for the country this is what we need to get things back on track

    October 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  36. garrick

    hi jack
    think when Bush took office his 6yrs was run with McCain and the GOP and look how much damage they did,now its time to get back to making all the crap that Bush did to be corrected and we need a strong Dem congress and not the same ones but new blood that now what the people need to correct making the wealthy more wealthy.its time for everyone to pull their weight not just goverment but the tax payers need to stay on top of the Goverment to hold them acountable and get reed of the dead wood clearwater,fl

    October 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  37. Chuck from VA

    Jack, maybe we'll actually see some work get done in Washington instead of having so much bickering like small children who don't know how to play nice with each other. I believe that this will be a good thing. Obama's agenda will actually have a good chance of moving through easily through the house and senate, we'll finally have universal healthcare, and our economy will get back to normal - may take a year or so for everything to calm down but we will get out of this recession, home sales will increase, and the overall economic picture will be much brighter.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
  38. Roy Munroe

    We have all seen what the Republicans do with control of all sectors of govenment. I believe that the Democrats will do much better with handling this country's affairs if they are put in the same postition. Heaven help them if they don't.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  39. Peter Moore

    Progress.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  40. Gregg Gallagher

    While "traditionally" a divided government was considered a positive under the premise that a government which did less was best, the current, dire global economic crisis calls for a government which can actually execute on a number of fronts. IMHO, the risk of having a one-party dominated government are far out-weighed by having another 4 years of a bitterly divided and partisan government.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  41. karen-phoenix

    Thats what has happened since Reaganomics and look at the mess the reppublicans have gotten us into with "trickel down" theory that put us all in the poor house!!! Lets let the democrats take a shoot at it with "trickel up" economics and see what happens? This 40 year long republican is voting for Obama/Biden for the survival of the American middle class. We NEED WPA, CCC and TVA programs again!!! Go green–build solar panels, wind turbons, infrustructure repairs and maybe, just maybe the dems can pull us out!!! They did after the crash of 1929!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:03 pm |
  42. Willow, Iowa

    Well, in the past 8 years, when the Republicans didn't have any checks and balances, (except for common sense), they deregulated everything, gave tax breaks to big corporations and rich people (that old trickle down theory), and ran up a deficit we will probably never be able to get under conrol. In the next 8 years, hopefully we will be able to right the wrongs, help the middle and lower classes to get out of the mud and begin health care reform, economy regulation and alternative energies, which will improve the job situation. With the Democrats in office, we will have a ready made check, and spending may get a little easier for the govt. but this will be for things needed over the past 8 years for the people in this country.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  43. Mark - Asheville, NC

    It would be nothing new, ordinarily. If the president were FDR, Truman, LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Joe Biden, Al Gore, or certain others I would be delighted. But Obama? Who knows what would happen?

    This is the first time that a presidential nominee has been recruited, promoted (with a vengeance!) and installed as nominee by the media. His past has been so covered up, we simply do not know what he really wants to do, who he would listen to (if anyone), and where he would actually take the country given a Congressional free pass. This is really rolling the dice.

    Now, I have no doubt that his supporters will rapturously praise his "good judgment" here, as that is the politically correct phrase desigated for use when this question arises, but I would pose a question in response: If Obama KNEW he was going to run for high office, how smart was is to attach himself to Ayers, Wright, Rezko and all the others? If that does not go to judgment I would like to know what would.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  44. LaVerne E Brison from Los Angeles, Ca.

    Jack: I don't think there would be any more risk of the Democrats controlling the Federal Government than what we have had with the Republicans for the last six out of eight years. I don't think anyone can screw up as much as George Bush and his cronies have. I know that is the argument they are trying to use to scare people into not voting for the Democrats. The Republicans are in danger of losing power and they are terrified. They have sold our Country to the highest bidder. We have nothing left. It is gong to take more than four years to undo the damage that the GOP has done,yet they want us to give them four more years. It is stupid to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome. The American public needs to wise up. Unfortunately our Country is deeply divided along partisan lines and each side blames the other for our problems. We need to get away from this us versus them mentality. If we don't, we will never save our Country or its reputation that has been so damaged in the last eight years.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  45. Janet - Michigan

    The risk is veering our country's political policy too far to the left. But, given that we've been too far to the right for the last eight years, correcting our country's problems will need some major "over-steering" in the other direction to get us back on track.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  46. frances

    Jack – it can't be any worse than the mess the last 8 years have been. Change is needed, and it can come in many different ways. I think if this happens, it would be a good change and challenge. So let the games begin.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  47. Charles, Lansing, MI

    That shouldn't be a question this time. Bush has tied the hands of Congress with vetoes and signing tags where he will only follow what he likes in a bill he signs. As McCain is more Bush the same economic problems would persist as well as the same type of money managers ala Phil Graham that could make things even worse if that is possible. Thi;s time we need the same party to clean up the mess.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  48. douglas gengler

    maybe can accomplish something for the good, while listening to the american people.

    doug gengler
    knoxville arkansas

    October 24, 2008 at 2:04 pm |
  49. Brian from Eagle River, Alaska

    One party control of the government completely goes against what this nation is all about. The idea that the typical "checks and balances" goes by the wayside is extremely disturbing. Only allowing one party to control the most important of decisions would eliminate 50% of the US citizens views on issues that affect the entire nation. It would be one more step away from true democracy if Obama were elected. PALIN POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  50. John, Sarasota, FL

    Well the current administration is the best example for that. Lies, wars, corruption, economic turmoil,. I am not worried the Democrats will do a fine job.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  51. John F (Willowbrook IL)

    Jack: Basically, it defeats the checks and balance system of government. The party in power can run amuck. Jack, I read your book. It indeed was an eye opener. I am sorry for your loss. In your book you said Carol made you turn your life around. She did not only you, but the rest of us, a favor in allowing us to see the real Jack Cafferty. I have never lost a wife, but we lost our only son at 17. It is with us every day as I know Carol will be with you every day. You tell it like it is without the rose colored classes. Thank you.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  52. Carl Ball

    Jack,

    There is no down side to one party having control of the White House, House and Senate – there are 535 raging egos in the Congress to see to that – just ask Clinton and Bush.

    Carl from Pahrump

    October 24, 2008 at 2:05 pm |
  53. Robert Sands

    Well maybe if one party controls it all something will get done for a change. A little less fighting in a house less divided. Ohio for Obama!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  54. Michael "C" Lorton, Virginia

    Jack: The risk is what is called "non-negotiable" politics. The Democrats will be able control their own destiny; make themselves do whatever is possible; make themselves become whatever they long to be....but then the same could be said if the Republicans were taking control–it is our turn in the barrel.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
  55. Fred K.

    It depends on what economic class you're in... For me, Fred the middle-class, I believe happy days will be here again. McCain is only for the top money earners while Obama is for everyone else. It's clear to me that if you earn $249,999.99 or less per year, Obama is your man.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:07 pm |
  56. Rich in Los Angeles

    Just take a look at the past 8 years and we can see what happened when the republicans had control.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  57. Marieth, Chicago

    I don't see a problem with the Democrats taking over and ruling. However, what I do want to know is this: What is wrong with being Liberal? Republicans use the term "liberal" like it is a bad thing.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  58. Amber - Austin, TX

    Jack,

    Some will say the risk is having loose cannons in Washington. Well, haven't we had that for 8 years? If the Democrats in charge means getting things done, then I could see where the danger lies – no one will have anything negative to campaign about in 2012 – because the work will have been done already.

    I hope McCain enjoys his retirement in Arizona or where ever a ll of his houses are.

    Obama/Biden 2008/2012

    October 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm |
  59. Maureen in Tewksbury, MA

    Jack, we're dealing with the fallout from it right now. Who was in control for 6 of the last 8 years? The GOP controlled the Executive & Legislative branch from 2000-2006. I find it ironic that they are now screaming about how if Democrats win in November, they will "tax and spend" us into financial ruin. Funny. I thought we were already there.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  60. Bev, Los Angeles

    Well, that's what we have now. The republicans filibuster and prevent any worthwhile policies being passed. And, if they do pass, Bush veto's them. So, with republicans having the majority or a filibuster majority for eight years, I'm ready for a real change! Let's give the dems a chance to really change from the pro-wall street congress to the pro-main street agenda! Go dems and go Obama/Biden!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  61. DCM, Connecticut

    I have seen the Democratic party as one having great intentions, but poor execution. The pressure to get it right and not hear "I told you so" will be enormous if they control the Executive branch and the Congress. This may be a time when the potential rewards outweigh the risks.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  62. Sarah

    There are risks in one party controlling all parts BUT there are also risks of shared power – because sometimes a lot of 'good' policies are negated by the other side.

    I think the level of risk is totally dependant on who is in the Oval Office. The President decides the 'path' that America travels and the only difference congress makes is how easy, or difficult, it is to follow that path.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  63. Tess from Georgia

    The risk of one party rule is that the majority party will forget or intentionally ignore the fact that nearly half (or a significantly large "minority" on the losing side of the election) of all American voters preferred the losing party. We're supposed to be the "UNITED" States of America, not the "winner-take-all" states of America. That is exactly what G.W. Bush and the Republicans did wrong for their lengthy majority rule of six years–they forgot that they were supposed to represent ALL Americans, not just Republican Americans. The majority needs to focus on building a consensus, not simply dissing nearly half of this country's opinions, thoughts, and priorities for the sake of partisan politics.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  64. Leroy from Houston

    To me there is no risk with one party in control. Just another "clique" we will have to get used to. And there's always the next election to correct the situation if we need to.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  65. Tim in Eustis, FL

    A huge risk. If Democrats are elected it just might be something like the LBJ years with Civil Rights, or FDR with Social Security etc. If it's Republicans it's more sex scandals and money for everyone but the middle class.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  66. Ryan in Crown Point, Indiana

    The only risk that we should truly be frightened of is another 4 years of the Bush-McCain economic philosophies. This "risk" is another scare tactic from the GOP and it won't work again in this election.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm |
  67. Richard Sternagel

    The risk of one party controlling Congress and the White House is Great if the person in the White House Lacks Integrity and Leadership. Witness George W Bush who had a Republican Congress for 6.5 years of his reign. On the other hand, if the person in the White House has Integrity, Leadership qualities,and is truthful then it doesn't matter that Congress is of the same party as the President. Then a President could exhibit Leadership by threating to veto out of control costs.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:10 pm |
  68. David, Tampa, Fl

    It is frought with danger. The other party would be unable to block legislation, good and/or bad. Something constructive might be accomplished, though we will probably live to regret it. But, at least it beats what is going on in government these days.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  69. mitchell ,arkansaw

    no risk. it's ESSENTIAL that we give all the support barack needs, to repair the damage done by the GOP. nothing gets accomplished when government is divided. we have no time for grid-lock. t

    October 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm |
  70. Wyoming Jack, Jackson, WY

    The effect is that something will get done. No gridlock. No filibuster. If anyone thinks that is a bad thing, look at the economy. It is going to take some serious effort and fast action to get it back in shape. Whether you agree with who is in office or not, things need to get done. If we allow everything to get stalled by partisan filibustering, noting will get done and we'll surely sink into the abyss.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  71. Mickie in Philadelphia, PA

    Well, the republicans had complete control for 6 years and now they are using scare tactics that if the democrats have complete control they will spend and expand government. So what is the difference in the republicans having control? If the republicans keep control of the Senate none of the democratic bills from Congress will ever get passed and then they will continue to blame it on the "do nothing Congress" the same as they are now. If by chance it passes the Senate now, Bush just vetoes it and the democrats do not have enough votes as we have seen to do anything about it. So, yes, I want a democratic controlled government for a while to hopefully put some restrictions on wall street, large corporations and get rid of the tax cuts for the wealthy and let us little people have some of them.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:12 pm |
  72. Tina (Texas)

    Oh God not again. We just have been through almost 8 years of the Greedy Old Party control of the Republicans. It should be a law that if the president is of one party then the House and Senate be a mixture. If I want complete rule I would move back to my mother country of England. This has been a down fall of the America we love because the controlling party would not work nicely with the other side and now that the Democrats might gain control it will be pay back time.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm |
  73. John

    Jack: Nothing is being accomplished in Congress for the people of the United States. Maybe, if one party controlled Congress there might be some solutions for Social Security, Medicare, medical coverage for 47 million uninsured folks, the war in Iraq might be concluded, and Afghanistan might be the focus of the military. Our economy might right itself with just one party calling the shots. I am a believer in the 2 party system, but nothing is being done for the people, so lets try one party for 4 years.

    John
    North Alabama

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  74. Mike in Oakland

    Risk? I suppose there's the risk of something actually getting done.

    My goodness, how awful would that be given the mess that decades of gridlock have gotten us into!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  75. Victoria in Ohio

    Jack, I don't see a risk. The last eight years have been risky enough for me. For once, something would actually be accomplished in Washington by people finally doing their job. Which would also benefit the hard-working people of this Country, without them footing the bill for bad decisions and legal armed robbery.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  76. Molly B

    The country is in such perilous condition! We haven't really had
    one party control as a previous email states. The Democrats have
    been stymied by Republicans – time and again! Looks to me as
    though a one party system is absolutely necessary. We must vote
    a straight party ticket. The country situation CAN'T get worse.
    I am sure it will get much better.
    Lets get Obama and Biden in on a one part ticket.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  77. Diane Glasser

    At this point no risk unless it is the Republicans. I do hope the Democrats get both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, then we can get on with the "Change" and get this country back on the eight track.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  78. Jerry,OK

    Jack, The Greeks had it right...allow politicians to serve one term, and appoint one thousand judges to the Supreme Court. Therefore illiminating party politics, and reduce the threat of ideologs on the court.

    Jerry N/OK

    October 24, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
  79. Phil, georgia

    Its life or death that Democrats controll Everything!!! As we have seen the past two years, if Republicans have any say, they will try to stop,veto, any great bills thats benefitting the majority of people that democrats try to get approved–like bringing our troops home.

    Democrats normally do whats best for everybody–starting with the lowly to the high. And to get legislation and policy through to help us as fast as possible, we are going to need a democrtatic congress. Principals of life, Normall when trully trying to help out everyone in humanity, the world benefits. But, as Republicans have done, only trying to help the wealthy leads to one-sidedness, corruption and revolt once eyes are opened. Of course as with all other things Republicans will try to use fear; of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama but its there only tactic to stop progress and to continue giving to their greedy friends.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  80. Peter Blackwell

    Do I have this straight? John McCain's understudy, and potential replacement, for foreign affairs is Sarah Palin, and his choice for the direction of domestic affairs is that which is espoused by "Joe The Plumber". And still there are those whose votes are "undecided"
    Is it any wonder that the rest of the world laughs at us?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  81. Marc in Canada

    Jack

    In order for Government to actually accomplish it's mandate it will need the full supoort of the voters they represent. I think most people trust Barack Obama to do the right thing. He won't be influenced to go against his better judgement. He has already proven to be a voice of reason. In order to turn the page on politics and to improve the American image abroad it will take a fillibuster proof Senate.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  82. Billy G in Las Vegas

    Jack,

    is it a RISK that maybe the US Government might actually GET something DONE to HELP middle class working Americans instead of the Wall Street Weasels and Corporate Quislings that Republican's allowed to LOOT this country the last 8 years?

    it took FDR and an overwelming Democrate majority to pull America out of the last Republican economic disaster and it will take a "21st Century New Deal" to get us out of THIS one.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:15 pm |
  83. Thami Tembe from Germany

    The only risk is that there will be actually something getting done.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  84. Malka D. Oceanside CA

    we have already seen the worst of it though the deregulation and gold standard being thrown out. always it seems after a republican derails our country we have the democrats come to the rescue and give us some of our best socialistic ideas

    October 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  85. Randy New York

    Didn't the Republicans control the White House and Congress from 2001 until 2006. How did that work out?

    If something doesn’t work – fix it! Don’t reward failure. If Obama wins by a landslide maybe the GOP will move back to the center. That would be a good thing for America.

    The only thing I’m scared of is loosing my retirement and my livelihood.

    McCain is the same as George W. Bush on all of the issues and now it’s clear he’s running the same low down dirty campaign that George W. Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. If he wins – NOTHING GETS
    DONE!

    Obama/Biden 2008

    October 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
  86. Ray in Nashville

    Yes, it is something to worry about, but the Republican doctrine of leaving business alone and unfettered to conduct business, which has been picked up and favored by the Democrats, too, leaves me no choice but to vote for the Democrats. Senator McCain is a champion of deregulation and Governor Palin is out of her league.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm |
  87. roger dowdle lockhart, tx

    For six of the last eight years the repudiated party controlled congress and had a president who went along with whatever they wanted! Even over the last two years with the dems in charge the reps can block votes with filibusters, or have bush veto bills they don't like. If the dems are in charge, with filibuster majority, then maybe they will take the warning and behave responsibly. In any case, Obama is intelligent enough not to screw things up the way bush did.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm |
  88. Arlene,

    Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a damn I just want a change!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  89. James in TN

    Did you see what happen when Bush had a republican congress before 2006. It's like playing chess but both sidesd are playing with the same pieces.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  90. Vernis Robertson

    Well ! You seen what the Republicans did in the last 6 years with a control House and Senate with Bush . It would not be bad with a Democrate running the show . We all know the Republican party is about the rich and the rich. This is why we do not need a McShame in the White House. More jobs will go over seas .

    October 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  91. gerry

    Jack,there's nothing for us to worry about if the Democrats hold the majority in both House and Senate.That would position the Executive and Legislative Branches to clean up the mess that 20 out of 28 years of Republicanism has caused.

    Our beloved USA needs to step away from this culture of greed and wastefulness, and return to the culture of values,hard work and true entrepreneurship which built our great nation and which gave the poor a real chance for the wealth to be spread.Yes, for the wealth to be spread.

    And if the Dems mess up, the greatest check and balance in any nation is always there to kick in: WE, THE PEOPLE. We would throw out the bums even before their terms end.

    Gerry

    October 24, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
  92. Paulette,Dallas,PA

    We've had that for the last eight years and you see the results! It is healthy to have input from both sides and decide a course that's best for the American people and for this country on the global scale.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
  93. lyn

    Jack, No risk at all with Obama in the White House, and no Republicans.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  94. Kiki in Jalisco, Mexico

    No risk, Jack. Give the Democrats control of both houses of Congress and the White House and they won't have any excuses for why they can't fix the mess the Republicans are handing them.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:21 pm |
  95. Russ in PA

    Since both parties are morally and intellectually bankrupt – just like the false economy they've created – we're in trouble regardless. We need a majority of libertarians to gain control, so we can go back to freedom, common decency, and sound money. We haven't had any of those in a long time...

    October 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  96. Howard M.- Bolingbrook IL

    The risk is a lack of checks and balances. If Obama wins, lets hope the Dems have learned from the Republicans error. If you have it all, you must move toward the center or you won't have that advantage for long. y

    October 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  97. Will K from San Jose, CA

    Does it matter at this point? The Bush administration has effectively turned a spineless Congress into a rubber stamp for anything that matters.

    They failed to stop the war in Iraq, failed to stop wiretapping or torture, failed to hold the administration to account for the missing WMDs, failed to do anything about the mismanagement of the justice department, failed to regulate the banking industry, failed to pass a proper economic response bill to help home owners instead of banking executives.

    The only thing they are particularly good at is taking vacations.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  98. LaVerne E Brison from Los Angeles, Ca.

    Jack: Hopefully the voting public will realize that the Republican Party's policies have been devastating to our Country and our way of life and will vote them out of office. John McCain is nothing but an extension of George Bush and his policies. He claims he is for the little man but we know its not true. He knows it also, that is why his message is not getting through to the American people. We know a fraud when we see one. Look at Sarah Palin. She was packaged as a regular wallmart shopping gal. But as soon as she got on the national scene that all changed with her $150K shopping spree to Nieman Marcus and Saks. I buy my clothes at JC Penney and Sears. She is nothing like me and my family. Fortunately I bought a house 28 years ago with a 30 year fixed interest rate. I am not in danger of losing my home but the value has dropped in the last year. I am also an RN, no chance of my job being outsourced and moved over seas. By the way I am also from Los Angeles. According to some people I am not from real America. You know the place ,"these little towns, these little pockets of America where the true patriotic Americans live?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
  99. Mike Berry St. Louis

    Hello Jack, I feel that in what has happen this year in our economy, maybe it is good that one party over rule the other so that we can get things back on its feet like when President Clinton was in office.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:23 pm |
  100. Heather Shipley, Mountain View CA

    The risks? No checks and balances; 24-hour logrolling; a President unlikely to veto (especially in his first term) - and it doesn't matter if it's a Red or a Blue majority. I like a Congress so gridlocked it can't do much unless in extremis.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:24 pm |
  101. Doug - Dallas

    The risk is there are fewer checks and balances.

    The positive side is that Congress might actually get something done for a change. With all the issues facing this country, if we don't start addressing and solving them, we will be headed for a very huge crash.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  102. Bert

    The risk couldn't be any worse that what we have now and the benefit would be;; we really would know who to blame!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  103. Gordon from Roanoke, Virginia

    When the same party controlls both the White House and the Congress the party in power gets all the credit when everything is going good, but when things are going bad the party in power will take all the blame. While it's easier for the controlling party to accomplish their objectives i.e., their agenda, you just have to hope that you've made all the right decisions. Otherwise the walls will come tumbling down.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  104. George

    You have just witnessed what would happen when Republicans had full control of both houses , and the Oval Office the first 6 years of President Bush's reign, and you see where we are today. Don't see how the Democrats could do a whole lot worse than what we are going through now. The only way now is up, because we are on the bottom now. My opinion as to what happened to the market is that the big cheeses have been skimming all they can now, because they know it is going to be over when the democrats come back into office, and put regulations where there needs to be regulations.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  105. Jim from Chicago

    Jack, they call it the Democratic Party because finally we will have a reason in this country to celebrate!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  106. Ray, Florisa

    Well Jack,

    If the Democrat's gain the Whitehouse, and a large majority in the Congress, the big risk will be that they may actually get something done!!
    I know some people may say it will be a runaway train, but the Republican's and President Bush put this country into such a hole,
    gridlock and partison fighting just won't cut it anymore!

    We need solutions!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:25 pm |
  107. MLA

    Jack, I can start watching "The Situation Room" again now that you are back!!!Yeah!

    Quite simply it will mean an improper balance of power and the American people will get the shaft regardless of which party is in control. The republicans will revert back to the failed Reagan "Trickle Down Economics Policy" and the democrats will find away to screw things up by reverting to the "I want to be everyone's best friend and everything is permissible" M.O. While I would prefer the Dems to have the majority (since the majority of the nation prospers under them) , I hope that we will elect people from both parties who will truly be willing to reach across the aisles for the sake of this Nation!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  108. Robert From Alabama

    The government might actually get something accomplished rather than just talking things, and each other, to death.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  109. Sandy from Bradenton, FL

    It will take one party-the democratic party-to control the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, Outer Solbovia, and the kitchen sink to get us out of the mess that George Bush and his cronies put us in.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
  110. Dave, Brooklyn, NY

    It all depends on which party is in control. If it’s the Republican party, anyone worth less than 10 billion dollars can kiss their wallets goodbye. If it’s the Democrats who are in power, very little will get done. Come to think of it, that may not be such a bad idea.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm |
  111. Rose in Az

    The risk is huge, the do nothing Senate and House have done nothing for the past two years just waiting for this opportunity. I see nothing but taxes, taxes and more taxes coming. I see another Jimmy Carter Administration coming.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  112. Dan, Maryland

    I don't get it, where were the Republicans when George Bush got elected and they controlled the House and Senate? Why weren't they raising this alarm about no checks and balances?! If they had done that maybe we wouldn't have run up the largest debt in history, be responsible for the largest drop in our economy since the Great Depression, a crumbling infrastructure an irresponsible war, and irresponsible taxing and spending. We could have been saved eight horrible years! Funny how you're silent when your party is taking control but terrified and sounding the bells when it's the other party.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  113. douglas in minnesota

    Jack - I don't think our Founding Fathers established our form of government, and corresponding checks and balances, to ensure that Democrats and Republicans would be able to keep each other "in check." No, it was established for THE PEOPLE to be represented by those elected of THE PEOPLE's choosing. This election has shown that the PEOPLE are ready to be more involved in the political process; and (hopefully) THE PEOPLE will have much more influence on how their elected representatives vote on legislation that effects THE PEOPLE.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  114. Matt Callaway in Omaha, NE

    If it wasn't clear that Republicans would obstruct and filibuster the most important legislation that Democrats are campaigning for I would put the risk much higher. This is a unique time that requires long-term, very important decisions to be made and a stalemate won't accomplish anything. Republicans had their chance during Bush's first 6 years and screwed up royally. Democrats sound ready to address our problems, I hope they're up to it.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  115. Gretchen from Denver

    Ordinarily I would advocate a mix and balance of power, but now that that power has been so terribly abused by the Republicans our only choice is to NOT let the Republicans have any chance to mess things up any further. History is the proof that Democrats usually have to clean up after a mess that the Republicans have made with their wacky trickle down bull.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  116. Donna

    NO Risk at all Jack. You see we have to make some drastic changes
    and two parities butt heads. So maybe one party can accomplish pushing this country in the right direction.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm |
  117. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    After having seen the extreme abuses and crimes committed by the one-party rule of the republicans,I'm willing to give the democrats a chance.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  118. John, Alabama

    The risk may be more to the party than to the nation. Parties are being held more accountable by the voters now than in the past. The Democrats are running on some important issues. If they don't come through for us, in two years they're likely to lose the House. They need to hit the ground running in January.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  119. Amy, Canton, OH

    I look at it this way, Jack. With the exception of God-forbid another terrorist attack, I really don't see how it can possibly get worse than it is right now. Let's get the Dems in and maybe -just maybe-they've got the goods to turn us around.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  120. Helen from PA

    Balance is what we hope for, but politicians being politicians instead of statesmen/women, balance is manipulated even if it is achieved numerically. After being subjected to one over-powered side, we hope if we move to the other end for a while, perhaps our situation will be brought back into balance. The only real way to achieve balance is all groups working for a common goal. The election is the American way of hoping for results that will make the well-being of all Americans the goal of those eleccted.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  121. Pablo in Arlington Texas

    Jack
    Contrary to the conventional political – and I use the term loosely- "wisdom", One Party Government is good for the country. Always has been.
    With one party in charge there is no way for those in office to evade responsibility for their screw ups. If they do screw up then you know who to blame and who to vote for in the next election.
    So say it with me Jack,
    Tammany Hall or no hall a'tal!.

    Pablo in Arlington, Texas

    October 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm |
  122. Diane/Allentown, PA

    It's very risky, which is why I think Independents should be running candidates in every election, from the Presidential on down. It's obvious what we have now is not working anymore.

    It's pretty bad when you've been the party in power for eight years, and
    you have to distance yourself somehow from your party in order to win an election again. And that's all levels, not just McCain.

    We don't want you speaking up now, what happened to when you were there and could've done something? That's why they get the boot.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  123. MBG (NY)

    It simply cannot get worse....I think...Besides, I really think that we need to abolish this two party system. It simply doesn't work. We need to elect people, not by party affiliation – but by what they bring to the table – which is sometimes called common sense!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  124. Gary - Woodhaven, Michigan

    If we had fully functional human beings who were self disciplined that truly represent their fully functional constituents not only would there be no risk but no need for labels nor the demagogyies such as Republican, Democrat, Liberal or Conservative.

    But then this is for a further evolved society somewhere down the road.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm |
  125. Annie Kraft Naples FL

    Maybe this time government can get something worthwhile accomplished. The old way did not work. Congress took us for granted. Perhaps this election will show them we can use our vote wisely. One can only hope.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  126. Matthew Welch in Baltimore, MD

    We are bearing witness to it. Republicans ran the country from 2001-2006. Amazingly, the rich got richer, the poor got poorer, the middle class worked harder and longer for less and less. And in case noone noticed: abortion is still legal and there are still homosexuals, immigrants, and people of all colors, creeds, and religions living throughout this beautiful country. Why anyone would vote for a Republican is beyond me. There is no better symbol for the state of conservative politics and ideology than failed investment bank Lehman Bros. They are both bankrupt, shameless, corrosive, and disastrous. The effects will be felt in the American economy, landscape, and spirit for generations to come. Our best hope of moving forward is to banish the Republican party to the wilderness in the hopes that it can come back as a legitimate opposition party with new ideas and perspectives rather than the dogma, hate, lies, and divisions these people have fostered on the American public for at least the last eight years.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  127. Ryan

    I think I will go back to what McCain said the other day. If Obama wins he will try to make the country more like Canada. With the Democrats in control of the house and the senate it will happen. That might rub joe six pack the wrong way, but I live in Canada. McCain is trying to promote Obama's policies as socialist. The reality is the world is changing; many countries are adapting much better than America. Rather than live in the past like Republicans, Democrats want to look to the future.

    More simply: full control for Democrats = a redefining of America
    : full control for Republicans = war, war, war,war!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  128. Roaring Moose; Poland, NY

    Jack , Anna – Santa of Teresa, NM wrote October 24th, 2008 1:50 pm

    Absolutely power corrupts–no matter which party. Look what the Republicans did when they had all three! But please don’t let it be a deterrent from voting in Obama. We need him.

    The Republicans have proven that it is the fear of losing power that corrupts. And like Anna I am voting for Obama.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  129. kenneth gloster

    the risk ?... you mean the rewards!! the united state's goverment will finally have the legislative unity to get things done. legislation will move through congress at such a speed that we will actually get to see the changes within the same adminstration.think of all the time it will save.. think of all the talking that will NOT have to be done. I think it will give the members of congress an opportunity to actually earn their pay.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm |
  130. Malka D. Oceanside CA

    this is something that just hit me like a ton of bricks
    God grant me the serenity
    to accept the things I cannot change;
    courage to change the things I can;
    and wisdom to know the difference

    I pray for our wisdom in this election to finally get rid of the things which separate us. lets take our government down to the basic things and throw out the rest. we have a long road and a hugh debt given to us by the republicans. hey what happened to the tax and spent democrats?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  131. Beth in Maryland

    I can only hope that if nothing else, this country has finally learned we really need to pay close attention to the the education, experience and qualifications of potential elected officials on both sides of the aisel.. The risk is not the conservative right, or liberal left but the failure to find the balance in order to move this country forward. Every elected official should be made to read the Consitution, understand the constitution, make laws that support the consititution and defend the consititution, not when convenient to the party line, but because it is the foundation of everything in this country, period.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  132. MB in VA

    Jack,

    If indeed we experience a Democratic sweep and they control the Executive and Legislative branches, I think in the short term it will be beneficial. The Democratic majority congress of the past two years has been vilified for not doing anything, but anytime they tried to pass something it got vetoed by President Bush. In the short term, this may be an opportunity to get some of these objectives passed and get some change moving for America.

    Long term, I don't think it will last. Either republicans will gain seats in congress, or we will have a republican president again. I think either way, we will fall back to the center and things will stabilize again.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  133. Emma, San Jose, CA

    It looks as though the Americans are voting for a Democratic President and Democratic Congress. It could not be worse than the Republican/Republican agendas from 2001 through 2006.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  134. lynnej

    Compared to the years of 2000-2006 when the Republicans had total control where they gave the wealthy a huge unneeded tax cut, ignored the warnings on bin Laden, squandering a surplus and started an unnecessary war while not finishing the necessary one, screwed up medicare drug plan that has hurt more financially for my mother than helped, lack of healthcare for regular folk, the deregulation of banking and finance and basically turning the credit card companies loose on consumers, I feel that the Dems control would be a great improvement. They can't do any worse than Bush and his guys.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm |
  135. Charles From Michigan

    I feel that is just what we need. I didn't always feel this way, but with all we are looking at right now i think we need a goverment that can get something done. Right now the GOP can stop anything they want to stop. This is not the time for grid lock. We have real problems and we need people in there that put the american people first. All of us, not just the rich. We little people need jobs and help to keep our homes and cars and trucks too. How can we get to work when we can find work if we don't have a car/truck.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  136. Meg Ulmes

    Jack–

    The risk of course is that there might not be much checking and balancing going on. The up side of that is that something might get done if the White House and Congress are on the same page.

    Troy, Ohio

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  137. Anthony Smith

    Jack;
    Didn't we already see that from 2000 to 2006? How is that working for ya? When one party rules, they want to pass their agenda. When you have 2 parties as in the last 2 years, they fight so nothing gets done. I just love democracy!

    Wildwood Crest, NJ

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  138. Shirley -AK OHIO

    If the Republicans run it there is a huge risk because they do not care about anyone but themselve. I heard that a large percentage of Republicans are happy about the way things are and they should be because they are rich. If the Democrates take over it will be a good thing and I am sure they will get things done, because they all can be voted right back out of office if they don't.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  139. Karen, Atlanta GA

    Jack – If we look at the past 8 years, it seems to me the Republicans have been in control of the White and Congress... Why not the Democrats be in control for once? Perhaps finally we can get things done. The Republicans constantly label the liberals as outsiders and treat them as such... It's time for change. I say kick all the Republicans out of Congress and lets start from scratch.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  140. Susan in Ohio

    Ouuuuu. Some scary stuff. Maybe they'll actually get something done for a change! ("Change"... no pun intended!)

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  141. Frank from Peterborough

    If people blame congress for not accomplishing much during their terms but don't give them a mandate to function without political obstruction then they almost have to be content with what has happened over the past two years.

    The other part of the equation might be less pork as senators won't need to bribe other party members with ear marks just to get legislation passed.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  142. Danny

    After John MaCain's 5,000$ help for insurance has been exausted, then what. do he help with the prem to keep it after a large hospital bill?????

    October 24, 2008 at 2:35 pm |
  143. Kathy N. from Omaha

    As an Independent, I believe that something positive will actually get done and the United States image will actually become elevated in the eyes of the world. A lessening of hate and a clear focus on a united future with the Democrats in charge this time around...that's a risk I'm willing to take!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  144. D. Rushing Texas

    It would turn into a dictatorship country !!!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  145. Sean in California

    It was a 100% possibility in 2001-2006. It's probably close to that again now. But this time, it will be different (I hope). Obama's not a megalomaniac like bush 43, and given the heaping pile of feces bush is leaving behind for this country to deal with, I suspect the next two years will be spent rebuilding America, her reputation abroad, the economy, etc...during which time I'm sure the minority party will do all they can to claim that the Democrats created this mess, and are incapable of getting us out of it.

    Then, in 2010, they may win a few seats back, and really put the brakes on any kind of progress.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  146. celestine j.Brunswick, GA

    We'll probably get some things done for the middle class without fear of a Republican filabuster. People should really look at the voting record of the Republican Party for the past eight years. Senator McCain voted against raising the minimum wage more than 20 times.
    But, he was not alone. We need people in Congress who will help all of the people and not just some of the people.

    Celestine
    Brunswick, GA

    October 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  147. Terry from North Carolina

    Jack
    Do you really think it makes a difference to " Joe the Plumber " or " Jack the News Anchor " Whether its the Democrats or Republicans their both the same, ultimately nothing will get done. The rule of thumb when you go into the voting booth is " if your in your out "

    October 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm |
  148. Chris, Olean, NY

    The risk is great, Jack, as we saw with the Bush administration. Should the Democrats find themselves in the same position after the election, we can only hope that they have learned from the mistakes and abuses of the Bush years. It is essential that Congress take its job seriously and not serve as a rubber stamp for the President's policies. The lack of control and oversight by Congress was a large factor in the failure of Bush's administration. If the same thing happens again, it could be disastrous.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  149. Karen, Atlanta GA

    Jack – If we look at the years 2000 – 2006, it seems to me the Republicans have been in control of the White and Congress… Why not the Democrats be in control for once? Perhaps we finally can get things done. The Republicans constantly label liberals as outsiders and treat them as such… It’s time for change. I say kick all the Republicans out of Congress and lets start from scratch.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  150. F Machado

    I would not say it is a risk. If the party in control take the right direction, there is no risk at all.
    Since US has only two parties it will allways be a possibility. If there were a couple (or one) other strong party it would be more difficult to happen.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
  151. Mike Morgan in Roswell, GA

    The risks of one-party government by the Democrats include the following: (1) There would be less partisan bickering; (2) Legislation could be passed in a timely manner; (3) Legislation would not include extraneous provisions added to placate the opposition; and (4) The party in power would have to accept responsibility for their actions.

    The idea of one-party control is really not that bad, after all. Do we really want a government that doesn't accomplish anything, because the opposition party obstructs everything?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  152. carol, from pittsburgh

    Lordy, lordy...something might actually get done! Something radical like infrastructure and innovative energy solutions. Maybe even fast rail transit. We could join other countries in 20th (yes, I mean 20th) century progress.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  153. Tom NM

    The risk does not lie in one party controlling both houses but rather one party controlling government for more than eight years. We need checks and balances to have a competent, functioning government.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
  154. Karen, Atlanta GA

    Jack – If we look at the years 2000 – 2006, it seems to me the Republicans have been in control of the White and Congress… Why not the Democrats be in control for once? Perhaps we can finally get things done and turn our sinking economy around. The Republicans constantly label liberals as outsiders and treated them as such… It’s time for a change. I say kick all the Republicans out of Congress and lets start from scratch.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  155. Casey | Sebastopol, CA

    Gee, Jack, I don't know... maybe they can actually get something done for a change?

    It took a Democrat to clean up after the last big government Republican... looks like we'll have another to clean up after John McCain's buddy George W. Bush.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  156. John in Santa Barbara, CA

    When the constitution was written, political partys were not mentioned and do not play a factor in how the balances of power are articulated. What political parties do play a part in is whether the balance of power is effective or not. Political gridlock is the worst case senario in the role of political parties. During this great period of economic crisis, a one party rule is an advantage, as at least something "WILL" get done.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  157. Mack from traverse city Michigan

    It's scary Jack! Something might get done! The right wing is going to great lengths to instill fear about such a scenario but the beauty of our government is that we have the power to fire whichever party can't get things right even when they have total control of the government. It will be good for the country to take away the excuses and make the incumbent totally responsible for what they do when they have the power. If the polls are correct George Bush and his party are about to get their cumuppance for what they have wrought the last eight years but the democrats had better understand there will be another election in two years and still another in four and the American people will not hesitate to to fire them too if they aren't responsive and responsible to the people that are about to give them the government!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  158. Jeremy

    You go into a war and a depression after having peace , and a surplus ! Hmmmmm

    Jeremy
    Biloxi , MS

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  159. Molly B

    The country is in such perilous condition! We haven't really had
    one party control as a previous email states. The Democrats have
    been stymied by Republicans – time and again! Looks to me as
    though a one party system is absolutely necessary. We must vote
    a straight party ticket. The country situation CAN'T get worse.
    I am sure it will get much better.
    Lets get Obama and Biden in on a one party ticket.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  160. Lynn x-Dem. for McCain

    Were all so Sick of Obama we could Puke!!! Why don't you ask that question to the game player's Obama?? Jack the democrats have been in control of the congress for the past two years!!! But they want to hide behind Bush. The turth is that the democrats have done nothing but vote on a open check-book for Bush and the War!! Hillary voted for the War!! The dem. will say anything lie thier way to the top, just look at Obama' s media to fame game! The greatest Black leader of this time Jess Jackson stated that Obama has no "Nuts". But the black will just vote for him anyway because he Black! Obama has no leadership skills and Cnn news will trash the Clinton's name and now McCain's name! Everyone at my place of work voted this week for McCain and Palin!!! So the joke is on you folks good luck on shameful Obama fame campain! Good job Cnn on messing this Country up!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  161. Mike, South Haven MI

    Jack,
    Excellent question, It's either gridlock or excess, or with the correct Leader it can be a time for the right change. Back to truth, justice, and America being the land of oppurtunity, where hope isn't just a word. Of course I'm speaking Senator Obama. To steal a quotfrom another Great Leader FDR, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself". So everyone, put your petty fears aside and vote for Obama, a vote for real change and an America where we speak truth and seek justice for all, not a chosen few.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  162. rosemary (NEW JERSEY)

    Well Jack I telll you just the thought of a democratic president and a democratic congress with a majority just gives me the goosebumps like when I was a kid in the sixties and I just opened up one of my christmas presents and it was an Easy Bake Oven. I just get this all over warm feeling....and I am sure it will happen....Jack you want to come over I'll bake you a brownie...

    October 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  163. Carol Of Minnesota

    In this case Jack, there is not risk of one party government. The Republicans didn't have a problem with it when they had all the power and screwed everything up. Given what's in front of us, the executive and legislative branches will need to act and to act quickly. The Republicans have spent the last year producing a record number of filibusters so that they could use the term "do nothing" Congress against the Democrats. Didn't matter that we were sliding into a recession, the Repubs wanted a bumper sticker. All of this "stuff" needs to stop. The needs of this country better be everyone's priorty from now on – if not – can you say "recall".

    October 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  164. Richard, Syracuse, NY

    the answer to this is easy. Compare the work done during the Clinton years with a Republican House and Senate and the Bush years with a Republican House and Senate. This Country works better when we have the presidency controlled by one party and the House and Senate controlled by the other. Everyone gets something, but no one gets everything, that called a Democracy.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:40 pm |
  165. mark in phoenix az

    It didn't work for the GOP. Except for the rich. If it does not work for the Dems, there is always 2012.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  166. Barbara Gilhousen

    Mc Cain voted for the 700 Billion Dollar bailout. Palin redistributed the oil company wealth to Alaskan citizens. Why is it okay for the Republican party and not okay for the Democratic party? This hypocrisy is why I am a Republican voting for Obama/Biden on November 4th.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:41 pm |
  167. Laurence Muhammad

    Dear Sir who told you that there were to parties running this country. There's but one party. The rich! They pay for the laws that they want and the bankrooll the most willing puppet. The only real diffrence between the red and the blue is that one party is overt the other covert in the thier dirty practises. But both parties our lying crooks. Mr. Obama just has not been fully baptized yet by Washington. Im just waiting to see how long He can remain clean in a sess pool called the white house.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  168. Mike Fairfax, VA

    The risk that congress might actually be able to get something done?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:42 pm |
  169. Kenny in Va.

    In politics or just life in general there always has to be balance. I'm a true-blue democrat to the core and yet I still think that one party running the whole show is bad for the country.

    If one party is in charge with almost free rein then roughly 50% of AMERICANS (not dems or repubs) are not being fairly represented.

    Maybe the focus should be more on the individuals and not their party or politics. Civil discourse, no matter how strong the opposing views, should always win the day. Nobody should have to die in order for our politicians to band together on the Capitol steps and sing...

    October 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  170. Art Beck

    Bush has left us in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and for now, we need a government that can act fast and decisively. That's not McCain-Palin coupled with a Democratic Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  171. Liz in Towson, MD

    Jack, that's simple: if the Democrats control the government, we might actually get something done while regaining our international respectability.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:43 pm |
  172. Roy - IL

    Good question Jack. A perceived risk only exists when there is a definite downside to an act. Since there are also downsides when Congress is deadlocked, and since it does not look like the two major parties will be working together soon, I see no greater risk having one party having a majority in all three branches of the government. Does a risk of actual activity outweigh a risk of total INactivity?

    October 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  173. Hugh Carpenter just a coldwar veteran from California

    Jack,
    We've already seen the results of the republicans running the country.
    Maybe it's time to give the democrats a chance to undo the damage of staggering debt created by George Bush and his failed leadership.
    After the democrats get us out of the war in Iraq, the money we save can be used to create new jobs here at home, and help get our economy healthy again.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm |
  174. odessa ohio

    well let me say this, for the last eight years people of the united states who elected voted for george bush twice and look what happened? they can't fought no one but themselves. .bill clinton was served twice and everything was fine except he should have raised the minimium wage higher as well finishing the health care plan; but thats my opionion..george bush now is a socialist because he wanted to free his homeboys from wall street and spending more than a liberal/progressive cabinet..i am really sick of the words communist and socialist because the united states of america ranked bottom of everything due to healthcare,education,labor,environment etc..americans have no to blame themselves if they let the mccain-palin administration continuing doing george bush's job..americans need to be smart again not being stuipd voters..if the democrats have the white house,congress and senate, they better do their jobs right because it's time to put them on the line and make them do it right or they will get the boot..

    October 24, 2008 at 2:45 pm |
  175. Greg in Cabot AR

    Jack, My dad always said to either lead, follow or get out of the way. For 6 years the republicans were in charge, they didn’t lead, they pushed and the democrats had little choice but to follow or get out of the way. In 2006, democrats gained control of the house and senate and were met with procedural obstruction that resulted in little progress. Just look where we are today.

    My question to you, Jack, is, what’s left to risk? As this republican aristocracy leaves power, their unfortunate replacements are left with the task of cleaning up the mess. The next administration is faced with monumental challenge as big as digging another grand canyon with a garden trowel.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  176. Elizabeth NC

    Jack,
    There is an atmosphere of US vs.THEM. When one party gets the majority, they gleefully swing policy as far to their side as possible. The opposition will do all they can to prevent it's passage. None of it will be a compromise and what is best for our country.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  177. shawnbarr

    I think it's pretty obvious what the problem would be.

    But again that isn't the real point of this question.

    The real, underlying, reason for this question is to show that the American public shouldn't be concerned if the Democrats have the house, senate, and white house after the elections.

    Cafferty is not running for office, but he is definitely campaigning. And we all know for which party and which candidate.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm |
  178. Mari Fernandez, Salt Lake City, Utah

    Well, Jack, compared to the last EIGHT years of Republican rule, I am willing to take my chances!

    From January 1994 through January 2007 the Republicans controlled both House and Senate, and look at what they have left:

    $10 Trillion in National debt

    De-regulation gone amok!

    And an economic crisis the likes we have not seen since 1929!

    I will be voting for Sen. Obama and hoping that with a Democratic Congress they can get to work about solving the mess the Republicans are leaving behind!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  179. andrea from MA

    i personally think the US would do better with a parlimentary government then all the people would be represented by what party they choose to back. a one party majority just becomes a dictatorship like what happened by bush and his supreme court apointees stealing the election !!!!!!!!!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  180. Joann

    Seems to me that the Republican party is trying to get this country in a race war. Watched Obama the other day hush the crowd when they started booing McCain and told them they should not boo but go to the booths and VOTE! The crowd hushed, no trying to start a race war! This country has been divided for to long, it is now time for us to join together to get things back in shape, not tear them apart more.
    A Democratic Kansan and proud of it!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  181. Daniel Morales

    It defeats the purpose of a 2 party system. But the idea of party controlling The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government is a product of the general ignorance of the American electorate. We vote for parties, not candidates. The very fact that we say “I'm a Republican" or "I'm a Democrat" dictates how we will vote. The Media is largely to blame for this because it no longer simply reports the news; it slants it along party lines. It puts a spin on it that the audience picks up on it. And it will continue to be this way because we are too lazy to research the issues for ourselves. It’s easy to turn on our large screen TVs and let the talking heads tell us not only what the candidates say but what it all means. No brain power is required. What most voters don't seem to remember is that both parties like them or not, must be equal partners in the political process for it will work. In voting one party into power we create a monster we may not be able to control. Be careful what you ‘vote’ for; or you may get

    October 24, 2008 at 2:47 pm |
  182. eddie in NC

    Raymond from TX. you gutless pig if you were a real man you would say what you mean. you saw blacks and mexicans standing in the line well I stood in a line last week to early vote. my bio worked at age 16 joined the army at 18 vietnam stayed 30 years working for the gov. the last 11 years. I took the day off to vote so the polls would not be so pact on election day that someone might not vote.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  183. Ron, Centennial, Colorado

    Jack,

    The risk of one party controlling federal government hinges upon whether or not that party does the right things and honestly represents the will of the majority. Case in point, the first six years of the G.W. Bush Administration with a Republican majority in Congress was disastrous.

    The other side of one party controlling both the executive and the legislative branches of our government is that if they accurately represent the will of the majority they will do the right things and gridlock will be broken. Wouldn't we like to see a functional government?

    Voting for one candidate over another simply to achieve a numerical balance of power is not necessarily a good idea if gridlock is the result. The ultimate controll of excesses should be the will of the people, and this works only if the people stay informed and involved after the election is over.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  184. Joseph, Ontario

    Hi Jack,

    Can it get worse than what we have now!
    If they succeed in keeping the lobbyists representing the greedy 5% rich folks out, it doesn't really matter if both White House and Congress are controlled by the same party. 2012 is not far!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  185. Larry in Florida

    It's a catch 22 Jack. If one party controls the government then things might get done. Doesn't mean they'll be good things. Maybe they'll throw in a couple of bones for the poor and middle class. If it's a split government then it'll be politics as usual. Nothing gets done unless it's full of pork. Guess what I'm saying is we're in a no win situation. We'll just set back and fasten our seatbelts.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:49 pm |
  186. Jan Davis, Knoxville, TN

    As illustrated from 2000-2006, it is dangerous to have the Republican Party control both the Presidency and Congress. Look at all that has happened under them–a useless war in Iraq, our national debt skyrocketing, massive job losses, the rich getting richer, and a terrible economy.

    I think there is enough diversity within the Democratic Party to ensure there would be no danger in having President Obama along with majority control of the Senate and House by the Dems.

    GO OBAMA!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
  187. Lynn

    Jack,
    There is a huge risk in the Democrats holding all the political power . My guess is that if Obama becomes president , the do-nothing Democrat-controlled congress will continue to be useless at taxpayers' expense & wait out their terms in order to collect their fat pensions. They will keep wasting Americans' money & he will do nothing about it . As CNN reported today, his campaign has spent 250 million dollars for ads in the last four months, so he's the same big spender as Congress is. Hang on to your pocket-books, folks!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  188. TWA payson AZ

    There can be substantial risk, but this time around maybe we need it so good legislation cannot be blocked by bitter partisans.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  189. William Goatski

    One party running the government runs the terrible risk of actually getting something done.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
  190. Gary

    This is just an observation I made this morning while driving around looking for work!
    I thought of the company who will most likely suffer the most from this financial and job downfall;

    The company who makes the "Help Wanted" signs!

    I can't even laugh at this anymore......

    Gary

    October 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  191. Al Bledsoe in Dallas

    There are too many forces beyond the scope of one party. There is a bureaucracy that is larger than one electorate, one party and one elected official, be it president, senator, congressman or supreme court justice. There are market forces, religious and international relationships and conflict that forces the hand of government. - The hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe had it right...

    October 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  192. FernieMac in Rosamond, CA

    Hello Jack: for the last 8 years we have had experience the worst decision making and stalemate perhaps in history. We cannot afford more filibuster and blocks which prevent the passage of laws that will help the american people.
    Republicans loss their chance , it's time for change and to try something new. Republican lawmakers are bitter and will be bitter after the election, this will reflect in filibuster and road blocks that we cannot afford.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:55 pm |
  193. Mary Reed

    I think checks and balances are an important part of our government but I think this applies even more strongly to the Supreme Court than to the congress. If the democrats have full control for two years, we'll be alright. If we end up with a full conservative supreme court we'll feel the impacts of that for generations. Those judges live forever.

    Sherman Oaks, CA

    October 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  194. geo

    Jack the answer has already been answered. For one it doesn't matter which party has the control the results are the same. HUGE unchecked GOVERNMENT. It leads to corruption and waste.

    The republicans had total control for 6 years and they are the party of small government. It lead to the biggest growth in Government dollar and percent wise ever. The democrats are the big government party and when they control it all next year it will be HUGE government.

    We need balance. Just like in the 90's when Clinton was in the white house and the republicans controled spending in the congress we actually had a balance budget. That is the only way we can keep our government under control.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm |
  195. gail Centre, Al.

    Davis- TN.

    The last two years the congress has been controlled by dems, and look what's happened. We don't know anything yet, wait till the dems. have been in control for 4 more years. You won't be able to but food on the table, with the 41.7% of each dollar you get to keep, not very generous are they.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  196. Jacqueline Oates, NC

    Jack, I don't think it could get any worse than what it was to have the Republicans controlling Congress during Bush's early years. It seems to me that the Democrats are willing and ready to work with bi-partisanship on all issues; for instance, let's not forget who put us in this big mess that our economy is in now. I would rather put my trust in the Dems control for the next four years and if it doesn't work out we go to something else just like the 2006 House and Senate race.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  197. Jeff in Lothian, MD

    In a perfect world, a balanced congress would work, but these are different times and neither side can get along, thus stalling any progress. So lets try the all Democrat approach, it can't be worse than whats there now. It's theirs to lose.

    Thanks W.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  198. Terry of Iowa

    We should all be concerned and cautious, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton. I do remember the first six years of W’s administration and we’ll live that nightmare for years to come. But under the Democrats, I’m hopeful that real change will occur and the people’s business will be conducted. We, the citizens, must be the checks and balances. We will be responsible for holding them accountable. In two years there will be another opportunity to vote, we must continually remind them of that and hold them to a high expectation. It’s time the people take back our government. Death to apathy and ignorance!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  199. Allan Hanson Cameron Park Ca.

    I wonder why the question. The Republicans have had control of
    all 3 branches of government for 8 years and look what it has gotten us.
    The last Administration was divided and it worked out but we had a strong President, I don't think Obama fills this requirement. But nothing could be worse than the last 8 years, so any change will be welcome.
    Maybe we can become the great nation we used to be.
    McCain wont do it, it will just be 4 more years of the same disaster.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  200. Vicki from Amarillo

    The great thing about Sen. Obama is that he is bi-partisan with himself! He is so intelligent that he can see all sides of an issue and understands that the world is not black and white, but a hundred shades of gray. If Congress will follow his example rather than 535 individual agendas, America has a chance to regain its greatness.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  201. Larry - Greenbelt MD

    Jack, in my opinion it depends on the party in control. I am a strong believer that the Democrats are firmly entrenched in helping the poor and middle class. The Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress for six years under the current President Bush from 2000-2006. The difference was, is, and always will be, the Republicans only appear to be concerned about the so called Joe the not so plumber, when there is an election cycle.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:57 pm |
  202. Bob D, Morristown, NJ

    When times are good, and the country is headed in the right direction, a politically split government can be a good thing. It tends to keep things heading in the same direction, with little opportunity for major directional changes without substantial provocation.

    But today over 80% of the US electorate agree that we're headed in the wrong direction, we need a congress and executive branch aligned with each other and dedicated to a completely different direction.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  203. Tim

    I'm a veteran and a republican- I have to say that my party screwed it up. And now- with people losing large chunks of their retirement- how does the republican candidate respond?- more tax cuts for companies, a plumber who isn't a plumber and owes back taxes, calling the other guy un-american, and spending 150,000 on clothes for a pitbull- I don't get it?
    Let the Dems have their chance- hell, lets just bring Bill back!

    October 24, 2008 at 2:58 pm |
  204. Stephanie - Atlanta

    As long as our "Represenatives" in both parties are owned by the same Corporate giants, we end up with the same result: middle-class people come last.

    It's not that Barack Obama is a Democrat, it's that he's been sponsored by We The People. As long as the average American is the priority, party affliation shouldn't matter.

    If we want change, we need to find actual Represntatives who care about us.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  205. Dawn from Pennsylvania

    The risk is that we would actually get something done. Think about it, for the last eight years what has occurred; a war based on lies which has systematically killed more people than was killed during 911, high gas prices, catastrophic economy, an exploding mortgage crisis, and Alan Greenspan losing his mind.

    The bigger risk would be continuing this pattern with John McCain.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  206. NANCY , Grand Ledge MI

    With the Republicans, you get the mess we're in today, because they all fall in line behind their leader. But the Democrats love to fight amongst themselves, so you're more apt to get a reasonable, bipartisan, solution.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  207. chris

    There is a risk either way... one, they might accomplish something or two, they might rubber stamp everything the next president wants without a voice of dissent. Hopefully, Congress will learn from the Bush years and NOT rubber stamp everything and maybe use the one party advantage as that.. an advantage to make some progress.... end the disasterous war, rebuild the economy, regulate financial markets....

    October 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  208. Karl in CA

    The total Republican control from 2001 to 2007 was a windfall for the wealthy minority and corporations. The last two years of a marginally Democratic Congress hasn't helped due to Republicans stopping anything constructive with filibusters and Presidential vetoes.

    Total Democratic control will be a boon to the middle class, as in most Americans, and they will do what is good for the country. I have great faith in the Democrats doing what is right for everyone, not just their rich friends.

    October 24, 2008 at 2:59 pm |
  209. Chris

    In all fairness, I do believe the Dems will win the election and, quite possibly, hold the presidency as well as a 2/3 majority in Congress. Although I feel that the Dems could do a lot of good to help turn this country around for the better, there is always a danger that power will corrupt. We have seen this for more than a decade with the GOP controlling the White House and/or Congress. I can only hope that the Dems will not sink to that level or else lose in a landlside election should the Republicans effectively reinvent themselves.

    Chris from NC

    October 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  210. Roger (Dallas, TX)

    In a normal year, I would probably opt for a little diversity between the Executive and Legislative branches, however this is not a typical year and the only way anything is going to get done to benefit the American people is for one party (the Democratic party) to be in control at this point in time. Barack Obama needs a large mandate to govern and hopefully he will get it and then some. 8 years of the most disastrous Presidency in American history should be the catylst alone to run the Republicans out of town and start fresh with President Obama and a filbuster proof Democratic congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  211. Ryan, Galesburg, IL

    Depends on the party. Republican rule brought us the shredding of our Constitution, global recession, international disdain, and a sinking dollar. Democratic rule promises to address climate change, middle-class promotion, international cooperation, and people-based healthcare.

    It's a lot of power, and can be used for good, or for destruction.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  212. Ralph Peoria, Il

    Since the GOP has stolen the "Future" of many Americans, I don't see how anyone could not be looking for a Change for America.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  213. Karen C

    Jack,

    That's easy, since we have had Republican rule for 8 years. Even though Democrats seized the majority in the House 2 years ago, nothing was accomplished due to threats of a Bush veto.

    And here we are, tumbling into the abyss. Right before Bush was elected, I had money, living a comfortable life. I may be homeless next week. That pretty much sums it up.

    Karen, Sacramento, California

    October 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
  214. Michael - Las Vegas

    If it's democratic control: forward movement, progress, headway, improvement, betterment, growth.

    If it's republican control: regression.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:01 pm |
  215. Sue in FL

    I have always thought that having one party control both Houses and the White House was a bad thing. I felt that having one party control the White House and the other party controlling Congress would balance things out. The first six years of Republican rule has proved that. However, in order to recover some of the damage that has been done in the last 8 years, it is going to have to happen again only this time, hopefully, the other party will control Perhaps the Democrats can get us on the road to recovery again. This from a FORMER Republican!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  216. Clarence Bass

    Congress and the Senate are already controlled by the senate and you can see the mess we are in. Give the Democrats 60% and full control will see the continued ruination of our economy. Retired after 40 years I now find that I have lost 49% of my retirement thanks to the greed and corruption of congress and wall street. Being disabled only makes it worse because I can't go back to work.

    Kissimmee, Florida

    October 24, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  217. Marie Ontario

    I betcha Jack if the Democrats have full control of the administration and the Senate they will realize if they don't get results on behalf of the people then they'll all get the boot in the next election. Might just be what the doctor ordered as no excuses would be acceptable.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:02 pm |
  218. Jackie

    I guess this question is especially important if the Senate reaches that magic number: 60. A lot of good could happen if Democrats control everything; but at the same time, it could make them too greedy, too eager to do what they finally want on their party platform and end up in the same situation the Republicans are in 12 years from now.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  219. Docb

    Big but hopefully we can correct it midterm...I am a Dem but we need balance...On the one hand there is no way to avoid culpibilty if one party rules but we have soo many radicals on either side that the agenda will get clouded!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  220. Gigi in Alabama

    Really Jack.... all you have to do is look to six of the last eight years to answer that question.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  221. teri from Mi.

    I don't know but I am certainly willing to give it a try. Nothing can be worse than the last 8 years.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:03 pm |
  222. tj

    We need one party majority with a veto proof majority right now to clean up the Republican mess. One party is not bad as long as you don't have an idiot running things like Bush McCain.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  223. Dave from Veazie, ME

    Jack, we know what the risks of one party controlling the federal government and are currently experiencing the fall out of that. For six years the republicans controlled congress and the white house and were able to do whatever they wanted. You may recall that it wasn't until the democrats took over congress that Bush finally pulled out his veto pen! At this point I think it would be a good thing for the democrats to have complete control for a little while to move the country back towards a middle ground between the extreme left and extreme right positions.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:04 pm |
  224. Christine from El Paso Tx

    Well lets see the Republicans didn't complain to much when they were completely in charge and look what they did. I'm sure the Dems being in charge could by no mean be near as bad as that! And maybe something will get done for a change. The Clinton years weren't so bad if you think about it!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  225. Arielle Haze of Glendale, CA

    I don't believe party matters. The people who vote choose who they want to represent them. If the elected members of government do their job honestly and remember who put them there, then they will make the decisions that the people want them to make!

    Democracy is when people vote for elected officials to represent them, no matter what party they are from! I say, let the American people speak. If you vote, you have a voice!

    Risk: none – If the Fed Gov is all one party, than that's what the people wanted!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  226. marti thompson

    Jack, Fairness Doctrine.........

    October 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  227. Maggie in NY

    If we clean house and get rid of some of the dirty politicians, then great things can and will happen. But when politicians are in the pockets of billionnaires, they can't possibly be looking out for the middle class which is the backbone of this country. And we all know which party has been in those pockets....just as we are pretty sure which party will be gotten rid of this election cycle.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  228. Lance valleymills,Tx

    Jack , The republicans have feared this for a long time. If the country gets the taste of what its like if democrats get control of everything , alot will get done and the 4 years might show the american people the democrats have what it takes to keep things balanced and going . The republicans like to trick and try and sway voters by deceiving them with mudslinging and name calling . This election will be for the history books showing how far america can go if democrats get control . It would be for the good of the people and the middle class.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:05 pm |
  229. Jamey in Chesterfield VA

    Something might actually get done for a change. Laws might be made without incentives created to entice law makers to "work across the aisle". Laws without PorK? What a concept!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  230. Barbara - 65 yr old white female in NC

    The only risk would be if it was ALL Republican again – or if our Pres. is a Cowboy or Maverick.

    I like taking the risk that things will get through congress and the senate and (with the help of excellent military and financial advisors) signed into law by President Obama.

    He's a Constitutional Scholar, for heaven's sake – he has OUR BEST interests at heart –

    (McCain has his Ego at heart).

    October 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  231. Hope M. Madisonville, KY

    It means that maybe the little guy will get a break for a change
    instead of the fat cats. If something isn't done soon, we will have
    no middle class. We will have only rich and poor. This is not the
    principles that America was founded on.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  232. jim (FL)

    We've seen that risk with the Republicans, led by Bush. The risk is always there, but it's better than a deadlocked government. I think the risk is who leads that one party government. I am confident and very hopeful in an Obama/Biden administration.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm |
  233. Jackie in Dallas

    If it is Democrat-controlled for a couple of years, with a Democratic President, we might have a chance at recovery.

    Here's to all of those who keep harping on the fact that the Democrats have been a "majority" for the last two years. True, they have 233 seats in the House, out of a total of 435. That is NOT, however, enough to overturn a Presidential veto (which by my estimate is about 287 votes). In the Senate, the split is 49 -49, with two independents (including Lieberman). This has forced working across the aisles in order to pass something with the hope that Bush won't veto it. THIS is the reason that Congress has had a case of deadlock and that pork has filled our bills to the point of nausea.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:08 pm |
  234. Ashley in VA

    The problem with one party being in control is the past 8 years...

    October 24, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  235. Nuwan

    When evil and greedy people have that power, we already know what happens. We have just experienced it with Bush who had a congress who wrote blank checks for every stupid policy. If the country is in a mess and we have people who understands the situation controlling the federal goverment, things will happen fast without constant opposition to block the good deeds. We are in that kind of situation at this moment and single party controlling of the federal government is a necessary evil. We have to give democrats the benifit of the doubt hoping they will implement the right policies for the country.

    Nuwan from Houston, TX

    October 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  236. vern-anaheim,ca

    i don't see any problem with the democrats controlling the senate,house and presidency,after all it was the republicans who got us into the mess we're presently in

    October 24, 2008 at 3:11 pm |
  237. Shaun in Silver Spring, MD

    I used to have a concern about this but the reality is that NOTHING really gets done when one party controls the White House and the other controls the House and/or Senate. They just start bickering and everything comes to a screeching halt. The Republicans had their turn controlling both sides and it's now FUBAR. I say Democratic control can't be any worse than what we have right now - and it will likely be an improvement. I say "the sooner the better."

    October 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  238. Yasmin Laupus

    I have always been a proponent of a balanced government with checks and balancs between executive and legislative branches but not this time around. iI feel differently. This is because Obama needs a responsible receptive Congress to allow for his big policy changes on health care, the Iraq war and to follow through on sound economic policies .Also importantly i instinctively trust Obama to do just that. Should he fall short of this trust then in 2010 the make up of Congress will dramatically change. So at least for the first two years of his Presidency, Obama would need support and not political antics from the Republicans.The Republicans have shown they cannot be trusted with power and cannot self regulate just like the financial banking institutions.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  239. Tim Samoni, NJ

    Although I am a staunch Democrat and would love to see my party take the Senate and White House this fall, I do believe in a diversity of voices and a balance of power in our government.

    The first 6 years of the Bush Error (yes, I meant to type that) had the Republican party in control of every branch of government. Their rule and the policies they enacted contributed to our nose-diving economy and a war that might never end. Their example gives credence to the old adage that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    October 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm |
  240. Dave from Toronto

    The risk is that decisions will be made and get implemented. Health care might be affordable, kids might graduate from high school, and jobs might start returning from Asia to Pennsylvannia and Michigan.

    I'm not sure we are ready for this kind of change Jack.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:13 pm |
  241. Dave in Astoria

    The risk is that there is no-one to blame if stuff doesn't happen like we think and/or want it to. The dominant party better have strong legs and backs AND broad shoulders to deflect the blame. I'm just sayin' that if one side wants all the marbles then they better be able to out-run the sore losers that want to steal the marbles back.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:15 pm |
  242. Kelly, Pa

    At this point Jack, I'm not even concerned with Balance of Power between the executive and legislative branch as long as the Supreme Court has balance. There is much to do and there's no time for opposing parties to delay much needed legislation to pass swiftly, void of inner conflict. Our nation is in crisis and we need to be on one accord. Whatever conditions expedites the process, so be it!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  243. Bennie

    Hi Jack:

    It depends on that party agenda. If taking care of the people of the United States is first, middle and last policy then we will be fine. If making sure your crony get whatever they want is your goal then we all will have a problem i.e. the last 8 yrs.

    Bennie
    Avon, IN

    October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  244. Jasmine in Germany

    I think it might be good this time around, Jack. Maybe our country could enter the 21st Century. Health insurance for all citizens, better education for our children, a safe infrastructure, fuel efficiency with new forms of clean energy, improved environmental protection, better relationships with our allies and other countries, a vibrant new economy, decrease poverty in the US, lower the crime rate, solve the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan in a responsible way, rebuild our military and economic strength and regain respect again worldwide. Yes, we need a new young intelligent leader, one who is ready for the 21st Century, one who looks to the future and can work with Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  245. Bob, Sonoma, CA

    Jack, our government works best on the balance of power principle. When one party controls, the House, Senate, Presidency and the Supreme Court we should be alert for potential danger. Look at what happened the past 8 years and I believe this can happen when either party is in control of all three branches of our government.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  246. Simone - NYC

    The risk is that in an effort to push their party's agenda, they will become completely one sided, and not make the effort to understand the full weight of their policies. The reason this country is great is that it was built with checks and balances. But when Republicans had full control, they got greedy, and the mess is still unraveling before us. Just because you have Democrats in charge instead does not mean the same thing can't happen again.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
  247. Martyn Bignell

    Hi Jack, well the obvious one is of course "no checks and balance", however, if we presume for just a moment that Obama wins the election along with a democratic house then for one term it will not be a bad thing, The reason I say this is simply because their is so much work to get through, to undo all the bad George Bush has done over what will be eight years is a huge task in its self.

    Obama also has some fairly radical changes (by U.S. standards) to make, the best example being health care, if the republicans were in control of the house he would have a tough time getting these changes through. As we all know the republicans think that America has the best health care in the world, (currently ranked 37 in the world) and have no care that 46 million people have no health care at all.Even though the senate get theirs for free, Q, what ever happend to we the people for the people; did George W. get rid of that as well?

    Martyn from Fort Lauderdae, FL.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  248. Suzanne, HarrisonburgVA

    Gee,and we've been doing so well ..........one party control might mess everything up! Honestly, it's hard not feeling jaded by all our politicians, individually or in a gang. I guess I speak for a lot of Americans when we wonder "how can a democrat controlled government be any worse?" I am voting democratic all the way.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  249. Alma (Tennessee)

    We can stop all risk by putting back the controls that were in place before the current administration took over. There is no need to worry about which party is in charge of what. The country will be watching whomever is elected so closely until not much will go unnoticed. I must admit that I am looking forward to a change. I only pray that it isn't just a new face on old policies. The country is in serious trouble, and we need to focus on getting out of it and the sooner the better. Who cares which party is in control as long as they all work for the betterment of the country.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
  250. marie Mtl, Can.

    No problem with that. But the big problem for the gop right now is Michelle Buchanan...the dividser

    October 24, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
  251. Ben

    Given how corrupt and incapable the Republican party has been during the last 8 years, I think that there is NO DANGER AT ALL in this possibility. In fact, an all-Democrat house/senate/white house would lead to the possibility of actual change being implemented, rather than continuing bickering between the different branches of the Federal government.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  252. Paulette

    Maybe the risk is, something will get done!

    Paulette
    Trenton, NJ

    October 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  253. Randy

    Wake up sheeple! What you get is the same old glad hand, watch your back whether they have a D or R by their name. The question is not relevant what is relevant is when will you wake up & examine all sides of the candidates & not just what some compromised bias reporters or bloggers will tell you (What kind of term is that – bloggers, more like bores)

    October 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  254. Clare Orlando, FL

    It is about time. I don't see a problem. It will take the Democrats to clean up the mess from the Republicans. And Hillary said that.remark.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  255. John Hovland, MN

    Jack,
    Probably will have Democrats controlling White House and Congress. The real question is were are we -America – will be this time next year? None of these idoits in Congress or W.H. know what they are REALLY get themselves into. So, in one year Jack, if you haven't retired, I would like to see how ALL the Obama supporters have to say!!! Will be interesting. Jack, I am your age, been there, seen this before. Have a good weekend.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm |
  256. Marie - ewing,NJ

    After the mess the Republicans have created I am willing to take the risk of a one party sytem. At least something will be done. And right about now, I don't even want to hear the name Republican.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:21 pm |
  257. Chryssa

    If it's Democrats, there is no risk. All the haters can thank us later, when they're working full-time, have benefits and can afford to send their children to college.

    Boise, ID

    October 24, 2008 at 3:22 pm |
  258. Darla (Edmonton, Canada)

    I would think by now that the US would want their government to get things cleaned-up ... not just the economy ... but education, health care, jobs, trade agreements, diplomacy ... the list could go on and on!

    In Canada, we have a minority government in power in our parliament (yet again!) ... and the Conservatives haven't been getting anything done in ages! Most Canadians would be thrilled if there was at least ONE of our federal parties with a majority.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  259. Paulo

    No danger if it's a responsible group of educated, intelligent men and women who can agree to disagree and get things done. Now if you;re talking about when the republicans had the white house and legislatue and threating to load up the supreme court, who-wee, we ended up where we are.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  260. Chris from Atlanta

    Remember that the Republicans did it for 6 years and managed to screw everything up. Then the Democrats took a small majority in Congress just to have the Republicans block or stall everything they tried to do to fix things, so nothing got done making it all worse. So I think we need to have the Democrats control everything for a while, and if the Reds don't like maybe then they might understand how the rest of us feel and try respecting and working with people that have a different point of view.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  261. Dan, Chantilly VA

    "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

    Pelosi doesn't even stand up to Bush, what makes us think she'll be looking out for our best interests in an Obama presidency? Although it's not like this is a Democrat related issue, the Republicans have historically screwed us when there were no checks or balances. Frankly, the only party I would trust in the government right now is a third party.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  262. Doris/St. Louis, MO

    If it's the Democratic party, the only risk is to the FAT CATS on wall street, They will lose their FAT BONUSES!!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  263. Michael watching from Canada

    Jack,

    The risk of the Democrats controlling government is better than the risk of lobbyists and special interest groups controlling government.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  264. Independent

    With two parties, nothing ever gets done. The Democrats and Republicans are like children bickering over a toy. Perhaps the time has come for one party to be in control of our country. If that party messes up, voters can make changes in the next election.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  265. tom, toronto, canada

    The risk can't be any worse than what we've suffered through for the past 8 years. I say bring it on!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  266. Cliff, Front Royal,VA

    It means a Liberal agenda and Legislation will be easy to establish. If it doesn't work, then back to the drawing board in the next two election cycles.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  267. Rita

    Jack:
    Under more normal circumstances, I would not consider it a good thing. However – our current circumstances are not normal, they are extraordinarily bad – in more ways than one. For this reason, I am not concerned; I am thrilled about the possibility. We need action, we need things accomplished, and we don't need them (Congress) to take forever bickering, and dragging their heels. Obama has the right ideas – and we don't need a republican majority to slow down the process of getting things done. We have a crisis going on here.

    Love Ya, Jack.
    Rita
    Moultrie, Ga. (We're talking DEEP South)

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  268. Geri Britt

    The Democrats held the majority in Congress for 40 years before the Republicans took over in Congress Jack and I don't recall the Democrats passing any substantive legislation they promised to pass when they were running for office in all of those years. Both parties always managed to pass legislation to create tax loopholes for the wealthy and for corporations and loosen regulations for the financial sectors. Remember how de-regulation was suppose to create competition and reduce consumer prices? Created competition but consumer prices have increased not decreased and all one has to do is look at their phone, cable, and energy bills to know this. I doubt it really matters anymore who runs Washington or Wall Street now that we know that the majority of them are crooks.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  269. Brian C. Steinberg

    It can be dangerous if abused like the StarWars anaology where the Emperor (Darth Sideous) takes over the entire senate and controls the galaxy! Though if not abused, we can have a lot of progress with a lof policies and procedures like gay marriage and more rights for minorities being passed.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  270. Maggie Muggins From Selwyn

    If ever a country needed down to earth fiscal and foreign policy it is the U.S. right now and likely the only way this can be accomplished is by minimizing politics so government can function on behalf of the needs of the country and it's people.

    Unfortunately the system of checks and balances just doesn't work if party politics takes precedence over logic and co-operation. If Democrats do get complete control and don't show real signs of progress the voters will simply tell them not to let the door hit them on their heals on their way out of power.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
  271. Kim, Dodge City, Kansas

    We'll run the enormous risk of having a funtional government with a clear plan and the leverage to implement it. That's the one thing that Republicans fear the most; that and a well informed and engaged populace. Hopefully we will be able to say goodbye to the decades of grid lock and corruption that has been the trademark of Republican administrations.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  272. Lorenzo, Lawrenceville, GA

    We saw what happened when the Republicans were in control. Now we need the Democrats to fix there mess.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  273. Shenica, US Virgin Islands

    Perhaps now we will get some real work done instead of all this partisan bickering and underhanded dealing.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  274. Jim, Honolulu

    Given how wonderfully the Republicans have done on domestic issues and foreign affairs the last eight years, even the Communist Party is looking attractive right now. Let the Democrats have a turn; it couldn't be much worse than the Bush-ites.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  275. John Pickard

    Not much risk at all. I"m a Canadian and I can tell you minority governments have a great deal of trouble getting legislation accomplished. Also if your Cogress can muster a 60% vote (or greater) I understand that a Presidential veto can be overturned. Such a scenario probably would never happen if the house is of the same political party as the President. Go for a majority congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  276. Joy in Springfield, IL

    I'm a Democrat, but I still don't like one party control of the Congress and White House. Having said that, I think there are enough conservative "blue dog" democrats in the House that will provide balance. I don't think there will be the type of shenanigans that prevailed during Bush II. Whether I think it's fair or not, Obama's administration will be held to a much higher standard by the people and I believe he will be make a concerted effort to reach across the aisle. With the country in the state it is in, Republicans that are up for re-election will have to be cooperative or face the wrath of the voter.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  277. wally Ruehmann las vegas nv

    it's not good for either side to have total control. to easy to manipulate things. just like the two party rule, iam an independent and find both republicans and democrats, to be blood suckers. iam all for one term service rules , to be enacted . no matter witch side, they all tend to get greedy and self centered. if any elected official is caught doing business with any lobbyist they should be ran out of office. everyone sent to washington makes more money doing under the table deals , then the salary they get for there office they hold. our government needs a complete make over!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  278. Kevin in Dallas

    With the extreme partisan politics these days, it would mean that the government will turn its back on a large percentage of the population. People are running from the Republican party as though it were the plague. History shows you tread on dangerous ground when a party comes to power not through its own merit, but the lack of merit in the opposition.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  279. Tommy in KENTUCKY

    JACK
    Since you want talk about the "PAY TO PLAY PLAN" I have some thoughts on Obama's plan to SPREAD THE WEALTH. The other day on my way to supper I passed a homeless man with a sign that read "VOTE OBAMA" I need the money. I just laughed at the man and went on into the restaurant. Once in the restaurant my server had on a "OBAMA 08" tie again I laughted at the coincidence. When the bill came I decided to apply the spread the wealth theory, and explained to the server I was going to explore Obama's redistribution of wealth concept. My waiter sttod there is disbelief as I explained to him I wasa going to give the $10.00 tip to the homeless man. The server angrly trormed away from me and I heard him cussing me all the way from the kitchen. I went outside and gave the homeless man the $10.00 and told him to thank my server for the unexpected downfall. I told him it would not hard to find my server to thank. The homeless man was thankful. At the end of my unscientific redistribution experment I realized the homeless man was very grateful for the money he had not earned, BUT my server was more than pissed off that I had given his tip to the homeless man . MY THOUGHTS ON THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH PLAN IS AN EASIER THING TO SWALLOW IN CONCEPT THAN IN PRATICAL APPLICATION, JUST ASK MY SERVER. I hope this sheds some light on the subject of redistribution that Obama wants to put into effect after being elected as our President. I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:29 pm |
  280. Sheri

    I was told years ago buy my financial planner that the 'market' historically performed best in years with a Democratic White House and a Republican House and Senate... but what the 'market' really hates is not knowing which it will be.

    But , I think any combination is going to be FAR better than the disliked current President and the untrusted current Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  281. Richard - Rockville Centre, NY

    I believe that Barak Obama will live up to his commitment to take the red and blue out of the United States and join people together to resolve the problems we share. I believe we should give the man a chance and if he doesn't honor his commitment, we won't be any worse off than we are now, across the board. We are the American people and are bigger than lies, hate and mistrust and certainly better than either of the two major political parties.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  282. Diane, Houston TX

    I guess that where you stand on this question depends on where you sit. If you're struggling to pay the bills and keep a roof over your head right now it most likely sounds pretty good. If "you're in the money", I guess that it might sound like you might have to give up a tiny bit more or your income in taxes. So the rest of us might get to eat, keep a roof over our heads and maybe even "gasp!" get health care. From where I sit, the more Democrats the better.

    Diane, Houston TX

    October 24, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
  283. Bob

    At this point the worst that could happen is they actually get a few things done for the people for a change.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  284. Geoffrey in Lowell, MA

    It really depends on which party don't you think?

    We need a coordinated effort to fix this country utterly antagonistic to the one that messed it up.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  285. Jennifer

    Risk? The only RISK is in not changing the way we have been doing things. Repubs, you've had your turn, and you have ran us into the ground. Let's see how the Dems do. Whatever happens, the 2001-2008 Bush presidency and his vetos of a Dem congress have been catastrophic and it will most likely take years to undo the damage. I, for one, would like to live in a country that is respectable again. Let's start with our government .

    October 24, 2008 at 3:31 pm |
  286. Michael and Diane Phoenix AZ

    Nothing. Even though one party may have the majority in both houses of congress, everything to be signed has to go through the President, and if it is Obama, then I think there will be much better judgement than the past administration. I think Obama will have a much better handle on how the 2 parties can work together to achieve the same goals. Obama will not be the "divider" as Bush was.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:32 pm |
  287. David Bakody, Dartmouth NS

    Jack I would suspect that should America give the Democrats full control they would do better than even they could imagine. Most of time a divided government spends too much time bashing each other. The Democrats would have to work harder to make sure they got it right. We here in Canada threw the Conservative out leaving them with only two seats.....we paid down the massive debt and ran many years of full surpluses....now that we have Conservatives in power once again they spent it all plus.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  288. Don Toronto

    The election is the economy and in case you missed it, it's all over for both.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  289. Stuart, Colorado

    One party in control is a dangerous thing but after eight years of failed Republican policies maybe it's not such a bad idea that Democrats have control for a while. Our economy under Bill Clinton would have been better if not for a Republican congress later in his term. Republicans want to continue failed de-regulation policies that has ruined the world's economy so maybe they should be kicked out for a while.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  290. Jenny from Nanuet, New York

    The only "risk" with Democrats controlling all branches of government is the risk of finally getting something accomplished!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  291. George from Florida

    No risk as long as the Democrats are in Charge – then things will finally get done !

    October 24, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
  292. Anthony Maffia

    It would take that to undo all the damage that has been done in the last 8 years. I hope it comes to pass! If it does and we can get this country back on track ..... I just can't help thinking about where we'd be if Gore won in 2000. Well we have a great opportunity to try to right all the wrongs that have been perpetrated in the name of ...oh I don't know the American people!!!!!! Even if we could just get health care and social security straight, along with reinstituting all the regulations that evaporated in the last 8 years....oh and how about reinstituting the Constitution.... I know its asking for a lot .... But I'm not asking to balance the budget or anything that is a number with 12 zeros on it. Although.... who knows..... .

    Tony Brooklyn NY

    October 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  293. Denis Duffy

    We will be in so much debt that eventually all Americans will suffer for a generation. And that, only if we are lucky. In the long run, either party will ruin this country in their rush to line their pockets
    Good to see you back, Jack.

    Denis
    Upper Saint Clair, Pa

    October 24, 2008 at 3:35 pm |
  294. shobana in florida

    Jack

    One party power in the Government may not be feasible in books but the truth is the Republicans brought it upon themselves by poor economy and bad policies. It is worth trying to know where we the American people go from here on.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  295. Sam Pendergrass

    Welcome back Jack, well let's see, one party controlling everything? I am thinking one party to blame for problems, one party to get things done without resistance or filabusting and maybe, just maybe getting things done the right way without having to pay blackmail to the other party to get it done.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  296. nelson

    The risk for the fat cat wall st people and GOP is that maybe now something will get accomplished. 8 yrs of bush's gestapo type
    actions have taken their toll and people are fed up with this crap.
    There is some talk overseas that Obama will lose... people will really
    get "mad" because they know better , violence will erupt, bush will declare "marshall law", regarding election results, and then the
    crap will hit the fan.. it will get sorted out if voters want their voices heard and not just the Government vested interests.( don't kill the messenger.. just some of what our allies envision happening)
    kind of far fetched but WE have been lied to so much.. who knows

    October 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  297. Michael, Pensacola, FL

    Its less a matter of one party being in charge and more a matter of a frugal party being in charge. Despite their reputation and being financially sound, but the current financial crisis and the way they've mismanaged the federal government holding office for a majority of the last 50 years shows Republicans are not up to the task.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:36 pm |
  298. Sam Pendergrass

    Wouldn't this do away with having to add 150 billion in pork to get something passed?

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  299. Carolyn Campisi

    It would give the majority of the American Citizens a chance to have a break instead of the multi billionaires getting the break. I am not afraid, it is about time that the middle and less fortunate classes in this country realize that the trickle down economic theory does NOT work. Let´s experiment with the trickle up for a change. CHANGE is what we want!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  300. Greg from PA

    There will always be abuses of power regardless of who is in control. What concerns me is when laws that protect the sanctity of voting are abused. The laws that exist need to be fine tuned to prevent fraud and caging. Caging involves intimidation, reducing the hours or numbers of voting locals in minority districts, disallowing voters who have not changed their address after their home was foreclosed, and the like. Treasonous scoundrels who perpetrate these acts weaken the foundation of our society and stiff penalties must be attached to violation of these laws.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  301. Mark

    Jack, we all know how hard it is for anyone running for office to actually keep their promises when they face tough opposition from the other party. Most end up making compromises or just letting some promises fall by the wayside. Maybe this year will be different. Maybe real change only can come from everyone working together for the common good. If the majority of Americans voted for Democrats it's because we all feel they have what it takes to get the nation back on track. So if we put our trust in them to do exactly that, then why the hell would we not want them to succeed. Remember when Bill Clinton left office we had a surplus and the middle class wasn't paying high taxes.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  302. Thomas, Yo.town, OH

    Risk? That's kind of a negative outlook. Hopefully it won't be a risk at all as bill should pass smoothly and promptly for a quick turnaround for this country. One party to be held accountable. If it doesn't work, we are in trouble and it's time for a third party.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  303. Joyce, Florida

    It couldn't be much worse than the mess we're in now, and shockingly,
    I'm sure to some, they might just work together. It will take a lot of
    work and a long time to clean up the mess that's happened since
    Bill Clinton left office. I am a Democrat, but that doesn't mean we
    all shouldn't pay as much attention after the election as before.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm |
  304. Janis, Lafayette, IN

    What have we got to lose? It has taken a crisis, whether it be 9-11, the war in Iraq or the economic collapse, to get our Congress to move faster than a snail's pace. Maybe with one party in control, we can get policy through without unnecessary debate and delay. It's time to let our national administration to finally do what is right for the American public.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  305. Tim in Oneonta NY

    wasn't it the republicans who carved recession on the face of america-oh wait- they're blaming the black guy

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  306. Ted

    With one party having all the power the checks and balances go out the window. Having said that with the state of the economy and the country there are going to be a lot of checks written to get us out of this mess. It boils down to leadership and clear course of corrective action with the reality being the next President will be in a domestic clean up mode for his entire term.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  307. Ron from SF

    Let's see, the biggest damage they could do is to reverse the misery that Bush and his fellow Republicans have inflicted on us all! Come on Jack, these are Democrats. They can't stop fighting amongst themselves and when the Republicans scream, they will still quake in their boots. I’d like to believe we will get progressive legislation and judges, but I’ve watched these spineless jelly fish before.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  308. Mickie in California

    There shouldn't be gridlock for a change! Perhaps a Democrat majority can actually function as intended, to pass laws that provide for the common defense and that promote the general welfare.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  309. Sam Pendergrass

    with one party controlling the vote would mean ammunition to the lessor party if the machinery of congress slows to a grind? Who else would be to blame? The democrats could not blame the republicans and for sure the republicans will be blaming the democrats for every failure.....

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  310. Patrick from Maryland

    Unfortunately, Its a double edged sword. We have seen gridlock without a majority with Filibustering where there should have been non-partisan cooperation to get things done. I think that is what this election is all about. Getting things done. Things Americans care passionately about like decent jobs, healthcare, energy independence, etc. Republicans have talked for 8 years and blamed the Democrats for 2 of those years. The people will speak decisively on November 4th. A majority will insure that "things" will finally get done to drastically improve the well being of this great country. Still, a 2 party system should insure the right checks and balances.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
  311. Brian Blashfield

    So far in history contol by one party has only been a problem when the party in contol is the Republicans. We need a Democratic majority for the very reasons stated. To finally tax the super rich, to provide health care for Americans, to end this damn war, to support education, and to put together an energy policy that ends "government by Exxon-Mobil. Gee, just like when Roosevelt administration saved the country from the last GOP screw up.

    Brian
    Delray Beach, FL

    October 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  312. Jackie

    Jack,
    I think with the state of the economy in a downward spiral and our country at a stand still the benefits certainly outweighs the risks at this point. I don't believe for a minute that it would be a bad thing, in contrast I believe with the brilliant mind of barack obama, and the fact that democrats have had so many good legislations that have been vetoed, that we'll more than likely achieve more substantial and meaningful legislation than any other presidency in my lifetime. History will be made in more ways than one.
    Jackie
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL

    October 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  313. william fitzwater

    Both alreadly do control the government.
    We the people voted for them. So its the peoples fault if we elect a bunch of bums . That group is called the congress and the other the president. The pity is they can't get along very well.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  314. Taxpayer in SC

    Neither side should have TOTAL control, but if it has to be ONE party, the Dems are preferable to the GOP this time. The Republicans have had their turn, and have blown it – "thank you, Bush!"

    Perhaps if we oust ALL the incumbants in this election, we'll get a better, more conscientious group in there. It's better than nothing, worth a try.

    If not.... another election rolls around in 4 years.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:40 pm |
  315. Sam Pendergrass

    Hey Jack wouldn't that mean the end of a lame duck government?

    October 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  316. Kevin

    If the Dems do win it all and we find we don't like a single party controlling Congress and the Presidency, we get a chance change it 2 years. Thats the beauty of American democracy and our constitution. "We the People" are the three most important words in our politcal process and the power of the American people at the ballot box is supreme.

    I beleive the majority of our citizens are are finally realizing the true direction the country has been taken over the last 8 years and are reacting accordingly. I think it was Thomas Jefferson said our American Democracy depended on a well informed and active electorate and we are seeing that now.

    After November 4th, "We the People" must continue to hold our elected officials responsible for how we are represented regardless of political party.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  317. Patricia F Pine Plains NY

    Well, that's always a problem. The Republicans had the whole pie for so long, and they threw it away by being corrupt. The people voited them out as soon as they could. If politicians don't learn from the past, they are doomed to repeat it. We the people are entrusting the Democrates to do the right thing and get something done for the people and not the corporations.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  318. CStewart - Phila, PA

    Honestly, we need 1 party in control to undo so much of the damage that has been done over the past 8 years; however, I do expect corruption to begin once 1 party has absolute control.

    If Dem leadership is smart, they will use this opportunity as a chance to continue redefining the Democratic Party. Given the GOP economic platform supporting free markets, deregulation, no government intervention, and trickle down theory is in trouble, the Dems should use this has a chance to strengthen the party platform on being a financial responsible party. If Dems get the budget balanced and end the war, they will be in power for a long time.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
  319. susan from Idaho

    Absolutely nothing could be worse than what we have had for the last eight years. The filibuster is an instrument that has worked well for the parties that were not in power.
    Give the new folks a chance to show their prowess, it may be the shot in the arm we have needed for a long time. Skill and daring overcome ignorance and superstition.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  320. Sam Pendergrass

    One party controlling everything? Let's see, no more war in Iraq, no more fat cats reaping the benefits of the middle class, respect from the world and perhaps a better quality of living for citizens of the USA?

    October 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  321. Bill from Camp Springs, Maryland

    Risk! What risk? Nobody seemed to care when the Republicans had control for 6 of the last 8 years. Now that it's probably the Democrats in waiting-all of a sudden it's a risk.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:43 pm |
  322. Karen Nellams

    Hi Jack, welcome back. Well we have seen the results of what the republicans party did as a majority, so let's stay tuned to see what happens with the democrats. The republicans have really showed Americans what they are all about, mostly themselves. I hope that we will see a United States of America.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  323. Grannie from Kentucky

    Welcome back Jack! You were missed.

    What happens if we have a Democratic President, Senate, and Congress? Well, let's see.
    Close your eyes and imagine... A bill goes before Congress, It gets discussed, evaluated, debated and voted on, if its passed , then on to the Senate, again it's voted on, off to the President, it gets signed... and something really gets done. The possibilities are endless. We could look at Government waste, bad contracts, and other such tom-foolery, save more than just a few bucks there. The toppling of a party would no doubt also send the 'Fear of the People" into ALL our representatives, and perhaps, just maybe, they will do what is right - for the People - for a change. The Dems tried this past two years, but not having enough members in an extremely partisan Senate, they couldn't do much.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
  324. Brian

    Jack,

    It's wonderful to have you back.

    It means there will be a clear mandate for the Democrats to fix the economy, much like Clinton did in the 90s. If they can't deliver, there will be a massive backlash against Democratic leadership that could tank the careers of Pelosi, Reid and Obama as well. They have four years and more responsibility than either party has ever had in recent history. We'll see if they deliver.

    Brian
    Moscow, Idaho

    October 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  325. Marty

    Is this a trick question? The republicans controlled everything for six years, resulting in an unneccessary war, an out-of-control deficit, slow national response to disasters, diminished rights, and the collapse of a once vibrant economy. I think that pretty much explains what happens when one party has complete control.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  326. Dennis In Washington State

    What happens eventually is greed.
    This is where regulation is important.

    (an indepenant voting DEMOCRAT)
    Good to have you back again Jack

    October 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  327. H. Henry (Illinois)

    Jack,
    I think that it would be a good thing. When the United States of America was first formed the different branches of Government was needed, as a check and balance. During the last 8 years this Country has become more divided than during the Civil War. Everytime you turn on the TV or Radio all you hear about are the red states and the blue states. The Rich have gotten richer and the Middle Class has disappeared. Now it is just the Rich and the Poor. What happened to the American Dream? Or is that just for the Rich now. I pray that Obama/Biden wins, if McCain/Palin win I fear what will happen next.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:45 pm |
  328. Steve

    Who cares what the founding fathers thought. They also didn't believe in truly democratic elections, keep in mind.

    If enough people want to give power to one party, that's democracy at work. If it doesn't work out, they can vote against it in just 2 short years. What works great about our government isn't just the way it was set up; it's that in combination with the changes we've made to it over the years.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:46 pm |
  329. J Sinclair

    If it's Republican control, Jack, you get "government of the rich, for the rich."

    If it becomes Democratic control, you'll see a government that's working in the best interest of the rest of us.

    Some people don't like that.

    Go figure. (And, P.S. GREAT to have you back!)

    October 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
  330. Jay in Texas

    Talk of "risk" of either of these corporate-controlled parties controlling the Congress or the Presidency or both is just a smokescreen to make it appear that there is a big difference in the two parties when, in reality, there is no significant difference between them at all.
    Brownwood, Texas

    October 24, 2008 at 3:50 pm |
  331. C.Harris, Michigan

    Both parties are far from perfect, but with the Democractic party, there is a greater chance that the country can be made whole again. The Democratic party is the party that has always looked out for the poor and middle class and required the rich to pay their fare share of taxes. Its about time we take our country back.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:51 pm |
  332. Barb New Port Richey Fl

    Welcome back Mr. McCafferty! How could it get any worse? We have lost the confidence of most of the world, let alone the confidence of our own citizens. Wouldn'rt it be nice to get that back again!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  333. Diane, Barneveld, NY

    Research the past sixteen years. There's your answer.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  334. Bruce

    Maybe it would be good if one party had full control. Pass everything they have on the agenda, in 4 years we will see the results. No chance for excuses,gridlock, and blaming the other side.Now that would be refreshing !

    October 24, 2008 at 3:52 pm |
  335. sandy in ohio

    Jack, I want to believe that Congress would act as a balance and a check to the executive branch which is its job. However, we saw how well the Republicans did their job in this regard with Bush in the White House. As a citizen and a Democrat I hope to stay vigilant and call my Congress people to task should they try to lead us in the same direction the Republicans did.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  336. John in Arizona

    Jack, no president has ever had carte blanche with the Senate or House, not even when one party held both the White House and a majority in Congress. Even Lyndon Johnson had difficulty getting the Civil Rights Act through a Democratic congress, as Republicans initially filibustered the Act in the Senate. In the end it took Johnson's strong leadership skills, and a reaching across the aisle and enlisting the support of Everett Dirckson and the Republicans, in order to finally accomplish what was right. The point is this – it is effective presidential leadership, not a party majority, which will ultimately end the partisan Congressional inaction that has stifled this country for years.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:54 pm |
  337. JW Georgia

    The risk is that they go too far in untangling the Bush mess. Given the option between that and continuing a hamstrung legislative branch, I think voters recognize that two years of single party rule might be a pretty good message to send to those who overuse the filibuster.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:55 pm |
  338. J from DC

    That depends on which party; we saw with the Republican it was the Iraq war. With the Democrats, it’s the risk that America may actually get back on track. More help for a struggling middle class America.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  339. Ann, Newton, New Jersey

    If the Democrats are in control, they can't do any more harm than the Republicans and this administration have done to us already. Maybe the middle class will finally be recognized.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  340. Jan Millsboro DE

    Well, first of all, Pelosi and Reed have had their turn, they need to be voted out and replaced. I am sincerely hoping that the overwhelming vote for change will hit home with all of Washington. The need to truly put country first, before political party, had better be the new mantra. The people are genuinely angry. I hope new faces will bring new ideas and new hope for us all that this country can once again be what our forefathers meant for it to be.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  341. jeannette from CT

    While I am a liberal Democrat, this is the very thing that scares me about that old addage "Be careful what you wish for." I think that we NEED fiscal conservatives to temper the tendency of people like me to bleed from every pore and want every program that benefits the have nots to move forward. I suspect that Mr. Obama is not quite as liberal in his approach to money as people would lead us to believe, so perhaps he WILL temper the goals with pragmatism. He may find a way to promote some of the tax relief, while preparing us all for tough times ahead. I don't know> THAT is the danger... that untempered liberalism will get us into more trouble. I cannot believe I wrote this!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:56 pm |
  342. Molly, Wisconsin

    It scares me Jack. But I can't say I think that the division of powers has worked very well either. We have had stalemate so long in Washington its hard to remember a time when congress and the white house actually did anything except argue and place blame!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  343. Suzanne

    I'M SO DISGUSTED WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND WALL STREET. LOOK AT THE GRAFT AND CORRUPTION. MY ANSWER TO A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT AND DEMOCRATIC LEGISLATURE IS GO FOR IT. WE ALWAYS HAD SUCH BICKERING AND SPECIAL INTEREST. WHY NOT UNITE IT ALL. WE'VE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE AND THE GOVERNMENT HAS GROWN SO MUCH UNDER REPUBLICANS RULE. WHY NOT THINK OF THE MAJOR CONTRIBITORS OF GOVERNMENT FINIANCE, MIDDLE AMERICA, AND GIVE THEM A BREAK. LET'S AT LEAST TRY TO BETTER ALL OF AMERICA. IT'S TIME WE ALL LIVE UP TO A HIGHER STANDARD AND PUT OUR COUNTRY FIRST.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  344. Linda

    It would be great to have a filibuster proof Congress. The Republicans have blocked every effort the Democrats in Congress have made in the last two years to correct the horrendous course on which Bush and the Republican Congress put this Country from 2000 through 2006. If we want to see improvement, we can't put any President in office and set him up to fail with a Congress that will not cooperate just so they can gain power in two years. If the Democrats have control and they abuse it, we can turn them out in two years. But we have no reason to put Republicans in there to stall and thwart, hopefully, a Democratic President, which is exactly what they would do.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  345. Brian from Fort Mill, SC

    Someone once said, "If you want to see the effects of good and evil, give it power."

    Well, we've just gone through 8 years of evil. Let's hope we don't get another 4 years!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  346. Julie from Alabama

    The potential risk of the Democrats controlling both the executive and legislative branches of our federal government seems less onerous than a continuation of the gridlock we've been experiencing in the current situation. We have to do something to solve the myriad problems were facing as a nation. Lack of action as a function of warring parties seems to be a worse scenario than a concentration of power for the next two years. Where will we be as a country if this gridlock continues. Enough!!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:58 pm |
  347. Alabama Voter

    The Democrats cannot put us in any worse shape than the Republicans have. I really believe that if they are not fighting all of the time then maybe the Senate, House, and President can bring about real change. Do the job that the American people pay them for and not just sit around acting like their going to do something just to get it Vetoed.

    October 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  348. Bill in Michigan

    Even with one party, the egos have to be put aside to get anything done. Good luck with that!

    October 24, 2008 at 3:59 pm |
  349. Pete, Fla.

    Simple Jack, there will be no one to say "no".

    October 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  350. Praetorian, Fort Myers

    Who knows? It can't hurt.
    Could be an enormous opportunity.

    If there is anything that we all have learned is that reality as we have known it (Reaganomics, outsourcing, cavalier deregulation) is now turned upside down.
    Clearly the policies and even the perceptions of our government–have been wrong with regards to economics, defense, foregin policy, and domestic support.
    Perhaps having a full team..in place that are all reading from the same script, with a mandate from the people, will redirect our nation in a postive and new direction.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  351. Sam Highsmith

    A civics lesson from the second Clinton administration is that the United States prospers when checks and balances truly works. That premise has been confirmed by the lack of checks and balances in eight years of the current administration. The Democrats have had their opportunity to restore the balance for two years and have miserably abdicated their responsibilities.

    Sam Highsmith (a Nelson Rockefeller liberal/voting Democrat)
    Little Rock, Arkansas

    October 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm |
  352. ken - florida

    It would finally give the American People as a whole a chance to prosper instead of just the top 1% like we've seen for 20 of the last 28 years.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  353. Dana from Illinois

    If the Democrats do manage to ge a full majority in the House and the Senate, I do hope that there will be some members of congress who will keep us Americans in mind and listen to what we the taxpayers who pay their salary has to say, and live up to the checks and balance system of Congress.They need to remember, who ever voted them in, can also vote them out of office, and after this bailout thing, people will be paying more attention to what is happening in Washington, so they better not do anything screwy.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  354. Marla from Venice, Florida

    If the Republicans control Congress and the President is Obama, then the Republicans will throw their hissy fits and it will be a repeat of do nothing and their grandstanding will keep going . I will take the Democrats running the country. The Republican answer for our economy helped land us here and I think everyone of them should have to take a class in economics. And I think to make sure the Republicans understand where their tax and social economic policies land our citizens ..let them all live on minium wage with fulltime hours paid for 30 not forty, Give them no access to their money or housing. And to make sure they get it loud and clear.. take away their health insurance.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  355. JIM

    My Buddy Jack Cafferty: We experienced that in the Jimmy Carter Administration. We had 21% prime rate, 18% inflation and 14% unemployment far worse than the Bush Administration . This would also apply to the Republicans controlling the Federal Givernment but not to the magnitude or the Democrats. I predict if Obama is elected, he will be just as bad as Carter who is the worst president in history

    October 24, 2008 at 4:03 pm |
  356. Laurie

    I believe that the Democrats will able to work with the Republicans despite having most of the control. Being liberal is not the bad word it has been made up to be; it means having an open mind; it means not wearing "blinders"; it means knowing the importance of working "together".

    October 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  357. PC from Atlanta

    Jack, look at the first six years of the Bush administration, that should answer your question. It is my hope that the Democrats will do a better job now that they have control of congress and potentially the presidency.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  358. josh from rattlesnake ridge

    Well Jack, its like this. The Republican Party has had their shot at a one party control. Its been a terrible last four years for all of us on the lower end here and maybe a one party the other way might help me out a little better than our previous public officials. Yeah.......

    October 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  359. LEE FINKELMAN

    Well –it's about time. This is the way the scale balances back and forth. The Rebublicans mess things up for 8 years and then the Democrats get to give it a try. One party controlling the government is much better than one president (Bush) controlling the government.

    LEE
    COLVILLE, WA

    October 24, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  360. Mike Smith, New Orleans

    It depends which party Jack. Six years of Republican domination from 2000 to 2006 gave us two wars, a recession, record foreclosures, corporate welfare and an economy on the verge of collapse. Maybe it's time for a majority from other party to clean up the mess – again.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  361. Sandra fromTexas

    If its the Democratic Party , maybe we can get somewhere for a Change..

    October 24, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  362. Stagger Lee

    Where was this question in 2000 when Republicans were poised to take the reigns of government? I don't remember any such concern then. Now that Democrats stand at the threshold of power we should be worried? I don't see how they could be any worse than the Republicans and stand an excellent chance of being transcendent.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:06 pm |
  363. Dave From Philly

    Jack,

    We need the dems to be in control for at least the nest two years. They will get our country back on track. At least to the point were Americans can have hope and a chance for a better future.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:07 pm |
  364. Nancy, Tennessee

    If the Democrats control it all, the risk is we may begin to recover from eight years of a Bush-Chaney regime. Some people of this country may fear Democratic control of government, but they will have to try really hard to mess things up worse than the Bushinites have done. I hope the Democrats realize that jobs with decent wages will pave the road to economic recovery. Bring our jobs back!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  365. Pennie Johnson Boyce,La.

    Can't be any worse than the last seven and a half, can it?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  366. erico 33139

    One thing for sure, and I am not being a racist or discriminating a race. The exponential increase in illegal immigration will be something to see. The Democrats, as liberal as they can be, will look at the matter of illegal immigration as 'good' for our country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  367. Karen McCullough

    Hi Jack,

    As long as the Republicans and Democrats keep bickering and voting only for their own party bills with a President to veto anything passed by the opposing party, nothing will ever be accomplished. A congress and a President of the same party is the only way any government business will ever be done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  368. Jim

    Jack,

    I guess if we look at history dating all the way back to 2001 when the Republicans had both Congress and the White House, why would this be a question?

    Jim

    October 24, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  369. Joe in Ohio

    When one party controls the Congress and the Executive branches they can are accountable for their actions. This is why the Republicans are doing so badly. In their six years of control, they proved that they are not the party of fiscal responsibility or small government. The dems will need to do three things. First regulate hedge funds and private equity firms. Second, follow Obama's plan to spend on infrastructure, alternative energy, and education. Third, continue the "pay as you go" procedures - this will result in no more debt added to our staggering total, but also force reductions in wasteful spending for every dime spent. This will get the economy going again by creating both short and long-term jobs.
    Joe in Ohio

    October 24, 2008 at 4:09 pm |
  370. Frank

    The same situation we had with banking de-regulation, but it will now be the White House's and Congress' turn.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  371. Pat, Pa.

    I do believe that it cannot get any worse than it is.
    I'm willing to take the chance that it will be a good thing because I am voting straight Democrat.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  372. Carlos in Miami Lakes

    NO RISK. The BENEFIT is that they have a better chance to UNDO what the RED PARTY has DONE to our Rights , our Economy and our Country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  373. Tina - Houston, TX

    First, I'm so glad you are back. I missed you Jack!!!

    Well.....
    Look at what just happened with the last Republican President. A global tragedy!!

    I don't think the risk could be any worse. Doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results is the definition of insanity, right?! Just curious.

    I'm sure the risk is far less than a McCain/Palin ticket! That is a Hallowen movie that might actually make it to the theatre!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  374. Barrie

    Something positive will finally get done...and Palin will have gone back to Alaska!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm |
  375. Thomas AbileneTx

    Ordinarily I would say it is better to have a different party in charge of each branch.However, the Republicans have made such a mess for the last eight years that it will take the Dems to get things back on track..Please, no" lesson" about the Dems controlling Congress for the last two-ever heard of not veto proof?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  376. JB from Orlando, FL

    Jack,
    We get what we vote for (except for Florida in 2000). If the Democrats get control of the government in 2008, so be it. As a life-long democrat I've been stuck with leaders I never voted for the majority of my voting life. I say we do away with this convoluted electoral process, its time is over and elect our president by popular vote. Also do away with campaign ads and trails after the conventions and just have weekly debates as the only media coverage until election day. That way you guys could get to real news and thoughtful features instead of where candidates shop, whether the are lying (lets face it, they all do) and showing us these useless, misguided and annoying polls.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  377. me46

    Americans know that the government has to do something about the current state of affairs, which will be impossible if one party blocks every initiative. The real risk is a government that is unable to act when the country faces major problems.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  378. Dave from NY in Canada

    Hey Jack, It cannot get worse than what position our country is in right now. We cannot be worse off so why not give it a try?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  379. Jes (State College, PA)

    Jack, the only risk is that the government will actually accomplish something that benefits American Citizens.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:11 pm |
  380. Christine B

    The risk is in the agenda of the single party in control. The GOP has traditionally looked out for the rich and big business and the Dems that of the common man. It will take the Democrats in full power to begin to undo the damaged caused these last 8 years.

    – Christine in Los Angeles

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  381. Rich

    The risk is something might actually get done! Then what reputation would government have?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  382. lily

    The only risk of Democratic rule is that the government might actually start working for the people again, instead of fillibustering its ways to low approval ratings.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  383. john j. grimes

    I seem to recall Jimmy Carter's election which reslted in a triad in D.C. Wasn't that when interest rates climbed to 17%?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  384. Jason in SDY

    There is a serious risk of government actually getting things done. That means there's a risk we'll all have a heart attack because most of us can't remember ever seeing that!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  385. Leo of Palm Beach, Florida

    It basically means you get to see their true intentions and agenda as a party. The nation will go one way or another since there will be essentially a consensus in the federal government. If the democrats make things worse, they'll be kicked out and replaced by republicans. If the republicans make things worse, the cycle continues.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  386. Jennifer

    No risk whatsoever, as long as those in power aren't The fear/war mongerers a.k.a Fat cats Republicans

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  387. Doreen Augusta Maine

    One party could become power hungry. However, I do not believe that under an Obama administration this will happen. I believe that he will push his agenda (which is reasonable), and although he will negotiate he will nto give away the bank. The reason he won't is because the Obama suporters will not allow him to do so.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  388. Wael

    Very risky Jack, but definitely less risky than taking any chances with the Republicans again.

    Wael, Columbia, MD

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  389. Ted

    Jack, we already know the answer ... just look at 6 of the last 8 years!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  390. Debbie

    What's the risk? The risk is that something might actually get done! Especially something might get done for the middle class. We need action on so many fronts right now...so some action would be great!

    Debbie
    San Marcos, Ca

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  391. Real K / Omaha, NE

    Just like the Dems to clean up after the Reps. It will happen again if Obama is elected, or at least for the next two years.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  392. Julie Waters

    A common assumption about Democrats is that they're a single party. They're really not. There are liberal Democrats, blue dog Democrats and lots of others within the party. Unlike having Republicans in charge, no one ideology will hold onto everything, even if Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House.

    –Julie from Vermont

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  393. Gail

    Maybe something will get done in Washington.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  394. Cynthia from Pittsburgh

    None. They have much damage to repair. Bring on the Democratic control.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  395. Jennifer from Indiana

    The risk is ,, for ONCE something MIGHT actually get DONE in congress instead of having yet anouther 'do nothing' bunch of people who are forever blocking one anouther. We have tried the checks and balances system and look at where it has gotten us....

    I have already voted... and yes I voted ALL democrat on my ballot presidential, congressional, and local.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  396. Ed in NC

    Well, just look at the years 2000 to 2006 for your answer. Without checks, the parties get drunk with power. And were going to be feeling that Republican hangover for years to come.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  397. Michelle

    There is no RISK. The damage is already done. It will take 1(one) party to clean it up!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  398. Joshua from Vandenberg AFB, CA

    I do not want a Republican in charge of ANYTHING after the past eight years and I really do not want Palin hockey momming around Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  399. Obi

    Jack how about how will it BENEFIT America??
    There needs to be leadership, direction, and a sense of purpose.
    Barack and the democrats could take us through a VERY tough time in our history.
    It is not even guaranteed that they will win the majority, so why are we discussing this?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  400. Richard

    That something might actually get done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  401. John

    In this case if Obama wins it could only be a good thing for the average American !! I would finally have access to healthcare if his plan could be enacted !!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  402. Jason, Koloa, HI

    The risk is that we might have a gov't that acts with common sense, compassion, and decency for the first time in a long time.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  403. Carlos Palomo

    The risk is simple. People get power hungry!! kinda..like what happen to the republicans, but none the less change is good. Let's just hope the Democrats don't get it get to thier heads.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  404. CarolO

    Good. The Republicans have been in control long enough and they still blame the Democrats for everything anyway.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  405. Dianna Galante

    The risk of one party in control is that the government might actually get something done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  406. Aaron Rourke

    Good! Something might actually get done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  407. Kate

    Whats the risk? Are you serious? Just think back to 2001-2006 for your answer?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  408. Ted Marules

    Well, at least something can get done. Good, bad or ugly. I'm tired of nothing but division and a do-nothing Congress. If the Dems get in with a majority and screw it up then I'll vote for the Reb's next time. Give the Dems a chance and lets see what develops

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  409. Bruce B.

    The risk of course is that some unpopular initiatives could become law. On the other hand, there would certainly be less gridlock in congress and more would get accomplished.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  410. Kurt, Portland OR

    If the Democrats gain 60 seats we will finally move this government into the 21st century with all the benefits of a modern government.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  411. Bernie from Tarpon Springs, FL

    Jack,

    Under normal circumstances, I would not be in favor of this. Unfortunately, during the 6 years that the Republicans had total control, things got so out of hand with the war in Iraq, the economy, etc. that this is the only way to give the country back to the people. In addition, the potential of 1-3 Supreme Court appointees makes this even more critical.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  412. peter reilly brevard,n.c.

    Risk? Look at 2000-2006.Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  413. Mark Orlando, FL

    There is no risk. The risk is keeping those poor policy makers in Washington. Isn't it trash day on November 4th; I plan on helping America clean house! Go "Green" by voting Democrats.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  414. Roy

    With one party in control. Maybe Congress will finally get some work done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  415. J

    Jack, the risk is that something might actually get passed and progress more speedily through the process for a 'change'.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  416. Patrick

    Total destruction! All is lost!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  417. Greg Long

    The risk is that they could loose the majority once they gain it by under performance. But i think this will end the grid lock and open the doors for positive change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  418. Mike

    Jack,

    It means that Washington might actually get something done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  419. Caitlyn, Cincinnati Ohio

    A minimal risk... For once something will be done in our nation and be successful supported by all three branches of the government.
    As a country we are sick of doing nothing and staying in the same spot we were in last year and the year before that.

    SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE DONE!!!! FINALLY!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  420. Ronald in Florida

    The real question is, whats the risk of allowing the same policies to run our government for the next 4 years? That to me is scary.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  421. Doug In PA

    The thought of one party having all the power is a bit scarey, but maybe thats what it will take to get things done. Either that, or we can sit around watching the 2 parties fillerbuster each others bills, then go on vacation for a month or two!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  422. hayden6286

    If its the democrats. Nothing is wrong with it. We need a majority and hopefully a supermajority in the senate so that a President Obama can undo the all the horrible policies of the past 8 years so we can regain our country from the corrupt cooperate America.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  423. Jeon

    The risk is that the congress can get bills passed, the president and congress will be out of this stalemate and the country can move further. This is a risk, I think the American people who vote, including myself, are willing to take!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  424. atoosa

    Jack,

    First of all it is nice to see you and even my kids were asking where is Jack. Now as far as your question, it is about time we have the Democrats in control maybe now they can get to work and get this country moving in the direction.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  425. Tom - Las Vegas, Nevada

    Normally I'm a big supporter of balance. The problem we have here however is that the government has leaned heavily right since Reagan took office with only one moderate stint while Clinton was in office. Right now the country needs a major course correction to get back to the center.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  426. Rusty Jack

    There is a risk that something will actually get DONE!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  427. Angad

    Jack,
    Checks and Balances! The founders intended it for a reason. Look what happened in the lead up to the Iraq war, who knows what would have happened if there was a Democratic Congress in place. I lean to the left, but even I think too much power for 1 party will lead to bad things. We need to learn from our history.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  428. Kyle Wagonseller

    A lot of legislation will get passed. Whether it's good or bad for America, it will get passed because there would be very little opposition from the minor party.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  429. Ronald G Majo Sr.

    There's less risk than the last EIGHT YEARS

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  430. Marion

    The risk is that we might finally find out what NO GRIDLOCK in government feels like for four whole years! It means the "Haves" might have to pause for a moment to consider the plight of the "Have-Nots." It means Barack might actually be able to get things DONE!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  431. Arlene Gordon

    It seems to me that from 2000-2006 the Republicans ruled both congress and the white house. It's hard to think that the Democrats could do worse.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  432. Fritz Hohenheim

    Dear Jack,
    there's a risk to everything in life, I can step out of my house and be slain by a brick. We had a dysfunctional democracy due to that clutter of power for many years now. I am willing to take a little risk because it's the only way of saving this country. And isn't America supposed to be the nation of "risk takers" with the "old pioneer spirit"? Whatever became of that?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  433. Michael from Los Angeles

    The "risk" is that something might actually get done on issues of great concern to a vast majority of Americans. There is nothing in the Constitution about one party controlling both branches of government. There are enough liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats to balance things out. Give 'em a chance.

    If they blow it, we'll know it.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  434. Ryan (MI)

    Well Jack...the risk of having the Democrats controlling the federal government is heck of a lot less than Papa McCain and Sarah "Thanks for the $150,000 wardrobe" Palin at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Could you imagine how much their drapery would cost?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  435. Joe C.

    I believe the democratic party bears the risk. As a registered democrat, I want to see them push the agenda that they campaign on. If this plan is not implemented while they have control, then I will become a registered independent.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  436. Dan Brown

    We saw what happened when the Republicons had one Party rule and it was a disaster but Democrats NEED control to fix the mess that the Republicons created; the real risk is that we WON'T have one-Party rule.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  437. Darren

    It's been one party controlling everything for the last eight years but I feel President Obama won't all corruption to rule either party.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  438. missouri

    JACK, let the poeple vote.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  439. TRAVIS

    NO Risk at all it is about time the dems have the chance to push their agenda as did the repubs go to push their agenda in the first 6 years of the Bush Admin

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  440. Troy

    The risk is something might get done. Troy in AZ.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  441. Vineet

    no risk, it is all good. Republican destroyed the country and middle class and now it is democrat's turn to
    cure the country for next 8-16 years and put America back to glory years.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  442. Belinda

    The risk is that something might actually get done. Gridlock has gotten us nowhere!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  443. Ed from Tampa

    Why is this an issue now? The Republicans had complete control of the government from 2000 thru 2006 and there was no comment from anyone...especially John McCain and the nutcase Right

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  444. Michael Rosen

    Jack – what it means is that for the first time since Lyndon Johnson was President we may actually get something done in Washington, and it's about time!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  445. Louise L.Gallone

    Jack, there is NO risk if the Dems take control of all three branches. However, If the Repubs take over, the first things they cut are health, education and programs for the general welfare.

    Louise IN

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  446. Valerie (Tampa, Fl)

    The risk is that corporations, fat cats and Republican cronies will no longer be able to line their pockets at the expense of the middle class.The risk is that no longer will the US engage in pre-emptive war at the expense of the lives of children of the middle-class.

    It's a risk I am willing to take...

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  447. PamB

    The risk, Jack is that something will finally get done! Not that we have the money to do much, but at least we could get our boys out of the quagmire in Iraq, prevent nukes and war in Iran, establish good relations with other countries again, fix this economic mess.

    After 92 fillibusters by Senate Republicans, essentially stopping any progress since Dems took the majority, I look forward to the day that we no longer watch this political ploy by the Red Party!

    Pam from Hartford, CT

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  448. Evie

    Do thank John McCain for a majority Democractic government. His campaign showed a complete lack of confidence in the entire Republican Party.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  449. Happy in Arizona

    Republicans ruled for 7 years and look what they accomplished--nothing but Wall Street robbers, mortgage cheaters, and McCain decreases taxes on his wife. So, with a Democratic congress, things should get done and Obama said he would stop some of the unnecessary spending. So, to sum it up, it can't be any worse.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  450. Ahmad

    Jack

    Honestly I am so amazed that the Republican even bring this up at this time. I am an independent but I would like to point one thing out: the Republicans actually contorolled Congress for four years. Lets see what they have done: 1) the constitution is nonexistent; 2) civil liberties were hacked; 3) search and seizure and the nullification of habeas corpus are reality; 4) deficit that I don't know how long it will take to take care of .... should I keep going?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  451. Wayne0

    And would be wrong with healthcare for everyone, and lowering taxes for the "real middle class" hmmm. Go for it i say.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  452. Al /Orlando/via Buffalo

    Since the country is going to the dogs. Can we afford a pit bull with
    a Very Pretty(vp) handler. Give one party a chance. Then boot them
    out if they fumble.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  453. rick kendall

    If its the Democrats it will mean I can quit my job and live off government handouts

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  454. Jan

    Each party has their agendas. From 2000 to 2006, White House, Senate and Congress was controlled by Republicans. Doesn't seem they did so well. Why not give the Dems a chance. John McCain seems to forget what his party has done to this country.......

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  455. Lyn

    Didn't we have Republicans controlling it all in the first Bush administration? The only difference would be that the Democratic President wouldn't be functional illiterate, have personal oil interests, to protect, and insn't interested in spending $10 billion in Iraq every month...AND the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for the past several years, thus eliminating all effective checks and balances...... Must we be reminded of the political leanings of Sandra Day Oconnor when she did NOT favor the recount for Al Gore?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  456. Tim

    Jack,
    Love the show, love your book. The only problem with one party controlling Congress is that something might actually get done! We might get out of Iraq and end the recession. Heck, we might just get a government that listens to us.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  457. hazel singleton

    I was listening to a replay of John McCain's new message about how he is different from George Bush. Sounds just like a John McCAin resume to me.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  458. Dan Carr

    I think that the Risk of having the Democrats holding Both house and senate and Presidency, is not a risk at all. I feel that the Republican Regime has been in power way too long and have destroyed our country. I don't remember Democrats ever sending jobs over seas. When ever they are in power our country seems to be working fine, jobs , low gas prices, low food prices. I feel that with Republicans in power we've been raped over the coals, dragged through the oil pits and gas lines. Republican are mean and nasty people.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  459. Cec Omo

    What risk? Maybe the roads and bridges can be re-built afterall, No Fillibuster anymore...He! Ha!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  460. Jennifer

    One-party rule is always bad news, as we learned during the first years of the Bush administration, but that's no reason to vote for McCain if you don't like his policies. If the Dems don't do right by the people, there are elections in two years. Relax, and vote Obama.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  461. Paul

    Washington working together?
    Western New York

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  462. Katherine in Cotati, CA

    The risk of having the Democrats control everything is that things will finally get done that will benefit the MAJORITY of the people. The risk for the Republicans is that they will have to find another way to line their individual pockets.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  463. Dwight Hale

    The last time the Democrats were in control (under Clinton), they cut the size of government, balanced the budget, and gave us peace and prosperity. What's wrong with that ??

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  464. David in Texas

    Jack, separation is what we have now. Washington is not working. We need to unite behind one.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  465. Nancy McMahon

    Sounds like tyranny to me!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  466. Joshua Porter

    Well, we have see what happened when the other party controlled both houses of congress and the presidency. Maybe the Democrats will focus more on the problems at home rather than spending billions on ridiculous wars abroad.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  467. Jacqueline Adams

    We will finally get something important done for the people and not just egotistical agendas.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  468. Al Abrams

    No risk whatsoever! It would be a great help in turning around everything bad that has happened

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  469. TC in Toronto

    You might get a government that will trample civil liberties.
    You might get a government that will allow cronies to prosper while the public goes wanting.
    You might get what has happened over the majority of the time since 1980 with the Republicans.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  470. Shep, Atllanta

    I dont think we assume a risk any greater than what we assumed under Bush's presidency. I think the diplomacy extended to the regular man by the Dems will echo throughout the world and make the US a safer and well respected Nation again. We tried it their (Rep) way for six years. Look where that landed us.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  471. Barbara kelley

    The risk will be having a highly effective government which will provide affordable healthcare to those who seek it and a reasonable foreign policy which will not be based on a Manichean world view.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  472. Martina

    If democrats were in control you mentioned they could from raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting them for the middle class to steering more federal benefits to low-income families to expanding health care coverage to anything else they might decide suits their fancy. Which one of these things is not good for America as a whole? Current Administration has run our coountry into the ground – a country I served over 20 years in the military to protect and defend. I say it is time the democrats fix all that the current Administration has broke!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  473. Brent Coates

    the only risk i see is that we might finally get something done!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  474. Emmanuel - Atlanta

    Jack:
    It could not be any more riskier than we are right now. Let the Dems. take full control and the world will be better off afterall.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:14 pm |
  475. Jeanne, San Diego, CA

    Jack, this isn't a problem. If the Democrats don't use their majority power wisely, they will be voted out. It's that simple. The American public will be watching so I suggest the Democrats tread lightly.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  476. Linda

    No risk, only plusses. We're gonna need that power to undo all the damages from the Bush years. It's gonna take awhile - even just to discover where all the bodies are buried, so to speak.

    Time to gut every federal agency of the neocon-men that undermine our way of life.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  477. Patti

    Remember Jack, Check and Balances?

    Pushing through anything lobbyists want without any Checks and Balances is not necessarily a "Change" that would be good.

    I always feel that the days the politicians seem to be away from office (which is often) are the days they cannot screw things up.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  478. Diane Dagenais Turbide

    Hi Jack,

    I think people are prepare for this risk when you look at the past eight years! In reference to your words of checks and balance, let me ask you how balance is it now!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  479. Mark Luster

    The risk is an abuse of power like Bush and his Rep. Congress gave us. Fortunately, when Dems get that kind of power their abuses seem to work out pretty well for the rest of us.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  480. Judy Knight

    Jack,
    I think it will be great. We will be able to run our country without a lame duck president vetoing everything.
    J.K. in Boise, Idaho

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  481. Kim In Florida

    The big problem is, if the democrates don't turn this economic disaster around in a year or two they will own it. The conservative press will harp on it daily and they will lose big time in the next election.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  482. Ben in Washington

    Jack, we know the risk of having one party in control, but it was the wrong party from 2000 to 2006.

    We need the Dems in control now to undo the mess of the Bush administration.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  483. Vanessa- Phoenix

    Wow! Maybe some really important task will finaly get accomplished.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  484. alex

    Jack,

    Haven't we had that for most of the last eight years? Any questions?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  485. wayne Hobson

    Jack,
    The Republicans not only controlled the House and the Senate for 6 years they also controlled the Supreme court and we all have seen what that got us!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  486. Robert

    A fantastic risk. It means that the previous failed 8 years of trickle down economics will be history .. and we can start the new trickle up economics that will cause the middle class and those hit hardest to do much better. The rich have been getting the biggest piece of the pie for years and look where it has gotten us. The worse financial crisis in most of our life times.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  487. Mark in California

    Jack,
    The way the Republicans used the one party ruined our country. I beleive that the Dems need to control it all to bring the country back. If in 2 years they are not doing it right the congress people can be changed to bring a mixed house and senate.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  488. William Newbill

    The risk is that we might actually get health care reform, fair taxes on the wealthiest, a President and Congress who respect the Constitution and the rule of law, and Supreme Court Justices who will protect our fundamental rights. A down side compared to what?. The worst of all possible worlds would be letting any Republican continue in office, they've proven their utter stupidity and ability to take this country to its knees. What else do voters need to see to throw these bums out?

    William Newbill
    Dallas TX

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  489. John

    It will take the democrats fully in charge to fix the mess of the republicans for the last eight years..........

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  490. Shawn Smith Kansas City Mo

    it depends on which party you have in control. The party which historically has been a part of some of the worst chapters, (slavery, segregation are just the tip of the iceberg) or the progressive party that credits most of this nations progress?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  491. Jerry Kanab Utah

    Not much of a bad risk if it's the Dem's in control, Jack can it get worse It both sides of congress are trying to choke each other to death! and forgetting the Average "Joe"

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  492. Mylann

    The risks are the ability to pass any policy that a party deems needed, but after the last 8 years of Bush and the GOP I'm willing to help this happen. I trust the Dems way more than the GOP now. We don't need more unwanted war, and less help for those that need it.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  493. Jose

    Jack,
    This is a silly question.One party already controls everything. The "Money Party." Our money will continue to be wasted no matter what
    Jose
    Columbus, OH!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  494. Darren R.H.

    Jack,

    In the case of the democrats controlling it all? OF course it would be GREAT! We have seen what the republicans controlling everything has done to our government. The democrats I am sure would do 10 times better that the right wing nutt jobs. This is coming from a former republican! I have been healed from my republican ways. I am now a "Liberal." I am glad that I had my demons exercised and now know the right way is not the right wing republican way.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  495. Alex from DC

    The 'risk' is that this country can finally take a big step forward and join the rest of the world in the 21st century. Losing that big old ball and chain that is the GOP might end up being the smartest thing we as Americans can do, whether you live in 'real' America or not...

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  496. Becky

    Jack, isn't it time that the little people were taken care of? The middle class has been feeding the fat cats for the last eight years. I am putting my faith in the Democrats to take care of us, because I have seen that the Republicans certainly don't. I'm voting for the guy with one house and two cars, not 7 (or is that 11?) houses and 13 cars. The guy who knows how to use a computer, not one who gambles with my future. In other words, the one who is IN TOUCH. And it's going to take full control to get things back on track!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  497. Dace - Tucson AZ

    We may risk a decrease in the deficit, we may risk health care for all, we may risk creating green jobs, we may risk getting our 401(k) back, we risk a balanced budget, we may risk saving our soldiers lives – oh my it is so scary! It may take 25 years of a total Dem rule to reverse the last 8 years of total destruction.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  498. monica, MN

    Maybe something will actually get done, and with one party in office I guess we would know who to blame.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  499. Sheila Campbell

    It depends on which party you're talking about and what the state of the country is. We saw what one-party rule under republicans was like. Right now we need BIG changes and the only way to get them is to have the dems rule Congress & the White House with a filibuster proof majority.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  500. Jared Perlman

    Honestly, one party controlling the government is really a misleading idea. This is because the idea of parties actually brings people together that can have very different views under one banner. What one Democrat sees as a must, another can see as a must-not. Yes, a majority will always lean towards one side or another, but party infighting will make it so that the impacts are actually much less than you would think.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  501. oldster77

    Nothing less than complete control can begin to address the wrongs of the past eight years. A temporary checks and balances imbalance is nothing when compared to submitting to the the Perils of Palin.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  502. Donald Crawford

    Perhaps a presidential candidate could deliver on his promises to the people if he and a workable majority of Congress were elected..oh, like in a parlimentary system.

    Don in San Diego

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  503. Mike

    I continue to be stunned at the ignorant postings by some of the obvious neocons on this page. Their concept of the "spread the wealth around" comment by Obama is unbelievably stupid. His concept is to tax the significantly few wealthier Americans at a slightly higher rate in order to give the vast majority of Americans a little bit better financial break on taxes – that's it, nothing more! Personally, I've made more than $250K in 11 of the last 13 years. Is it painful to pay a higher tax rate? Yes. Do I consider it to be "spreading the wealth around? No. Do I think it's socialist? Hell no! Will I vote for Obama? You bet your ass!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  504. GEORGE

    We saw what happened with Bush, I'm not sure we should want it again. I believe Thomas Jefferson called it " Tyranny!"

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  505. Robert Di Ferdinando

    What is the Risk? The Risk is we will finally be able to try and solve the problems that have beening killing this country for years – Health Care, Energy, The Enviorment, etc! Attempts to address these issues have be blocked for years! All the Dems plans may not work, but it will be an attempt to do something!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  506. John A. Gordon

    Jack , we had that for 6 years now .Obama would use cxommon sense not like Bush

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  507. Brian (Centreville VA)

    There is a risk that we might go back to the way things were back in the 90's. Oh God it was terrible. All those jobs, that balanced budget and a middle class to speak of. I hope it doesn't happen because Fat Cats like me won't beable to live the high life any longer!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  508. Ellie

    I am not a friend of the Republican party and strongly support Barack Obama for President, but for any party (even the party I support) to have such control makes me nervous. It seems to fly in the face of how our government should operate – on a system of checks and balances.
    Beaverton, OR

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  509. Rick J

    My hope is Mr. Obama would use this opportunity to show us that with thoughtful, inteligent leadership our government can act in the countrys best interests.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  510. Chidi, Regina, Canada

    Jack,

    That is the best way to get the clean-up job done very fast especially now that a lot needs to be fixed. But in the long run, it may turn out to be bad because in a "government of the people by a few and for the few, whatever the few decide goes." That is the only thing that is not good for a healthy democracy.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  511. lisa tx

    Jack ,i guess they may actualy get something passed to help this country without Bush there to veto everything.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  512. Donna Wisconsin

    I guess I don't understand why things would be worse than if a Republican were President and Congress was also. That has happened before. Soooo?? The difference is things would get done for the middle class for a change instead of Big Business. And I a m sick of the claim that because the Congress was Democratic these last 2 years that somehow they are to blame for the mess. The first 4 years was with Republicans contolling. You need more than a majority to get things done. So I would say the Republicans have stymied the Democrats at every turn. Can't wait for our turn!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  513. Gerry Ross

    There's an old saying that is often true: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions! That view is the danger of one-party control of our government. Perhaps that is why the Founding Fathers included a series of checks and balances?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:15 pm |
  514. Josh in Sylvania, Ohio

    If it is the Democrats NO risk at all. Since the Democrats wanted to pass bills that will help the average American. The Democrats will fix the country and restore our rights under the Constitution that the Republicans have destroyed. The Republicans have destroyed this country with their reckless policies and this free trade nonsense.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  515. agnes, chino, california

    The Republican party has been in charge for much of the past few decades, since we have only elected two democratic candidates for president. What is more important than who is in 'power", is that constituents become vocal, involved and relentless in holding their leaders accontale. It seems people don't give a crap until 2 months before each presidential election. Then, they retreat angrily into camps while yelling at each other about guns and abortion.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  516. caroline rose

    Hi Jack,

    I think the risk would be Hope running high, only to discover more termites than we knew about...the remaining Republicans flashing their keenly professional fear lasers feeding the termites – rather thana the humility required to work together to clean up the mess.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  517. ST

    I think it depends on the party. The Republicans have destroyed this country in the 6 years they were in power because they have an old mindset. They still believe in this trickle down economics crap that obviously doesn't work. It just allows the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer. I think with the Democrats, they will think about the little guy first. If the little people prosper, so do the big people. I think it's going to be an exciting 4 years!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  518. Keith

    It would ruin our country if the dems controlled both the legislative and executive branch. The dems are fundamentally no nearly as morally sound as republicans. It would greatly diminish the already dropping morality of our country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  519. Ed in Norman Oklahoma

    For 6 years we had the republicans dominating the House, Senate and Whitehouse. They gave away everything to their friends, the top income people.
    Should the Democrats get control of those institutions perhaps they might give the rest of us something to even out things. While that may be a fairy tale, it is a certainty that they could not do a poor a job as the present administration.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  520. Dennis Logan

    I beleive we need the Dems to control everything because the president has to have the power to fix this mess. There are going to be some big changes that must happen quickly in order to save our country. I feel certain that I can trust Obama to do the things the need to be done. The American people are going to have to grow up and bite the bullet. It's going to be hard to except the changes that must come, but we must do it. We can have a lot of stauling and infighting in congress or we won't get things done. And we all know it!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  521. Juan

    What’s the risk of one party controlling Congress and the White House?

    The risk is that something might actually get done, in contrast to the wrangling and fighting that we´ve seen between the Republican White House and the Democratic-led Congress, where the daily argument is who has the lowest approval ratings. It´s pathetic that John McCain is using the argument of counter-balancing a Democratic congress as one last pitch to get elected.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  522. Nissim Sasson San Diego CA

    The risk is that they can abuse power like the republicans did when they control congres and senate
    But hopefully this time the democrats will learn the lesson from the republicans that if they do that they can be voted out of power

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  523. david

    getting something done!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  524. Corey

    Jack,

    Normally one party control runs the risk of extremism in policy and ideology. However, with the serious problems facing this country, we need real solutions, for good or for bad, without a lot of partisan stonewalling. I seem to recall that Roosevelt used one-party control under similar economic conditions, to rescue this country and put us back on a path to prosperity. Besides the Supreme Court is still in right-wing hands and another election is only two years away. I'm in favor of giving the Dems two years of carte blanche control – it could hardly be worse than the last 8 years!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  525. Ron Mlls

    Jack, The Government has 3 branches, The Executive The Legislative And The Judaical. The Republicans will have, thousands of Federal Judges for a generation to come.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  526. Linda

    Maybe, for the first time in eight years, Congress will get something worthwhile accomplished! Hopefully, we won't have to listen to the politicians spend hours bickering and something will get done to help the American people!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  527. Diogenes in a greek joint in Reno

    Oh NO !, Jack,
    It will mean that the right Wing Wacko's will not control the agenda.
    Rush might just have a tissy fit every day on the radio.
    the talk radio squakers might just have less Hair than you
    from pulling them out when upset.
    Oh the humanity of it.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  528. Pugas-AZ

    Good and bad. Good : legislation could get moving. Bad: Movement could be in the wrong direction. I see a lot of filibusters and walkouts in our future.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  529. David Gee

    Mr.Cafferty;
    We can only hope that it will be the Dems that get control. The Republicans have certainly messed it up completely when they had the chance!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  530. James Steele

    If the DEMS,controlled both houses,it could be no worse than what we had under the republicas when they controlled everything.They messed up everything that was gained under Clinton.Sarah Palin would get more free houses,and her husband would run every thing else.She would be worse than Cheney.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  531. Dave

    Since the Republicans and Democrats are bought and paid for by lobbyists, it does not matter if one of them controls the Congress and the Senate. The Republi-Crats are united in overspending and undersaving.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  532. shirley curtis

    After the Bush years, we need to completely undo all the damage the republicans have done. There is no way the democrats could do any worse than the republicans, and in fact, it is vital that the wrong headed turns that the republicans took be reversed. The only way to get the change we need is to give the democrats the power to get it done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  533. Shaun Chambers

    One possible consequence could be a one party system of government. If a government ran by Democrats manages to actually get things accomplished in this country for once, why would we need Republicans?
    Shaun
    Mt. Croghan, SC

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  534. Jim

    Whethere or not the democrats have America's best interests on their mind is up for debate, but what is not debatable is this overpowering control that they are in position to gain in the government. The reason the government is divided into 3 branches is to divide the power amongst a group of people to prevent a dictatorship from taking hold. By having a single party controlling the senate, the house, and the white house, doesn't this defeat the original purpose? Sure the democrats may pass bills that will help America, i'm not questioning them having good intentions. They cannot see the future though, and does an issue arrise where they make a decision that is not in America's best interests, they can do it with very little trouble. That is the risk of having the democrats controlling all those sectors.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  535. JTatEHT

    If Obama wins and has a substantial majority in the House and Senate, then it will be essential that Obama provide an overarching strategy on energy independence, infrastructure rebuilding, education and health care, which can garner bipartisan support. If Obama loses control to Congressional Democrats, then we run the risk of having programs, which are too liberal and too out-of-touch with average Americans. That would lead to Democratic losses in 2110 and give Obama another shot with a more Republican Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  536. Ed Miller

    Scary!- we then would have a ONE party system. Where are the checks and balances? It would cut through all the in-fighting and get things done...if only we could really trust our politicians to look out for us ALL and apply the fairness to ALL , rich- entrepenuers -working class and to support our laws and not give away our country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  537. Ade

    The risk is that things could finally get done. No more do nothing congress. With one party say democrat in total control, Republican will not be able to get in the way of progress. Prayer answered.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  538. skot

    Austin Texas

    We've had 6 years of all Republican rule. We've had two years of Democrats attempting to bring about change with not enough to override the Republican's filibuster's and vetoes. I want to see an all Democratic try, with a strong majority in House & Senate, and a Democratic president to make sure those changes go through. Give the D's a chance. They haven't had one in 12 years.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  539. Jeff / San Antonio

    Risk – schmisk. Maybe the US government will finally be able to accomplish something. And MAYBE it might even benefit its citizens as opposed to the big corporations, for a change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  540. Barbara F - Simsbury, Ct.

    Whatever the risk, it could never be great enough that people should vote for the wrong man to be president !

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  541. Michael from Ft. Bragg NC

    After 8 years of George Bush I wouldn't trust the Republicans to change the oil in my car. I am for any party that represents the individual American for a change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  542. jim williams

    there will be no danger Jack if the electorate does what is expected of them and that is: stay in touch and demand excellent fiscal responsibility or it will continue to be what it has always been!!!!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  543. penny roth

    The risk is counting your chickens before they're hatched. First, let's see if we can even get a Democrat elected to the White House. Considering everything we're up against: Joe the Plumber, Republican robo-calls and other smear tactics, not to mention voting machine uncertainty, long lines, etc. the election is by no uncertain terms ceded to Barack Obama. Congress, too, has an uphill battle. Let's take it one step at a time.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  544. Diego

    The risk is for the corrupt insurance companies to lose some of their profits and for the right wing evangelicals who would like to make our government a theocracy to lose the influence that landed us Bush and his big oil neocon pals.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  545. Paula

    Jack, its great that you are back.
    There is a risk but I think is going to be easier to pass the reforms we need now to reverse the damage Bush has made to our country. I also believe that will be more cautious in making decision. They want to get reelected again in 4 years don't forget that.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  546. rufus

    jack I feel we have under gone the risk and look where it has gotten us. Do you think someone will be working in our behalf if that was to occur

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  547. Shawn Moriarty from La Honda CA

    The risk, Jack, is Democracy. That is how our government was designed. The founding fathers did not write the constitution to state that the house and the senate should always have an equal balance. It is our (the people's) government, and we will get what we vote for, and what we deserve, and we will see what happens.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  548. Joan

    The risk is the same as in the years when both houses were controlled by the Republicans, under a Republican president. How you view the "risk" depends on your own political viewpoint. I'm hopeful that a Democratic President and Congress will work and act on behalf of the people of our country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  549. Aaron Rourke

    Give the Dem's a chance. It can't be worse than Pres. Bush.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  550. Jeff Kittelson

    In the last two years the Dems have controlled congress, but GW is a republican .... Well , for 6 years the Republicans controlled the government, also, how come more people haven't questioned Sara Palin on endorsing Socialism by redistributing the wealth among Alaskans. What about her ties to her racist church who allows Jesus for jews or whatever hate monger group she is apart of.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  551. eileen berman

    Jack,

    Maybe we can get back everything we've lost in the last eight years.

    Eileen
    Deerfield Beach FL

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  552. laurie

    finally be able to get things done for the people!!!!in our country that is.time to help us not the rest of the world!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  553. Steve

    Jack,

    As democrats have long complained that republicans were able to block them at every turn, total control means some legislation may actually pass.

    The risk? Some legislation may actually pass.

    Reform? Change? In our dreams!

    Steve
    Port Orchard, WA

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  554. Rachelle in SA, Texas

    The risk with a majority party is that legislation will actually get PASSED, and things gets DONE on Capital Hill. For Conservatives, that would mean cutting services and leaving it to "community," and fortunately with this election, it means pushing an agenda that knows better.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:16 pm |
  555. Walter M. Wilson

    Let's see. One party controll got us in the mess we are in. The other party maybe able to get us out.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  556. David

    We know about the dangers of having both the presidency and the congress in the Republican Party for most of the last eight years. What a misery!! It will take a lot of work by Obama and the Democrats in congress to straighten that mess out.

    I, too, want my old life back.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  557. Larry

    Well we've had a perfect example of what can from the last 8 years when the Republicans mostly controlled everything . I think it all comes down to the fact that we need change . Hopefully Americans will be vigilant if the Democrats do attain a majority . We fell asleep at the wheel and weren't vigilant with the Republicans during the last 8 years . Irregardlous we need to be more active in politics before a crisis occurs .

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  558. Evelyn Rivera

    Hopefully, if that happens again, the democrats will act responsibly and everyone will benefit. The republicans were in that position, but they blew it! They were only pulling for the very wealthy and "self interest" and in this great country of ours with so much diversity, that will never work. Democrats are for the people!!

    Evelyn

    Connecticut

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  559. john ..................... marlton, nj

    The risk of the democrats in control is very high and it is a danger to civility, capitalism, democracy and our society. I call it the rise of group think ignorantism by the liberal ignorazis.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  560. Adam

    Toronto

    The risk of having control of the House and the Senate in addition to the Presidency is that the insane political posturing and filibustering might be replaced with civilized and pertinent discussion. Not a pleasant thought for the pundits.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  561. Jim in Arlington

    I worry a Democratic majority would try to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and provide for the common defense, but also promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Very bad.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  562. Leo Spriggins FL

    None, if its not Republican

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  563. Anonymous

    Risk? Of the dems controlling everything? You must be looking for a new definition of "risk", because I can't think of anything "risky" about purging the Republicans from power – FOREVER.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  564. Cindy Schlegelmilch

    There is no risk if the Democrats get a chance to straighten out the mess the Republicans have made. And if Republicans are nervous about the Dems being in control, I say try it, you'll like it.

    Cindy
    Lincoln, NE

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  565. Juan Vasquez

    Jack,

    If you want to know what can happen when the senate, house and white house are one party, you just have to look at our government from 2000-2006. I am a lifelong Dem, so I have a positive outlook for our future with a strong leader like Barack Obama influencing less impressive Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi.

    Juan
    La Verne, California

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  566. Destiny, McDonough GA

    It not the risk associated with the democratic party so much as the risk that we have with each individual in the house and senate. We need to make sure that each individual has our best interest in mind. If they happen to be democrats, then that's fine with me.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  567. Debbie

    I hope there is a democratic president & a democratic congress. Then maybe there will be some cooperation & unity to get problems resolved in this country.

    Debbie
    North Carolina

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  568. abraxis

    Jack,

    Any American Government student can tell that the Separation of Powers and a System of Checks and Balances can curtail the power of any one party in a position of power.

    The exception, of course, would be when a two-thirds majority is attained with the minority party not having enough votes to slow down the majoritarian process in the legislature. That however would not create a political juggernaut out of the majority party. There is still the judicial branch that can limit the power of the legislature and executive branches.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  569. Robert

    Jack, the risk would be substantial, but the risk of not electing Democrats would be higher. This is not the time to be electing people who are still running on a platform of protecting the rich.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  570. jaye

    I'm hoping for a democratic controlled everything!
    There are so many things that need addressed...jobs, health care, energy, tax cute for the middle class, etc., and I don't think the republican party will stand for those issues and will vote against the democrats.
    I'm urging everyone to vote Democratic this year.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  571. linbit-Greensboro, NC

    I believe Republicans had effective control the first six years of thr Bush Presidency, and the Dems did not have enough votes the last two to over ride a veto. Maybe the dems will get out of hand, but I'm willing to give it a shot. I already voted straight democratic this year.
    Retired woman in Greensboro, NC.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  572. Oscar

    Well Jack, the risk is that the Democrats, led by OBAMA, will take us straight down to Socialism !!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  573. Walt

    It's time for an overwhelming change, Jack. Do you realize that there haven't been any Republicans without a Nixon or a Bush in the presidency since 1928? Since the LAST Great Depression? I'm comfortable with the Democrats taking us out of this modern chasm...

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  574. Kerry

    Jack, it doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican, we need a system of checks and balances. Neither party should have the ability to pass legislation without a challenge from the other side. In a country that is as divided as we are now (close to 50-50 vote for each candidate in the polls), we need to be able to work for a common ground when passing new laws. It is scary how close we are to having a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate and President from that same party.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  575. Robert Tallent

    Jack,
    Having Dems majority in Congressand Obama in the White House might just mean that the government could get something done!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  576. Brian

    Won't this just be the democratic version of what we saw six out of the last eight years?
    Brian, Colorado

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  577. Julian

    Jack, I think that if the DNC controls something that hasn't happened in a long time will take place. Something will be done in Congress.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  578. Syed Jafer

    Welcome back jack. It will be good. Now the Republican will find out what it feels like. The dems should push for insvestigation into all those abuses by this sick adminitration.
    Syed
    Glenview, illinois

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  579. Bill

    Without any balance to the power we run the risk of moving towards the left too much, too quickly. For the same reasons NORAD has a two key system, we need a sanity check in politics.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  580. Ada Gardiner

    We saw the results of that scenario during the first six years of the current administration. Let's hope the American people learned from that.
    I believe that an even more socialistic brand of government would result if the Democrats are the ruling party. We've already listened to Obama say he wants to "spread the wealth". That seems to say it all.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  581. Brandon Hammond

    Jack, the risk of one party controlling the federal government is that they may get something accomplished. The only thing the last congress accomplished expeditiously was the cockamamie Bailout. I'm not too big on Democrats or Republicans, but I feel that the Democrats views serve more of the populus than the Republicans, and they may be able to steer our country in a more positive direction! UP!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:17 pm |
  582. Elly

    Nothing could be worse than what we have had for the last eight years. With the Dems controlling both Congress and the White House we could actually move on the important issues facing this nation, getting out of Iraq, dealing with the health care problem, much needed ethics reform (lets eliminate the lobbyists), establishing a meaningful national energy policy, and the list goes on, basically it would allow us to deal with all the national social, political and economic problems that have been allowed to fester to the point of crisis under republican leadership. The solutions may not be perfect, but at least we won't be suffering from legislative gridlock.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  583. Rebecca

    I don't see a risk. I see it as a good thing. After GW's mess, the Democrates will keep a close eye on the economy and I'm sure it will be the first thing they work on. Let's not forget the way Bill Clinton cleaned up after Daddy Bush.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  584. Casey Byrd

    I am an independent who leans democrat and am as concerned as in 2000 when the republicans had control of both houses and the presidency, with the following exception, i believe that the country certainly learned from that lesson and the president wants true change and will be more aware that the people are watching.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  585. Mike

    Jack

    It all depends who is the majority party. Imagine how bad we would be off now (which is pretty bad in and of itself now) if George Bush and the rest of his idiot friends had a filibuster proof congress. Pretty scary!

    It is hard to believe the Democrats could do worse. There is only one way to go from here. Up! If the Democrats win big, we will be better off sooner.

    Mike

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  586. Costas Hercules

    The greatest risk is to the Democrats. Will they get themselves voted out of Congress in two years for fanatcism, or will they cooperate with President Obama to govern from the middle?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  587. Stephen Papajohn

    What ever happened to "We the People" in America. It's time to elect a House and Senate that can get this country back on track. The time is now!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:18 pm |
  588. michael scales

    Hey Jack ;
    Dont they say that power is corrupting abd absolute power is absolutely corrupting , but then , how could anything be worse than
    what we have now ?
    mike

    October 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  589. alan popper

    You can't get too much of a good thing.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:20 pm |
  590. Yamil V.

    It places too much decision making power on one party and increases the incentive for parties to meet their own interests, as opposed to the interests of Americans.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  591. Meade Wildrick

    The Democrats will be in a position enact misguided gun control legislation affecting the rights of law abiding citizens to own guns.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  592. Michael from Ft. Bragg NC

    After 8 years of George Bush I wouldn’t trust the Republicans to change the oil in my car. I am for the Democratic party that represents the individual American for a change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  593. Randy

    Hey Jack I am glad you are back and looking well. The dems controlling the whole situation would be a breath of fresh air after what Bush and the Republicans have done to our country the past eight years. There is no way they could make it any worse than it is now. So it is time for change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  594. Paula

    After the risks we are taking everyday with a President who think the Constitution is just a piece of paper. Democrats controlling Washington seems like safer option.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  595. Nissim Sasson San Diego CA

    The risk of course is that some unpopular initiatives could become law. and they can abuse power like the Reps did
    On the other hand, there would certainly be less gridlock in congress more can get accomplished. Also i hope the Dems will learn a lesson from the Reps that if they do like the Reps did they can be Voted out of power : )

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  596. Nick, New York

    Well Jack, if one party takes control of the Federal Government, that party will have too much power. The power will probably go to their head. They'll start making dicisions that shouldn't be made by them. Personaly, I think the Democrats would do a good job, but they shouldn't let the power go to their head.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  597. Marko

    Risk? What risk? It is the American people that are voting in these representatives to make decisions on their behalf. People have to take responsibility for who they vote for. Take the time to learn about the candidates and what they stand for. More than half of the Country is just as responsible as Bush is for the mess the country is in right now.

    And at least with a majority – decisions can be made without partisan politics blocking progress.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  598. Denny

    Jack , I'm not sure , but I would like to see without all this fighting between the parties! Maybe something will get passed for a change.
    Denny

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  599. Richard

    The risk is that we might regain peace, prosperity and the rule of law. The risk to the other party is that years of attempting to wreck the government (starving the beast, they say) will ultimately come to naught. This will take some time and the opposition will be fierce.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  600. Beau

    The last 20 of the past 25 years should be a great example of the answer to your question. The Republicans say that that they "Came to Change Washington and Washington Changed Us." I highly disagree!
    They came to change Washington to what they have always wanted it. The same as the Reagan Years, the Nixon years, the McCarthy Era, and the Leizafaire of the Hoover/Coolidge Era. Yet still, as during the FDR years and the LBJ administration, the Dem's MUST remember that "Absolute Power Corrupts, Absolutely!"

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  601. Ruth

    The risk is that they can start a war based on lies as the Republicans did under Bush; however, Obama is too wise and cares too much about people to do so.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  602. George Dengler

    There is no risk if one party controls both the White House and Congress. It allows the party that the voters have chosen to run the government to enact policies and programs they have outlined to the voters in the campaign. If the governing party does not perform as the people wish, they may negate the approval at the next election (every two years).

    By contrast, if the White House and Congress are controlled by opposite parties, we have the stalemate and divisive partisanship that we have too often experienced.

    Pompano Beach, FL.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  603. Ben (los angeles)

    Jack there are always risks – Right now we need results as QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. If the dems take majority, Hopfully that means they can push through the legislation we need to help our starving economy quickly. And get us back on track – They certainly couldnt do anything worse

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  604. Juliane Burbach

    If the Dems have control I assume Obama would be President, then there will be a President that would give a lot of thought befeoer signing bills in, also he will not spend without paying as you go is his motto.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  605. Mike H.

    Our country will lose its system of checks and balances. The people will only be exposed to one side of the situation, if the media allows it, and too much credit or too much blame will then be put on the democrats. The next couple of years are make it or break it for America and the democrats.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  606. M.B. Leader

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Do you think the Democrats are immune to this most dependable of human failings?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  607. Terry Amschler

    The continuous stalemate could finally end. Right or wrong, one party's ideas can finally be made reality. The finger pointing will either end or point in the right direction.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  608. Phil Henningsen

    Jack,

    Many thanks for your insights!

    I am an Independent. The Republicans have screwed up things so badly that I would welcome a totally controlled Democratic Congress.

    With one BIG EXCEPTION: Nancy Peloci MUST GO. She has totally ignored the people's vote in the last election. She is a thorn in the ass of progress.

    Best regards,
    Phil Henningsen
    San Rafael, CA

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  609. Brad Rea

    There would be a HUGE risk that we could end up with a government that can get things done. Things for the people, that is. Let's not forget, it hasn't been that long since we had a Republican congress and Republican White House. Wall Street was deregulated, Enron dictated our energy policy, corporations came first, and we started a war by mistake. Well...it was a mistake if you believe the cover story of "We weren't dishonest, we were just incompetent." By comparison, the thought of a government controlled by Democrats isn't scary at all. I find it downright comforting.

    Brad Rea
    Rio Rancho, New Mexico

    October 24, 2008 at 4:22 pm |
  610. Jonathan D. Roberts, GA

    A unified Democratic government would in actuality be the implementation of the Democratic political platform in which Obama's rhetoric would become reality. The only risk associated with such a government is the risk of the federal government being efficiently administrated thus providing tax relief for the middle class, financial support rather than an unfunded mandate for our schools and affordable healthcare for all American citizens. Who would want that, Jack?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  611. Marcus Wildo

    None Jack.We can see how well the alternative worked.
    And I don't even live there.

    Marcus Toronto

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  612. David DeRousse

    I figure you are assuming, led by Obama,, but it would be nice if you let us vote first.. If that is the case it will mean no checks on a government tat has a plan to put a few coins in te pocket of te average Joe, at the expense of snuffing out an already faltering economy.
    If that happens, old on to your hat.
    Not to mention biling out of a conflict prematurely.
    Don't believe the polls!
    Clearwater, Fl.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  613. Alex

    The risk of the Democrats controlling Congress and the White House: overspending; the risk of Republicans controlling Congress and the White House, as say the last 8 years: the dissapearence of our civil liberties. I doubt any legislation the Democrats may pass will damage our country more than the Patriot act.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  614. TR

    After democrats get a chance to FIX all the damage done by the Bush/Cheney administration, then people can complain about one party domination. This country has been ruined by the republicans. Look at the economy, look at spying on American citizens, look at Americans torturing prisoners, look at being lied into war...there are too many ways to look at the damage that has done by the republican domination. Perhaps with a majority democratic rule, we can finally get impeachment of the worst 2 scofflaws in the history of Executive Branch. Bring on the Democrats of the DemocratIC Party.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  615. Robert Wahl

    Each time the republicans are in complete control we all get screwed. When the democrats are in control they repair the damage the republicans caused and give the little guy a fair chance.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  616. Don Cherek

    Jack, I am not concerned.
    As a retiree, Democratic presidents and a Democratic Congress have given me
    The Social Security System and Medicare. Both of these programs were opposed by Republicans.
    Don

    October 24, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  617. Alex Sierra

    Alex, NYC NY

    The risk is there might be another terrorist attack, and the Republicans will use that to strike fear in American for the next 20 years Jack. The Dems wouldn't be able to play the blame game

    October 24, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  618. Tom in New Hope, MN

    If the Democrats gain unstoppable control of congress on Election Day it could be bad if the Democrats don’t act responsibly with their new powers. A voter’s responsibility doesn't stop on Election Day. We the people have the responsibility to maintain contact with our legislators so they accomplish what the people they represent want. All too often we vote and let the legislator carry on with their own agendas. American voters must take a more proactive approach with our politician’s actions or we will not be able to recover from the disaster we are in now. Even though the Republicans will likely be in the minority any good ideas they have to improve our country must be listened to and considered. We can’t continue the Us vs Them attitude we have right now if we want our country repaired. United we stand, divided we fall is so true. Working together we all win!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  619. Katherine

    The whole idea behind a 3-branch government is checks and balances. No particular branch can have absolute power in order to protect the american people from getting mainlined into policies they don't believe in.
    With a Democratic president, a filibuster-proof government, and a left-leaning Supreme Court, checks and balances go out the window for at least two years. I'm very liberal, but I also believe that absolute power corrupts absolutely. No party should have that much power.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  620. Antoine in Plant City, FL

    There is risk with a one party show, but in the case of Democrats, I'm all for it. Not only will there be solutions to the hot topics in America, there may also be social changes to helped the disadvantaged like minorities, gays, and women. Democrats in power will be like cough syrup- you might not like it, but it's good for ya.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  621. Debby

    Risk? Can you imagine how much will get done? WE could have a country that has health care for everyone, a decent wage for anyone who works 40 hours a week, a government who is for all the people, not just the rich. A country we can be really proud of.
    Debby

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  622. Gene, Florida

    Jack,
    The risk is a double edged sword. A filibuster proof congress allows democrats an opportunity pass legislation needed to get the country back on track. No gridlock and the party will be rewarded in kind. On the other hand, if they screw it up, everyone will know where the blame lies and they can kiss 2012 goodbye.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  623. Bert, San Juan PR

    Come on Jack, youre asking if after the failure of one party's agenda the other party with a chance of changing everything should be blocked from doing so? Whats the sense of having elected officials at all? Let the other party try it their way, we already agree the current path is only making things worse, what else can we do, have a revolution? We dont have the guts...

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  624. Keith Meyerhoffer

    Mr. Cafferty,

    Didn’t the republicans have control of the Whitehouse and congress for a large chunk of the Bush presidency? Don’t the parties need to have that tilt to accomplish any or part of their agendas? And when McCain says that if we don’t elect him for president then a lot of the big business will go out of the country to avoid the tax increases of Obama’s plan? Are we to think this is his prediction or a threat? I mean if a business leaves the country doesn’t that leave the door open for a new entrepreneur? I get confused because I thought that was what capitalism was all about (competition), but I guess John McCain does not want to spread the wealth around to anyone but his pals (hum)?

    Keith

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  625. Ralph Nelson

    The economic problems we have are so bad that we need the Democrats to control every thing for 4-to-8 years or more. Frankly, the Republican Party should go the way of the Whigs. As long as they embrace trickle-down economics the welfare of the nation and our future is bleak. As Jesus said: The rich have about as good a chance of getting to heaven as a camel passing through the head of a needle. Ralph, Yakima, WA.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  626. judi vail

    Risk? Excuse me, what have I missed for 6 of the past 8 years? Tax breaks for an outdated oil industry, tax breaks for the top 5% of the country, a medicare prescription drug plan that prohibits the government from bargaining for better prescriptions costs, the elimination of estate taxes that helps to create a caste system in this country, rewarding companies for moving jobs over seas, indebtedness to China? As a registered Independent I'll take my chances!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:28 pm |
  627. George Grace

    Jack, The white house and congress have been Republican controlled for 20 of the last 28 years. Could the Democrats do any worse then what we have now???? We need change.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  628. David Houston

    If all parties were equally self-serving, then we must not allow one to have such control. However, anyone who has objectively assessed the past few decades must conclude that one party has been mainly destructive - the Rupublicans - and as a consequence one party - the Democatic party - will need the white house, congress, judiciary, and the American people to begin to heal the many deep wounds Bush-Reaganites have inflicted on our country and the world.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  629. Thom Schiavone

    Jack,

    This is just another "fear tactic" and quite frankly I am surprised you are playing along. Historically it makes no difference. In fact, look at what Reagan was able to accomplish with a Democratic Congress, and our Mr. Bush has gotten both Republican and Democratically controlled Congresses to support his failed policies. Bill Clinton on the other hand was unable to get a Democratically controlled Congress to support Universal Health Care. Our only risk is Congress and whether they have the courage to execute Obama's Vision.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  630. Barry Brandt

    Republicans had control for a big chunk of the last 8 years but no where near filibuster proof – and that's what we're talking about with this election.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Don't think the Dem's are above those temptations regardless of how "ticked" you are with the pachyderm party.

    I don't trust any party with that level of power.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  631. Ingrid, new york

    i am a die hard democrat, quite a bit left of center and i think there needs to be some sort of checks and balances, up to a point. that being said it would be interesting to see if the democrats get some work done while they have complete power (i.e. develop sane regulatory systems, sane tax laws, health care, education, etc.), and i hope they are wise enough to take in the views and concerns of their colleagues across the isle. no one has all the answers, those who disagree with us force us to reflect and think things through, that is very important. otherwise they will face the same thing that bush is facing.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  632. Aarij

    After successful presidents who have been working with two different parties, I believe as a 9th grade student that we need a bigger change. Change bigger than both Obama or McCain are promising. We need to have atleast two ro more parties in the house and ofcourse in the Washington.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  633. James Steele

    I love it this is what we need after Bush took all the wealth we had and gave the lives of all the young men,and women..

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  634. Marty

    the risk in allowing one party to control the Federal Government was illustrated in 2000, 2002,2004 and 2006.

    Its that old old saw "Power corrupts"

    that also goes for the Democrats. I think it will happen this time, but only for two years. And we wont have the Supremes Singing a Democratic Freedom song, they are still dominated by reactionary conservatives.

    Marty
    Warwick, NY

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  635. John in Liberal Ct

    Dems in complete control? It might mean that you Jack, yes you, may have to criticize a Democrat.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  636. Phelosopher

    "Corruption" Jack, Corruption. Did we learn that from the Republican when they have thier empire dwelled in Washington?. Our founding father wanted check and balance in our government, not the way our government has been. The Democrat will fill thier pocket with the middle class money just like the Republican, what change are we headed for ?, or more of the same, different crooks.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  637. John

    Jack,
    If we are to believe Barack Obama, partisianship will not be the problem that it is today. I believe he will be more inclusive and good at defusing Republican resistance to his policies. He will reign in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed.
    If John McKain were elected president we would have grid lock in Washington. He has burned a lot of bridges on his road to infamy!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:29 pm |
  638. mike, ohio

    None, It’s means we’ll get more done without the partisan bickering, I’m a Democrat and The Republicans had the majority in 2000 and 2004 but it was their policies that created the mess. If the Democrats have the majority I hope they will do right by the middle class and not more government programs.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  639. George, Arlington, MA

    I foresee implementation of universal health care which is long overdue. However, I truly fear a congress in control by the democrats without a power of filibuster in place. Ineffective government program runs by political cronies will abound. Remember Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae? Get ready to replace your congressman at mid-term elections, because that will be the only restraint left.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  640. carol kesling

    EVERYONE PLEASE GET OUT AND VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  641. Kari

    I might actually get some health Insurance that I can afford

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  642. mac in manatee

    Let's see, Jack – could it be that we'll be able to end the war and bring our troops home? get our Constitutional rights back? balance the budget again? cut the fat from federal payrolls? reinstate healthy regulations on our economy? You know....all of those things we've been denied at the hands of a GOP president and majority in both houses. Please tell me I'm not just dreaming!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  643. Marsha, Carollton,VA

    Was this question asked prior to the 2000 election, when the Republicans were poised to take full control? I don't recall hearing it then, and I resent hearing it now. As I've read elsewhere on this post, give the Dems a crack at it. If they fail, we can always look forward to another election...

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  644. Pam in Alabama

    Republicans had full control for six of Bush's eight years in office. Republicans had control of congress for twelve of the last fourteen years. Look at what has happened to our country under predominant republican control. Republicans had control for twenty of the last twenty eight years. The best economy for middle class americans was during Clinton's eight years and there was a budget surplus. Looks to me like the democrats are better for all but the rich and big business. I am looking forward to better times for average americans.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  645. OBDAG in Appleton, WI

    I would like to say there is no risk if one party contrils congress, but that isn't true. Power hungry people, which all politicans seem to be, are all prone to getting caught up in a rush to push a particular agenda unfortunately. The forefathers were wise in putting checks and balances into our constitution to try and keep a level and fair playing field. If the Democrats win an absolute majority in congress and abuse the power I have no problem voting for a better candidate the next time around. Being an independent voter gives you many options.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  646. Alex

    Jack, more Dems in the Legistlative Branch and the most liberal Dem in the White House will only make matters worse. We'll have more partisan members of Congress identical to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Aprroval ratings for both the Congress and the Senate will continue to plummet. Even more congressional members will put their party over their country while several issues face the American People.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  647. Aarij

    After successful presidents who have been working with two different parties, I believe as a 9th grade student that we need a bigger change. We need to refresh our selves with the new era. We need to have atleast two or more parties in the house and ofcourse in the Washington.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  648. TADE ADE

    there is no risk ...just hope, dreams and aspirations

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  649. Robert N Forsyth

    FDR needed a Democratic Congress to pass the New Deal Legislation that saved the United States from total Collapse and preserved Democracy and the Free Enterprise System. I believe we need the same kind of a Democratic Majority to help Barack Obama pass another New Deal for the American People, to save our Country and preserve Democracy and Free Enterprise Capitolism.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  650. Greg Kelsey

    A single party in charge of the Federal Government will result in a repeat of the demise California. Democratic legislators have created a bankrupt welfare state. Businesses are fleeing the state due to high tax levels, over regulation. Illegal immgrants have moved to California in mass encouraged by liberal politicians – destroying the healthcare, education and transportation systems, while gang crime flourishes.
    Look for the same from the Obama, Pelosi, Reid administration!

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  651. Sherry - Illinois

    Maybe something can actually be accomplished if all Democratic.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  652. Tom in Ohio

    Jack:
    Good to have you back. It's all about the economy this time around. Economic hard times historically work against the incumbent party in power-most recently in '92 when one of your CNN pundits remarked, "it's the economy, stupid." I wouldn't be amazed to see a Democratic mandate this election-which is fine if we can keep them on a short chain. How short??? About the length of the one that reaches from my belt loop to my wallet.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  653. Joe S - Milwaukee

    The "risk" of one party controlling the government is that we might actually be able to get some bills passed that can make a difference in this country.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  654. andy mullen

    ill tell you what your going to see with the dems in charge.your going to see no new drilling,no new nuclear power plants,no new offshore or on shore wind farms... dont want to kill any birds..no new refineries built,no new energy supplies at all

    October 24, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  655. Bert

    1/24/08

    Jack,

    Compared to the numerous huge domestic and foreign disasters we've had the last eight years with the Republicans in charge, I'll willingly take that small risk! I say eight years because in the last two, with only a one-vote Democratic majority in the Senate, the Republicans held an unprecedented 97 filibusters to block Democratic initiatives.

    Secondly, I'll take my chances with a party that listens and responds to the needs of all Americans, instead of just the most wealthy and large corporations.

    And finally, the American people of course get to register how well they think Democrats are doing every other November!

    Bert
    Pittsboro (Chapel Hill), NC

    October 24, 2008 at 4:32 pm |
  656. Scott Yamamoto

    Jack, the risk of one-party control of Washington D.C. actually depends on which party. The past is prologue. If Democrats have complete control of the federal government (i.e. The New Deal, The Great Society), they will pursue a progressive agenda and pass legislation that actually benefits most Americans. In contrast, when Republicans had complete control of from 2001-2006, they started two wars that they can't or won't finish, doubled our national debt to $11 trillion, severely damaged our image abroad, and spread a corrosive political and social atmosphere of "real Americans against 'other' Americans." Someone tell John McCain that just because Republicans like Tom Delay, Bob Nay, Larry Craig, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Mark Foley, and others in their party weren't capable or mature enough to wield political power responsibly when they were in complete control doesn't mean Democrats can't. In fact, history shows that Democrats can and have done so successfully.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  657. Katiec Pekin, IL

    Hi Jack,
    Well, hope for the survival of our country one party is voted in.
    And, that certainly is not the republicans.
    Look at what the last eight years of the republicans has done
    to our country. Even when more Democrats were voted in
    they could not get anything accomplished because Bush
    would veto it.
    We most certainly will not be in worse shape with
    Democrat control as think everything irresponsible and
    damaging to our nation has already been done.
    Although these crisises will take a long time to resolve.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  658. John in Florida

    The risk is normally great. As an independent, I usually vote in accordance to the principle that the branches of government are separate but equal. So, in normal or favorable circumstances, I would vote for the Democratic or Independent Presidential Candidate if the Congress was majority Republican and vice versa. Doing otherwise would facillitate a purpose contradictory to the vision of the forefathers of this nation by placing too much power in a political party, rather than the nation made up of both liberals and conservatives. However, the state of this nation is not favorable. The only option that has not been tried in the devastatingly tragic past 8 years is a Democratic or Independent Oval Office and Democratic Congress. Because the Democratic Party has actually established a platform that is consistent and holistic, especially when compared with the opposition, I have voted in favor of the Democratic Party. The risk is worth supporting the possibility of change from the past 8 years.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  659. carol roach

    Until not too long ago, we HAD one party running Congress and
    the White House. Our economy tanked, our reputation in the world
    is in ruins, we are in an unjustified war................
    Could't hurt to see what the Dems can do because I sure don't like the Reps way of doing things.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:34 pm |
  660. Ronnie

    The risk cannot be any worse than what the American people have been putting up with for the last 8 years. This IS the change that they need. If the Democrats have the intention of doing what they promise they will when they win the White house, then it's up to the voters to give them the absolute power to do so. I don't think they will regret it if they do. This whole political storm in the USA is very exciting compared to the dull and boring stuff we have here in Canada.

    Go Barack....the world needs you!

    Ronnie

    Hamilton, Ontario

    October 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  661. Canuck Jerome

    As a U.S. citizen living in Canada I have found that here in Canada the most effective governments are majorities because the government can work and get something accomplished. When there are minority government hardly anything gets done, and when it does it takes way too much time. I really do not see a down side to one party controlling all three levels if that is what the people want.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  662. demetra

    maybe something will get done.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:35 pm |
  663. Jennyfer NY

    There will be some concerns, however, the Republicans might feel insecure. These legislative bodies,(under Dems. cotrol) have many wise individuals working together to reach the best solution for all American. Unlike the Republicans, the Dems. tend to be more reasonable. I think they will do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with all.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:37 pm |
  664. Kelly

    I personally dont see any problem with the dems controlling the federal governemnt i think we might actually get things done... i would see a problem if it was the GOP in control.... oh and jack if mccain and palin insist on bringing up Obama being a socialist maybe they should look in the mirror and realize that sarahs plan for handicapped children might be considered socialist... or even medicare... we all pay taxes and then it is used for those programs.... is socialism a real problem?

    October 24, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
  665. Khalil in Miami

    Jack, as usual, Republicans are being hypocrites. They continue with these attacks about Democrats having a "blank check" however the fail to note that for 6 of the 8 Bush years, there was a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. Considering the difficult times we live in, it is more than justifiable in having the party of Progress and Change control the House, Senate, and White House. That way, things will finally get done... for the better at least.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  666. Vickie in Mason, OH

    The risk is something might be accomplished for a change. Not everyone agrees with everything ,even among the Democrats. I think anyone who votes for Obama is looking for change. What is there to fear to have support for his policies? We have put up with the Republican dictatorship for 8 years, we need something different and better.

    Vickie in Mason, OH

    October 24, 2008 at 4:39 pm |
  667. David Keenan

    Jack,

    I am used to political accountability and with one party in power, we will see it here and be able to properly judge their policies. The balance and check idea of a Democratic President and Republican Congress or vice-versa has created the bottlenecks and finger pointing we now see. If the Dems win all then they can't point fingers outward if they fail but can take credit if they succeed.

    David, Westborough, MA

    October 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  668. guy

    It is right now a one party system, the corporate party

    October 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  669. steve in pensacola

    Let me think a minute. Oh, maybe a completely collapsed economy, an unending $10 billion a dollar war that's completely unjustified, loss of constitutional rights including phone-tapping of Americans by their own government, uncontrolled price gouging by oil companies, insurance companies, mortgage providers. There might even be a little torture, ethnic and religious hate-mongering, race baiting as a campaign tactic, and who knows, maybe a complete disintegration
    of diplomatic traditions and the decline of the American reputation to a laughing stock in the worldview. Boy, I sure hope the Democrats gain control. Things could get really bad. LOL

    October 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm |
  670. Ray from Vancouver BC

    Jack, in Canada we have a number of parties, 4 main ones. When we elect a majority government things actually get done. The ruling government does not abuse it's power with stupid things or they get voted out at the next election. In saying that it still has a lot to do with the leader. If it was Bush that would be dangerous. If it were Obama that would be a different story, He gets it.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  671. Gary Wayne, NJ

    Maybe the days of a party system are coming swiftly to an end. What is the point of voting a party line instead of for a candidate at any level of government? A representative that considers his or her constituents as their focus, instead of the party line, is why they were able to attain public office in the first place. In a true democracy the majority of the people should rule. If there was just one party...that of the American people, we would be far better off as a nation, and definitely be more united. Until this happens, it won't matter who controls Congress or the Presidency, there will always be divisive elements at work to create discourse within our own government and the "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" will continue to be the company line in spending trillions of dollars in tax payer money and sending men and women to wars to be killed or injured at the whim of a few.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:43 pm |
  672. Adrian in the Virgin Islands

    One party cannot truly control an entire government. Think about it, we may currently have a congress suited to the possible next president's needs, Senator Barack Obama. Though being a die-heart democrat, I do not feel as though it would be the correct thing for a democratic president to have a democratic congress. There must be bi-partisanship in the United States Government, and it first arises with the usage of one party's leader with another party's Congress. The republicans must work with the democrats to formulate the best plan for American's future, and not have one legislative body do all the work.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:47 pm |
  673. Kim - Blair, Nebraska

    Not too sure how this will pan out because the GOP is certainly going to have to completely realign itself and figure out what their party actually is anymore. I know partisonship has always existed but I don't think it has ever been quite like it is at the moment.

    I have always been a Democrat but in the last year, I have found myself at times agreeing with Republicans & other times with my own party. It used to be easy to tell the difference but it isn't anymore.

    I don't think the risk is all that great.

    October 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  674. Mad as a MotherSouthern Dem.

    To be perfectly honest i think they will counter act the effects of the republican party cause if i remember correctly they had a big year about eight years ago when Bush was elected so i hope it goes there way thanks Jack .Obama for President

    October 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
  675. John Peterson

    More jobs, Higher pay, Better retirement, Better schools. Lisa Dole is finally retired, will she cash her social security check? The Government will go far left and make up for the far right of the republicans. Small business will improve. Trade diffict will go down. The Republican will be buried.

    October 24, 2008 at 5:10 pm |
  676. Independent; Wesson, MS

    When you look at the past eight years with the Bush Administration (Record Deficit) and compare that to the Clinton Administration (Record Surplus), the answer is crystal clear (at least for me).

    October 24, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  677. Richard Quaife

    If attending a meeting with a former terrorist makes Obama suspect,
    how about a guy that was brainwashed by the North Vietnamese for 6 years.

    Do you think McCain could be a sleeper?

    October 24, 2008 at 5:17 pm |
  678. Crystal

    Considering the horrific state of our economy – Democractic control is the change we need.

    October 24, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
  679. harry bruner

    this bail-out (my opinion)is the result of that secret meeting the vp held in alaska with all the energy powers;plan was to "bail-out" with all we can get and leave;but be cause of their greed ,they wasn,t planning on the chaos as it is.

    October 24, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  680. Grant (Denver)

    Ummm, don't we have our answer after the last decade? It will just 'flip' now. At least we will be done killing other people so that we can have a strategic base of operations.

    October 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
  681. CJ in Roanke, VA

    Let's just give it a try and see how it goes. Things are bad now and I'm wondering how much worse it could get.

    October 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  682. David Suess

    I think when out of control since Regan the democrates will need both houses to fix the middle class.. the fear would be radical moves like taking all our guns..

    October 24, 2008 at 5:45 pm |
  683. derrick

    well jack,
    bush and is friends did it and look what we got maybe just maybe if you let someone who has the smarts try we can get out off this mess and if not vote out in the next election but why not they gambeled wit bush amg we lost talkin about vagas we just loss big time

    October 24, 2008 at 5:46 pm |