Live from the Nuke Free Zone

Well now, as the man said… isn’t this an interesting turn of events.

Iowa, one of the sought-after swing states in this year’s presidential election, has elected an evenly divided Senate, 25-25. Unlike the U.S. Senate and some other states, Iowa’s executive branch does not break the tie. The parties have decided to share power, with their Senate presidency — and thus control of the Senate agenda — by rotating parties, once per week. (They tried the notion of having the presidency one year at a time, but both parties wanted the election year, so scratch that.)

Neither party has much of a mandate to claim here. Republicans, who were in the majority before the elections, could claim that their majority mandate continues in lieu of any real defeat, while Democrats, who gained 4 net seats, could claim that their gains represent a call for change. Both are pretty weak arguments. What will the parties do? Will they refrain from attempting major initiatives and simply mind the store, careful not to make errors? (If so, will that experiment in libertarian government work out well?) Or will they try to push through the best agenda they can muster in the face of careful scrutiny by the opposition, and perhaps forge consensus on major issues in order to claim achievements as elections get under way next year? Or, will both parties accuse the other of obstructionism as their Senate dissolves into gridlock?

My prediction: the necessity of keeping the government running will force bipartisan consensus on something close to the status quo on most bills; ideas which might not have gotten an airing in previous years may stand a chance as politicians look for trophy bills to pass together. I intend to keep an eye on Iowa. This could be amusing, or it could set a good example of bipartisanship that the national parties could borrow from. (Any Iowans in our audience willing to give us an occasional view from the front lines?)