Quote:

WASHINGTON — The possibility of a victory by Senator Barack Obama combined with significant Congressional gains by his party could give Democrats extraordinary muscle to pursue an ambitious agenda on health care, taxes, union rights, energy and national security.

Democrats, who are within reach of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster in the Senate, would also face high expectations, especially from the party’s more liberal quarters, that could be difficult to meet even with enhanced numbers in the Senate as well as the House. And they would be at risk of overreaching, a tendency that has deeply damaged both parties in similar situations in the past.

But given the opportunity and the magnitude of the problems facing the country, Democrats said they would welcome the chance — and the potential accountability — even though winning the White House is no assurance that their initiatives would sail through Congress. And all of the issues on their agenda may be overshadowed by the need for urgent action on the deepening financial crisis.

“I think we are in enough trouble in enough areas that I would rather own it and then have to perform than continue with this back and forth, back and forth with Republicans, particularly while they are engaged in this absolute determined policy of obstruct, obstruct, obstruct,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island.

“If the choice is continue to deal with Republican obstruction in the Senate versus having the ability to move but having the responsibility to get it right,” Mr. Whitehouse said, “I would rather have the latter.”

Armed with polls that raise the possibility of decisive wins in House and Senate races, Congressional Republicans are trying to turn the situation to their advantage, warning voters about unchecked one-party government and urging them to split their tickets to deny Democrats unfettered control. On Saturday, Senator John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, issued warnings about one-party control as he campaigned Friday and Saturday.

That is also the premise of a recent television advertisement supporting Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina, whose seat is an integral part of the Democratic drive toward 60 votes, as she fights to hold on against Kay Hagan, a Democratic state senator.

Ominous music plays in the background as a narrator intones: “These liberals want complete control of government, in a time of crisis. All branches of government. No checks and balances. No debate. No independence. That’s the truth behind Kay Hagan. If she wins, they get a blank check.”

If Mr. Obama defeats Mr. McCain, he could be the first president since Jimmy Carter to enter office with wide control of the House and 60 votes in the Senate, which in theory would give Democrats the power to overcome procedural hurdles that have bedeviled both parties in recent years.

“Whether or not the Democrats have 60 is something that is going to be a very significant factor in the way the country is governed,” said Robert A. Caro, the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer and Senate historian, referring to the number needed to cut off Senate debate and push legislation to a vote.

But even with a 60-vote majority, Democrats could face challenges in pushing their agenda, said former Vice President Walter F. Mondale, who had experience with such wide margins during the Carter administration and as a Democratic senator in the 1960s.

“People tend to think that if you have got 60 votes you can pass anything you want,” Mr. Mondale said. “It means you can pass a lot more. There’s no question about it. But it’s not a slam-dunk.” He added: “It’s not just a push-button Congress. For sure, they’ll have their own ideas.”

Democrats said they were well aware of the mistakes of the past and the overconfidence exhibited during one-party rule of the Clinton and Bush administrations that led to Democrats’ losing control of the House in 1994 and to Republicans’ experiencing a similar defeat in 2006.

Chastened by their years in exile, Democrats said they were determined to avoid those pitfalls should voters deliver them control of the White House and Congress.

The nature of the Democratic majority, expanded partly through the election of centrists and even conservatives, would also temper Democratic zeal to pursue an overly ideological agenda, Democrats said.

“We are going to get new members with a clear understanding that the reason they won is appealing to independents and disaffected Republicans, and they are going to want to continue to do that,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the House majority leader.

Yet even in the last two years, with a slimmer majority, Mr. Hoyer, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have struggled to manage the competing demands of party factions, including antiwar liberals on the left and fiscal hawks on the right.

Republicans said they hoped to retain at least 41 seats in the Senate, giving them the ability to stop legislation they find most objectionable, and still command some leverage in policy negotiations.

“I think the Senate operates best when it makes things happen in the middle, and that happens when you have 41 or more people who resist an idea to the point where you can compromise,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader and a lawmaker whose own seat is at risk. “I think there will be enough Republicans plus discerning Democrats in the Senate after January to keep a kind of far-left agenda from steamrolling through the Senate like it often does through the House.”

Despite having control of Congress for the past two years, Democrats have a pent-up agenda on health care, public works, energy, employment policy and other matters where they clashed with President Bush. Mr. Obama has his own detailed proposals on the economy, taxes, health care and climate change, among other major issues. Democrats say they would move quickly after the election to put their stamp on federal policy.

The key to their ability to do so would probably remain the Senate, where many initiatives stalled in the past two years of Democratic control because of Republican resistance and what was effectively a narrow 51-49 Democratic majority. A 60-vote majority would give Democrats the power to roll over Republican objections to legislation, executive nominations and judicial appointments, at least on paper.

But the number might not be the legislative panacea some envision.

One of those 60 would presumably be Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the independent who has backed Mr. McCain this year.

And Democrats, particularly more moderate ones, could always align with Republicans to block legislation they found objectionable. In fact, the level of Republican opposition in the Senate has masked some disagreements among Democrats since there were cases when Democrats saw themselves as free to vote with their party on legislation they knew was destined to stall.

On the other hand, Democrats say a majority of 57 or 58 senators is tantamount to 60 since Democrats, in the wake of an election triumph, expect to be able to peel away two or three Republicans to join them — an easier task than getting the nine they need now.

“If the White House political team can’t figure out a way to get two Republican senators to vote with us between Air Force One, tea at the White House, U.S. attorneys and judges and dams and roads and ambassadors and all that other stuff, somebody should take them out to the woodshed,” said Senator Whitehouse. “Sixty is less a magic number than a zone.”

Mr. Mondale said that even with 60 Democratic senators, the Carter administration had to sweat for some legislative victories, like ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978.

“I see some people say, ‘Don’t let them get 60 votes because then they’ll get everything they want,’ ” Mr. Mondale said. “In my experience, don’t worry about that.”

“You still have to work with Congress, you have to consult with them,” he added. “It’s a tension between being tough and assertive as president on the one hand, and making sure that you are going to have followers when you are leading.”

Since World War II, Republicans have never held more than 55 seats in the Senate. The last time the Republicans enjoyed a majority in the House as large as the Democrats could win was in 1947, as a result of dissatisfaction with President Truman.

For Democrats, expansive majorities in Congress, coupled with control of the White House, generally have occurred in times of crisis — in the 1930s during the Great Depression and in the 1970s after Vietnam and Watergate.

Mr. Caro, the biographer, said that in many ways the Democrats could find themselves in circumstances similar to 1932, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president and Democrats won a huge majority in the House and held 59 seats in the Senate.

But he noted that such broad control of Washington by one party had benefits and disadvantages. “Right now we are in another crisis and it’s very similar in some ways economically,” Mr. Caro said. “Government must be able to move fast and decisively. So that’s an argument for saying it would be a good thing, if we had the same party in control.”

“But there is another side,” Mr. Caro said. “Because it’s precisely when one party sweeps to a huge majority that a check on its powers is needed, so that government doesn’t go too far.”

---

Ferris said:

I was surprised to see that the Republicans haven't had a really solid majority since Hoover, Harding, and Teddy Roosevelt.

---