Reply #19: Nope.

[Igel]

They'll bear the brunt of blame in majority (D) areas, not in majority (R) areas or even in areas with no clear voting majority.

The house has passed numerous bills that would have prevented a lot of the things that the public is perturbed about. The Senate blocked the House bills. Usually the Senate blocked them because of the (D) in the Senate, for what they believed was good cause. In some cases the (D) stands for just the (D) leadership, often by simply ignoring the bills--to bring them up for a vote would produced a "no" vote or a compromise, the first bad for PR the second risky because the compromise might be acceptable to most (D) but not to the leadership.

What can be said is that the (D) Senate has blocked the actions of the (R) House, but that the (R) House has blocked what results have been forthcoming from the (D) Senate.

It can also be said that the (D) Senate has produced far less for the (R) House to block than would have been expected given the (D) in front of "Senate" because of an obstinate (R) minority in the (D) Senate or because of the Senate leadership.

Anything more requires assuming that either the (R) or the (D) are right. That's a slamdunk assumption on DU, an clear (D) area. But this is also why the (R) will bear the brunt of blame in majority (D) areas, not in majority (R) areas or even in areas with no clear voting majority.