I want us to retain control of the Senate...but what

[Laura PourMeADrink]

Last edited Fri Oct 24, 2014, 01:37 AM - Edit history (1)

would be THAT different? We can't get anything good pushed through anyway, can we?

So, if they take over the Senate (gag) ...to me, it's just more of the same...nothing good happens. Only difference? the drama shifts to veto overrides.

Is there a silver lining? Could it help us in the long term?...letting them push their crazy-ass agenda toward Obama veto? People seeing what stupid ideas they have (while in leadership) and saying "Whoa, get those nutcases out of there?"

[Journeyman]

1. Why do we need control of the Senate? Because of the Court, of course, of course . . .

Getting any appointee confirmed would be a hard slog if we had marginal control of both houses. With only one, we'd have a glimmer of hope. Without either . . . ? Hard to imagine the candidate that would gain consent then.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Well, Obama could use recess appointments? And, surely we could

sway a handful of republicans if it's a simply majority vote to confirm. HA

Hell...don't want it to happen...just trying to understand the way life would change if it did.

[merrily]

8. The Constitution limits recess appointments.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. yes..appointment valid until end of next session But majority

leader can finagle "adjournment" . Sure...not ideal

[merrily]

13. And, of course, the issue is way beyond Obama.

We need to look at issues more from the perspective of the 90%. America should be about the people, not about Obama, not about Democrats vs. Republicans, not about any politicians or lobbyists.

With that, I bid you a very good night. I need sleep!

[dsc]

39. not on judges

Any recess appointment of a judge would be over when the Congress was over, it would not be a lifetime appointment.

[merrily]

5. Confirmations don't go through the House and 60 votes for cloture is a problem in the Senate on

confirmations, as it is on everything else but budget reconciliation. A simple majority of Democrats in the Senate is not going to change anything about confirmations.

[geek tragedy]

3. Because very bad things will happen if we don't.

That is not a pitch, or a scare tactic. It is reality.

Keystone: approved .

TPP: approved

Etc etc

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. forgive me but...how would they get 2/3 majority to

override veto on Keystone, TPP, etc.? Say they have 54 seats....Are you saying some dems would cave?

[merrily]

6. Of course, some Dems would cave. Maybe starting with Hillary, if she becomes President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/state-to-release-keystones-final-environmental-impact-statement-friday/2014/01/31/3a9bb25c-8a83-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html

And didn't Obama request fast track on TPP?

And that's if something even gets to vote on substance. There's still the cloture vote to reckon with.

[geek tragedy]

15. They would control Congress, both houses, and could defund many, many federal programs as leverage.

They will be in a position to extract very real concessions from President Obama.

And this isn't even getting into them trying to impose limits on the EPA, the ACA implementation, etc.

President Obama will need to make deals with them to keep the government functioning.\

Elections have consequences.

[jwirr]

18. More voter suppression approved. The end.

[merrily]

7. This is the dilemma since the New Deal Coalition ended and since Democrats lost the Solid South.

"Obama veto?" He's in office only for two more years, Senate terms are six years and partisanship is not going to end when he leaves. The issue of gridlock will continue to plague the nation long after Obama's Presidential library has been built.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Yes. It is sad...instead of hoping for great things to

happen to our country...relegated to "how can we stop them from doing something horrible."

[merrily]

10. Stopping people from doing things, good or bad, is gridlock.

Gridlock freezes in place the status quo, which is highly favorable to the 10%. So, gridlock serves the rightist agenda very nicely.

However, I've noticed that whenever the parties do manage to agree on something and push past gridlock, it usually is for something like war or TPP or Keystone or something else I really don't like.

I'd like to see us eliminate super majority rules, even though they work for whichever side happens to be in the minority at the moment (in theory), but that is not going to happen either. Until we eliminate them, no one is going to be held accountable.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. No wonder people have tuned out. Saw someone ask people

on the street who Joe Biden was and only 1 out of 5 knew.

[world wide wally]

14. Item #1 in a Republican controlled Senate: Repeal the filibuster.

Item #2: Repeal Obamacare
Item #3: Impeach Obama

Item #4: Collect money

[B Calm]

22. It would take a Super Majority to repeal the ACA. Impeachment

is a possibility, but would backfire on the republicans giving huge Democratic wins in 2016.

[demwing]

24. Obama could be impeached today

this election will not change that.

It takes a super majority to convict on impeachment. There are not enough votes in the Senate to convict.

This election will not change that, either.

[JoePhilly]

16. Great reason to stay home.

Apparently.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

20. apparently. you miss the point nt

[JoePhilly]

21. No, I think I cut right to it.

btw ... I voted straight D in NC on Monday.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. And I voted gay D in Oregon early last week.

nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

36. No, sorry, JP...just trying to understand exactly where

things would be the worst if they won...given Obama's veto power. I want us to win more than anything !

[BeyondGeography]

26. There is no point

How about the White House in 2016. Are you ok with punting on that too if Hillary is the nominee? After all, just more of the same, right?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. total bullshit. Why did this morph into I don't want us to win. Geez

All I was asking was - what would be different if they did take control.

Geez

[lonestarnot]

17. Welp one step closer to the visual display of the use of private prison round up.

[kentuck]

19. Shhhhhh..

Don't say that.

[Lee-Lee]

23. Right now the Senate stops lots of bad bills from hitting the Presidenys desk

If they get the Senate hundreds of bad bills that had been stalled will flood through.

Sure, they will get vetoed.

But the President being forced to veto dozens of bills a week will paint him as obstructionist and harm our chances of keeping the Whote House in 2016.

[demwing]

25. This is one of several, excellent and legitimate reasons

Another is that any Republican gains made in 2014 will make it harder for Democrats to take back Congress in 2016.

Impeachment is not a valid threat, and I wish everone understood that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. thanks. two thoughtful responses. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. It's largely about 2016.

Let's say they take the Senate. Suddenly, the House and Senate both are passing crappy RW legislation. There's only two things that can happen - either A) the President signs it, and life gets worse for most Americans. or B) he vetoes it.

Ok, the occasional veto doesn't hurt anything... but... If the President is seen simply vetoing EVERYTHING that comes out of Congress, the message low info voters take away is 'Democrats WANT gridlock TOO!' And we take another massive hit in 2016, and hell, maybe even lose the WH too, and suddenly we're right back in George Bush territory, with Congress and the WH in sync, to give massive tax cuts to the rich and finish driving the rest of the country into poverty.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. Veto perspective, combining pocket vetos and regular vetos:

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2021, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Ronald Reagan: 78
George HW Bush: 44
Bill Clinton: 37
George W Bush: 12

Barack Obama: 2

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. yup, and that's also one reason I worry that

he might actually let some Republican legislation through if Repubs do take both houses of Congress. He actually seems to believe in 'process', such that if laws do get through, he tends to just sign them, no matter what they are.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Or it could be seen as a remarkable amount of room to move, plenty of vetos on that table

nt

[Youdontwantthetruth]

31. Even if we had 60 Solid Liberals in the Senate it still would not be enough of a majority

to get anything passed.

And it would not just be the Republicans mucking up the works either.

What we will see Dem majority or not is what we got for the last 6 years, more obstruction.

[BeyondGeography]

33. If you're an environmental non-profit looking at witch hunts led by James Inhofe's EPA

you're not wondering what the answer to your question is.

Good summary of the anti-science, environment killers who would be elevated to Senate chairmanships and what they would do here:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/186137/if-gop-takes-senate-climate-change-deniers-will-control-key-committees

Of course, this approach would be replicated across all agencies.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. good point...thanks BG

[Orsino]

34. The silver lining lies in keeping a House of Congress from full GOP control...

...which keeps alive for a little longer the possibility of progressive change.