Will it be a success if the Democrats take back the House by one vote...

[kentuck]

...and win 3 or 4 seats in the Senate? Would you consider that a success? After what this President and his Party have done to this country, I would consider it an abject failure. We may barely win the House in spite of ourselves. Afterwards, I do not wish to hear how we had the winning strategy. We had nothing. After what this country has been through, we should be able to clean the House and Senate with a working majority in both. Playing it safe may barely win the House for us. However, I will not consider that a success...

[MADem]

1. Sure, because the Vice doesn't DO House tie-breakers! Just Senate NT

[robinlynne]

2. I think it all depends on the vote counting.

[dave123williams]

3. Yeah; here's why:

Impeachment works like this:

1. The House Judiciary Committee deliberates over whether to initiate an impeachment inquiry.


2. The Judiciary Committee adopts a resolution seeking authority from the entire House of Representatives to conduct an inquiry. Before voting, the House debates and considers the resolution. Approval requires a majority vote.


3. The Judiciary Committee conducts an impeachment inquiry, possibly through public hearings. At the conclusion of the inquiry, articles of impeachment are prepared. They must be approved by a majority of the Committee.


4. The House of Representatives considers and debates the articles of impeachment. A simple majority vote of the entire House is required to pass each article. Once an article is approved, the President is, technically speaking, "impeached" -- that is subject to trial in the Senate.

Got it?

[bluescribbler]

15. In addition,

If we win both the House and Senate, and if we can succeed in impeaching both Bush and Cheney in one fell swoop, the next in line of succession would be the Speaker of the House, who would be one of us.

[dave123williams]

18. Exactly.

[Robbien]

4. With so many in the Democratic party favoring the corporate agenda

there would need to be a huge margin with a Progressive majority to make any difference.

Otherwise it will just be business as usual.

[areo64]

21. I say with sad words that you're probably right

This nonsense really goes back to the money behind it, and much of that is behind the Democrats.

Fortunately we do have a few shining stars like Bernie Sanders, who will probably win a Senate seat. Conyers may be head of House Judiciary. The Congressional Progressive Caucus will have more of a playing field, at least.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Chairmanships and subpeona power, baby

That's what it's all about.

[Monkeyman]

Target hit

[bullimiami]

6. i would consider taking either house a success.

[Independent_Liberal]

7. We need to get as big a majority in both houses as possible.

Let's see if we can get up to 250 seats in the House and 60 Seats in the Senate.

[Nite Owl]

8. I'd be afraid that they

would get one of the conservative dems to switch after the election if it were that close.

[oneold1-4u]

9. Over the many years

- it hasn't made a lot of difference and with what many of the leading dems in house and senate have done(not done) through this administration many won't even bother to vote! That is very sad and scary! It is becoming a MOB thing, where if you can't beat them then join and lie, cheat, steal, and murder for personal gain.
There has to be a life somewhere!

[tom_paine]

10. I hate to say it, but I don't think the machines will let us have even

that.

In fact, there is a 50% the Busheviks will ggain seats in both Houses of Congress.

In any case, wheteher the Busheviks soft-play or hardball the fact of their vote fraud lock on things, the outcome of national elections in this country, especially in an overall sense, have absolutely nothing to do with the Imperial Subects of Amerika.

[onenote]

11. absolutely

If you think that recapturing the House should be some sort of cakewalk, you are woefully uninformed about political reality. The vast, vast majority of districts have been carefully designed to lean in the direction of one party or the other, making it inherently difficult to unseat an incumbent. Add to that the advantages that automatically come with incumbency -- name recognition, the power to provide constituent service and pork, fundraising advantages == and the task of unseating a sitting member becomes even more daunting.

GIven that the deck is severely stacked in favor of maintaining the status quo, I will be quite happy if the Democrats can capture enough seats to regain control of the House, even if its by a single vote and will consider such an outcome to be a remarkable success.

[KoKo]

12. Kentuck...after all this hell we on the LEFT have been through...I would

consider it an "abject failure."

How long have we been working on this? Since "Bush Selection 2000?" At some point some of us would have to throw up our hands and say:

"Whatever will be...will be." what else is left to us after this? :shrug:

[kentuck]

14. I agree KoKo01...

After all this, and we win by one bluedog Democratic vote, I would not consider it a victory at all..

[KoKo]

19. I dunno about that one, though. Winning by One Vote....well it's still

winning. If that "One Vote" would support "Old" Dem Values...well I'd take it and run with it...if we could get it...:shrug:

[kentuck]

20. But don't we tend to get what we accept?

And what do we accept the next time around?

[Just Me]

13. In short, yes. eom

[kentuck]

16. First of all, assume that 10% will vote with the right-wingers...

if they hold true to form. Do not assume unanimous votes on anything - especially impeachment.

[mmonk]

17. Yes

as long as that one dem in the House didn't vote with the republicans.

[DanCa]

22. A win is a win.

I don't care by how much.

[pinto]

23. Yes, for now.

[Nikki Stone 1]

24. Actually yes. Considering the election fraud and Diebold

And the overwhelming advantage incumbents have. I'd be really pleased with even a single seat majority.

[bklyncowgirl]

25. Judiciary Comittee Chairman Conyers

Sounds good to me.