How big a majority do we need in the Senate and the House

[ProSense]

to counter the Democrats who vote with the Republicans while we're the majority party?


Give it to me in numbers. There are currently 50 Senate and 233 House Dems.

[AX10]

1. There are currently 51 Dems in the Senate and 233 in the House.

[ProSense]

4. Only 50 Senators, but you're right about the House.

[Fresh_Start]

5. 49 Senators

and two independents one of which Lieberman which is not reliable in caususing with us

[MrSlayer]

2. Apparently we need a veto proof majority.

Before anything of significance can be done.

[Phredicles]

3. Clearly we need to outnumber both the Rethugs and the complicit Dems who

will sell us out at any opportunity. That's where it gets complicated; the term "Democrat" has become all but meaningless. Some are good people who stand up for their constituents and the constitution, but far too few of them.

[TheWraith]

6. There's no single solid number.

Most of the moderate, flippable Dems only flip on certain issues, like abortion, or taxes. For that matter, even Lieberman is a good Dem roughly 80% of the time. If you want a guaranteeable majority on ANY significant issue, you're probably talking 60 in the Senate, and 262 in the House.

[AX10]

7. We will need more than 60 in the Senate.

62-64 is more likely what we need.

[Me.]

8. Senate/67

House/275

That's the number we already have in each plus an equal number to cancel out those who would vote against us (that's dems) +1

[bluestateguy]

9. I'd say about 250 in the House and a filibuster proof Senate

Before Democrats lost Congress in 1994, they had 255.

In the Senate, I'd say you need 60, or make that 61, as long as Lieberman is counted as a Democrat.

[radfringe]

10. according to the anti-impeachers

they want 100% majority and absolute 500% iron-clad steel reinforced fire-proof guarantee before supporting anything close to standing up for the country we once had

[sandnsea]

11. We need an attitude adjustment

You can swap the Dems we have now for another batch of Jim Webb's; and get a whole bunch of the same results. We have got to have a grassroots effort into the rural Blue Dog districts. Just one tough hombre in each district, someone who won't alienate everybody, but not the same damn Democrats who spiel right wing Bush loving god and country bullshit either.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Bingo...

All politics is local. In many blue dog cases they fear the fallout from the conservative local paper or local hate radio station than they do what the rest of us think. Many of us live in very blue areas where we can't fathom how a Democrat couldn't be ready to string this regime up rather than enable...but then it may be worth these people to take a ride into purple and red areas.

In some districts in '06, while Democrats won, it wasn't by large margins. To expect people like Nick Lampson to turn Sugarland, Texas into a bastion of liberal and progressive thought is expecting way too much, but having him in the House is far better than what preceded him in that district. The same can be said for many other "flipped" districts...but the work has just begun. In many cases, Democrats won because the Repugnican have slid off their ideological abyss and it was Democrats winning more by default than by strength.

A grassroots effort takes time, but it is happening. If anything this vote happened at a crucial juncture for that grassroots as the YKos convention was also happening...and I expect the mood today at the bloggers lunch to be quite interesting. The movement is there and growing and now's the time to take this kick and turn our frustration and anger to invigorating those new netroot candidates and causes that I expect will emerge from this convention and that we continue the ongoing work of electing more progressive and liberals to the House and Senate...or at least defeat the most extreme Repugnicans.

The '08 elections are starting to take shape...now's the time to find a campaign to get involved in.

Cheers...