Here's what I'm curious about re: 2014 midterms. Your reaction?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

If Obama does not have a majority in the House and or loses the Dem majority in the Senate, what do you imagine he will do in response for his final 2 years?

I will have to say the Republicans will have succeeded in slowing/stopping significant progress to his agenda. What can we reasonably expect him to get done when all attention will turn to 2016 and a GOP maintenace of majority in house will be read as the U.S. people being just fine with the current political gridlock.

[hrmjustin]

1. I think we need to work hard to make sure that nightmare does not happen.

[yeoman6987]

2. I agree

Although I guess we should have a contingency plan for if that happens, I personally think that we need to ensure that we have every possible progressive Democratic voter early vote or vote on election day to ensure that this does not happen. 2014 just might be the most important election in awhile.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

3. I agree. I wish the Dem political leadership was doing a more credible job of helping rank and file

see what are the most effective actions to take to avoid just such a fate.

That is my point. The clock is ticking, and I do not want to be faced with such a depressing reality. Still, I am curious how people react.

I will become a truly dejected and disappointed Obama voter if that is it.

[MineralMan]

4. Let's make sure we don't find out.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[polichick]

5. According to one presidential historian on msnbc...

there are hundreds of things he could do by way of executive order - so the prez could stay pretty busy if he wanted to.

[quadrature]

7. what is Obama waiting for?

2013 was the honeymoon-year of the second term.
what you see is what you get.

the chance of Speaker Pelosi coming back
is next to zero.

[polichick]

18. Either he's being careful so as not to be seen as the dictator prez or...

he's cool with maintaining the status quo in a lot of areas.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. He'll probably move right to accomodate the Repugs.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. Why would he do that?

It would tarnish his legacy and certainly not be in keeping with his own stated values and goals as president.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Because he's a 3rd Way Centrist. See Bill Clinton of examples.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

14. Ahhh. More substance-free name calling against our president

Got it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. He calls himself a Centrist.

[wocaonimabi]

8. If both houses are controled by the Pukes then it will be nostop impeachment

But this is what happens when you try bipartisanship with thugs. Many of the problems of the last 6 years are self-inflected wounds by the executive branch. Pubs are just taking advantage of the situation.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. How can you say they are self inflicted? How many of Obama's jobs bills did

The Congress take up and pass? How many of his nominees did they block? How much did Repukes brand the stimulus package a failure even though most economists say the opposite?

[wocaonimabi]

19. How many Republicans are in his Cabinet?

How often is his going in position so weak it is worthless?

Sure the Pus are a problem but he needs to do more and show he is for the people where is his statement saying "I will new sign any legislation than includes chained CPI for SS." Now it is off the table yet it still is on the table.

[bemildred]

11. Sounds bad all right. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

13. My hunch is we'll be stuck with something akin to the status quo for the last 2 yrs.

I don't think we'll lose the Senate, but I think our odds of regaining the house are a longshot, to say the least.

On the off chance we do lose the Senate, I think we'll still see a similar situation, although the GOP will heavily promote the "lame duck" meme.

[Johonny]

22. I agree

I see 2 more years of slow budget cuts and a slowing economy.

[hfojvt]

15. Why is it HIS agenda rather than OURS?

Or OUR party's agenda?

And yes, for Republicans to continue to control the House, and, worse yet, to take control of the Senate, would be seen as a rejection of the Democratic Agenda by the voters.

[NOVA_Dem]

17. Because it's ALWAYS been about Him (for them). n/t

[Pretzel_Warrior]

21. His? Because he's the guy in office. It has always been referred to as the "president's agenda" so

I don't know why that nomenclature is especially bothersome. We attempt to elect a representative government that as closely mirrors our wishes as possible in such an indirect democracy, but the whole money thing has diluted the power of voters.

All of the deciding has been done up front in the money rooms prior to voters having a say.

[hfojvt]

23. He's not the only guy in office.

there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate. Presumably each one of those elected officials has an agenda.

Maybe I support the agenda, for example, of the Congressional Black Caucus, rather than the agenda of the Blue Dog Caucus.

For another example, when Obama ran for President, he promised to reverse the Bush tax cuts for incomes below $250,000. I always hoped that a Democratic Congress would push that number down.

Way down. Down to about $70,000 or so. $250,000 was far too generous to the rich.

Obama is sorta gone in three years and the Democratic Party will hopefully still be around, and still proposing an agenda. That's why, for example, I credit "Democrats" for the recovery, rather than "Obama" http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024400678

[Pretzel_Warrior]

24. The personal power of one person to enact their agenda is most concentrated

With the presidency. That should be pretty obvious. For instance, GOP could get bills passed 400-35 and Senate could pass by a wide margin (let's say 60-40) and the president can veto with stroke of a pen and not be overridden if senate does not achieve 2/3 majority.

You are certainly free to only credit Democrats as a whole for progress made on agenda rather than crediting Obama as the leader of the Democratic party but that is petty distinction to discredit Obama.

Whatever gets you through the night.

[hfojvt]

25. it's not a petty distinction

the questions are:

Do you want to elect Obama?

or

Do you want to elect Democrats?

or

Do you want to elect Progressives?


Unfortunately, Obama has included on HIS agenda things like a chained CPI or lowering income tax rates or keeping 87% of the Bush tax cuts, and I seem to be fighting against him for the last five years more than I have been following him.

[Jamaal510]

20. I'll expect more

of the same gridlock if the R's do keep the House. But even if they do re-take the Senate, I doubt very seriously they would have enough votes to override O's vetoes. The only thing they maybe could try to do is impeach him, but even then, what is there to impeach the guy for?