To be honest, if I had to choose between a Democrat in the White House in 2016 or a

[rateyes]

Democratic controlled House and Senate in 2018, I would choose the latter. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and the Dems contolled Congress for two years. In 1994 we got Newt and company. Obama won in 2008 with Dem control of Congress, and since 2010 we've lived in Republican hell. If this pattern repeats itself, we are royally screwed. I would trade a Dem presidency for 8 years for a Dem Congress for 12 years in a New York minute. We really need to get rid of DWS and her losing strategy and record.

[oldandhappy]

1. WOW Good thought. Agree.

[MisterP]

2. 11 Governors, 13 Senators, 69 Reps, 913 state seats, and left with 26% of the electorate

they were happy when Coakley lost to Brown--with the Supermajority gone a lot of the pressure to pass stuff 70-90% of Americans wanted instead of what the donors wanted was off

HAPPY

[rateyes]

4. +1

[MisterP]

9. -82 more like!

but again boiling down the party is a bonus for them--they're left with the voters you can say anything to, who know that you intend to keep not a single one of your promises

same with all the primaries they threw--Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, John Russell, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, Wendy Davis

they'd rather lose the GE than win with someone who's not playing the game

[rateyes]

11. You get it.

[Divernan]

35. It's all about Schumer's push to be Dem. Senate leader

Whether it's as Majority Leader or Minority Leader. Got a post-election de-briefing this afternoon from primary Pennsylvania Dem. Senate candidate, former Admiral & Congressman, Joe Sestak.

Schumer is Mr. Wall Street. He is a power broker, not a leader, and he has the Wall Street money men in his pocket. Washington insiders have shared with Sestak what Schumer has done behind Sestak's back. At one point Sestak met with Schumer. Schumer demanded to place one of Schumer's people as Sestak's campaign manager. Sestak agreed and welcomed the assistance. Then Schumer spelled it out that Schumer expected his guy to have the final say on all campaign decisions. Sestak said, "No, but if we have a disagreement, I'll call you to discuss it." Schumer agreed to Sestak's face, but behind Sestak's back began calling others in Pennsylvania, including Allegheny County Executive Rich Fitzgerald, to recruit someone to run against Sestak. Schumer promised $4 million in backing. Fitzgerald refused and his staffer called Sestak to give him a heads up. Sestak called Schumer and said "We had an agreement." Schumer replied, our agreement is what I say it is now."

Bottom line: No one can be allowed to get by with saying "No" to Schumer. Sestak has done so twice - once in the 2010 Senate race, and now again in 2016. All of D.C. knew that. If Sestak would have won the primary, others would be emboldened to run for Senate without promising total, unthinking, unchallenging allegiance to Schumer.

As one powerful insider explained it to Joe, "At first it was personal because you said no to Schumer. No one ever says no to Schumer. Then, when you were able to raise so much money on your own, and were so far ahead in the polls (16%) of Schumer's hand-picked candidate, it became professional."

Schumer has said that his path to Senate leadership runs through Pennsylvania. Schumer told everyone that he recruited someone to run against Sestak in the primary because Sestak couldn't win. So now Schumer has to pump in as much money as is necessary to make sure that his choice - 3rd way, pro-fracking, censored-for-ethics-violations/censure confirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, funneled millions of dollars in state contracts to her fracking lobbyist husband's employer, Katie McGinty - actually wins. The first 8 people Schumer solicited with his promise of $4 million in backing, either turned him down flat, or were very quickly exposed as having potential criminal charges/ethical problems of their own. McGinty was his NINTH choice!

Current expectations are that Schumer will have to put $20 million into the Pennsylvania senate race, in addition to the $4 million he's already poured in to fund his Democratic primary choice. Think about that, everyone who has donated to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee! If you have a candidate running for Senate in your state, give the money directly to them, NOT the Dem. Senate Campaign Committee! That's $25 million going into backing Schumer's very flawed candidate in Pennsylvania, which should have been allocated among all the Dems running for Senate.

Note for out-of-staters: Both major Pennsylvania papers - the Phillie Inquirer and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed Sestak as the most qualified and most ethical candidate.

[MisterP]

36. "it's! my! turn!" honestly why do we let these titheads sit around, say that that counts

as "putting their time" in, and then shove aside better or even more popular candidates

thinking about PA politics always gets me playing Filiter by the end of the day: only one way out for someone only 30-70% corrupt

[HooptieWagon]

10. +2

[JackRiddler]

32. Yes this.

And the "Supermajority" was of course an on-the-spot invention of convenience. As though the Senate does not set its own rules and as though these don't change all the time.

[Fresh_Start]

3. You are aware there there is supreme court justice which will be selected by the next president

its not a theoretical situation.

[rateyes]

5. And we see how Obama's pick is sailing through the Republican Senate!

[SusanCalvin]

6. Good point. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Actually, no it's not a good point ...

There will be a SCOTUS nominee hearing ... better that nominee be picked by a Democrat than trump. PERIOD.

[SusanCalvin]

23. Yes, but the current pick is currently going nowhere.

And, yes, I am livid about that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. Actually, he will be confirmed on or before the first Tuesday in November.

[SusanCalvin]

29. I sure hope so.

I'm sick of people we're paying not doing their jobs.

[CobaltBlue]

38. I’m aware of that. And so are corrupt Democrats.

[Sheepshank]

41. So the alternative to Obama fighting for SCOTUS

Is to make it a give away to a Republican choice because it's more likely to sail on through?

Fuck that shit.

[Fresh_Start]

7. No kidding...because they are waiting for what they hope is a GOP president

the GOP obstructionism is very obvious to me
I have not for a minute forgotten it or underestimated it

[rateyes]

12. The Senate ultimately controls who goes to SCOTUS.

[Demsrule86]

15. The president nominates ... Bill Clinton nominated Ginsberg with a GOP Congress

Having the Senate does you no good unless you have the presidency...how do you suppose we got some of the GOP types there now?

[Fresh_Start]

20. Senate has advise and consent

they do not choose who can be considered for the position

[WhiteTara]

8. You sound like you certainly think you are playing the long game

If we lose the WH now, there won't be a chance of 2018 to pull it out of the fire because there will be a republicon controlled WH, senate, congress and SCOTUS. But hey, what ever gets you through the night and the election.

[seabeyond]

13. The supreme Court doesn't rank as your priority. Deaths of women and girls because they can't get a

Legal medical procedure matters to me. I live in Texas where we had to drive to New Mexico. We do not have much time before these cases start being addressed in the SC.

[Demsrule86]

14. I didn't think you could hope for a loss here at anytime

I want both...but we won't get the House...it is gerrymandered . And if the top of the Dem ticket lost , we don't get the Senat then the GOP controls it all and name five justices most likely...yeah that would be just peachy (not).

[rateyes]

21. Not hoping for a loss. Just don't want a repeat. DWS was handed the party

in great shape, and fucked it up. We are headed down the aame damned road because of poor leadership.

[CobaltBlue]

39. I say Debbie reps the true power of the Democratic Party

And this very much included the president of the United States.

But, of course, let us not go there.

[MADem]

45. The "party leader" is BARACK OBAMA.

He picked Debbie Wasserman Schultz to serve as his executive. She was chosen because she has proven talent as a fund-raiser. She knows how to organize large scale exercises in this vein, and, as we all know, this is a money-driven enterprise absent campaign finance reform.

But make no mistake--Obama has been pulling the strings. You don't like it? Blame him. He could've fired her at any moment, but he didn't because she puts those Tubmans in the bank for the benefit of the Party.

Let's go back in time a bit: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/wasserman-schultz-to-lead-dnc-052605


And if you think--for even a second--that Barack Obama doesn't wholeheartedly support DWS, he has already thrown his weight behind her in her PRIMARY CONTEST--a very unusual move for him, as he usually lets the process play out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-debbie-wasserman-schultz_us_56f93747e4b0a372181a53e1


Obama--our party leader--does not think DWS "fucked it up." Where you stand depends on where you sit. From where he sits, she's aces.

[Blanks]

16. We will take the senate...

The senators that won in 2010 during the tea party sweep are up for reelection, many of them in blue states.

Unless the campaign gets really screwed up, it should be easy, there's too much gerrymandering for us to take the house.

[Control-Z]

17. Oh hell's no!

With the opportunity to change the Supreme Court to a fair if not actively liberal one? This is the chance of a generation. Lifetime appointments can last a very long time. The Supremes have awesome powers like no other branch. A change in the balance of the USSC is worth more than both the House and Senate combined. We need a democratic president to make that happen.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. And I'd bet in straight poker, you'd toss a pair of Queens ...

to draw to an inside straight.

I'd play and most likely rack the pot with the Queens ... and let the next hand take care of itself.

[rateyes]

22. and you would lose your bet.

[iandhr]

25. No he wouldn't.

One of the biggest rules of betting is you don't ever draw for an inside straight.

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. LOL ... My personal, number 1 (hold-em) rule, is ...

to fold pocket Aces, unless I trip up on the flop. That was a hard and expensive lesson.

[rateyes]

37. and his bet is that I would do that. He would be wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

26. Are you saying that you wouldn't toss the Queens? ...

Then, what was the purpose of your OP? Because that is essentially, what you were saying ... you would suffer a loss on the HOPE that you'd improve your hand on the draw.

[rateyes]

44. The point of the OP is that the DNC leadership is tossing in control of the Congress for the sake of

getting Hillary nominated. We might take control of the Senate, should Hillary win the GE, but it won't last because of Hillary's high negatives that will doom Dems in the mid-term elections come 2018.

The Senate, under Repubs, have shown us that they can thwart a SCOTUS nomination. Any SCOTUS nomination from any president with the Senate under Republican control that is not a right winger will be thwarted.

I want Dems to win the executive and keep control of the Congress for a long time...as long as those Dems are progressive ones and not third-wayers who do the bidding of the oligarchs. That won't happen with a Hillary Clinton win, IMO.

If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got.

[iandhr]

24. Supreme court.

[Buzz cook]

30. In 1993 Clinton and the democratic controlled congress

Reversed the downward economic trend and set up the success of the 1990s.

Obama and the democrats gave us our first national health care program, which looks more and more unassailable.

By the end of Clinton's second term we had recovered from much of the Reagan Bush error.

Now at the end of Obama's second term we have recovered from much of Bush II.

But it only took one presidential term for Reagan and Bush II with control of congress to dump most of the positives that came before.

imho it is very important to control the house, senate, or presidency. The danger of having both congress and the executive controlled by republicans is too great.

[brush]

31. We didn't have a two-year Dem congress under Obama.

That's a repug-generated talking point to fault Dems and minimize their obstructionism that too many Dems keep repeating without realizing that is is not even close to being true.

[Rybak187]

40. We did

It was not a filibuster proof but it was a majority

[brush]

42. OK, technically that is correct, but without it being filibuster proof it meant absolutely . . .

nothing as the repugs blocked everything repeatedly with FILIBUSTERS — an unprecedented 400 times.

[griffi94]

33. My choice would be a Democratic senate

Hillary in the Whitehouse.

I feel pretty positive since that's a likely scenario.

Bernie back to the senate.

[YouDig]

34. OK, but those aren't the choices.

[w4rma]

43. I completely agree. But, primaries are important. Congress can't be stuffed with "New" Democrats.

We need progressive Democrats in Congress.