In the end is it going to matter if the GOP wins back the US Senate?

[LynneSin]

I mean it's not like anything got done with Boehner running the US House and since the GOP isn't going to win enough seats for 60 total (enough to overcome a filibuster) or even 67 (veto proof) then it's just a bunch of horseshit about what the GOP claims they are 'going to get done'

Because here's the thing - in 2016 - all those Tea Party nitwits that lucked out and won seats in Blue States - the come back up for election and during a Presidential Election year which means the highest voter turn out expected.

Look at this voting list:

Illinois: Mark Kirk
New Hampshire: Kelly Ayotte
Ohio: Rob Portman
Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey
Wisconsin: Ron Johnson

Those are 5 seats we could win back in 2016

And btw in 2010 we are probably going to win back a bunch of the Governor seats we lost in 2010 including Florida, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

That doesn't mean I'm going to fight less for this election, but in the end I know the reason we are getting so little done in DC and it's 3 letters - GOP

[still_one]

1. the supreme court might become an issue

[TheNutcracker]

27. That's not all. Soc Sec will be converted into a Wall Street shit fund. Medicare into a voucher plan

H U G E

Bigger than the Supreme Court, as it will effect EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[still_one]

29. The President would veto social security and medicare cuts. A SC appointment is

different, and they could prevent any appointments indefinitely if they win the Senate

[demwing]

41. OMG!

Your hair...it's on fire!

[Kablooie]

42. There could be worse things that happen than this.

Yellowstone could erupt.

[LonePirate]

2. The GOP will kill the filibuster if they win the Senate.

They know they will likely lose it in 2016 and may not gain it back for many years to come. They will go for broke and try to manipulate the public via its pocketed media to support their crazy, anti-American agenda.

[yeoman6987]

5. We already killed the filibuster on judges

We took the first shot. We need to keep the Senate.

[Rstrstx]

8. I think your logic is the one reason they WOULDN'T kill the filibuster

If they think they're going to be back in the minority in 2 years they'll basically have screwed themselves. Obama will just veto any crap coming out of the Senate so I see no upside in it for them.

Now if they find themselves on the winning end in 2016 AND a Republican gets elected (highly unlikely both will occur) then hell yes they'll ditch the filibuster.

[OrwellwasRight]

44. The liberal media will never help the GOP!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I think it will.

If Republicans take both House and Senate, either the President will have to spend the next two years vetoing idiotic legislation, or else he'll have to actually sign some of it. Anything he signs is going to hurt the country, but if he simply issues veto after veto, the Dem party gets smeared with the false equivalency of 'creating gridlock', nevermind that he's helping the country by stopping them from obliterating minority rights, crushing labour, and sending the bulk of the country deeper into poverty.

[wandy]

30. You got that right. Then the Democratic party gets painted as the party of no...........

Naturally corporate media will play right along.
Things are so bad because Obama vetoed.......
Pick you're favorite, repeal of the minimum wage, the XL pipeline, a statue of Rush Limbaugh with monkeys flying out of his ......
For all appearance the GOP is currently insane. What would they look like had they any real power?

[JoeFH]

43. What would they look like had they any real power? "

"For all appearance the GOP is currently insane. What would they look like had they any real power? "

Kansas

[yeoman6987]

4. One thing I am almost 100 percent positive will happen

The Social Security COLA will be transformed into that new formula. I think the President would sign off on that especially if part of a bill that had bennies he thinks would be good for the Democratic Party.

[drray23]

6. it will make a big difference

The president can veto legislation but he may not be able to veto all of it. For example, with full control of house and senate, the gop could attach outrageous measures to appropriation bills. This would leave the president with a tough choice. Veto the whole thing to stop it or not. If the bill is a continuing resolution or another major funding bill, its a real problem. They could corner president Obama to shut down the federal government by vetoing a funding bill to stop a crasy measure that is attached to it.

[JayhawkSD]

10. Therein lies the problem, doesn't it.

The bs riders attached to "must pass" legislation. Again, I have to ask why the Democrats never did this when they controlled both houses of Congress?

[Hippo_Tron]

13. They did, they attached a minimum wage increase to a defense appropriations bill

Chimpy couldn't veto it cause terrorists and surge and all that.

[TheNutcracker]

7. They salivate over turning Soc Sec into a Wall Street shit fund, and Medicare a yearly 6K voucher

enough for you?

[freshwest]

9. Keeping the Senate is not just about getting things done,

it keeps a lot of OMFG evil shit from the House being made law and more chances for obstruction than now.

The Democratically held Senate has held back a shitload of stuff that the House wanted. With a GOP run Senate, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz will put through stuff that will make the Dark Ages look wonderful.

Personhood laws, NRTW, end the EPA, less taxing the wealth, just to name a few of the Koch horrors they'll enact. Or they'll implode the federal government.

[Cha]

16. Exactly Fresh.. it would be a shit load of difference.

[Cosmocat]

21. YEP

We wake up the next morning with a GOP controlled senate and this clown show somehow managed to go to a horror show.

[JayhawkSD]

11. Democrats controlled both houses for four years.

and for two of those years we had a Democratic president. We got a sort of half-assed "health care reform" bill out of it, but otherwise pretty much crap. I'm not sure it makes a hell of a lot of difference.

Time for a revolution.

[RBInMaine]

19. TeaLeft hyperbole. Want a revolution? Then please, STEP UP and start one.

[JayhawkSD]

22. You just enjoy being nasty, don't you?

I merely expressed an opinion, and you respond with insulting names, labels.

I don't happen to like some painting and do like others. I don't have to paint better ones to have an opinion on the ones I don't like, or on the ones I do. I am entitled to opinions but, apparently, not in this discussion group.

[OrwellwasRight]

46. You are entitled to opinions, debate and discussion.

Just beware that this board is dominated by party loyalists who care more about winning at any cost than about actual Democratic policies that would make this a better place to live. And many of them relentlessly insult, mock, and belittle those who are actually progressive (i.e., have a different opinion than they do). Ignore those who can't hold a civil conversation. Talk to those who can. And give the benefit of the doubt when possible.

[Cartoonist]

12. It matters because . . .

The reality is that the Dems need 60 votes to stop a filibuster while the repubs only need 50. There are plenty of dems who will cross the aisle. There is no Democratic unity. As for the veto, Obama has shown that he will appease the republicans more often than not. So yeah, social security is gone should the repubs gain control.

[rtracey]

14. I dont buy that

I dont but that...too many republicans on S.S. too, they can try, but it will never pass, actually, I remember several years ago when democrat from NY Congressman Weiner, did a mockingly good amendment ending medicare and asked congress to vote on it and by voice vote noone voted for it....its the same with ss, it will never pass and if it did it would be completely vetoed...

[Cartoonist]

15. In a different form

I don't mean literally gone, but privatized. Or reduced substantially.

[RBInMaine]

18. Is this TeaLeftedness necessary? "SS is gone..." Hyperbole.

[Chan790]

24. The truth is always necessary.

The GOP can't wait to privatize SS and the corporatist Wall-Street-loving Clintonite wing of the Democratic party can't wait to help them do it...so yeah, it's necessary.

[RBInMaine]

17. It ALWAYS MATTERS! I hope you aren't being complacent. DONATE, CAMPAIGN, and VOTE.

[Cosmocat]

20. it will be a fucking disaster

as others have noted, the rules simply are different for Rs vs Ds.

They will bring an endless stream of really bad bills to POTUS and the BEST case scenario will be him vetoing them and even though these jackasses have spent 6 years blatantly doing everything and anything possible to hinder governance, only THEN will the THEY ARE PARTISAN AND WILLING TO GOVERN meme be used and the POTUS and party will be nationally vilified for it.

They will absolutely be able to advance A LOT of their deranged agenda.

And, this president won't even have the weak ass cover one ONE SINGLE FLANK that the democratic senate provided. There is no one fighting for this president, he has had the House, the media and the entire republican party vilifying him for 4 years now, he will then have the senate open up the floodgates to whatever bullshit these assholes want to throw at him.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. End? No. Will we be worse off if they win? Yes.

Count on it. Just GOTV. There may not be a whole lot President Obama can do with Congress regardless but Republicans can always make things more hellish for him (and us). If we keep the Senate, we can at least keep the sludge from the House from actually being voted on and potentially passing the House. McConnell has already told us that he and the rest of the GOP plan to play games with the budget process to try to force President Obama to sign off stuff that he'd never agree to otherwise. If it comes down to it, I think that the Republicans will have a weak hand if President Obama tells people what kind of junk the Republicans are trying mix into the budget but why even chance it? We may lose the Senate no matter what and that would be unfortunate but let's not be blase' about it. The odds are improving for Dems to hold the Senate and the election is currently too close to call. Let's do everything we can to hold on!

[JoeFH]

45. Hope you're right

I seriously hope you're right. But what I see on the streets is ZERO interest on the part of Democrats to turn out. I intend to grab at least a dozen and drag them kicking and screaming to the polls if I have to, but I see very little canvasing happening - and even less mojo to vote.

One problem I see is all the money wasted on TV ads. People do not watch ads anymore, they fast forward. My personal opinion is we should have spent a larger share of the donation money putting an army of folks on the street dragging people from their couches to the polls.

Let's face it, we have the numbers but if we can not get them to the polls we lose. Period.

[craigmatic]

25. If the repubs win the senate nothing is getting done for the next 2 years.

[RoverSuswade]

26. A nightmare.

McConnell as Senate majority leader. Ted Cruz, Gramps Getoffmylawn, Linseed Graham, Kelly Idiot and Rand Paul with committee chairmanships. Gaaah.

[jwirr]

28. The president would still be able to veto a lot of that stuff and he would supposedly still have the

executive order but we would lose the Supreme Court for years to come.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Yes! The Rethugs would be pressured by their crazy ass tea bagger base to impeach President Obama.

That, and the Supreme Court and other federal level judges do matter--a great deal.

[LynneSin]

33. And that differs how from today?

And it's not like they have the votes to throw him out.

[customerserviceguy]

32. Agreed that nothing's going to get done

for the next two years, no matter what. The GOP'ers run on a campaign of shutting the President down, and I fully expect them to make good on that. They sell the 'do nothing Congress' as the 'do nothing bad that Obama wants Congress', and that's how they win their elections.

There's a theory that if the Repukes take the Senate that they will be held responsible for gridlock, but I have my doubts about that. Their base is concentrated in enough places to keep them in power until at least the next redistricting after the 2020 census.

[Johonny]

34. Yes, it is another 2 years of my life wasted talking about shit that doesn't matter

when Americans could have rejected the political policies of infants and morons and voted for a candidates that could force real change in my lifetime. Another two years of a Republican controlled house while we have a sitting Democratic senate is the greatest waste of any chance of a better America in our lifetime. If Americans understood politics we would have a moderate president being pulled left by a progressive congress. Instead we have a moderate president doing little while congress argues about which mythical scandal will get voters mad enough to allow Republicans to waste another 2 years of our lives in office. I matters who we elect and we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't.

[lame54]

35. right now they have the power to...

block good legislation

give them the senate and they will have the power to pass bad legislation

[tuhaybey]

36. Yes, it matters

Absolutely it matters. In terms of the big picture, the country as a whole performs best when we have a unified Democratic government, worst when we have a unified Republican government, and in the middle when we have a divided government. So, our goal has to be shifting the needle as far towards unified Democratic government as we can.

Now, no matter what happens this election, we end up in the "divided government bucket" with little immediate effect. A government where we control 2 of the House, Senate and executive doesn't actually perform much any better or worse than a government where we control 1 of the three. However, holding the Republicans under 51 in the Senate in 2014 means that in 2016, we can put basically zero resources into the Senate race. Assuming the presidential race is as likely to go blue in 2016 as it appears to be, that would mean that we could concentrate our efforts entirely on the House. Presidential election years always favor Democrats, but given all the gerrymandering and how far behind we are currently in headcount in the House, we have a major uphill battle there. We need to not just hold the Republicans off from making more gains in the House in 2016, we need to make massive gains in a field that is severely rigged for the GOP. That is going to take everything we have. If we can focus on that and nothing else, maybe we can do it. If we need to fight a war on three fronts, we probably can't.

[AverageJoe90]

38. Pretty much so.

Liberalism really does work. And a warm welcome to DU.

[karynnj]

37. Yes it does - if only for confirmation of appointments

The Republicans blocked them for years and even with the large number passed since the change in the filibuster rule, if they controlled the Senate they could really hurt Obama.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I'm not assuming that any of those Republicans will be beaten until I see polling suggesting it

It's never ever safe to assume that you're going to take down an incumbent senator unless they're horridly scandal or gaffe plagued. Incumbents are extremely hard to defeat, even if they're from a state that votes the opposite way for President.

Right now I'd say Ron Johnson has about a 50% chance at re-election. Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk have about a 60% chance. Kelly Ayotte and Rob Portman have about a 75% chance. Those odds will change as circumstances change, but there's too many unknowns right now to be assuming we can easily beat any of them.

[TeamPooka]

40. Boehner only failed because a Democratic Senate was there to stop him. GOTV!

[jenmito]

47. It matters BIG time that the Rs don't get to 1) set the agenda w/ a R House

2) not let ANY judges get through 3) we don't even NEED a 3!

[polynomial]

48. The GOP is Crisis without ISIS

That said with a laugh and a chuckle as because the current GOP is not the party America thinks it is. All of this party is rather really smart even with the insanity for missions accomplished, corporate or military.

Someone on the thread commented that the GOP is insane, so funny to me, yet to hold that thought and project it as the accumulated portion of the American society with that insane reasoning will themselves to go down the rabbit hole.

Tyrants usually come to office at a time of turmoil, they thrive on crisis it is there route to power and money. A crisis offers the chance to crush rivals seizing the opportunity presenting a public emergency, were a disaster or riots promise solution.

Take a very close look at Maddow’s video on the first documented Ebola case, look at the doctor being interviewed very closely and notice facial blotches subtly fade in and out. Psycho driven suggestions are already here.

Tyrants are masters of propaganda in the news media, leading campaigns, such as running a political campaign, to debates on specific issues. Or, political cartoonist, that motivate and manipulate opinions in the population.

In the Illinois the race for Governor and the Senate are starting to go full speed ahead, dam the torpedoes.

The GOP candidate Bruce Rauner is interesting with so much money. Bruce appears to be one who grunts, and judges, from my view as much an alien that is undocumented visiting our state here sounding off a lunk alarm. Similarly as Romney did, both being billion dollar sneaky freqazoids with off shore tax havens wants me to vote him. My lunk alarm screens out freaks like that.

Then there is Oberweis going for Durbin’s seat. It baffles me as why Oberweis sells his milk in bottles at premium prices, one half gallon for three dollars. Or get a gallon for six dollars then tax. I would expect a premium Senator at class bottle prices if he gets elected. Or does Oberweis sell milk cheaper under another label? We might find out if he shows us his tax returns.

[dwpoland]

49. Things chage quickly

A black swan can happen and everything change in a moment!