Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats have a solid chance to maintain control of Senate (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We score 53-55 Senate seats (14+ / 0-)

    With all due respect, Kos, here's how I'm seeing it:

    --Nebraska is the only seat that's definitely lost. We flip Mass., Maine, and most likely Nevada (given that Obama will probably win Nevada by double digits). That's +2.

    --North Dakota and Montana: we're currently a few points ahead in each. Assume we take one, and lose one. We currently hold both, so that's +1 Dems.

    --McCaskill brings it home, cause the Rep opponent there is weak and Obama will have a great ground game.

    --Wisconsin: Tammy looks a few points down now, but I also see Wisconsin as going for Obama by double digits, so she rides along, not to mention a weakened Repub candidate after their primary. Same for Virginia: I see Obama by high single or low double digits there, bringing Kaine along.

    --Indiana and Arizona: Tough flip in both cases, but we could pull either one out, again b/c Obama's ground machine will be in full gear in both states. Assume we win 1. That's +2.

    --The others (eg, Florida, Penn., Michigan, New Mexico) we hold. All polls I've seen indicate this.

    We end up with 55. Even if I'm wrong on 2, we keep 53. Check me in November.

    •  I'm hearing some bad things about Angus King (8+ / 0-)

      I wonder why we didn't just get a Democratic person in that race? He seems like the new Joe Lieberman and I can't stand that crap.

      In AZ, Carmona is only down 4 without having campaigned yet. If Obama campaigns with him here and we GOTV we can push him and the state in the blue column this November.

      When the operation of the machine becomes so odious that you can't take part,you've got to put your bodies upon the gears;you got to make it stop.Indicate to the people who run it that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all

      by YoungArizonaLiberal on Mon May 07, 2012 at 06:35:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because King (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, Aquarius40, KingTag, JBraden

        would take too many votes away from the dems. Then we end up splitting to vote between the dem and king and the republican wins.

      •  From what I've heard (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ER Doc, Aquarius40

        King might be a shade better than Lieberman, though nowhere near as good as Bernie Sanders but they broke the mold with him. I think King's just hedging his bets so that he doesn't turn off any prospective voters.

        The danger of running a "true Democrat" in that race is a repeat of what happened in Florida where Meek and Crist split the sane people vote and the state got stuck with Rubio.

        Mitt Romney: the Etch-A-Sketch candidate in the era of YouTube

        by Cali Scribe on Mon May 07, 2012 at 11:14:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Which unfortunately means that Obama gets (6+ / 0-)

      very little of importance done unless the filibuster can be gotten rid of or reformed.  I would be willing to settle for turning the filibuster back into an actual filibuster and not this "gentleman's filibuster" bullshit.  In other words, a failed cloture vote just means that the person doing the filibuster can keep talking/debating (so grab a phone book and have fun).

      There is no saving throw against stupid.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Mon May 07, 2012 at 08:15:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If I recall correctly, the"gentleman's filibuster" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp

        was the price for decreasing the threshold for cloture from "two-thirds of those present and voting" to "three-fifths of all Senators," or 60 votes. So under the old rule, it was harder to invoke cloture, but obviously much harder to keep the filibuster going. In retrospect, it was probably preferable to the present situation.
             It still technically requires a 2/3 majority "of all Senators present and voting" under the rules of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate, unless we invoke the "nuclear option" the Republicans threatened us with. IIRC, that required the presiding officer of the Senate to declare that the majority vote to change the rules was valid, despite the clear text of the standing rules that a 2/3 majority is needed. If that ruling is upheld by a majority vote, then the rules would be permanently changed.
              Normally, the rules have to be set at the beginning of a new session of Congress, and they stay the same for the duration of that session. It appears, though, that the rules could also be changed if, while the Senate was in a pro forma session during a recess and virtually all the Senators were out of Washington, all the Democrats swooped in in a surprise attack, there were at least 51 Senators present, (necessary for a quorum,) and 2/3 of all Senators "present and voting" chose to change the rules in the middle of a session. That would require virtually all the Democrats to agree, since if enough stayed away to go under the threshold of 51, the Senate could not hold a legal vote under the Constitution. It would also be really unprecedented, and would likely destroy any chance of bipartisan cooperation for the forseeable future.

        -7.25, -6.26

        We are men of action; lies do not become us.

        by ER Doc on Tue May 08, 2012 at 12:55:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the most important legislative results for the next Congress will be precisely nothing.  So not having directive control of the Senate will not be a huge disaster.

    •  With Obama at the head of the ticket? (0+ / 0-)

      Why is 2012 going to be anything but a lsightly smaller scale repeat of 2010? The economy is simply not going to be good enough to run on. Obama's campaign is weak, his message disorganized, his response to Republican attacks far too diffuse to be effective. Democrats keep thinking that people can identify and vote for their own interests. They can't and won't. Republicans have been selling their message for three years. When do we start?

      If I knew it was comin', I could pull a jet plane.--Reggie Jackson

      by LongTom on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:25:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site