Let's Get Real: What if Democrats Retake the Senate?

[jwoodie]

Twice as many Senate seats currently held by Republicans are up for reelection as those held by Democrats, so there is a real likelihood that there will be a Democrat majority after the 2016 elections. This impacts two issues that are being discussed by Republicans:

1. SCOTUS Vacancy. The current thinking is that this should be filled by the next President. However, a Democratic Senate would not approve a conservative Justice and, if the new President was a Democrat, would gladly suspend the filibuster rules to confirm as many liberal Justices as could be nominated.

In addition, Obama will be seeking to nominate someone for whom maximum political hay can be made from a GOP refusal to confirm. This will probably be an underrepresented minority (e.g., Hispanic Male) with a moderate judicial record, thus playing into the theme of Republican racism.

If this happens, the GOP Senate might be well advised to confirm such a nominee, rather than risk losing the election and ending up with complete liberal domination of SCOTUS for years to come

2. Presidential Politics. Regardless of any reservations one may have about the Trump candidacy, there is little doubt that he is the best "negotiator" of any of the GOP candidates. While Cruz/Rubio may have purer conservative credentials, they would probably face united Democratic opposition in the Senate, thus stymieing most of their legislative initiatives.

On the other hand, Trump is such a master manipulator of public opinion that even Democrat legislators would shy away from incurring his scorn. It is hard to imagine him being used as a Democrat punching bag the way the Bushes were. At least with a President Trump, we would not be looking at eight more years of gridlock.

 

[Asclepias]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

 

[BULLDOG]

Those things might be true. It's a shame that he is too crazy to be elected. A sane person with Trump's talents might have a chance.

 

[Asclepias]

Those things might be true. It's a shame that he is too crazy to be elected. A sane person with Trump's talents might have a chance.

Key word being sane. Also Trump needs more than the talents he currently possesses.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Let's Get Real: What if Democrats Retake the Senate?

Things will be less than pretty.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Twice as many Senate seats currently held by Republicans are up for reelection as those held by Democrats, so there is a real likelihood that there will be a Democrat majority after the 2016 elections. This impacts two issues that are being discussed by Republicans:

1. SCOTUS Vacancy. The current thinking is that this should be filled by the next President. However, a Democratic Senate would not approve a conservative Justice and, if the new President was a Democrat, would gladly suspend the filibuster rules to confirm as many liberal Justices as could be nominated.

In addition, Obama will be seeking to nominate someone for whom maximum political hay can be made from a GOP refusal to confirm. This will probably be an underrepresented minority (e.g., Hispanic Male) with a moderate judicial record, thus playing into the theme of Republican racism.

If this happens, the GOP Senate might be well advised to confirm such a nominee, rather than risk losing the election and ending up with complete liberal domination of SCOTUS for years to come

2. Presidential Politics. Regardless of any reservations one may have about the Trump candidacy, there is little doubt that he is the best "negotiator" of any of the GOP candidates. While Cruz/Rubio may have purer conservative credentials, they would probably face united Democratic opposition in the Senate, thus stymieing most of their legislative initiatives.

On the other hand, Trump is such a master manipulator of public opinion that even Democrat legislators would shy away from incurring his scorn. It is hard to imagine him being used as a Democrat punching bag the way the Bushes were. At least with a President Trump, we would not be looking at eight more years of gridlock.

Yes. Obama will appoint another moderate SC Justice just so he can play the race card. That makes sense.

The dude takes the nomination seriously. He'll choose someone who is qualified and moderate. Just like the last two times.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Nonsense.

Since the day the president took office republicans made clear their obstructionist intentions, to make Obama a 'one term president,' and to pursue a scorched earth policy to realize that goal – the credit rating downgrade and two government shutdowns are but three infamous examples of republican obstructionism; add to those the GOP's efforts to obstruct the president making an appointment to the Supreme Court.

 

[Agit8r]

On the off-chance that the Democrats took the Senate, but lost the presidency, there would still be 17 days to cram a Justice through under the current president.

Might be worth doing even if a Democrat wins, just so the new President can get on with his/her agenda.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Nonsense.

Since the day the president took office republicans made clear their obstructionist intentions, to make Obama a 'one term president,' and to pursue a scorched earth policy to realize that goal – the credit rating downgrade and two government shutdowns are but three infamous examples of republican obstructionism; add to those the GOP's efforts to obstruct the president making an appointment to the Supreme Court.

Like the Democrats went out of their way to help Bush 43. Give me a fucking break.

 

[BULLDOG]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Who said anything about a one party system. We have a two party system, but the republican half doesn't care about doing their jobs.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Who said anything about a one party system. We have a two party system, but the republican half doesn't care about doing their jobs.

Basically...a one party system..min your opinion.

Join us here in the real world. Your idea of a two party system, is when your party gets it's way on EVERYTHING.

 

[jwoodie]

On the off-chance that the Democrats took the Senate, but lost the presidency, there would still be 17 days to cram a Justice through under the current president.

Very perceptive and highly likely!

 

[Asclepias]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

checks and balances = gridlock. Things move to slowly. There has to be a better way.

 

[Asclepias]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Where is it written that there is only a two party system? That should alert you to the fact that you are being gamed into thinking this is a good system.

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Where is it written that there is only a two party system? That should alert you to the fact that you are being gamed into thinking this is a good system.

It's better than a one party system. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

 

[Asclepias]

Then there should definitely be a dem president. I think its retarded the gridlock created when one party controls the executive branch and another party....hell lets just call it like it is....the other party controls the legislative branch.

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Where is it written that there is only a two party system? That should alert you to the fact that you are being gamed into thinking this is a good system.

It's better than a one party system. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

No one was trying to figure that out. I said the two party is gridlock. How did you get that mixed up with "one party system".

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

That, "gridlock", is called, "checks and balances". Our government is structured that way to keep idiotic lawmakers in check. I would rather the gridlock, than more insane, overbearing laws.

No. Checks and balances assumes the politicians are honorable and care more about the country than they do about their party. Gridlock is what you get when the right turns into unethical children.

Your partisan Hackett skews your view of how the government works. We have a two party system in place to protect our rights as citizens.

A one party system has never been a good thing. Ask the Chinese, Russians and the Germans.

Where is it written that there is only a two party system? That should alert you to the fact that you are being gamed into thinking this is a good system.

It's better than a one party system. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

No one was trying to figure that out. I said the two party is gridlock. How did you get that mixed up with "one party system".

Gridlock is good. It means someone in one party is keeping the other party in check.