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

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

This is what Dems retaking the Senate would look like

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

From the 57 states that invented Borking and the Schumer Rule, that's a laugh.

Like they say, payback is a barack

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Its only good if you need job security as a politician. Otherwise its just fucking the people that are screaming for you to provide a solution on the issues and run with it until its apparent it wont work.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[WildBillKelsoe]

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.

Its only good if you need job security as a politician. Otherwise its just fucking the people that are screaming for you to provide a solution on the issues and run with it until its apparent it wont work.

The solution is for the government to stop trying to be the solution all the time.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Its only good if you need job security as a politician. Otherwise its just fucking the people that are screaming for you to provide a solution on the issues and run with it until its apparent it wont work.

The solution is for the government to stop trying to be the solution all the time.

You sound confused. First you want checks and balances and now you want anarchy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Obammy?



The fool is a fucking clown. He has appointed someone with an IQ lower than the average goat to appease the Mexican community, and an open Marxist dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution.