Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...

Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?

As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...

Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?

Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.

As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.

Agreed. It's better long term tactic for the Rs to go back to the original 60 to overcome filibuster imo.

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...

Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?

Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.

As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.

Agreed. It's better long term tactic for the Rs to go back to the original 60 to overcome filibuster imo.

538 has Brown with a 97% chance of victory, so yeah, I agree with you.

And yeah, better longterm since wouldn't they have enough votes in the Senate to Filibuster any nominees anyway? Even with the Reid nuke in place?

It's going to be another slow 2 years I think.

The 60 person filibuster vote could end up being an interesting political play.

On one hand I would imagine that the republicans would like to have the same option that the democrats gave themselves, although it would be of very limited benefit during the next two years. It would be nice to have during a republican administration, but there is no guarantee that the GOP will keep the senate in 2016 if they win it now.

So do they get rid of it now, while it is useless to them, to make a show of restoring the old traditions of the senate and to get rid of shenanigans started by Democrats? It would make for nice "we gave a voice back to the minority because we love the principles of the Republic" sound bites in the next elections.

But if they end up with a GOP senate and WH they would probably like to change it back to what the democrats had. That would open them up to democrats telling everyone "they complained, but look at them snatching power now".

But if it gets rolled back and the Democrats end up with the Senate and White House in 2016 they would have to change the rules again, which would give Republicans the opportunity to say "they took the power once and we graciously gave it back. Now they want that power again to silence the minority!"

It's all politics, and I wouldn't fault a GOP senate for using the same tools that the democrats gave themselves. But it will be interesting how it plays out in the talking points.

Yeah... we'll see where it goes. To me, they really don't gain much of anything by keeping it a simply majority now. Remember, we're only talking about non-Supreme Court nominees.

So... is this some kind of Democratic coping mechanism?
Cancel the Midterms!


The biggest reason for gridlock is the abandonment of federalism and the elevation of the solution to every problem we face to the federal level.

If the Democrats/Progressives truly wanted to reduce gridlock(as alluded in that opinion piece), then they should embrace a restoration of federalism so Blue/Read states can make stupid decisions unimpeded by other Blue/Red state legislators.

However, the far Right/Left (the extremes! throw in the entrenched establisment too!) will never advocate for this, because the goal of "their team" is the accumulation and centralization of as much power as possible. Federalism decentralizes power and thus weakens statism.

The best way to end gridlock is to restore federalism and enact further limits on the federal government. (probably the only way is via an Article V Convention of the States, which has about absolute zero chance of happening).

EDIT: and really, this is another argument for repealing the 17th amendment too.

"Cry havoc, and let slip the DAWGS OF WAR!!!"

D-Day for the midterms.

Anyone wanna wager?

I'd consider it a success when Harry Reid (D) is in the minority.

My guess will be thus:
(R) = 51
(D) = 49

Unless the Ds take control of both houses, we will see exactly the same amount of gridlock (and the chances of that are pretty darn low), so I don't think this election will change anything.

My personal hope is that a wave of moderate 3rd party canditates overtake the established group, working with both sides to bring about what is best for America. But in our current system, that's about a million to one.

Election-wise I'm very interested in my state representatives race, it's the same people running against each-other as last year, and the current one only won by 18 votes. Should be interesting. Also, it's my first time voting, so that's cool.

 whembly wrote:
"Cry havoc, and let slip the DAWGS OF WAR!!!"

D-Day for the midterms.

Anyone wanna wager?

I'd consider it a success when Harry Reid (D) is in the minority.

My guess will be thus:
(R) = 51
(D) = 49

Pretty sure Kansas has an (I) as the front runner right now. Crazy, right?

That is awsome.

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Cry havoc, and let slip the DAWGS OF WAR!!!"

D-Day for the midterms.

Anyone wanna wager?

I'd consider it a success when Harry Reid (D) is in the minority.

My guess will be thus:
(R) = 51
(D) = 49

Pretty sure Kansas has an (I) as the front runner right now. Crazy, right?

Orman will caucus with the (D)s

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Cry havoc, and let slip the DAWGS OF WAR!!!"

D-Day for the midterms.

Anyone wanna wager?

I'd consider it a success when Harry Reid (D) is in the minority.

My guess will be thus:
(R) = 51
(D) = 49

Pretty sure Kansas has an (I) as the front runner right now. Crazy, right?

Orman will caucus with the (D)s

Most likely, yes. Were you just including him in your (D) count then?

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
"Cry havoc, and let slip the DAWGS OF WAR!!!"

D-Day for the midterms.

Anyone wanna wager?

I'd consider it a success when Harry Reid (D) is in the minority.

My guess will be thus:
(R) = 51
(D) = 49

Pretty sure Kansas has an (I) as the front runner right now. Crazy, right?

Orman will caucus with the (D)s

Most likely, yes. Were you just including him in your (D) count then?

Yup! Or... maybe we'd get...

*gasp*!

a 50-50 split! THEN it's VP time!

That would be amazing. Joe Biden taking the wheel.

I think that could be the single greatest thing to happen in this country in a long time.

He needs to slam open the doors and yell "guess who's home"!

LOL... my governor just can't catch a break...

Democratic Governor Jay Nixon tweeted out a butt-crack voter for Election Day.

Spoiler'ed because of NSFW... maybe?

My state is getting more red every election...

Well looks like the Senate goes to the GOP.


So much for me keeping a healthcare plan.

Looks like it's a GOP:


This year.

Buh, bye Majority Leader Reid.

 RivenSkull wrote:
Well looks like the Senate goes to the GOP.


So much for me keeping a healthcare plan.

I honestly doubt that they will actually get rid of it. They will kill it once for show, it will get vetoed, then they can say they tried and move to the center-right to try and repair the GOP brand before the 2016 elections.

Doesn't a repeal need to be signed by the pres?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Doesn't a repeal need to be signed by the pres?

Yes.

I can be over-rided by 67 Senate vote... but, not likely.

EDIT: keep this in mind... 26 senators (so far) who voted for Obamacare won't be part of new Senate. So, those (D) seats in '16 may be at risk.

I see one positive for me of an R controlled senate, I wouldn't have to see Boehner quite as much.

It won't go to a big repeal vote. It will slowly get defunded and broken apart by committee's now that the GOP will be in charge of calling them.

Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.

Bruce Rauner (R) defeated Pati Quinn for Governor of Illinois?!??!

Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.

 d-usa wrote:
Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.

You know... I don't buy that. (that ACA is very popular)

However, I think the what's going to happen is that instead, the market/regulation environment will be changed to encourage healthcare organizations (Medical Offices + Hospitals) to band together to offer "insurance" to regional areas. But, it's a different sort of insurance...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.

More so than Cruz?

I'd be surprised...

 Ouze wrote:
Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.

Bachman 2.0?

http://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/elections-results-2014/#senate

GOP has 52 Senate seats and 223 House seats as of err... right now?