The MA seat gets filled this month, so it is basically a different cycle.

 

Nate Silver's first prediction of a Senate this year seems to indicate a net 2 seat loss for the Democrats. If Blanche Lincoln loses her primary (assuming she gets the strong challenge she deserves) the electoral picture looks a lot more blue for Arkansas in November.

But, unless something surprising happens pro-Dem...if the Dems wind up with a 57-59 seat majority in the Senate, they're going to have to choose between actually taking on the filibuster or just having the government shut down for 2 years.

taking on the filibuster would have to be a deal where it gets phased out some time down the line when nobody knows who will be in power.

 

Really, I think it probably should be taken out, we have so many checks, it's just not necessary, and it tends to lead to bills that are completely defined by senators from...well, states that aren't the most populated.

But, unless something surprising happens pro-Dem...if the Dems wind up with a 57-59 seat majority in the Senate, they're going to have to choose between actually taking on the filibuster or just having the government shut down for 2 years.

 

Honestly, the best thing that could happen for the Senate as an institution is if someone other than Reid becomes majority leader.

 

I think a Schumer led majority would probably have an easier time getting around the filibuster and would be less afraid to make the GOP put their money where their mouths are or use workarounds like reconciliation to get things done.

Honestly, the best thing that could happen for the Senate as an institution is if someone other than Reid becomes majority leader.

 

I think a Schumer led majority would probably have an easier time getting around the filibuster and would be less afraid to make the GOP put their money where their mouths are or use workarounds like reconciliation to get things done.

The only way I'd have any interest in a Schumer led majority is if Dodd decides that the best way he could make a name for himself while going out is to get the Senate to pass the harshest Wall Street Regulation bill he can and dares either party to campaign next fall in favor of the banks. I don't want him in charge without that.

Honestly, the best thing that could happen for the Senate as an institution is if someone other than Reid becomes majority leader.

 

I think a Schumer led majority would probably have an easier time getting around the filibuster and would be less afraid to make the GOP put their money where their mouths are or use workarounds like reconciliation to get things done.

I think a Harkin-led Senate would be entertaining.

 

I think a Harkin-led Senate would be entertaining.

Is there a single Dem senator that might potentially take over as leader that doesn't immediately make me think "Oh great, interest group X would then own the Senate".

Is there a single Dem senator that might potentially take over as leader that doesn't immediately make me think "Oh great, interest group X would then own the Senate".

Franken? Feingold?

But, unless something surprising happens pro-Dem...if the Dems wind up with a 57-59 seat majority in the Senate, they're going to have to choose between actually taking on the filibuster or just having the government shut down for 2 years.

 

prior to 2009, when was the last time either party had 60 seats in the Senate?

The last time either party had this ability was in the 95th Congress of 1977-1979, when Democrats held 61 seats during President Jimmy Carter's administration.

 

 

So what, the Senate shuts down for 30 years, until either party finds a way to get 60 seats?

prior to 2009, when was the last time either party had 60 seats in the Senate?

The inability of the Senate to do virtually anything without a supermajority is a fundamentally new development.

The inability of the Senate to do virtually anything without a supermajority is a fundamentally new development.

 

 

As I've said in the past, it didn't matter. JFK would be a Republican today. That's how idiotic the rift has gotten.

As I've said in the past, it didn't matter. JFK would be a Republican today. That's how idiotic the rift has gotten.

Not really, I mean his whole family's name is synonymous with liberal standard-bearing, is there a single Republican among them? Some of his quotes, they'd put him decisively on the liberal side. I guess you could make a case for how he did foreign policy but that was a whole different ballgame.

Chris Matthews with his usual crappy performance here, but he makes a useful point...and he includes the phrase "youtube is watching", so I guess i have to post it. He asks him point blank, "Tell me what the Republican party has done for this country in the past 20 years" and gets silence.

 

They did help to balance the budget when Clinton was in office, but I guess you can say that's null since they lost their f***ing minds when their party took the executive branch.

As I've said in the past, it didn't matter. JFK would be a Republican today. That's how idiotic the rift has gotten.

I'd love to see a Republican advocate a 71% top level tax rate.

I'd love to see a Republican advocate a 71% top level tax rate.

 

 

He understood that tax cuts would work WITH THE SIMULTANEOUS SPENDING CUTS to actually stimulate the economy. He understood that a national defense is important, and he understood that America leads, not follows.

god shut up

god shut up

 

Because I don't want to drive down a snowy, hilly road just yet, I wasted some time trying to check into Kap's assertion that Kennedy teamed tax cuts with simultaneous spending cuts to grow the economy. So far, every index or graph I can find simply fails to show any meaningful decrease in total government spending at the time.

 

 

 

In inflation adjusted dollars, total dollars, total dollars spent per person, and total dollars spent per person compared to the year before, the government spent more money during the Kennedy years. I can't find evidence of these supposed spending cuts. Kap?

He's busy coming up with more glittering generalities, I assume manifest destiny will emerge.

Thank goodness someone is looking out for us.

Because I don't want to drive down a snowy, hilly road just yet, I wasted some time trying to check into Kap's assertion that Kennedy teamed tax cuts with simultaneous spending cuts to grow the economy. So far, every index or graph I can find simply fails to show any meaningful decrease in total government spending at the time.

 

 

 

In inflation adjusted dollars, total dollars, total dollars spent per person, and total dollars spent per person compared to the year before, the government spent more money during the Kennedy years. I can't find evidence of these supposed spending cuts. Kap?

 

He stongly beleived in them - many speech policies on it - but he never got them through... because he, like, died.

Rudy Giuliani apparently suffers amnesia:

Rudy Giuliani has joined fellow Republicans Dana Perino and Mary Matalin in seeming to forget that the September 11th attacks happened under President Bush.

 

On "Good Morning America" Friday, the former New York mayor declared, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama."

 

Not only does the statement suggest Giuliani does not remember the devastating attack in his own city, it also omits the anthrax attacks and the attempted shoe bomber attack.

....

A day earlier, Giuliani falsely claimed that the shoe bomber attack occurred before September 11th.

Rudy Giuliani apparently suffers amnesia:

 

It's not amnesia. This is on purpose.

 

He said last week that the shoe bomber was pre 9/11 and he's the third Republican to forget who was President when 9/11 happened inside a month - not to mention the anthrax attacks.

Completely agree. I don't recall this stuff happening before...say jan. 20, 2009.

It's not amnesia. This is on purpose.

 

He said last week that the shoe bomber was pre 9/11 and he's the third Republican to forget who was President when 9/11 happened inside a month - not to mention the anthrax attacks.

That's pretty disgusting. All politicians in positions like this try to play the game, but in this case, to outright factually lie, about situations that ended up in people's deaths, to make your party look better... that's pretty low. Not to mention that when these things occur is not really something you fault the President for anyway, whether Bush or Obama. Unfortunately, there is a significant chunk of the population who doesn't understand that, and they'll take statements like this and leap to unfounded conclusions.