Are the Dems approaching a Super Majority?

With the announcement of Trent Lott retiring from the Senate, he joins Hagel, Warner, Craig, Dominici, Allard and most likely Ted Stevens.

If the Democrats can pick up those 7 seats, plus take Coleman's in Minnesota for 8.

Possible gains on the goppers in Maine with Collins, Inhofe in Oklahoma, and McConnell in Kentucky to 11.

Add a hopeful loss of Dole in NC with all the Democrat Incumbents winning, the Democratic Party could possibly stand with a Super Majority of 61 seats. Forget Repuke filibustering obstruction.

If the House stays Dem, which I am sure they will only expand their majority there, any Democratic Candidate for President will do just fine, thank you very much.

With only Democratic bills being sent up, without the pukes able to get in the way, a Progressive agenda will be rolling. IMO, I don't think any of the Pres. Candidates will work against a Democratic Super Majority.

Once we get a Democrat in the White House, it will not be about the candidate. It will be a Progressive movement from the People, and the President will be at the helm as a product of the People's wishes.

What issues would you say will come to the fore-front? I ask to see if I agree with your statement or not.

IMO, the Progressive agenda would be Healthcare for every American, Increase in Minimum Wage and Worker's Rights, Environmental Protections, Alternative Energy Initiatives, Ending the Illegal Occupation, Re-balancing the Supreme Court, Prison Reform, Gay Rights, Lobby/Campaign Finance Reform, Investments in Education(Affordable or Free Colleges), Drug Policy Reform, Abolishing Capital Punishment.

I believe that a Democratic Majority will work towards these things. I know they won't happen over night. But, if the ball got rolling, it would be unstoppable. And, after 4 years of Progressive Reforms the country would be better off than it is now and could serve as the final nail in the gop coffin.

Everything you mention should be acted upon by a democrat majority.

What reason have they given Joe Sixpack (or even Jane Sixpack)
to vote for them?

Tesha

That may be enough.

Remember 2006, the Dems made gains that were unexpected.

I think the winner is the "Culture of Corruption in the GOP"

We just need one scandal a month for 11 months, I am sure the goods are there to make that happen.

Check how polls about the GOP have gone since then - nothing but down. This is not likely to change anytime soon.

and 8-15 in the House. I suggest you do some homework as to why that's the trajectory we're on.

I suspect Cali is correct in that we'll pick up 4-7 seats in the Senate - DINO Mary Landreau (sp) is a possible loss in Louisiana, and I think guy who suffered a stroke is a possible loss as well (can't think of his name right now)

So, if we net 4-7 seats, it would mean 6-9 Republic losses, which is certainly possible.

I think we can also pick up seats in the House, but I have no clue how many - I think the one New England house Republic is in danger, though, Chris Shays of CT.

I remain optimistic about some big gains next year, but let's not count the votes before they happen. There's a lot to go from here til election day and what appears to be bad now may be totally different in 11 months.

Of the upcoming races, I see Warner in Va, Udall in NM and Shaheen in NH as strong candidates...the others could go either way. The game is rigged in favor of the incumbent and IMHO, moderate Repugnicans may be able to weather the election if the Democrats don't show voters why they should elect them and not re-elect a Smith or Collins. Inversely, Repugnicans chomping at the bits to throw out Mary Landrieu may be in for a surprise as well. While people may be unhappy with the party, when it comes down to a Rep or Senator, they tend to look at the personality over the party.

Shaheen may win in NH, but she's a DLC Democrat who will
defect whenever it's convenient for her. She'd make a
very comfortable "Lieberman Democrat".

When she was the Governor of New Hampshire, the
then-Republican-controlled House and Senate delivered
an historic death-penalty repeal bill to her desk. This
was something that had been fought for for years, but
she knew she'd be running for the U.S. Senate that year
so she vetoed the repeal of the death penalty. She the
went on to lose her Senate race so we got no death
penalty repeal yet no Demcratic U.S. Senator.

Now, the legislature and the Governor's chair are both
held by Democrats but because they are the usual Democrats
(and so, scared of their shadows), there's no prospect
for a repeal of the death penalty any time in the future.

Tesha

Remember that some of those Repuke Senators that are resigning are from solidly "red" states like Idaho, Mississippi, and Nebraska. No matter how much their respective constituencies may dislike the candidates, I believe they will still stay loyal to the party and vote R in the next election for Senate. I just have a hard time believing we'll pick up seats in those states.

Also, you mentioned having all of the Dem incumbents winning. I think Landrieu (D-LA) is vulnerable, and I completely expect that seat to turn red in 2008.

I definitely think we'll pick up a few seats in 2008 (having 53 or 54 seats is definitely in the realm of possibility), but I just don't think we'll get enough to have a supermajority that you're mentioning.

But even if we pick up just *one* seat, then I hope we can tell Lieberman to get lost...permanently. :)

probably forever.. The entrenched poor who lived there for generations, are scattered to the four winds, and even if they wanted to come back, they cannot afford it,.. they were given one-way tickets , much like their ancestors all those years ago,.,

The ones who owned family homes that werte paid off long ago, have no money to rebuild/repaid them, and the aid promised, has not materialized for many of the poor..

He knew. They KNEW. And Condi went off to shop for the Ghost of Imelda Marcos' shoes while thousands of African-Americans drowned. The Bushies disappeared 3,400 of the poor and disconnected who died in order to keep the death toll lower than 9/11. There was evidence of this and it was reported on (for the usual one day and then dropped like a hot potato..nothing to see here) that 3,400 of the dead had been "disappeared", probably in cases where they were poor and unattached or when they were washed out to sea and gone...whoknows how it was done, exactly, and no one will EVER investigate and find out)

This was a very deliberate move by the Bushies, and it will indeed pay them dividends for decades to come in their drive to wholly seize America in unchecked Imperial Power.

The Bushies are sooooo close now. The window when they can even be stopped is closing fast.

I believe the video in on www.gregpalast.com

Especially if the scandal is revealed a ways out of the election. While I see it real difficult for Larry Craig to survive, even in deep red Idaho, will enough GOOPers forget about the toe-tapping in the primaries and will the overall voting public still be thinking about it if Larry behaves himself over the last year. Sorry to say, people have short-term memories and this works both ways. It helps a Ted Kennedy who won re-elections despite his personal problems but all but destroyed a George Allen when it happened close to election day.

Democrats can't expect to win by default if they want to be a true majority party.

that should be user for a campaign slogan

and 2/3 in the House. Dems won't get even close to that.

The definition of "supermajority" varies depending on the action being taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

The two notable examplesa are: 1) 60 votes to break a fillibuster
and 2) 67 votes to pass a constitutional amendment.

Tesha

as well as a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of Congress to pass a bill over the president's veto.

and that's why a supermajority is often thought of as two-thirds of the Senate and House. Because even if you can break a filibuster with 60, a President can still veto.

Don't be one of those "partial quoting" assholes; it's not
very becoming. Here's the entire portion of the relevant article:

> The United States Senate requires a supermajority of 60 percent to
> move to a vote through a cloture motion, which closes debate on a bill
> or nomination, thus ending a filibuster by a minority of members. In
> current practice, the mere threat of a filibuster prevents passing
> almost any measure that has less than 60 percent agreement in the
> Senate. There are currently 100 members, so sixty percent is sixty
> Senators.
>
> The United States Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds
> of both houses of Congress to propose a Congress-driven constitutional
> amendment; it also requires a three-quarters supermajority of state
> legislatures for final adoption of any constitutional amendment, as
> well as a two-thirds supermajority of both houses of Congress to
> pass a bill over the president's veto.

Your answer was incomplete; accept it and move on.

Tesha

the reason I used that partial quote was because you did the same thing in the post I responded to, dumpling. I wasn't trying to misrepresent anything, cupcake. My answer, sweetums, was an attempt to explain why many people refer to a supermajority as being two-thirds of the House and Senate.

I trust that clears things up, pumpkin.

Wrong, Cali. here's what you said:

> no. not even remotely. A super majority is 67 seats in the senate
> and 2/3 in the House. Dems won't get even close to that.


Here's what I then said:

> The definition of "supermajority" varies depending on the action being taken.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
>
> The two notable examplesa are: 1) 60 votes to break a fillibuster
> and 2) 67 votes to pass a constitutional amendment.


The real crime, of course, came when you then tried to quote
just half of the relevant part of the Wiki article. If that
were all that were there, it would have supported your argument
but, in fact, the quote when fully stated supports my argument
and destroys yours.

You were wrong. You got caught trying to mislead people. Don't
try to shift "but she did it first!!!!" blame onto me. Accept
that you were wrong, learn that at least some of the time you'll
get caught when you play this sort of game, and move on.

Tesha

(removed by author)

It was absolutely amazing how the Democratic Congress continued to do nothing while working to undermine the President, even when they owned the government. Getting a Democratic super-majority will only be the beginning.

I know Carter has been labeled ineffective, I didn't realize it was his own party working against him.

When Clinton was first elected, he had Democratic majorities
in both the House and Senate, but they spent those golden
two years pissing away their opportunity trying to prevent
the "outsider" president from accomplishing anything (like
national health care) while thye argued about ludicrous
stuff like "Don't ask, don't tell".

Democrats are pretty well-proven at snatching defeat
from the jaws of victory, and the 2006 Congress is fast
living up to that reputation.

Tesha

When Clinton came into office, so many of us were hopeful. He was a sea change from 12 awful years of Reagan-Bush wars and deficits and lies.

As soon as he got into office, it was a like a bureaucratic nightmare. Where did all the excitement go? It all got lost in the shuffle. In fact, it looked a whole lot like what's going on now. They were too busy waiting to see what the GOP would do next, and how that would affect their own poll numbers.

Stand behind me, Democrats!

taking on Congress and using his bully pulpit. And of course, all the imperialist wannabees hate his guts.

I think that Ray-gun was the worst. I don't think W. is worst then Ray-gun, imho.
:hi:

(Edit: Raygun or Shrub)

:hi:

:hi:

But since the Dem party is one of corporate advocacy, Our new Gov. Spitzer (D) has become another Pataki...

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

The GOP caucus has 2 more members then the dem senate caucus. We have a super majority in the assembly, and the exec. office.

So it is not a "super majority".

So far however, it has been politics as usual. Spitzer has fumbled over and over and the GOP is strong in its desire to cater to corporations.

But, the Dems never really challenged our admittedly moderate Repbulican governor, Jodi Rell. She managed to peel off enough votes to uphold her vetoes, if I'm not mistaken.

As much at they love Al Franken, they like the incumbency more.. I hope I'm wrong..

Minnesotans a reasonable people, and I don't think they are happy with the status quo. Especially since their bridge fell. I've not seen the polls, but I think we'll see a Sen. Franken in '09.

to happen to American politics ever, short of Robin Williams or Stephen Colbert becoming President.

If they can mount a good campaign there, it's a seat that can easily be won back. Coleman should be a priority target in 2008.

these days, it is indisputable that the nation and all of humanity would benefit from thoroughly removing the Royal and Loyal Bushies from power. It is probably the only configuration in which there is even the slightest chance that the Dems will have the spine to enact the necessary restoration of the Constitution, so it is something to most definitely be hoped for.

So, K & R, the first recommend, I am rather astonished to see, because the idea is so very GOOD.

I believe that gains in the House and Senate are more important than which Democrat goes to the White House.

winning the presidency is more important at this time because that person will likely be appointing at least two Supreme Court justices - I think Stevens will step down in 2009 if a Dem wins, but will likely step down either way as he is not exactly young. If a Dem wins, I think Ginsberg will step down in 2010.

The four hard-core RWers (Scalia, Aliton, Thomas & Roberts) will attempt to hold on until 2013 or 2017, if necessary.

that why I said which Democrat is less important, but it MUST be a Democrat in the WH.

Of course Lieberman has been an effective Repub on most issues since his reelection.

Hutchinson is rumored to be running for Gov of Texas.

I don't think she's vulnerable.

There won't be a Republican elected to anything anywhere with $4 gas and a 9,000 Dow. 60 Senate seats is a sure thing.

They defeated most of what Clinton proposed anyway...