If Dems win only the House or the Senate, which one would you choose?

[Pryderi]

Poll question: If Dems win only the House or the Senate, which one would you choose?

I'd choose the Senate in order to block a possible future appointment to the SCOTUS.

[Initech]

1. I have to say the senate

At the very least, we'll keep that asshole Frist from touting his anti-gay marriage amendment on the floor.

[MalachiConstant]

6. frist is retiring from the senate last i heard

[Initech]

37. Last I heard -

Frist was planning to add hate and bigotry to the constitution (or in other words, the gay marriage amendment) and get it on the senate floor in June.

[calimary]

2. The House - because that's where IMPEACHMENT proceedings get

rolling. Even if the Senate remains in enemy hands and an IMPEACHMENT was not upheld there (which happened with Clinton - tried but NOT convicted in the Senate), the FACT of IMPEACHMENT would remain on his record, and part of his legacy, FOREVER.

He deserves AT LEAST that much of a blemish on his record.

[SoCalDem]

16. Me too.. Let the investigations begin

[Toucano]

3. Normally, one would naturally pick the Senate, but this time

I'd have to go with the House.

Firstly, the court is already lost. The chances of restoring it are very slim in the immediate future.

Secondly, there are a lot of unreliable, corporatist Dems in the Senate. Even if we have control, they can't be relied upon when votes are close.

Lastly, a Republican House will never impeach Bush. Never. If the Dems get it back, articles could be passed and the chances of getting a conviction in the Senate are slightly better, I think. I could see 6 or 8 Republican Senators voting to impeach.

We just can't lose any seats in the Senate, that's for sure.

[Hippo_Tron]

5. Ginsburg is a cancer survivor and Stevens is in his 80's

The court is already lost, but these two heartbeats are pretty much the only thing standing in the way of a fascist supreme court. Restoring it won't happen, but perhaps we can minimize the damage if we take back the senate.

[regnaD kciN]

12. The Senate...it's a no-brainer...

As you point out, we already have a right-wing Supreme Court, but we may still have a one-vote margin opposing Bush's "unitary executive" claims and supporting reproductive rights. I don't think we should count on Justice Stevens being able to make it until 2009, which means we need a Democratic majority in the Senate to prevent another Alito or Roberts.

And, in addition to the SCOTUS, a Democratic-controlled Senate would be able to block wingnut appointments to the lower courts, from which extremist SCOTUS nominees generally come.

[Toucano]

14. That's a good point, but it already is a fascist supreme court.

Bush is NEVER going to send a nominee that would be acceptable anyway. So the most we could do is reject the nominee and force him to send a new one.

That battle was actually lost on November 3, 2004.

[serryjw]

30. Not totally

IF we lose Stevens, if will be. I have to vote Senate. I want the investigations also BUT which is MORE important to OUR lives?

[bluestateguy]

4. Senate

It's all about the judges. There be hope to save the Supreme Court just yet.

[farmboxer]

7. Senate

Senate, but I am hoping for both.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. It's a tough call, but I pick the Senate for the judges alone

House leadership is a much better stonewall against the white house's agenda than Senate leadership is. Because the Senate is run in a bipartisan manner, Senate leadership can be undermined by getting moderate dems to cross over and vote with the GOP. The Speaker of the House can pretty much block any bill that he wants to and force the white house to compromise with the majority party.

But Stevens is in his 80's and Ginsburg is getting up there in age too. Having control of the Senate Judiciary Committee is too important. I'd take the Senate.

[Neil Lisst]

9. both can subpoena, but only the senate can block judges

We need new leadership in both houses.

[longship]

10. It's not a close call. THE HOUSE!!!

In the House, the majority party has *total* control. That almost never happens in the Senate which has a history of commity and power sharing.

But what really tips the scale is two other powers that the House has that the Senate does not.

* The House holds the purse strings.
* The House can impeach.

For me, it's not even close. People talk about judges. But if the House goes to the Dems this year, the Dem Senators will be able to breath a bit easier, even if they remain in the minority. With bills coming to the Senate from a Democrat House, there's going to be a sea change in all of Congress.

The contrary would not be true. With a Dem Senate and Repug House, the House Dems will still have absolutely no power. Give us the House and tighten up the Senate and we might have something going.

Frankly, I think we're going to take them both this year. All the pollsters and the pundits predicting otherwise are going to be surprised.

[me b zola]

15. I like your way of thinking

"Frankly, I think we're going to take them both this year. All the pollsters and the pundits predicting otherwise are going to be surprised."

I'm not as optimistic, but I'm tired of living in this cloud of funk that has invaded my life watching as our nation is dying a death of a thousand cuts.

Your positive outlook and optimism has lifted my spirits a wee bit, and for that I am grateful.

To you, longship. :toast:

[Hippo_Tron]

17. But the senate judiciary committee will be able to block judges

That's a much better safeguard than hoping that the other dems in the senate grow some balls and fillibuster right wing nominees.

Also, while you are correct that all revenue raising bills start in the house, the senate gets considerable say in controlling the purse strings as well considering that they have to approve all of those bills as well.

But I agree with you that the majority has total control in the House and that there is more power sharing in the senate. Controlling the house would be a much better check on the white house in all areas except for judges. However, Bush is already a lame duck and I think that the worst thing that he could do in his last two years, short of going to war with Iran, is be able to replace Ginsburg or Stevens with whoever he wants.

[longship]

29. The judges are meaningless if the House remains in R hands

The damage done from the House side is considerable. Only the House can initiate budget bills. The power in the House resides *solely* with the majority party. They control the entire agenda, which hearings are held, everything. They even control scheduling of Congressional rooms. You'll notice that at a time when the Senate is having official hearings on ChimpCo corruption, that the House goes blissfully along with nary a discouraging word about ChimpCo, let alone actual hearings.

If people complain about partisanship in the Senate, it pails in comparison to the brick walled House, where the Repugs run things with an iron fist. Even with the Hammer gone, nothing has changed. There are no Dem bills coming out of the House side. Not a one.

Above all, we need the House back in Democratic hands.

If we get the Senate, too, we'll also get that Judiciary committee. But right now I'll just say that there's no comparison between Senator Spector and Congressman Senselessbrenner. I'd rather have the House Judiciary Committee than the Senate, even with the Senatorial power to approve judges. With the House Juciciary Committee, we get impeachment hearings. That's another thing that cannot happen in the Senate.

[IChing]

31. Thank you for explaining what and where the power is

People here for many years have been harping on the 2008 presidential election, or the senate thinking and waiting for power to change until then.
but the writers of the constitution and the history of our legislature branch has clearly shown that the sharing of power can be in equal hands.

I even read here on a DU poll stating by someone we need to take back the senate for impeachment.....?

[Hippo_Tron]

36. There are only hearings in the Senate right now...

Because Specter is trying to save his legacy. And then when he does call hearings, he pulls shit like not forcing the witnesses to be sworn in. Democrats still have no say as to when Senate hearings are called. If we get the Senate back, Pat Leahy can call any hearing that he wants.

I agree with everything that you say about the differences between the house and the senate but I'm still convinced that the senate is more important. After the midterms, chimpy will be a lame duck and as I said earlier, short of nuking Iran, the worst thing that he could do is get to replace Ginsburg or Stevens or both. I will admit that if we take the House we would have a better chance of blocking legislation to make the tax cuts permanent, but as important as that is, I still feel that protecting the Supreme Court is more important.

And while impeachment might happen if Democrats take back the House, it still might not prevent Bush from replacing a justice. I could easily see the GOP senate confirming a nominee while the House was in the process of impeachment.

[Raine]

11. Senate

there's more power there.

[sutz12]

13. Have to go with the House

1. The house truly has the purse strings. That's where appropriations start.

2. The house starts all impeachment proceedings.

Besides, it's the easiest to win. If we get both the house and Senate, gravy. Impeach and convict. :)

[WilliamPitt]

18. The House, hands down

Conyers as chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

Too good to pass up.

[Pryderi]

19. I think the Senate has the power to block both the House and President.

That's why I go with the Senate.

[LSK]

20. House - John Conyers

Theres more gutsy people in the House.

[xultar]

21. WTF...HOUSE PEOPLE!!!! IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATIONS!

[Strawman]

22. House. It's easier to control.

With a majority.

[cureautismnow]

23. House. Let's get the Impeachment Ball Rolling.

And take back 2/3rds of the Senate to seal the deal.

[Donovan61]

24. The House

The House controls the money. Also, as somebody else wrote, the majority party controls everything in the house and can do as it pleases. That's harder to do in the Senate. If Democrats control the House, at the very least we can block every scheme Bush comes up with. Also, nearly every committee could start an investigation. Wouldn't that be fun!

[IChing]

25. The House, can you imagine gavel to gavel impeachment procedings

with evidence of treason and high crimes would do to anything
the republicans tried to pass in the Senate?

Can you imagine what that would do to any local, state or national republican trying to run?


I was a college student during the watergate hearings and yes it changed a lot of perceptions
of the people
gavel by gavel
day by day.

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. The House! They'll have subpoena power, can investigate, start impeachment

proceedings and get rid of the entire corrupt cabal. They could clean house BIG TIME if they only had the power to do it. It has to be the House if we want these bastards to ever pay for what they've done.

[IChing]

27. I think the senate advocates have not read the house advocates posts

But that is only my opinion, LOL

[Pryderi]

28. **deleted**

[usregimechange]

32. Advise and consent on judicial appointments most important

[jsamuel]

33. House (and it is way more likely)

Senate is only up 1/3 every 2 years (full every 6 years).

House is fully up every time.

There is more power per Senator in the Senate, but overall there is more power in the House. The minority in the House has no power. The minority in the Senate has some power (filibusters). Being the majority in the House brings all the committies...

[orleans]

34. impeachment has to begin in the house

so i'm voting for the house

[Tiggeroshii]

35. The house has more power in general

An up or down vote goes in the house for the majority party. The Senate has all sorts of minority powers hindering the chance of survival on many issues that would do the Dems well.

[cascadiance]

38. To do a real impeachment you need BOTH!

So if you want to do the impeachment properly with only one body in control of the White House, you need to make the other one have Republicans be scared politicially of going against it. With the House being voted upon in every election, perhaps they can be made more scared than the Senate can. But if one can get enough "scared" Republican votes in the Senate, then I'd pick the House. In addition to the impeachment hearings having to start in the house, consider that if we impeach both Bush and Cheney at the same time, it will be the Speaker of the House that takes over then! I want that to be a Dem, NOT Hastert (or whoever takes over for him if he gets thrown out too!)!

But with the cost of a Dem taking over if Bush and Cheney get impeached, it might be that much harder to get Republican Senators to convict them! It will be an interesting chess match!