2010 Election: Can we get 67 senators?

[asksam]

I think it's great that once Franken is seated (what the heck is holding that up, anyway?) we'll have the sixty votes necessary to stop a filibuster. We'll finally be able to push our agenda through Congress without the Rethugs obstructing us.

I was wondering, however, if anyone here has been following the way the Senate races have been shaping up for 2010. I thought it would be a great thing if we can get to 67 senators. There are things that I'd love to see done, but we're going to need the 67 senators to get them done.

What are the odds of us actually getting there? Do we have a realistic shot of getting 67 in the midterm elections?

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. The more relevant question for 2010

Is how many Republicans (i.e. DLC'ers and BlueBallers) we can evict from Democratic seats in the primaries.

Because 66, 67, or 99 theoretical Senators doesn't mean shit if they don't actually VOTE like Democrats.

[billyoc]

2. What do you think you need 67 votes for? A veto override? A constitutional amendment?

[asksam]

5. Impeachment. Explusion.

I'd love to see the Senate take Robert, Thomas, Scalia and Alito off the bench. Those jokers are pretty young (for a SCOTUS justice) and will be killing civil rights for the next quarter century.

I'd also love to see some of the Rethug Senators kicked out. With two-thirds we can do that.

[billyoc]

7. I see. Well, you might pick up 3-4 seats in the Senate in '10, no more than that.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. On what grounds would you impeach them?

I hate the sons of bitches as much as you, but I don't see anything impeachable. Maybe Roberts, as I believe he was horribly under qualified for the job - not even being a judge of any kind until 2003. But even that would be a long shot.

[OmahaBlueDog]

10. Even FDR met a lot of resistance when he suggested stacking the court

...and as much as I hate the GOP, at that point, you might just touch off Civil War II. Better to use the power to pass good laws and work on deconstructing Big Oil and the M.I.C.

[Bucky]

12. If not being a judge for very long is disqualification, we'd never have Thurgood Marshall

Getting confirmed by 51 senators is de facto qualification.

[w4rma]

13. No. That won't happen with 67 Democratic Senators. Democrats don't vote lockstep like Repugs. (nt)

[Taitertots]

14. Constitution, we need to destroy it to protect it

We need to end democracy, that will make America better.

[gcomeau]

11. Breathing room.

No more need to pander to the least progressive members of the party on every single vote just to keep the Republicans from switching ONE of them over on any given piece of legislation and ending the ability to invoke cloture, which is the situation you're perpetually in if you only have 60 votes.

[marshall]

15. With numbers like that it's time for a Constitutional Congress!

Update that old document!

[Dragonfli]

3. A little off topic regarding the 67 but you should know..

The 60 Senators does not appear to be enough to end the phantom filibuster obstruction of the dead-enders.

It would appear that at least 12 are infiltrators that agree with the dead enders and are only "democrats" to get elected.

[BlooInBloo]

4. We need more and better Democrats. IMO we've got the "more" part down....

Time to work on the "better" part.

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. Difficult: Not impossible

See my post from earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5586930

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010


The path to 67 is difficult, but not impossible:

- We would have to not lose any seats. There are potentially tough races in AR, CO, and NV particularly.

- We would have to take all the open seats in NH, FL, OH, MO, and KS (this would have been simpler had the President not named Gov. Sebelius to HHS)

- We would also need to win in LA (Vitter) and NC (Burr)

- KY and SD may also be able to be brought into play, but it's too early to tell.

[Better Believe It]

8. If we can elect 90 Democratic Senators by the 2012 election that might work

Now it turns out the "filibuster proof 60 vote Democratic majority" won't be enough to stop Republican filibuster threats much less real filibusters!

Here's how the story goes.

Excuse #1 2005 version The Republicans control the Senate so we need to elect 51 Democratic Senators in order to get progressive legislation passed. And we can't filibuster Bush Suprme Court nominations because Republicans might change Senate rules ending filibusters with a "nuclear option".

Excuse #2 2006 version We now control the Senate but we need to elect a Democratic veto-proof President in order to get progressive legislation signed.

Excuse #3 2008 version We control the Senate and have a Democratic president but need to elect 60 Democratic Senators in order to have a "filibuster proof" Senate.

Excuse #4 2009 version We control the Senate with 60 votes but some Democrats will filibuster against appointments and legislation so we need to elect a super-duper majority of 70 Democratic Senators to have a "filibuster proof" Senate.

Excuse #5 2010 version We now control the Senate with 70 Democrats and "We almost did it! But we need to elect just five more Democratic Senators in 2012, giving us 75 Democrats in the Senate. If we do that, we'll probably be able to get 60 of them to vote cloture ending Republican/Democratic filibusters!"

Excuse #6 2012 version Well, we couldn't get much accomplished because of those damn Republican led filibusters. That's why the Republicans were able to regain control of the House, the Senate and the White House in 2012. But, if we work our asses off and regain control of the Senate and House in the 2014 election, we'll be able to get progressive legislation passed .... if the Republicans don't threaten a filibuster in the Senate.

Excuse #8 2014 version We won control of the Senate and House but we need to elect a Democratic veto-proof President in 2016 in order to get progressive legislation signed.

ad nauseam ....