I wonder if things might get better after the 2010 election

[Juche]

There has been talk that the filibuster rules may be changed at the start of the 112th congress. And there is a very low chance the dems will lose the senate.

Some of the seats they are likely to lose are held by conservadems like Bayh or Lincoln. So its not like people like Sheldon Whitehouse or Bernie Sanders are going to lose their seats in 2010.

Also, most of the losses in the house will be blue dogs, weakening their caucus. So the dems will have a smaller majority (assuming they hang onto the majority) but the conservadems will be a weaker movement and the progressive caucus will have a larger % of the house membership.

So if in the 112th congress the dems have 230 seats in the house and 54 senate seats, but the losses have almost all been blue dogs and conservadems (which they might, especially in the house) and if filibuster rules are changed so you only need 50 + Biden to pass a bill, things might actually get better in the 112th congress.

New filibuster rules, fewer blue dogs, a larger % of the party being made up of progressives and still the majority.

If we get new filibuster rules and hold the majority in the house it could be better to have a smaller, more progressive majority.

[Hawkowl]

1. We can hope

If not this cycle then it will get better in 2012 after more conservadems have their heads handed to them by the furious electorate.

[GSLevel9]

2. not a chance...

expect complete political fucking misery at the Capitol...

[aquart]

4. Well, if they make me miserable, I want them to be miserable.

Fair's fair.

[DFLforever]

3. I don't think they'll reduce the requirement down to 50+ 1.

That's all the Repukes would then need in the future to undo everything the Dems pass.

They'll make it higher than that.

[tkmorris]

6. That's all they'll need anyway

They filibuster everything, Dems do not. Even when they should, they don't.

[scheming daemons]

5. The conservaDems in the House will be replaced by... even more conservative Republicans!

How's that good?

[tkmorris]

8. In the short run it won't

In the longer view however there are times when the only way to get a better Dem into those seats is for the current useless idiot with a 'D' after their name to lose to a Repub, then we beat the Repub when he comes up for re-election. That's a long lonely road I know, but in some cases it may be better than waiting for the incumbent to die. Yeah, I'm looking at you Mr. Nelson. Which one you ask? Does it matter?

[DFLforever]

9. Exactly,

And losing seats won't lead to risk-taking by Dems up for re-election in 1012.

[Juche]

16. Depends on how you look at it

It is better to lose 30 blue dogs than to lose 30 members of the progressive caucus if you are going to lose members. And the dems are going to lose seats in this election.

And after all is said and done, a bigger % of the dems in congress will be progressives with a smaller % being blue dogs, which will hopefully give progressives more influence in legislation.

[Oregone]

7. Nothin ever gets better these days. It just gets a fresh coat of paint

[defendandprotect]

10. Were there any primary challenges from liberal Dems vs Bayh or Lincoln?

[SoCalDem]

11. The problem is that once '10 is over, the press will gear up for '12

Our perpetual campaign pretty much guarantees that no politician can actually legislate because they are always running for their next term..

[Parker CA]

12. That's the kind of optimism I so rarely see here! Excellent post. That'd be a great result. nt

[LawnKorn]

13. The Right Wing has clearly peaked, and support will run downhill until the mid term elections

The Republicans have peaked too early, and will not sweep the elections. The amateur nature of the Tea Party movement is showing in that they put all of their efforts up front, and saved nothing for the end game. The Republicans messed up letting the TeaBaggers take center stage for the elections.

In other news, the more the TeaBaggers get face time in the media, the more the American people realize they are just over zealous, right wing fundamentalists, with conflicting ideas about reality. Voters are seeing Tea Party candidates could never function effectively in a position of power. The attitude of "Throw the bums out!" is strong, but voting for certifiably crazy candidates will not carry the day.

We will hold the House of Representatives by at least 15 seats, and hold the Senate by 7. I am including Bernie Sanders and our 'friend' Joe Lieberman on our side.

Watch for the right wing talkers like Beck and Limbaugh to blow a gasket as their chances for winning ramp down to 25% by mid October.

[Ratty]

14. Exactly!

Word for word, couldn't have put it better myself!

[kctim]

15. It seems you're hopes

can only come true IF progressives replace moderates, or IF progressives replace the Republicans who replaced the moderate Democrats, and that is not going to happen.
What is your plan to convince moderates to turn progressive?

[TheKentuckian]

18. What moderates are you referring to? Most in danger are conservatives.

[kctim]

19. Why are they in danger?

It sure as hell is not because they aren't left enough, lol.
Things really won't change unless moderate Democrats can be convinced to vote for a progressive.

If you have 50 progressives and 12 moderates, replacing the 12 moderates with Republicans, the only things you are changing are replacing somebody who votes with you most of time for somebody who rarely votes with you.
Sure, you would cull the herd of those who don't think in lockstep with you, but would you really want every vote to be 50+1? No. Not good for policy, not good for the country.

[TheKentuckian]

20. What moderates?

[kctim]

21. Here in MO

We have Ike Skelton in a race that is closer than it needs to be. We have Robin Carnahan trailing Blunt and that is backwards. Claire Mac would lose if she were up for election this year.
Then there are the regular cast of characters like Nelson and Lincoln who the far-left want out.

NONE are in that position because they aren't far enough to the left.

[TheKentuckian]

23. I'll maybe grant McCaskill as a conservative leaning moderate. Skelton sucks Donkey Kong ass

and is a powerful chairman that loves war and craps on civil liberties so he can rot for all I care. I think the party and the country are better off without his evil ass.

Nelson is a rock ribbed conservative and Lincoln is damn close, neither are moderates both would be very comfortable as pukes 10-15 years ago easy and Nelson would still easily fit in with the likes of Graham, Hunt, and Hatch.

[kctim]

24. Look at any

of their voting records and tell us if ANY of them would be as bad or worse than the Republican who would take their place.

Replacing moderate Democrats with Republicans will not make the Democratic Party stronger. More ideological and extreme? Sure. But that would soon run its course and then we are discussing leadership positions, judges etc...

[TheKentuckian]

25. They are not moderates. They are conservatives. Ike is friggin right winger

The people you may label as conservatives are no such thing but rather are radical regressives and right wing extremists.

Conservatives are not moderates no matter how crazy the right wing decides to be.

As for the Democrats becoming extreme, it would seem unlikely seeing the most far left would have been mainstream not many years ago.
You talk like we are chock full of actual Marxists or even hard core socialists or something.

Odd how you are concerned about the party becoming "extremist and ideological", almost like we are tittering on the edge and only the Senator from Mutual of Omaha and friends are keeping us from the Red Revolution or something.

What concerns do you have about the ideology of the Democratic party? Who are these extremist politicians in the caucus that make you worried? What policies do you think would be negative for the nation we'd be promoting were it not for the influence the likes of Lincoln?

What is the source of your concerns?

[ThomWV]

17. I think they will get worse until the 2012 election, and then I expect a lot of good

I expect a 2nd-term President Obama to be splendid. I really do. I think that once he's free of the political shackles of the first term he can persue a more progressive agenda at will. I am supposing, of course, that he has the will - and in that I still have some faith in him. There are mistakes he could make between now and then, just mimic his first year in capitulation to Republicans might be enough to make him a 1-term-er, if he can make it to the next election I think things will improve greatly.

As for the tween time. Republicans will lose seats in November, but they will continue to obstruct themselves right out of power for the two years that follow. They have killed themselves with the spanish speaking vote (except the Miami Cubans of course) and that is a toll yet to be taken.

[Lost4words]

22. if history is any indication, no fucking way! nt