So now what?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Our options seem few.

We don't get to set the legislative agenda.

Neither side can push past a filibuster in the senate.

Any surviving blue dogs must certainly be cowering in fear.

And Obama is talking compromise as those big sillies (a.k.a. The Professional Left, SM) demand he stick to his guns.


*sighs*


So who is your pick for 2016?

[BurtWorm]

1. Dems can set the agenda in the Senate.

The GOP will be more of an obstacle, but they will be in serious trouble if they stick to their old ways of assuming "the people" are behind them and plowing ahead--or standing dead still, as the case may be--with their agenda.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. We'll find out soon enough

When competing bills arise in the HoR (sound it out, it makes sense).

One chamber will seek to improve the other will seek to dismantle, defund it.

The battles will be epic but one side or the other will win public approval.

Whether or not they like what they win remains to be seen.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Obama can act like a leader and not let the House tell him what to do for the next two years.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. He can propose bills but only the legislature can write laws

If it isn't law the president can't really do much.

Now if Obama wants to offer a super awesome spectaular agenda and dare the GOP to refuse him I guess we get to call each other's respective bluffs.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. + 1

[HereSince1628]

4. It's generally not a good idea to make decisions when you are upset.

For today, it's time to grieve among friends and resolve to stick together.

The next opportunity for most of us to vote for a national level candidate is two years away. With emotionally impulsive tea-party senators in place, the issues for the nation in 24 months are difficult to anticipate.

Strategically, here in Wisconsin trying to get fair congressional districts in the face of red team gerrymandering has becomes a very big deal.

[Capitalocracy]

7. I don't know if you're right about the filibuster

With conservatives and corporate Dems included, the right wing may well now have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. That...

...is too horrific to contemplate.

But that implies there are 13 such wolves hiding among the flock. Did that many blue-balled dogs survive?

I don't think so but I cannot reasonably dispute your assertion.

As I said a week or so ago (and was resoundingly thumped for it) we should be taking notes from the Tea party on how to shore-up our side of the ideological aisle. They purged many they considered to be RINOs. They dragged the entire GOP to the right (is that even possible?).

Yes, I'll say it: I'm jealous.

Would that we could replace the Ben Nelsons with more Russ Feingolds.

I sincerely believe the middle-roaders are out of favor both among the electorate and the politicians who seem muddled and confused about how to approach any given subject.

How else can we account for such high polling in favor of a public option but such scathing hatred for the HCR law that was handed to us?

Americans, if the movie "Patton" is to be believed, love a good fight. They want the final battle between good and evil, right and wrong, conservative and progressive.

So be it.

Let's assemble our best team and encourage our opponents to assemble their best team and let's have at.

Besides, my butt would look awesome in fencing tights.

[Capitalocracy]

10. I had a little conversation in another thread...

about how maybe part of what happened is the media (and we) focused on a few really crazy candidates, like Christine O'Donnel, Rand Paul, Sharron Angle, etc., and meanwhile, a whole bunch of Republicans nobody's ever heard of took over the House.

If instead of resisting the left, we had a Democratic Party that allowed progressive candidates to run, their efforts to take them out (as they did with Feingold and Grayson) would be far less concentrated.

[bluethruandthru]

9. Unfortunately, I think you may be right. n/t