A loss in Mass. will hand all the headaches back to the GOP where

[jasi2006]

it all started.

[Clio the Leo]

1. No, it just makes OURS bigger....

.... we'd still have the majority in Congress, but we'd only have 59 members in the caucus .... losing our ability to stop a filibuster.

[hughee99]

3. Do we really have this ability now?

We may have 60 now, but they're not all reliable on many issues. I'm not suggesting there's ANY benefit to losing the MA seat, just that having 60, in reality, doesn't seem to be as good as it sounds on paper.

[karynnj]

7. True, but it is better than 59 - especially as the trade would be a

vote that could be counted on (Kennedy/Kirk) for a vote that will never be there. We still would have the task of getting 60, except we would ALWAYS need to both keep Lieberman and to get a Republican. I also think keeping Lieberman will become harder as he may see his future is brighter as a Republican.

I suspect that Lieberman's long term goal, especially if we lose, will be to hold Homeland Security hearings on our response to various threats through the August recess, attempting to make that a dominant issue again - as it was in 2004. I would suspect that he will switch parties after the Senate recesses before the elections. This will cost him little, he can't win a Democratic primary, but the help both these things could give the Republicans could make him sufficiently popular as the Republican incumbent to win the nomination. He would, of course, have to win a general election in 2012.

[Clio the Leo]

9. Did we end the filibuster on Christmas Eve?

I might have been drunk off of too much egg nog, but I clearly remember us doing so.

And that doesn't even count all of the other bills Dems passed with that filibuster proof majority that didn't get the press the health care bill has received.

[hughee99]

12. Your right, we did...

and because of having just enough votes, they ended up having to make all sorts of concessions to Senators, and even ones that weren't threatening to vote against the filibuster (my own Sen. Kerry, for example). We broke this filibuster NOT because we have 60 votes in the caucus, but because they were willing to make deals to keep them. If they had 59 votes, they probably would have been able to get that 60th vote from a repuke with a similar deal.

Yes, 60 is 1000% better than 59 votes, but let's not pretend like having 60 votes is some sort of magic bullet. It just makes it a little less expensive to make a deal with a Dem than it does with a repuke.

[Clio the Leo]

19. Specter talked about how the GOP made a pact last January to prevent ...

.... to try and prevent any of the President's legislation from having a chance .... they wanted NO negotiation .... it's one of the reasons Specter changed parties (and to try to keep his seat obviously.)

[SharonAnn]

21. The GOP don't want to fix things. Whether they are in charge, or not.

They're anti-government.

[BP2]

5. The way things are going, we almost have that problem from

our own party already.

We don't need the help of the Pukes for that.

[Clio the Leo]

10. No we dont.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/senate-passes-health-care_n_402802.html

Obviously it's a bunch of things coming together, but you take something that seemed as "minor" as Specter switching parties, if that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be talking about a health care bill now.

[Recursion]

14. We can't seem to stop one now, at least not with any laws actual Democrats want NT

[quakerboy]

20. Seeing as we get the blame for having 60

but only the benefits of having 55 or so, I won't be shedding many tears, win or lose. losing would be a bit of a gut punch, but at the same time maybe it would end some of this idiotic "we got 60" complacency and provide the political necessity to work a new and different strategy to accomplish democratic goals

[drm604]

2. Yea, lets hand all of those headaches back to the GOP where they belong!

:sarcasm:

Are you for real?

[natrat]

8. no doubt-is this the new talking point or just some idiot

[cali]

4. wtf are you even talking about?

[karynnj]

6. No it won't

Do you remember the "headaches" we had after the victories of 2006? I don't - there weren't any, we were flying high thinking that we could now stop Bush from doing more and THEN get a Democratic President.

I think that if they got MA, it would help them in 2010 and beyond.

[southernyankeebelle]

11. If they get reelected then this country truly gets what it deserves. The republicans only

main concern has been about reelection. Since Obama has come into office all they have said is NO. Yes I am pretty pissed at Obama for not having enough balls to pressure democratics in the senate. But what we will get if the get back in is more of the same. Nothing.

[Kdillard]

13. + 1000

[Blaukraut]

15. And it will hand *us* here in Mass. a teabagger

Thank you for your kind wishes for your fellow progressives in Massachusetts. If this weren't a special election with likely low turnout, this guy would never win, so this will be a case were the minority forces its will on the rest of us. I could puke at the thought of this guy representing us until '12. The damage he can, and will do won't be easily undone.

[JVS]

16. Huh? A loss there makes more headaches for us in DC

[RBInMaine]

17. Can this shit please stop.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Punishing Coakley for the Obama's Health Insurance Bail Out is irrational

She had nothing to do with the Baucus and Nelsons in the Senate! Scott Brown is not the solution to the Blue Bitches we have in Congress!