Republicans can't repeal anything.

[ProSense]

Even if Republicans could win 10 Senate seats and gain a 51-percent majority, Democrats would still be able to mount a filibuster. Also, if Republicans could get pass a filibuster, they would need a veto-proof majority to repeal any reform. That means if all of them voted for it, they'd need the support of 16 Senate Democrats to overcome a veto.

[cyr330]

1. I wish I had faith that.. .

15 Dems wouldn't go along with the Repigs, but I don't trust some of the DINO's we have in office!

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. You don't repeal...

...you de-fund. Which has budget implications. Which means you can do it via the reconciliation process.

Simple majority, and almost no filibuster.

You don't pass a budget or at least a continuing resolution, you get a government shutdown...

[ProSense]

3. "Which has budget implications."

Right, defund by reconciliation? Defunding would still be subjected to a filibuster.

"Simple majority, and almost no veto."

Almost?

This is simply another thing Republicans want people to believe

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. I don' think that's necessarily the case...

...nor do I necessarily think Ezra Klein is a Republican operative.

(I changed 'veto' to 'filibuster' on edit... a significant oopsie, but still an oopsie -- I was thinking in poli-sci speak, i.e. 'veto point'....)

[ProSense]

9. That's an article about

reconciliation. What does that have to do with a veto?

It's still not clear how easy it would be to pass a bill to defund health care via reconciliation, assuming Republicans gain 10 seats (nine and they're SOL).

[flamingdem]

11. Good news on this thanks nt

[FBaggins]

65. You don't need reconciliation to de-fund something

You just don't fund it. If it's not in the budget bill it gets no money.

All of which is beside the point. IF we lose the senate then the filibuster need not (indeed should not) be used. Simply veto and vote no on the override. Republicans pass a budget without funding for HCR? Veto. They can't pass a budget that you'll sign? We get another shutdown and they bear the blame.

It's a recipe for strengthening the president for reelection.

[Milo_Bloom]

5. And if the democrats take a whooping in November

Which message will they get?

The right one saying they gave into republicans far too often and didn't fight for meaningful reform and thus, the base lost faith in them and they should strive harder to be more progressive?

OR

Will they think they are not being centrist enough and give the republicans anything they want, even if it means siding with republicans to override a presidential veto, rolling back HCR, (which is probably the bill that lost them the majority anyway).



Gee, I wonder if there are 20 democrats in the senate who would buy into choice 2??

[ProSense]

8. If Republicans gain the majority,

nearly half the remaining Democrats will become Republicans?

Is that the theory?

[Milo_Bloom]

24. No, enough of them will just vote with them...

Like they did in 2001 when bush wanted to invade our privacy... or

Like they did in 2003 when bush wanted to go to war.

[OHdem10]

6. They are running DEFUNDING the Program which will have the

same result. The House Controls the Purse. They
know Obama would veto a repeal. They will not fund
the program and get the same result.

[Exilednight]

7. IF rethugs win a 51 seat majority, they would only need ........

9 Dems to go along with them to move to a vote. Then we have to depend on Obama to hold the veto line.

[ProSense]

10. "Then we have to depend on Obama to hold the veto line. "

Republicans are not going to get nine Democrats to vote to defund or repeal health care. They may be able to pick off three or four max.

[Exilednight]

13. That depends on how many conservadems are left. n/t

[ProSense]

17. Not really.

Currently, there are only about three who would dare entertain such a thing. If Dems lose 10 seats, it's likely at least one of or two of them will be among those defeated.

[Exilednight]

19. This is where I differ ...........

If some conserva-dems lose their seats, the others will sit up and take notice.

If rethugs win a majority, a lot of what they get through will depend on how long poll numbers fall in their favor. They took the PO from 77% down to under 50% in fairly quick time. Conserva-dems are not about principal, they're about poll numbers.

[ProSense]

22. Here's the problem with this

Blanche Lincoln ran into trouble after her vote against the public option. Sure a couple will have the urge to move right, but Democrats will think long and hard before doing something stupid like trying to defund health care. It's not happening.

[Exilednight]

25. I disagree, conservadems think like a right-winger when it comes to economics. n/t

[ProSense]

26. I don't disagree with you, but

you seem to believe that there are more Nelsons and Lincolns in the Senate than there actually are.

[Exilednight]

33. That's because there is ............

you don't have to worry about Nelson and Lincoln for another four years. Senators change strips two years before their election cycle. Due to Americas short term memory, they are only judged by what they've done since the last election cycle. They get a good 3 1/2 to 4 years of cover, but quickly become populists when their election cycle is about to catch up to them.

Akaka, Bingam, Casey, Conrad, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Tester, Liebermann, Klobuchar (she's no Franken), and Menendez are all going to be the Republican targets in the 2012 election cycle. That's 11 Senators from states that are either traditionally rethug or swing.

[ProSense]

34. That's your list

"Akaka, Bingam, Casey, Conrad, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Tester, Liebermann, Klobuchar (she's no Franken), and Menendez are all going to be the Republican targets in the 2012"

Senators Akaka, Bingamam, Casey, Conrad, Tester, Klobuchar and Menendez are not, absolutely not, going to vote to repeal health care.

[Exilednight]

35. They don't have to vote to repeal it, they just have to vote to .......

end debate. The other option for rethugs is to actually force Dems to filibuster on the floor.

[ProSense]

38. Your strategy for the Repubs

isn't likely.

[Exilednight]

40. 13 Senators in the Democratic caucus that opposed the PO .......

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
Web contact: http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=iss...
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/max_Baucus.htm


Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Web contact: http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm


Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Web contact: http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Maria_Cantwell.htm


Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
Web contact: http://carper.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Tom_Carper.htm


Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Web contact: http://conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Kent_Conrad.htm


Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Web contact: http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction...
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Dianne_Feinstein.h...


Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Web contact: http://landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm


Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
Web contact: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Joe_Lieberman.htm


Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Web contact: http://lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Blanche_Lambert_Li...


Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Web contact: http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bill_Nelson.htm


Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Web contact: http://bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me.cfm
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ben_Nelson.htm


Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Web contact: http://pryor.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Mark_Pryor.htm


Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Web contact: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact /
Phone: [phone]
Contributions summary: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=...
Issue Ratings: http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ron_Wyden.htm


Taken from right here on DU: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8516732

[ProSense]

41. We're not talking about the public option. We're talking about the current health care bill

Senator Ron Wyden?

Seriously, you actually think Wyden is going to vote to repeal health care?

[Exilednight]

42. Time will tell. LIke I stated earlier, a lot of it depends on the .........

poll numbers. Popularity will decide the bills funding fate.

[Milo_Bloom]

27. 29 Traitors voted for the Iraq war.

And you think they can't get 9???

[ProSense]

30. The SoS is a traitor?

Byron Dorgan?

What's your opinion of the Senators who voted for health care reform?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. Yes, If you voted for the war, you have blood on your hands.

Voting for health care reform doesn't doom hundreds of thousands of people to their death so you can "look tough".

At least with the health care vote they were TRYING to do something, no matter how miguided and counterproductive the result may have been.

[ProSense]

43. You said they were traitors. Still,

it's a good thing most people don't think like you.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Yes, they are traitors.

As for how many people think like me... a war vote kept someone from the nomination.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

58. Most of the vulnerable seats are "Blue Dogs," right?

If so, then if most of them are gone, they'll be fewer Democrats willing to go along with the Republicans. If the Republicans don't take over the Senate, then they can't even get repeal legislation through in the first place, right?

[babylonsister]

12. The big question would be: do we want Dems to be as obstructionist

as rethugs have been? I think they've been total assholes, so I have to say 'no' if it's an issue that will benefit the country.

[azmouse]

14. What are the chances that Republicans would do something to benefit the country?

Slim to none I'd say.

[babylonsister]

15. Ha! Well, there is that! Good point. nt

[Exilednight]

16. That depends on how they obstruct. IF, and I truly believe a handful ............

of Dems will, have ideas that counter rethugs just say no legislation, then yes they can be obstructionists.

The big problem the repugs have is that they have no ideas on how to bring us out of our current economic slump, how to improve health-care, or any other major issue.

Ask a rethug how to fix health-care, and they stand their with their mouth open. You can't just say "no, this won't work. You have to be able to say "no, this won't work, but this will".

[GOTV]

18. Did Bush have a filibuster proof majority when he caused all the damage?

No he did not.

He worked with Dems who were willing and able to aid and abet the destruction of our domestic and foreign policy.

Many of those Dems are still sitting there.

Some don't let filibusters get in their way.

[geek tragedy]

20. They can defund the entire federal government.

They can defund health care.

They can defund the SEC and Treasury Department regulators.

[golfguru]

21. I would celebrate if republicans repeal the ugly HCR bill

In that UGLY HCR bill,

For profit private insurers (FPPI) win 40 million additional paying
customers, courtesy of US tax payer subsidy.

Not a single restraint on premium hikes by FPPI is in the bill.
Annual rate hikes as high as 34% are already showing up in some areas this year.

No competition to FPPI from public option to keep rate hikes under control.

Competition to FPPI from across the state lines by other FPPI missing in bill.
So each state has it's FPPI operating as a monopoly without outside competition.

No wonder democrats all over the country running for election are running away from it.
And I can't blame them one bit.

[ProSense]

23. Are you planning on voting Republican? n/t

[golfguru]

28. I am planning on not voting this year n/t

[ProSense]

31. Do you plan on continuing to complain? n/t

[golfguru]

45. Actually I am about done complaining

I had to vent my frustrations about the HCR bill. I have done so
and I am about done.

[babylonsister]

32. Well there's a surprise. Heh. nt

[golfguru]

37. When I am disillusioned and depressed,

I have a tendency to crawl into a shell and just not do anything.

[babylonsister]

39. I've never seen you any way but... makes me wonder.

There are many things to celebrate with this admin, like yesterday's speech that got the majority of DU jazzed, but you? Not so much.

Sorry about the shell, though I don't see that either. You're very vocal when you want to be.

[golfguru]

44. You may call me selfish

but this health care bill will affect my every day life much more
than anything else the president or congress will do or have done.

My premiums are about to rocket up. I am dreading the letter which will
arrive soon from my employer advising me of my rates for next year. I was
praying for something in the bill to restrict rate hikes.

I always get depressed when my hard earned money is taken away from me
for no fault of my own.

It is already difficult finding doctors who will accept Medicare patients.
I am seriously worried about influx of 40 million more patients competing
with me. Yeah...call me selfish if you like, but all this is depressing to me.

[babylonsister]

47. #1, I didn't call you selfish.

It's nice that you explained where you're coming from.

Would you believe I have a p/t job and no health insurance? It's true.

May I ask if the new hcr made your life worse? How was everything before Obama and co. messed with it? Idiot son didn't even address health care; would that have been preferable?

I do honestly think Obama was trying to make it better, and it just might happen when everything takes effect. I know that might be little consolation now, but it also might help a whole lot of people.

[golfguru]

50. My single biggest complain for the HCR bill is

there is no public option to compete with the private insurers so
they can not raise rates willy nilly greedy..
And there are no restrictions on rate increases. Many have already
seen rate hikes of 34% in annual premiums. If my premium goes up
25 to 30% it will mean severe strains on my budget.

[Milo_Bloom]

29. +10000

[depakid]

48. LOL- they can simply refuse to fund anything

You see, Republicans actually know how to use their power and have the audacity to do so.

[ProSense]

49. "Republicans actually know how to use their power "

That's why they're in the WH and are the majority in Congress today, right?

As for the claim that they "can simply refuse to fund anything," Republicans, contrary to your praise, are stupid enough to try.

[depakid]

52. Did Republicans maintain control of Congress after they shut down the Govt?

or after they impeached Bill Clinton?

Are they on the verge of one of the most astonishing political comebacks in all of American history?

Case closed.

Too bad Dems can't seem to learn a thing or two from how they operate. If they had, they wouldn't be in this position.

[ProSense]

53. Here's what happened

By 1998, Gingrich had become a highly visible and polarizing figure in the public's eye, making him a target for Democratic congressional candidates across the nation. His approval rating was 45% in April 1998.<27>

Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party's attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.<28>

Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is."<29>

link

"Are they on the verge of one of the most astonishing political comebacks in all of American history?"

That would be the 2006 election. Guess who won?

"Are they on the verge of one of the most astonishing political comebacks in all of American history?"

Your admiration of Republicans is noted, but where did you get that talking point?

[depakid]

54. You seem to have difficulty accepting objective facts

not unlike our "friends" on the other side of the aisle.

Republicans controlled Congress (and the legislative agenda) from 1995 until 2007, effectively banishing Democrats to Siberia and violating any and every protocol or tradition that happened to get in the way.

[ProSense]

55. "the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn't hold the presidency"

Chew on that objective fact.

Prior to the 12-year period you cited, Democrats held a significant majortity (55 or more seats) for the previous four Congresses.

What happened from 1995 to 2007? Your mighty Republicans, held 52 to 55 seats for three periods. Then suffered losses in 2001, resulting in a slim 50-seat majority. They gained four seats in 2005, and then lost a six seats in 2007 and a eight seats in 2009. They subsequently lost an additional seat (Specter) bringing the Dem gains to 9

A lost of a whopping 15 seats between 2007 and 2009.

Hey, I can see why you're impressed.

[depakid]

56. Hollow spin doesn't negate the key historical fact- who controlled Congress?

Here's a prediction for ya.

If this (most pathetic bunch to ever grace the national stage) takes control of Congress in 2011, they'll demonstrate how to use subpoena power- and in the "spirit of bipartisanship" the Obama Justice Department will oblige and help them with enforcement.

[ProSense]

57. Who controls it now?

Which party is in the WH?

[depakid]

59. Tick tock

Should be interesting to watch the next several months and years to see what if anything the powerbrokers learn.

A little late coming out of the box, but it's still possible to hold the House.

Some suggestions on how to salvage the majority from Drew Westen here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/what-created-the-populist_b_699960.html

[ProSense]

60. You're looking forward to Republicans winning control?

Are you going to be sad if they do not?

Who is in control now? Which Party is in the WH? <<<< Answer those questions.

[depakid]

61. Do yourself a favour and read Westen's article

if not his published works.

It will help you (eventually) to get a grasp on how politics works on the level that you're interested in.

[ProSense]

62. Can't

answer the questions?

You're looking forward to Republicans winning control?

Are you going to be sad if they do not?

Who is in control now? Which Party is in the WH?

[depakid]

66. :sigh:

I suppose it's useless.

See you on the next thread.

[ProSense]

67. "See you on the next thread."

Seriously, is it that hard for you to answer the questions:

You're looking forward to Republicans winning control?

Are you going to be sad if they do not?

Who is in control now? Which Party is in the WH?

Two out of three?

[angee_is_mad]

51. dang not recs?

whats up with that?

[totodeinhere]

63. Maybe they can't repeal anything, but remember that much still needs to be done and they could block

any new initiatives. They could also block any more unemployment insurance extensions. And if they get 51 votes in the Senate they could block Obama's judicial nominations. So I take scant solace in the fact that they probably could not repeal anything.

[ProSense]

64. Republicans would have

a hard time blocking unemployment insurance extensions. They are political hypocrites, they funded unemployment under Bush.

Still, I agree with your overall point that Republicans will attempt to block new initiatives.

What I do not believe is that Republicans will gain control of the Senate.

At some point, the President should begin recess appointments for his judicial nominations.

[FBaggins]

68. Nope... they would have ZERO problem blocking unemployment extensions.

Have you noticed Pelosi's complaints about all the things that the House has passed that haven't come up for a vote in the Senate? (And that's with a solid Democratic senate majority).

They don't have to "block" anything (as in, take a positive action to vote down or filibuster)... they just don't even bring it up for a vote. It dies in committee in the House.

Heck... "Block" implies a minority using parliamentary tricks (filibuster/whatever) to cancel the will of the legislative majority. When you're in the majority you just vote "no".

Republicans would like to privatize Social Security right now. Democrats aren't "blocking" this legislation... they're just saying "no"

[ProSense]

69. Here is why I said that:

If Republicans are in the majority, blocking unemployment will be blamed on them, not the Democrats in Congress, who unlike Republicans will vote to extend benefits.

Republicans are not going to want to be seen as blocking unemployment.

[FBaggins]

70. It would be "blamed on them" -

By the people who are unemployed

I don't think that they're counting on many of their votes in the first place.

These are the people who cut unemployment benefits in the first place. I don't think that they have any fear of failing to increase them.

[ProSense]

72. They will posture, but

they will not block benefits long term. If they had any desire to do that, they could have done that now, and they did for eight votes. Eventually, and especially when Republicans voters started making a big stink, enough of them caved to see it pass.

[totodeinhere]

73. Maybe you're right, but I'm not willing to take that chance.

If they got control of the House, it could embolden them. For one thing, they know that the voters have a short political memory. Who could have imagined that only two years after the Bush debacle that we could be seriously talking about the possibility that the GOP could take back Congress? It can only happen if the voters have a massive case of amnesia, and such an outcome will only encourage the GOP to do even more damage.

[FBaggins]

75. I disagree

There's a difference between going on the record as a "no" on an extension bill that you know is going to pass (or filibustering such a bill that would pass anyway).

Not letting it even come up in committee isn't anywhere close to being as dangerous. Heck... you can even have individual republicans claim that they would be willing to vote for it, but the leadership hasn't scheduled a vote ("leadership" that resides in safe districts who can take all the heat).

As I said before... they don't have to "block" anything.

[opihimoimoi]

71. Yup, You're right, They ain't gonna do shit...Obana and crew just warming up

Gop would be lucky just to stay even....they of WHACKO DECEIT and Policies( HONESTY IZ NOT DERE POLICY)

InSanity Iz!!!!

[Orsino]

74. They might, however, terrify enough weak-ass Dems to do nearly anything they could want.

Though a repeal seems more doubtful.