[Grover Cleveland]

Shit's getting worse by the day for the Repubs.

Mittens is blowing their chances of taking back the White House and their senate map is blowing up.

[Forever]

They have been legitimately raped?

Shut the whole thing down.

[Randolph Freelander]

Ron Paul 2016

[massoluk]

Who actually thought the GOP would take the senate? Congress on the other hand is worth talking about

I assumed you mean the House, but that still doesn't make sense because GOP has the House.

[Basileus777]

Were the Democrats the first people to use the Fillibuster? I don't buy this "we will do it this time, we swear" talk.

The filibuster had been around for over a century, everyone has used it.

[Grover Cleveland]

I assumed you mean the House, but that still doesn't make sense because GOP has the House.

There's a chance (a pretty small one IMO, but still a chance) that the Dems re-take the House.

If anything, they should be able to gain at least a few seats.

[Miletius]

There were also perfectly good reasons to believe that the GOP would take the senate earlier this year. Then came Romney and a series of unfortunate events which led to their current predicament.

[massoluk]

There were also perfectly good reasons to believe that the GOP would take the senate earlier this year. Then came Romney and a series of unfortunate events which led to their current predicament.

Romney was a secret democrat all along. It was a mission. A life long dream of his father to destroy the GOP, fulfilled by the son. But to do so, he must become one of them.

[ErasureAcer]

There's a chance (a pretty small one IMO, but still a chance) that the Dems re-take the house. If anything, they should be able to gain at least a few seats.

Minnesota is flipping at least 2 House seats for sure. Bachmann is going down. Her opponent is a wealthy self-made businessman who has the resources if needed(he still wants donations) to pounce her. Bachmann only got 46-48 percent last Presidential cycle and this time there is no 3rd party candidate siphoning votes. The district got redder thanks to redistricting but an internal poll has her challenger Jim Graves down only 2 points before ads even started. Jim just put out his first 2 ads today! Saw one of them twice tonight on the TV.

[MeBecomingI]

Hopefully the Democrats can take the House when the time comes too.

[smurfx]

Minnesota is flipping at least 2 House seats for sure. Bachmann is going down. Her opponent is a wealthy self-made businessman who has the resources if needed(he still wants donations) to pounce her. Bachmann only got 46-48 percent last Presidential cycle and this time there is no 3rd party candidate siphoning votes. The district got redder thanks to redistricting but an internal poll has her challenger Jim Graves down only 2 points before ads even started. Jim just put out his first 2 ads today! Saw one of them twice tonight on the TV.

man bachmann being booted would be so incredible.

[ivysaur12]

man bachmann being booted would be so incredible.

Bachmann getting booted by a pro-marriage equality Democrat. Poetic justice.

[Kusagari]

Doubt Democrats will be able to retake the house until 2016.

[makingmusic476]

If Democrats somehow retake the House, that plus filibuster reform... :O

[jambo]

They have been legitimately raped?

Fucking ether!

[HylianTom]

I don't mind the filibuster, so long as the person doing it is actually on the floor of the chamber talking non-stop. No more of this "I threaten to filibuster" bullshit.. make 'em actually do it, Jimmy Stewart-style.

[Dan]

Is Bachmann truly in danger of losing her seat? That makes me super happy.

I don't mind the filibuster, so long as the person doing it is actually on the floor of the chamber talking non-stop. No more of this "I threaten to filibuster" bullshit.. make 'em actually do it, Jimmy Stewart-style.

Truth! I feel like part of the abuse would disappear if you made these people actually stand up there for hours and prevent the Senate from legislating. Instead, all you have to do is threaten.

[Kettch]

Truth! I feel like part of the abuse would disappear if you made these people actually stand up there for hours and prevent the Senate from legislating. Instead, all you have to do is threaten.

It makes it far too easy to threaten a filibuster and then turn around and say "We tried our best, they just didn't want to work with us, it's all their fault"! Have a hundred videos out there of real filibusters and it'll be obvious what's going on. Senators will actually be forced to defend their reasons for blocking legislation. Right now there's no responsibility at all.

[Visualante2]

It reminds me of when Michael Howard was in charge of the Tory election. Total disaster.
Maybe this is on another level though.

[Aaron Strife]

I wouldn't get too bullish about Bachmann losing her seat, but I actually do think things are shaping up for Democrats to take the House back.

Gerrymandering and the incumbent effect give Republicans some insulation on how much Democrats need to win by to win the House overall, but Nate said last year it would probably need to be between 3 or 4 points, and right now they're up by 5.5. (threw out rasmussen because they're garbage) The individual district polls have been pretty positive too.

I could see a really good election night for Democrats wherein they actually gain seats in the Senate, win the House back and Obama sweeps in every swing state. I don't want to get my hopes up quite yet but it's hard not to.

[Visualante2]

I could see a really good election night for Democrats wherein they actually gain seats in the Senate, win the House back and Obama sweeps in every swing state. I don't want to get my hopes up quite yet but it's hard not to.

Are drinking games a faux pas?

[teacupcopter]

Is Bachmann truly in danger of losing her seat? That makes me super happy. Truth! I feel like part of the abuse would disappear if you made these people actually stand up there for hours and prevent the Senate from legislating. Instead, all you have to do is threaten.

It's still stupid though, why keep it

[I H8 Memes]

There were also perfectly good reasons to believe that the GOP would take the senate earlier this year. Then came Romney and a series of unfortunate events which led to their current predicament.

Are you saying the situation for republicans right now would have been better with any other candidates? Newt Gingrich? Certainly not with Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Paul, or Cain. It would have been so much worse.

That's all I wanted from Republicans, just nominate one of the nut jobs instead of the fake robot. They wouldn't give it to me. I always knew they wouldn't too. I just wanted any one of them except Romney, and I knew they didn't have the balls to give me one of those fruitcake candidates.

[Timedog]

How does the filibuster work?

[bananas]

How does the filibuster work?

You don't shut up so that the other people can't pass their law and then they give up.

[Wafflecakes]

You don't shut up so that the other people can't pass their law and then they give up.

Not really true anymore. Use to be true but now you don't actually have to sit at the podium and talk and camp out.

A more elegant way to put it filibusters in general is that to end debate on a bill you must have 60 votes. If you lack 60 votes you can never end debate and this never get to a vote.

[viciouskillersquirrel]

You don't shut up so that the other people can't pass their law and then they give up.

Pretty much. Because there's rules that say that you have to hear all opinions before having a vote, if you keep talking, you can effectively block any further business from being undertaken that day.

Fun fact: The very first filibuster was used against Julius Caesar.

[Ikael]

The mere existence of the Senate baffles me. Isn't there a congress that takes care of controlling the goverment already? How does this help to do anything other than obstructing proper governance?

[Vice]

The mere existence of the Senate baffles me. Isn't there a congress that takes care of controlling the goverment already? How does this help to do anything other than obstructing proper governance?

Since the number of HoR members a state gets is based on population the Senate keeps things fair. Otherwise states like Texas and California could just use their size to get whatever they want.

Congress is made of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[speculawyer]

So is the GOP Senate committee going to blame much of this on Mitt? (Or MexicanMitt ?)

He probably is dragging the down-ticket GOPers down now.

[Ikael]

Since the number of HoR members a state gets is based on population the Senate keeps things fair. Otherwise states like Texas and California could just use their size to get whatever they want. Congress is made of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Thank you for the explanation, but it still seems a bit tad of an overengineered system, there are many democratic countries are monocameral and leaves the territorial representation to the electoral law.

Also, the whole "territorial representation" concept seems foolish and anachronic to me. Goverment exist as a mean to provide services to the citizenry (security, education, etc), not to a piece of land and dirt. Even if certain areas or cities would concentrate goverment resources more than others if there wouldn't be any kind of territorial representation system on place, the whole process of urbanization and concentration of human popullations in very specific areas is a natural and positive one that have started since the first cities appeared on the fertile crescent. Too much people are hung up in romantizing the whole "rural life" thing, I guess.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Since the number of HoR members a state gets is based on population the Senate keeps things fair. Otherwise states like Texas and California could just use their size to get whatever they want. Congress is made of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

But that makes sense these days. I mean, you have like 50 times more people voting for a California senator than an Alaskan one.

Seriously, there's something very wrong when a state has more senators than representatives.

[Dead Man]

I don't mind the filibuster, so long as the person doing it is actually on the floor of the chamber talking non-stop. No more of this "I threaten to filibuster" bullshit.. make 'em actually do it, Bernie Sanders-style.

Fixed?

[Basileus777]

Thank you for the explanation, but it still seems a bit tad of an overengineered system, there are many democratic countries are monocameral and leaves the territorial representation to the electoral law. Also, the whole "territorial representation" concept seems foolish and anachronic to me. Goverment exist as a mean to provide services to the citizenry (security, education, etc), not to a piece of land and dirt. Even if certain areas or cities would concentrate goverment resources more than others if there wouldn't be any kind of territorial representation system on place, the whole process of urbanization and concentration of human popullations in very specific areas is a natural and positive one that have started since the first cities appeared on the fertile crescent. Too much people are hung up in romantizing the whole "rural life" thing, I guess.

The US government and electoral system was devised in the 18th century, of course it's a bit outdated.

[speculawyer]

But that makes sense these days. I mean, you have like 50 times more people voting for a California senator than an Alaskan one.

If only it was that democratic.

[mclem]

50.5 is enough to remove the filibuster forever.

Senator Stackhouse will be furious.

[mclem]

man bachmann being booted would be so incredible.

That'd be quite the Portillo Moment

[Timedog]

the filibuster makes no sense to me. There should be a limited amount of time in which an issue can be debated.

But yeah, as it stands, they don't force people to take the podium indefinitely in order to debate? why not?

[Dead Man]

the filibuster makes no sense to me. There should be a limited amount of time in which an issue can be debated. But yeah, as it stands, they don't force people to take the podium indefinitely in order to debate? why not?

I don't know how, but some how the threat of someone standing up and talking was so persuasive they just stopped calling it out.

[alstein]

I want to believe him, but I have my doubts

It would make sense to do it.

In 2014, the Dems would have a great shot of losing the Senate- non-election years favor more rabid voters, who tend to be republicans (see 2010), and there is often blowback after a presidental win. However, Obama has the Veto.

In 2016, if things are good, the Dems could get a heavy sweep, as the folks who got elected to the Senate in 2010 (largely Teabaggers) will be up for re-election. Odds are the economy should be in recovery in 2016, unless we truly are in a Great Depression.

[kirblar]

Since the number of HoR members a state gets is based on population the Senate keeps things fair. Otherwise states like Texas and California could just use their size to get whatever they want. Congress is made of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

This is what you learned in Elementary school. That fantasy hasn't been holding up in the real world, unfortunately. What it's done is push lots of power to low population rural states that wouldn't normally be there. Ever wonder why farm subsidies are so impossible to get rid of? It's because of the Senate structure.

[marrec]

the filibuster makes no sense to me. There should be a limited amount of time in which an issue can be debated. But yeah, as it stands, they don't force people to take the podium indefinitely in order to debate? why not?

They used to call bluffs all the time and force people to actually stand up and filibuster... man it would be an amazing political stunt to filibuster by reading for 8 hours from 50 Shades of Grey.

[Randolph Freelander]

Endless Adam Sandler impressions. That would win the dissenters over.

[massoluk]

They used to call bluffs all the time and force people to actually stand up and filibuster... man it would be an amazing political stunt to filibuster by reading for 8 hours from 50 Shades of Grey.

I'm kinda sad my generation is not seeing any more Mr. Smith Goes to Washington moments.

[Eidan]

the filibuster makes no sense to me. There should be a limited amount of time in which an issue can be debated. But yeah, as it stands, they don't force people to take the podium indefinitely in order to debate? why not?

The worst thing is that the general public still has the perception that a filibuster is still someone standing at a podium diligently doing whatever it takes to prevent a vote, even if it means rambling for hours about nonsense, and news outlets make no attempt to fix this misconception. Even if Reid doesn't outright eliminate the filibuster in the next Senate, reform would go a long way if it simply forced the filibuster to actually filibuster.