Twenty Senate Democrats will have to defend their seats that year, while just 13 Republicans will be up for reelection. At least six of the Democrats represent red states — places like Arkansas, Louisiana and South Dakota — and are seen as ripe GOP pickings. …At this early vantage point, the six most vulnerable Democrats are Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, n. Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana.

I suggest the House not fund any Obama spending, just shut it down until Reid will consent to rolling back spending to 2008 levels, when the president came back into office, until the next Senatorial election.

Those democrats that won’t go for the end of the filibuster know the rule that EXCEPTION makes the Worst Rules.

In MA, Duval Patrick and Edward Kennedy changed the law when it looked to them like John Kerry would be president. They changed the rules on a special election, because they did not want Mitt Romney to appoint the replacement, as was the law, “the governor shall appoint the successor…”. But when the vacancy really occurred at the death of Kennedy himself, UH OH, they never changed the law back. Duval Patrick D-MA, was governor. The special election had to be held. Scott Brown got in…for two years. Yay Scott. That is why you don’t mess with the rules lightly. Exceptions make bad law.

But Harry Reid, what is he worrying about silly rules about fillibuster anyway, he makes the rules as he goes along. Isn’t there a RULE (a law,) that says Harry needs to send a budget along by April of the year before detailing the budget, originating in the House, and passed by the Senate…but he ignores that rule, soon he will be ignoring anything he wants to because there seems to be no penalty.

Lawmakers leading the charge acknowledge they remain short, but express optimism they’ll hit their goal.

“I haven’t counted 51 just yet, but we’re working,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leading proponent of the so-called constitutional or “nuclear” option, in which Senate rules could be changed by a majority vote. …

They should talk to their comrades down in Philly. They’ll show Harry how to get a majority no problem.

I can see it now.. the GOP shows up one morning here soon and are told they lost the vote on the filibuster. The Republicans will ask “What vote?”
“The one you lost” Harry will say.
“We didn’t have a vote?”
“Yes you did. There’s the results to prove it. 100-0. You lost.”

There is no constitutional requirement that bills have to move through the Senate. No requirement a committee pass them. No requirement that the Senate ever end debate. Legislation is NOT REQUIRED. But filling Judicial and Executive offices is – and that is why its a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution that nominees must be given votes.

We conservatives should stand by these principles. And Hot Air, I love you, but your columnists shouldn’t muddle these two up in their columns.

2) that effort was basically stealing the election. From what I can see from the numbers, there is enough proof that there was enough fraud to give it to Obama.

a) blatant theft of precincts. 20 precincts in Philadelphia [they call them "voting districts] were physically taken over by a mix of Democrats and New Black Panthers, ejecting all Republican election judges and poll watchers. All the seized precincts reported 90%+ turnout and 99%+ votes for Obama. In 59 precincts in Philadelphia there was not one vote for Romney. That gave Obama scores of thousands of votes lead in PA just from that alone.

b) in every “swing state” there were reports of touch screen voting machines where people voted Romney and it actually voted Obama. There are videos of this happening during early voting. In every case, the response was that the machines were “miscalibrated”. If it was a calibration problem, at least some of the time the votes would have gone the other way. I will note that there is a single video put out, AFTER the election, purporting to show an Obama to Romney switch; but there is no proof that it was not set up after the fact. Programmers have testified that they have written software to make voting machines skim just enough votes to give whatever margin is needed, and that it can be inserted in seconds with a thumb drive.

c) registration and vote fraud. In counties all over the country, the numbers show voter turnouts greater than the number of registered voters in those counties, and those counties went Democrat. In St. Lucia county in Florida, the average precinct vote was 148% of the number of registered voters. The minimum in the county was 113%, the maximum was 159%. The Democrats are, of course, fighting against the comparison of signatures on voting cards -v- registration cards.

It is widespread. Here in Colorado [which swung Democrat against all polls and the situation on the ground] a study has shown that 17 of our 64 counties have voter registration over 100% of the Census population of voting age. 5 of those counties have had over 100% of voter age registration every year from 2004 to date. Nine more counties have voter registration rates over 95% of people of voting age. Usually voter registration in this country ranges from 50-68% [one standard deviation from median] of the voting age population.

http://watchdoglabs.org/blog/2012/08/21/colorado-comparison-of-registered-voter-counts-to-census-voting-age-population/

Some of those counties had voter turnout greater than 100% of the registered voter base.

d) there are about 1.5 million active duty military, and the same number of reserves, a significant portion of the latter being on active duty and deployed. Military votes coincidentally, for the second election in a row, were not transported and delivered in time to be counted.

e) the election turned on a total of 407,000 votes in 4 states; Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado. That amount of fraud is easily obtainable through the means discussed; especially if you realize that the fraud detected is typically only a small fraction of that performed [tip of the iceberg phenomenon].

Is that absolute, ontological proof of the election being stolen? Nothing is absolutely certain. Is it indicative of a deliberate, intensive, nationwide effort by the Democrats to steal the election? Yes. Conversely, in the presence of that effort, and the anomalous outcome; can anyone feel sure that the results of the election is honest, or that their votes count?

The Republicans are energetically ignoring these issues, and therefore it will be done again and again.

With the right promises and bribes, ALL the Democrats will do anything Reid wants. And if Reid promises to respect them in the morning, so will more than a few Republicans.

Thank you Nevada

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 12:05 PM

You should thank the communist lite, aka “libertarians” here in NV, who openly stated a week prior to elections they are voting for Hussein.

Nothing to do with TEA Party, idiot. Same as in MO, where Akin vote the primary by “default” as 2 TEA Party candidates split the vote. Akin was NOT in any shape connected to TEA Party.

We can’t elections with all the RINOs out there so poorly informed.

The voters in Nevada have to be some of the dumbest there are re-electing this treasonous piece of flotsam.

iamsaved on November 13, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Not all voters here voted for reid. Where do you live brother?

VegasRick on November 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Reid did not win, SEIU rigged the results. Same as they did last week here in NV. No way in hell GOP wins Congress seats and then somehow loses the presidential race.

What you saw happen in FL, PA and OH was just a grander scale 2010 vote rigging in NV.

The GOP will NEVER get a majority in the Senate as long as the Tea Party is nominating candidates like Angle, Buck, O’Donnel, Akin, and Mourdock. These were sure GOP pick-ups last two elections.

ncconservative on November 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I didn’t like COD any more than you did, but if you think that Castle was a sure bet in 2010, you’re high. And I don’t know how the Tea Party gets the blame for Akin. Of the three candidates in MO, Akin would have been considered the most establishment. And, finally, without the tea party, 2010 would have looked like 2008 and 2012, so you should be thanking your lucky stars.

The GOP will NEVER get a majority in the Senate as long as the Tea Party is nominating candidates like Angle, Buck, O’Donnel, Akin, and Mourdock. These were sure GOP pick-ups last two elections. Instead of throwing these Dems out, we threw them a lifeline. The wrong type of candidate in any of the states listed as potential pick-ups for 2014 and it’ll be another disappointing election cycle.

ncconservative on November 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Huh? Did the Tea Party (that loosely organized, non-party) control who gets nominated then or now? Really? I didn’t know a somewhat small, minority “fringe” could have such power? Seems to me that the people who form the Republican electorate and vote in primaries did the nominating. They were offered a choice and chose someone other than the status quo. That may or may not have been wise in specific circumstances, but the fact that the people were hungry for an alternative should tell you something. They most certainly didn’t want the go-along-to-get-along types like Castle. Sometimes we need to take a chance or we just get the same old junk and the government leviathan get’s even more entrenched, with the tacit and sometimes active complicity of the so-called conservative Republican. It’s difficult to see the future, so we need to look at the past and if an individual has a history of selling us out, I think maybe he or she needs to find a new career outside of our representation.

Someone who is not just conservative, but also savvy and willing to take the slings and arrows of the MSM and Democrats, all the made-up outrage and straw man skeletons need to be dealt with, needs to step up. If you don’t like O’Donnell or Akin, find someone with the same amount of courage who meets your particular criteria (e.g., not prone to foot-in-mouth disease). If there isn’t anyone, then what? Settle (aka, surrender)? Let’s not.

ncconservative on November 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM

That is very true. The Dems may like extremists, but the GOP does not like them. Never have. And they do not garner fence sitters.

Can’t you just filibuster the new filibuster rules?

reddevil on November 13, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I don’t see how raising a private army and invading some third world country is going to help. And I think they made that illegal some time ago anyways.

I say you should let Reid have his filibuster reform, we will take back the Senate in 2014, and then let’s see the Dems living by their own rules.

That will be so much fun. F— them I say.

Raquel Pinkbullet on November 13, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Won’t help squat unless it’s veto proof. Karmad Obamov has flexibility now, remember?

That will be so much fun. F— them I say.

Scopper on November 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM

.
Anyone who thinks Latinos will vote for the Party of Traditional America are just lying to themselves, or truly don’t see a new America transforming.

The majority of voters said NO, again, to traditional America Nov. 6.

Pandering, is what the Dems and MSM accuse the GOP of for dare trying to reach out to the Latino base they will protect at all cost.

A gringo can never change his spots.

I wouldn’t count on getting Baucus out in MT, we should hope for a sex scandal or retirement.

MontanaMmmm on November 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM

……………or he could be drunk and forget to file for re-election.