Hanging on to the Senate in 2016, assuming that’s worth doing

posted at 6:41 pm on March 9, 2015 by Jazz Shaw

I’m not going to dredge up a bunch of links or rehash all of the discussions we’ve had about the disappointing start to the new GOP Senate majority here. Suffice it to say that I’ve lost a bit of enthusiasm for how critical it is to hold on to the majority if you’re not going to do anything with it. But by the same token, even if you’re not getting anything important done that the voters wanted you to do, holding the majority still maintains the virtue of stopping the opposition from introducing even more, new bad things I guess. (As an aside, if anyone from the Senate committee wants to hire me to write inspirational advertising copy like that, my rates are available on the home page.)

With all that said, while most of the press focuses on the presidential race, we also have the usual raft of congressional contests to deal with next year. The GOP faces a very different landscape than they did in 2014 on two fronts. First of all, it’s a presidential year so turnout for the Democrats will be up. Even more importantly, the tsunami conditions of the last midterms are pretty much reversed. The Republicans will be defending 24 seats while the Dems are only challenged in ten. And quite a few of the GOP contests are in states where Obama managed to pull off a win. The Hill has a rundown of the top ranked seats which may flip and the news isn’t good for the Republicans.

The Democrats need to take 5 (or 4 if they win the Vice Presidency) and there is room for them to maneuver. Top on their list will be Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). They will also look at Rob Portman (R-Ohio), but if he’s going to run against Ted Strickland that should be a fairly safe bet for Portman.

Kirk and Johnson already have the RINO tag on them with the base for more reasons than we need to list here. But just as an early warning, these aren’t races where we can really afford to try to stick a more conservative candidate in on the ballot if you actually care about keeping the majority. Some of these guys are in parallel positions to the NERPs (Northeastern Republican Politicians) and have had to adopt some distasteful positions on guns, immigration and other topics just to maintain a grip. In a presidential election year those seats could slip away in a heartbeat.

Kelly Ayotte and Pat Toomey probably have a lot more staying power than they are being given credit for and the value of incumbency shouldn’t be discounted. With a little solid support from the home offices, those two might be okay. (There’s also nobody really stellar on the Dem side talking about either seat that I can see so far, so it’s not time to panic.)

Rubio’s seat is another question entirely. If, as he has previously indicated, he won’t run for reelection at the same time as running for the presidency, then there is an open and very competitive seat in play. It would be the ultimate embarrassment if Debbie Downer were to win that one, but there’s never any telling what Florida voters will do. However, the combination of Debby and Kirsten Gillibrand forming some new Democratic Sisterhood of the Fellow Traveler’s Pantsuits should be enough to rouse up the conservative base to action.

Do the Republicans have any hopes for a takeaway to counter this math? Interestingly, maybe one…

3. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) (last ranking: 3)

The Senate minority leader is unpopular back home, but the man who could likely crush him — Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) — appears unlikely to run.

Nevada has been trending Democratic due to its fast-growing Hispanic population, and the party tends to do much better there in presidential years.

Reid also won by a surprisingly comfortable margin in 2010 against a deeply flawed GOP nominee. He’s proven to be a scrappy campaigner, and it’s unclear whether Republicans will be able to avoid the type of nasty primary that has hurt them before.

I’m not getting my hopes up there, but it would be cause for a party next November if Harry was sent packing, no matter who won the White House. And hey… stranger things have happened. Just ask Eric Cantor.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This Senate majority isn’t worth a fart in a car.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 6:44 PM

since the RINOs and the Dems are in cahoots, they ALWAYS have a majority in the senate.

Not one friggin difference between Turtle and Dirty Harry, as amnesty and Obamacare go ahead untouched

Senator Philip Bluster on March 9, 2015 at 6:51 PM

Majority Leader Schumer.

KCB on March 9, 2015 at 6:51 PM

And things would be different if Republicans lost the Senate how?

Neitherleftorright on March 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM

All the Republicans needed to do was prove they could govern. Not prove they could agree with the Democrats, not agree they could pass budgets funding everything the President wanted, but govern. They’ve proven, so far, they are Democrat lite. There will be no reason to vote for Democrat lite in 2016, you’ll have the opportunity to vote for the real Democrat. By the time next year rolls around the debt will go up just like it would if the Democrats had both houses, Obamacare will still be the law of the land, the Democrats will be registering illegal aliens to vote, the IRS will still be being investigated, Obama’s attorney general will still be refusing to bring lawsuits against law breaking bureaucrats, and McConnell and Boehner will try to tell you they’ve done a good job and deserve to still have the power.

If what I’ve predicted comes true, I will not vote for the first time in 50 years. I refuse to vote for a Republican Party that refuses to do the job they were elected to do. The only way I’ll vote is if there is a 3rd Party, made up of Conservatives from the Republican Party who really want to lead, govern, and reverse course on all this spending. That’s it!! So, the opportunity of us having Democrats in charge of the Senate, in 2017, are really good, but not because of the numbers, because of McConnell and Boehner.

bflat879 on March 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM

I said it before the last election and I’ll say it again: I see no substantial difference between a Republican led Senate and a Democrat led Senate, except POSSIBLY on the issue of a potential SCOTUS nominee.*

* Then again, we almost had Harriet Miers, for goodness’ sake, so…maybe not much difference there, either.

xNavigator on March 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM

The GOP won’t do anything with the power they have!

Why should losing it make any difference from what we have now?

Skywise on March 9, 2015 at 6:54 PM

I am pissed by McConnell spinelessness, but it is no reason to give up the game and let the socialist win everything.

In 2016, it would be very worthwhile for Conservatives if Republicans in Congress are able to pass things. Yes, the filibuster will still be an issue, but the budget can’t be filibustered. I have been thinking about some ideas for filibuster reform that would level the playing field so that the filibuster stops being a ratchet for increasing government. Other people should start thinking carefully about this issue.

thuja on March 9, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Mcconell should sit down in a chair, set the gun down with barrel pointing up, slowly point the gun toward his mouth and……oh hell, you get my point….

elvis lives on March 9, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Mitch McTurtle is one of the most incompetent politicians I’ve ever seen. Boner isn’t far off.

* Then again, we almost had Harriet Miers, for goodness’ sake, so…maybe not much difference there, either.

xNavigator on March 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM

Hell, we have John Roberts. He’s bad enough.

Aizen on March 9, 2015 at 6:57 PM

Hanging on to the Senate in 2016, assuming that’s worth doing

Given recent performance it doesn’t seem likely that it is worth doing.

thatsafactjack on March 9, 2015 at 6:58 PM

Constantine…this senate majority isnt worth a fart in a spacesuit :-D

elvis lives on March 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM

Jazz, I’m with you on this, but I don’t know if I can hold my nose and vote for a wishy washy republican again.
God help the USA. We are governed by self-serving corrupt politicians regardless of party affiliation.
It sucks to see what we have become as a nation.

SayNo2-O on March 9, 2015 at 7:00 PM

Nevada an increasing blue state ? Explain how Sandoval defeated his Dem rival by 46% !

Rook on March 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM

There is no real difference between these parties. Both, in the end, increase the size and power of the federal government as well as the debt. If you vote for them you’re an idiot and fool.

MoreLiberty on March 9, 2015 at 7:02 PM

One can expect half the Republican Senators to switch to the Democratic party by 2016…

albill on March 9, 2015 at 7:03 PM

People like Thuja are the problem. They actually think there is a difference between these bafoons.

MoreLiberty on March 9, 2015 at 7:04 PM

One can expect half the Republican Senators to switch to the Democratic party by 2016…

albill on March 9, 2015 at 7:03 PM

Why not? They might as well be. Including McConnell.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 7:05 PM

There is no real difference between these parties. Both, in the end, increase the size and power of the federal government as well as the debt. If you vote for them you’re an idiot and fool.

MoreLiberty on March 9, 2015 at 7:02 PM

That’s why forming a new party would NOT be a third party.

It would be a SECOND PARTY.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 7:06 PM

The GOPe is going to fight for corporate tax breaks, carving up pork in the budget, and to give Obama “fast track” in trade treaties and help him pass his Trans-Pacific Trade Deal, the eastern version of NAFTA, and expanding the H1B visa program. Don’t be surprised to see them ‘evolve’ on carbon trading, either.

They will not fight for veterans healthcare, repeal Obamacare, the middle class, jobs for American citizens, real national security, or to rein in a rogue executive branch and thus uphold the constitution and the rule of law.

thatsafactjack on March 9, 2015 at 7:06 PM

Worth doing? LOL. Not with that spineless bunch.

changer1701 on March 9, 2015 at 7:08 PM

I’d love to see Reid defeated, regardless of which R managed to do it.

I also think Ron Johnson has done a decent job. Kirk isn’t much different from Ds, but he does represent a state that will be deep blue for President in 2016.

cat_owner on March 9, 2015 at 7:09 PM

I no longer care about the majority. Liberals control Congress. That is what matters. I will no longer do the lesser of two evils thing in congressional races. I’ll vote for a conservative e or won’t vote.

mattmillburn on March 9, 2015 at 7:10 PM

Rook on March 9, 2015 at 7:01 PM

Rs won all the statewide races in Nevada in November, so it went very red, but I’m sure it will be dark blue in 2016. Don’t think any R nominee would have much of a chance of winning it.

cat_owner on March 9, 2015 at 7:11 PM

Despite any unicorn wishes to the contrary, or any angry diatribes by our resident GOPe fluffers, we are witnessing the triumph of a coalition government; new to American politics but old stuff to other countries.

We have the Democratic Workers Party, the Republican’t Cronyist Chamber of Congress Party, and we have a small and powerless TruCon™ Party.

The DWP and the R’CCP are governing at the present time, and doing a bang-up job of passing far-left and cronyist legislation.

The TruCon™ Party is still barely conscious of its rump status, but its possible that more clear-eyed conservative voters may communicate the hopelessness of voting in more TEA-ish candidates to the R’CCP to be overwhelmed by the current coalition.

Dolce Far Niente on March 9, 2015 at 7:13 PM

The thing is “We will win” even if we have to use a bunch of “two bit” half RINO’s to get the job done.

Heck what we build using these cowards may not last, but any thing is better than commie know nothing Democrats.

Just get the job done.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 9, 2015 at 7:15 PM

If Boosh is the nominee, I will not vote. First time, ever. I have come to the conclusion, as have many others, that we MUST start a Conservative Party. Until then, count me out.

vnvet on March 9, 2015 at 7:15 PM

The thing is “We will win” even if we have to use a bunch of “two bit” half RINO’s to get the job done.

Heck what we build using these cowards may not last, but any thing is better than commie know nothing Democrats.

Just get the job done.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 9, 2015 at 7:15 PM

2014 proved once and for all that electing RINOS is no better for conservatives than electing Democrats.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 7:16 PM

anyone here dumb enough to vote republican?

i didn’t think so.

will they ever be in for a surprise.

renalin on March 9, 2015 at 7:18 PM

anyone here dumb enough to vote republican?

i didn’t think so.

will they ever be in for a surprise.

renalin on March 9, 2015 at 7:18 PM

I see no benefit for conservatives to work for, contribute to, or go vote for Republicans.

Instead our energy should go exclusively to conservatives in deed, regardless of party and in getting a Conservative Party started.

And, no, I will never vote for Jeb Bush. If you put a gun to my head on it, pull the damn trigger.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 7:21 PM

Electing RINOs simply slows the inevitable.

Let. It. Burn. FullSpeedAhead!!!

gregbert on March 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM

A little Bush is swinging by my neck of the woods on St. Patty’s Day. Saw the invite…

“Jeb Bush, Jr. will talk about his dad, what it was like growing up in a bi-cultural home, and the importance of outreach…”

*delete*

Grrr…

Fallon on March 9, 2015 at 7:30 PM

But by the same token, even if you’re not getting anything important done that the voters wanted you to do, holding the majority still maintains the virtue of stopping the opposition from introducing even more, new bad things I guess.

Recent history says otherwise, Jazz. Pistachio Disguisey and Agent Orange aren’t going to stop anything the Democrats want to do. They’re not even going to slow it down.

GrumpyOldFart on March 9, 2015 at 7:34 PM

With all due respect, you are making an assumption that may not hold.

There very literally may not be an entity called the Republican Party [actually it is the DIABLO Party] by 2016.

We have had the serial betrayals since the day after election day. We have the Democrats promising not to run their own candidate for Speaker it there is an attempt to force Boehner out, but instead promising to vote en bloc for Boehner. We have McConnell today promising that even though the debt ceiling is about to be broken [years early, that is how much Obama is spending with no Congressional oversight]; that there are no worries because it will be raised again with no opposition.

And it is only March 2015. How many more betrayals by July 1?

My TEA Party group, which ran GOTV in my county when the Republican party could not be bothered to and set a turnout record beating everything going back to when we were a territory, has no interest in doing GOTV in 2016, and is selecting politicians we intend to work AGAINST if there are elections that year.

Mention was made of half the Senate DIABLO’s becoming actual Democrats by 2016. That is not a SWAG, it is a rational extension of current trends. And the same for the House. And when they do that, how many of the few remaining Conservatives who have not been driven out by the DIABLO’s will stick around?

The only predictions I will make about the DIABLO’s and any putative 2016 election are these:

1) If the Republican Party still exists, it will by hook or by crook run a candidate that could share a ticket with Hillary as far as stands are concerned [and yes, I am looking at you, JEB!].

2) We have not seen the worst of the betrayals of their voter base by the DIABLO’s. And they are going to come faster and faster.

Subotai Bahadur on March 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM

What difference does it make?

Joseph K on March 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM

Republicans have to make a case for themselves and just “not a Democrat” or for the majority leader and speaker, “not quite a Democrat”, will not be enough.

If the leadership continues continues to give Obama whatever he wants and especially if they make a deal with him for another “it’s not amnesty” amnesty bill they may have trouble getting people to stay home rather than get out and vote against them.

Nomas on March 9, 2015 at 7:37 PM

“But just as an early warning, these aren’t races where we can really afford to try to stick a more conservative candidate in on the ballot if you actually care about keeping the majority.”

What a joke. The Democrat-lite establishment never cares about keeping a majority; they only care about their bribes, pleasing their rich liberal friends, and shutting out right-wingers. So when the establishment isn’t in to win it, how can voting for them do any good?

David Blue on March 9, 2015 at 7:43 PM

I would like to see Kelly Ayotte run for governor of NH. That state is slipping away. And there is Scott Brown, but he would make a fine governor of NH as well.

In NH there are Free Staters which are like libertarians who won’t vote for anyone in spite of their liberty coinciding with conservative issues, they like pot more than they want republicans to win.

Fleuries on March 9, 2015 at 7:47 PM

My TEA Party group, which ran GOTV in my county when the Republican party could not be bothered to and set a turnout record beating everything going back to when we were a territory, has no interest in doing GOTV in 2016, and is selecting politicians we intend to work AGAINST if there are elections that year.

Subotai Bahadur on March 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM

Good.

David Blue on March 9, 2015 at 7:47 PM

I would like to see Kelly Ayotte run for governor of NH. That state is slipping away. And there is Scott Brown, but he would make a fine governor of NH as well.

In NH there are Free Staters which are like libertarians who won’t vote for anyone in spite of their liberty coinciding with conservative issues, they like pot more than they want republicans to win.

Fleuries on March 9, 2015 at 7:47 PM

Ayotte and Brown are worthless RINOS.

ConstantineXI on March 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM

All the Republicans needed to do was prove they could govern.

bflat879 on March 9, 2015 at 6:53 PM

It’s hard to govern when a sizable chunk of the caucus consists of arsonists who believe government is a dirty word…

Tlaloc on March 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM

Kirk isn’t much different from Ds, but he does represent a state that will be deep blue for President in 2016.

cat_owner on March 9, 2015 at 7:09 PM

The Dems will be hard-pressed to find a candidate that runs to the left of Mark Kirk.

bw222 on March 9, 2015 at 7:55 PM

…even if you’re not getting anything important done that the voters wanted you to do, holding the majority still maintains the virtue of stopping the opposition from introducing even more, new bad things I guess.

Jazz, What has McConnell or Boehner stopped that Obama really wanted? Nothing comes to my mind. And that’s the rub, it’s a strong Republican Congress, but Obama, Reid and Pelosi are still the de facto leaders while Boehner and McConnell simply unilaterally surrender at every juncture on every issue.

If they are just giving Obama and the Democrats everything that they want, why go to the trouble of electing the GOPe?

RJL on March 9, 2015 at 8:06 PM

All the GOPe needs to do to lose the senate AND a hunk of the house is nominate a bullshit squish like jebby the bloat clown.

It’ll turn the GOPe heads like they’re on a lazy susan. They wont see it coming at all, then BOOM. Done. So mote it be.

From the ashes and all that….

Andy__B on March 9, 2015 at 8:09 PM

It’s not worth retaining, so long as it will be led by the likes of McConnell, Graham, McCain, and all the other sackless accomplices to the Democrats that leave us with Reid still effectively in charge.

F*ck the GOPe.

Midas on March 9, 2015 at 8:09 PM

Tlaloc on March 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM

Your poor, poor wife.

Midas on March 9, 2015 at 8:12 PM

There is no real difference between these parties. Both, in the end, increase the size and power of the federal government as well as the debt. If you vote for them you’re an idiot and fool.

MoreLiberty on March 9, 2015 at 7:02 PM

I’m done with the Republican party…never voting for them again…either it is conservative or libertarian or I’m sitting on the couch with Pookie…what’s the diff? I don’t like being lied to. It won’t happen again.

NJ Red on March 9, 2015 at 8:14 PM

Recent history says otherwise, Jazz. Pistachio Disguisey and Agent Orange aren’t going to stop anything the Democrats want to do. They’re not even going to slow it down.

GrumpyOldFart on March 9, 2015 at 7:34 PM

They, in fact, want it.

NJ Red on March 9, 2015 at 8:18 PM

GOP Senate motto for 2016: #Hands Up, Don’t Shoot.

bw222 on March 9, 2015 at 8:19 PM

Since everyone here seems to be having so much trouble figuring out why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is superior to Majority Leader Dingy Harry, let’s just consider one simple thought experiment: Anthony Kennedy leaves SCOTUS and O nominates a successor.

And if that fails to make the point, substitute “Kennedy” with “Scalia”.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:31 PM

Since everyone here seems to be having so much trouble figuring out why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is superior to Majority Leader Dingy Harry, let’s just consider one simple thought experiment: Anthony Kennedy leaves SCOTUS and O nominates a successor.

And if that fails to make the point, substitute “Kennedy” with “Scalia”.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:31 PM

When is the vote for Loretta Lynch?

nobar on March 9, 2015 at 8:34 PM

As with all the stupid whining losers, Shaw believes shutting down the government is a winning strategy.

Which proves stupidity.

~

Even more stupid are those who claim they had some other plan, because they do not – at least not that has been made public. Ending the filibuster would not advance the goals, because Obama would just veto, leaving us back with shutting down the government or DHS, a losing idea only losers like. Even a plurality of Republicans disapprove the idea; it’s the frustrated cry of the wounded moron.

All the whining and complaining about Boehner and McConnell (including the childish insults, again pointing out the stupidity of the critics) ignores that any of the demands made by the complainers could only lead to a shutdown, unless you believe they would cause Obama to change course for the good of the country (once more, proving the stupidity of those who believe such things).

~~

Hate the GOP and our unanimously elected leaders? Leave. Today. Start your own party. Good luck!

Just remember you will no longer be part of the GOP discussions, so butt the heck out.

Adjoran on March 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM

So far, the only conservative item that the Republicans still back is the 2nd amendment. I’m wondering how long that will last.

Out with the old Republican values
Limited Government
Rule of law
Security
Balanced budget

In with the new Republican values
Spend Spend Spend
Open borders
Crony Capitalism
Big government

As far as the Supremes, I’m not sure they would nominate a Scalia or Thomas in this day and age. More likely they would find another Roberts.

Ibanez Lotus on March 9, 2015 at 8:40 PM

Padlock Tlaock

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 9, 2015 at 8:45 PM

Jazz,

Congratulations, you’ve used the most contemptible moment of McConnell’s campaign for your picture. It deserves a lot more use when discussing RINOs.

Feedie on March 9, 2015 at 8:46 PM

Since everyone here seems to be having so much trouble figuring out why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is superior to Majority Leader Dingy Harry, let’s just consider one simple thought experiment: Anthony Kennedy leaves SCOTUS and O nominates a successor.

And if that fails to make the point, substitute “Kennedy” with “Scalia”.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:31 PM

When is the vote for Loretta Lynch?

nobar on March 9, 2015 at 8:34 PM

Loretta Lynch, or any other cabinet nominee, has nothing to do with my thought experiment.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Kirk isn’t much different from Ds, but he does represent a state that will be deep blue for President in 2016.

cat_owner on March 9, 2015 at 7:09 PM

The Dems will be hard-pressed to find a candidate that runs to the left of Mark Kirk.

bw222 on March 9, 2015 at 7:55 PM

They already have and his name is Dick Durbin.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:59 PM

Loretta Lynch, or any other cabinet nominee, has nothing to do with my thought experiment.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Sure it does.

Loretta Lynch, like anyone else O will nominate, is loyal to either O or his ideology. Opposition to her will also carry over to opposition to a SCOTUS nominee.

nobar on March 9, 2015 at 9:00 PM

Hate the GOP and our unanimously elected leaders? Leave. Today. Start your own party. Good luck!
Just remember you will no longer be part of the GOP discussions, so butt the heck out.
Adjoran on March 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM

Hey dumb-dumb, you realize that if this happened the GOPe would never win anything, right?

The “tru-cons” are probably more than half of the voting base, and certainly the far more committed portion.

Turnout in 2014 was very low as it was, and it was an incredibly favorable environment.

The foolish GOPe shills think that they have numbers, and they have some, but there aren’t nearly enough uninformed GOPe doofuses to push Jeb over the line, for example.

The GOPe needs to come to grips with the fact that they have lost control, largely due to the failures of the Bush years.

After ’08, the GOP brand was in the toilet, and it took the tea party to win in 2010. Like it or not, that’s where the energy is, not with the GOPe which is largely reviled and despised.

Redstone on March 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Here is a list of the U.S. Senate seats that are up for re-election in 2106.


Senate Seats Up for Re-election in 2016

Republicans (24)

Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)

Roy Blunt (R-MO)

John Boozman (R-AR)

Richard Burr (R-NC)

Daniel Coats (R-IN)

James Lankford (R-OK)

Mike Crapo (R-ID)

Chuck Grassley (R-IA)

John Hoeven (R-ND)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

John McCain (R-AZ)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Rob Portman (R-OH)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Tim Scott (R-SC)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

John Thune (R-SD)

Patrick Toomey (R-PA)

David Vitter (R-LA)

Democrats (10)

Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – not running for re-election

Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) – not running for re-election

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Harry Reid (D-NV)

Brian Schatz (D-HI)

Charles Schumer (D-NY)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

If you have a Senate race in your state, make sure you have a strong candidate ready to run in the Primary (either an incumbent or a new face).

We need to start prepping for 2016 NOW!

wren on March 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Hate the GOP and our unanimously elected leaders? Leave. Today. Start your own party. Good luck!
Just remember you will no longer be part of the GOP discussions, so butt the heck out.
Adjoran on March 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM

They were unanimously elected for a reason – one which they have no desire to fight for. It used to be that they were considered our representatives, answerable to their constituents. Now that people see them as our leaders, and not our reps, evidently they don’t have to do what they were voted into office to do.

I used to be a strong supporter of the GOP and would argue with my sister when she said there wasn’t much difference between the two parties. After they approved Obama’s illegal amnesty program, no mas, I’m done with this supposed need for a GOP majority. I will take your advise and look at other parties. Doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to enter GOP discussions. I certainly enter discussions about democrats and I’m not a dem.

Ibanez Lotus on March 9, 2015 at 9:17 PM

Hate the GOP and our unanimously elected leaders? Leave. Today. Start your own party. Good luck!
Just remember you will no longer be part of the GOP discussions, so butt the heck out.
Adjoran on March 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM

Hey dumb-dumb, you realize that if this happened the GOPe would never win anything, right?

The “tru-cons” are probably more than half of the voting base, and certainly the far more committed portion.

Turnout in 2014 was very low as it was, and it was an incredibly favorable environment.

The foolish GOPe shills think that they have numbers, and they have some, but there aren’t nearly enough uninformed GOPe doofuses to push Jeb over the line, for example.

The GOPe needs to come to grips with the fact that they have lost control, largely due to the failures of the Bush years.

After ’08, the GOP brand was in the toilet, and it took the tea party to win in 2010. Like it or not, that’s where the energy is, not with the GOPe which is largely reviled and despised.

Redstone on March 9, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Anyone stupid enough to defend the GOP this vociferously at this point in the game isn’t worth listening to…

avgjo on March 9, 2015 at 9:30 PM

Loretta Lynch, or any other cabinet nominee, has nothing to do with my thought experiment.

wbcoleman on March 9, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Loretta Lynch was named as the new Attorney General, in theory the chief law enforcement officer of the country. In her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she stated that the President does have the right to rule by decree regardless of the laws.

Note that because we gave the DIABLO’s a majority in the Senate, they have a 11-9 majority on the Judiciary Committee. If they simply vote on a party line basis, the Leftists lose.

Lynch was voted out of the Judiciary Committee solely because 3 Republicans who can be depended to vote with the Democrats in any critical vote [and they have done so for years] voted with a unanimous Democrat contingent. Orrin Hatch, Lindsey Graham, and Jeff Flake. If these very senior DIABLO’s who are paragons of what the Party wants to be will vote for an Attorney General who openly states that the president can legally be a dictator; what hope is there that these same DIABLO’s would demur on a Democrat appointed Commissar to the Supreme Court? The specific case of Lynch is very much on point in a discussion of what the Republican reaction to a Leftist Supreme Court appointment would be, and shows that there would be absolutely no difference in the outcome between a DIABLO controlled Senate and a Democrat controlled Senate for court appointments.

Subotai Bahadur on March 9, 2015 at 9:43 PM

holding the majority still maintains the virtue of stopping the opposition from introducing even more, new bad things I guess.

Really? Name one national policy that would be different right now if Dems had held the Senate.

I’ll wait.

ChrisL on March 9, 2015 at 10:37 PM

The democrats control the Senate now. Why would the waste all that time and money on something they already have?

JackM on March 9, 2015 at 11:24 PM

Reid is the King of Congress.

This is better than some stupid majority leader job.

JackM on March 9, 2015 at 11:25 PM

The GOP Senate solution is easy — a focused nuke of the Fillibuster rules.

“Any bill (and amendment) that contains issues related to executive orders and regulations shall only be subject to a majority vote.”

Focus the issues on Executive overreach and keep the rest of the process in place. Oh, you mean that’s just about everything these days… Well, duh…!

Sure, Obama may veto lots of stuff, earning him the King of No label… At least that way the GOP wouldn’t be stuck in the swamp of cantgetsquatdone and standsfornothing…

—–

Ideally, when the situation is available, Congress ought to change the rules on burrOcrat regulations in a line item fashion so that to take effect, a majority in Congress of both the House and Senate must vote to agree for new regulations to take effect, perhaps even with some retroactive options for stuff that was enacted without Congressional approval. Without majority support, the regulation dies… Something similar for Executive orders ought to also be available.

Congress needs to take it’s power to legislate back from both the Executive and Judicial branches…

drfredc on March 10, 2015 at 12:22 AM

Assuming it’s worth doing? Jeeze with friends like you guys who needs the left?

1redshirtxlg on March 10, 2015 at 2:16 AM

…even if you’re not getting anything important done that the voters wanted you to do, holding the majority still maintains the virtue of stopping the opposition from introducing even more, new bad things I guess.

Jazz, What has McConnell or Boehner stopped that Obama really wanted? Nothing comes to my mind. And that’s the rub, it’s a strong Republican Congress, but Obama, Reid and Pelosi are still the de facto leaders while Boehner and McConnell simply unilaterally surrender at every juncture on every issue.

If they are just giving Obama and the Democrats everything that they want, why go to the trouble of electing the GOPe?

RJL on March 9, 2015 at 8:06 PM

However, we do have the Senators’ letter to Iran, but they might have done that even if in a minority position.
I am getting more fond of having either term limits, a mandatory retirement age, or both.

AesopFan on March 10, 2015 at 3:02 AM

It’s hard to govern when a sizable chunk of the caucus consists of arsonists who believe government is a dirty word…

Tlaloc on March 9, 2015 at 7:51 PM

Government IS a dirty word, which is why our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written the way they were. Our Founders often described government as a necessary evil. The question is why you seem to embrace this known evil…?

dominigan on March 10, 2015 at 9:58 AM

Oh, and before Tlaloc asks…

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” –Thomas Paine

dominigan on March 10, 2015 at 10:02 AM

Don’t care. One party wants to five the country of the cliff at a 100. The other party lets them.

jukin3 on March 10, 2015 at 10:47 AM