2022 Senate Elections

[Chewbacca 7667]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

They have to be.  There's been one poll of CO-SEN, from a GOP poll, that had Bennet up 8.  Bennett won despite the 2010 GOP wave and 2016 Trump surge.  He actually outperformed Clinton and won the most votes a Dem candidate had ever won in rural Colorado. 

If he won in 2010, he isn't losing in 2022.  2008 Colorado was a 9 point Obama win in 2008 and a 13.5 Biden win in 2020.  

It's not getting redder.  @Chewbacca can probably attest to that. 

Polis is also popular and running for re-election, hard to see Colorado splitting their ballots. 

Bennet is the most boring Senator on earth.  He's invisible.  But he's not losing.  There's a reason nobody is spending the money on polls.  I haven't seen any polls on the Governor's race, for the same reason.

[Chewbacca 7667]

6 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Whoever is running his social media campaign is in for a big payday come next election cycle.  Gonna be in high demand.

[Voldemort86 2259]

9 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Bennet is the most boring Senator on earth.  He's invisible.  But he's not losing.  There's a reason nobody is spending the money on polls.  I haven't seen any polls on the Governor's race, for the same reason.

Colorado used to have worse. Cory Gardner always talked about using his GOP connections to help Colorado with marijuana policy and he got shut down by Mitch McConnell every single time. What a loser.

[Chewbacca 7667]

Just now, Voldemort86 said:

Colorado used to have worse. Cory Gardner always talked about using his GOP connections to help Colorado with marijuana policy and he got shut down by Mitch McConnell every single time. What a loser.

Yeah, Cory was an asshole.  Ran on being someone who would work across the aisle in the best interests of CO and then went straight to being Mitch's bitch.  That's why he only got one term.

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

They have to be.  There's been one poll of CO-SEN, from a GOP poll, that had Bennet up 8.  Bennett won despite the 2010 GOP wave and 2016 Trump surge.  He actually outperformed Clinton and won the most votes a Dem candidate had ever won in rural Colorado. 

If he won in 2010, he isn't losing in 2022.  2008 Colorado was a 9 point Obama win in 2008 and a 13.5 Biden win in 2020.  

It's not getting redder.  @Chewbacca can probably attest to that. 

Polis is also popular and running for re-election, hard to see Colorado splitting their ballots. 

I agree with this. The cook reporter might have just been trying to throw the GOP a bone by making them think Colorado is more competitive. Not only is this state getting more blue, but it’s also a vote by mail state. Democrats tend to do better in states which don’t endorse voter suppression.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Voldemort86

[Chewbacca 7667]

5 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

I agree with this. The cook reporter might have just been trying to throw the GOP a bone by making them think Colorado is more competitive. Not only is this state getting more blue, but it’s also a vote by mail state. Democrats tend to do better in states which don’t endorse voter suppression.

As an aside, I think we have one of the best, if not the best voting system out there.  Get your ballot in the mail, fill it out at your leisure, and then either put it in the mail or in one of the bajillion drop boxes around the state.  Easy, peasy.  No lines, no fuss.  And you get a text when they receive your ballot and then another one when it is accepted as valid.

I get why Republicans don't like it, but more states should do it like we do.

Edited August 18, 2022 by Chewbacca

[Horn Dog 9588]

37 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Whoever is running his social media campaign is in for a big payday come next election cycle.  Gonna be in high demand.

I think that the Surly collective could troll the shit out of Abbott on social media if Beto wanted to cough up some cash.  With the proceeds we could probably buy a decent EDGE.

[horn4life 3749]

The GOP is about to go all in on the LIE that working class folks are going to all get audited by the IRS.  Lies work unfortunately.  Lest you forget the run that "Death Panels" got with the rise of the Tea Party to revolt against a non-existent threat.  I expect IRS overreach to be the rallying cry for the GOP.  Need a lot more young people and educated people to turn out this mid term.  The dumb will be fully engaged in some sort of complete lie this fall.  Morphing with FBI overreach...  the GOP preaches anger at every opportunity.  And sadly it works.  

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509164679/from-the-start-obama-struggled-with-fallout-from-a-kind-of-fake-news

[GopherRock 1765]

 

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

42 minutes ago, horn4life said:

The GOP is about to go all in on the LIE that working class folks are going to all get audited by the IRS.  Lies work unfortunately.  Lest you forget the run that "Death Panels" got with the rise of the Tea Party to revolt against a non-existent threat.  I expect IRS overreach to be the rallying cry for the GOP.  Need a lot more young people and educated people to turn out this mid term.  The dumb will be fully engaged in some sort of complete lie this fall.  Morphing with FBI overreach...  the GOP preaches anger at every opportunity.  And sadly it works.  

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509164679/from-the-start-obama-struggled-with-fallout-from-a-kind-of-fake-news

Interesting, but frustrating trip down memory lane. I wish Obama actually wielded his once in a life time loaded house and 60+ senate seat majority to pass meaningful legislation besides Obamacare. They should’ve done more.

im so glad Rush Limbaugh is long gone.

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

11 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

 

 

Some voting figures from 2020 comparing Supreme Court race to other races:
Democrat Cheri Beasley ran 11,258 votes ahead of Joe Biden in the statewide Supreme Court race.
Republican Paul Newby ran 62,824 votes behind Donald Trump in the statewide Supreme Court race.
Democrat Cheri Beasley ran 125,585 votes ahead of Cunningham.
Republican Paul Newby ran 30,353 votes ahead of Tillis.
 Beasley ran 139,240 votes behind Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in 2020.

The strength of Beasley in 2020 as compared to Cunningham and Biden could be read as a sign that the race in 2022 will be close.

 

 

Btw : Hope that pussy was worth it Cunningham.

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Voldemort86

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

2 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

I agree with this. The cook reporter might have just been trying to throw the GOP a bone by making them think Colorado is more competitive. Not only is this state getting more blue, but it’s also a vote by mail state. Democrats tend to do better in states which don’t endorse voter suppression.

Relative to WI, PA and AZ perhaps CO is one of the more competitive races for the GOP.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2770]

Krogbertsons

Sprouter Joe's

Al Di B's

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2770]

When my girls were tiny, they got a big kick out of reading a menu at some asian place and seeing "pu pu platter".

So since then, when my wife made a veggie tray (hummus instead of guac/salsa) she calls it a pu pu platter.  It got laughs when the girls were still young.

Now when I suggest she make an actual pu pu platter, instead of a crudite with hummus, she just says "that shit will make you fat".

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

25 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

When my girls were tiny, they got a big kick out of reading a menu at some asian place and seeing "pu pu platter".

So since then, when my wife made a veggie tray (hummus instead of guac/salsa) she calls it a pu pu platter.  It got laughs when the girls were still young.

Now when I suggest she make an actual pu pu platter, instead of a crudite with hummus, she just says "that shit will make you fat".

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

6 hours ago, The Dog said:

I mean, other than the overall tone-deafness of the ad, why the hell didn't they re-shoot that thing after he fucked up the name of the store????

They actually RELEASED that thing with the wrong name! Unless it was a live stream then I'd understand. 

It shows that Oz's people either don't care or they can't tell him when he's making a mistake. If it's recorded, run through it 5 more times until you get it right. You even go 5 times even if Take 1 seemed perfect.  

[Gil Bang 25843]

1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It shows that Oz's people either don't care or they can't tell him when he's making a mistake. If it's recorded, run through it 5 more times until you get it right. You even go 5 times even if Take 1 seemed perfect.  

I've been around a few hotshot surgeons, none as famous as Oz.  They NEVER want to hear that they are less-than-perfect. 

[Js1 85009]

30 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

It shows that Oz's people either don't care or they can't tell him when he's making a mistake. If it's recorded, run through it 5 more times until you get it right. You even go 5 times even if Take 1 seemed perfect.  

NRSC probably told him this would be so easy. Wave year, etc. Hilarious 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Js1

[Fudge Nuggets 19111]

1 hour ago, Voldemort86 said:

Some voting figures from 2020 comparing Supreme Court race to other races:
Democrat Cheri Beasley ran 11,258 votes ahead of Joe Biden in the statewide Supreme Court race.
Republican Paul Newby ran 62,824 votes behind Donald Trump in the statewide Supreme Court race.
Democrat Cheri Beasley ran 125,585 votes ahead of Cunningham.
Republican Paul Newby ran 30,353 votes ahead of Tillis.
 Beasley ran 139,240 votes behind Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper in 2020.

The strength of Beasley in 2020 as compared to Cunningham and Biden could be read as a sign that the race in 2022 will be close.

 

 

Btw : Hope that pussy was worth it Cunningham.

 

I have no fucking clue what this is supposed to mean?

[Satchel 6908]

How are Republicans explaining the change in their electoral fortunes?

[hookem2010 2590]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

I've been around a few hotshot surgeons, none as famous as Oz.  They NEVER want to hear that they are less-than-perfect. 

They are definitely a group of people who also think they know everything because they are really good at one (albeit very important) thing.

[Js1 85009]

41 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I have no fucking clue what this is supposed to mean?

Beasley is a very strong statewide candidate, winning in 2014 (red wave) and outperforming both Biden and Cunningham statewide in 2020. She’s a great candidate 

[Js1 85009]

Barnes 50-46

Kelly 50-42

[Bama Chick 28596]

Interesting, but frustrating trip down memory lane. I wish Obama actually wielded his once in a life time loaded house and 60+ senate seat majority to pass meaningful legislation besides Obamacare. They should’ve done more.
im so glad Rush Limbaugh is long gone.
 

That “majority” has been remembered as something that never actually existed.

Let's clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

[chainsaw 9814]

There's a "too crazy" limit for statewide races where you can't gerrymander your way to victory

[chainsaw 9814]

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

That “majority” has been remembered as something that never actually existed.

Let's clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

That is a lucid, intelligent, well-thought out post.

[Js1 85009]

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

There's a "too crazy" limit for statewide races where you can't gerrymander your way to victory

Basically what Turtle just said today. If you read between the lines. Thinks the House flips but the Senate is tricky bc “candidate quality” and the volatility of “statewide races” 😂

[HenryJames 65852]

 

[Chad Fuck 17455]

 

We are laughing.

[Tuco 5076]

Presidential popularity polls don’t really matter that much. It’s Biden against an ideal, not Biden against an actual opponent.

[Voldemort86 2259]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

This tells me 2 things 

1) it’s true…. Even if Fox News is saying it and freaking out about it.

2) they are trying to drum up the base.

 

Keep in mind that Trump got all sorts of crazy whackos to turn out and vote for him, but he can’t get those same people to the polls just to vote for house and senate people. Democrats have flipped a lot of the highly educated, politically engaged, people who always vote. Repubs might still have more “ poll zombies”, but the gap has probably been narrowed significantly. 
 

also factor in demographics both with the country being more diverse racially then it used to be and lots of old whites dying off and we might be seeing a permanent electorate shift in the dems favor.

[Voldemort86 2259]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

That “majority” has been remembered as something that never actually existed.

Let's clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

You seem like you’ve heard this many times before and had a rebuttal saved on your hard drive.  It’s enlightening and makes total sense. I was in college during most of the Obama administration and didn’t follow politics as closely as I do now. Thanks for the history lesson. I will use this on the next repub who tries to say it to me.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Voldemort86

[StassneyHorn 6515]

It’s a copy paste from a newspaper. Not any kind of AHA! or a dig at Bama, just been out there awhile.

[HenryJames 65852]

[chainsaw 9814]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Sounds like a good world. A world I want to live in. He's got my vote.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13388]

Too many things are going well now for the Dems in terms of news and economy. Only 80 days until election. The one wildcard is whether Fox News can get people riled up about the “raids” on trump. But that is dangerous territory if/when it turns out trump has documents that he had zero business keeping.

The House is still looking like a tough nut for the Dems to crack. The good news, for both parties, is the ability to concentrate on the relatively few competitive districts. Maybe 40 could ultimately go in either direction.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

Wow is he bad at this

[SydneyCarton 47809]

14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

That “majority” has been remembered as something that never actually existed.

Let's clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

This is a greatly detailed post. Kudos. But I read all that and my takeaway was “so they should have just rewritten the filibuster laws in the senate” and had that majority. 

[Js1 85009]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

This is a greatly detailed post. Kudos. But I read all that and my takeaway was “so they should have just rewritten the filibuster laws in the senate” and had that majority. 

Man if you think Manchin and Sinema are GOP-lite, that 60-vote majority featured a GOP-turned-Dem from PA, a Dem from Alaska, 2 Dems from Arkansas, a Dem from Indiana, a Dem from Iowa, a Dem from Louisiana, a Dem from Missouri, 2 Dems from Montana, a Dem from Nebraska, 2 Dems from North Dakota, a Dem from South Dakota, and 2 Dems from West Virginia (not named Manchin). 

A big chunk of that caucus make 2022 Manchin and Sinema look progressive.  There would not have been the stomach from enough of them to nuke the filibuster.  Considering 13 of them were eventually replaced by Republicans within a couple of cycles. 

[Gatorubet 30023]

17 hours ago, hookem2010 said:

They are definitely a group of people who also think they know everything because they are really good at one (albeit very important) thing.

Good at selling pillows makes you an election fraud expert?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33779]

speaking of pathetic

 

[Voldemort86 2259]

2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Too many things are going well now for the Dems in terms of news and economy. Only 80 days until election. The one wildcard is whether Fox News can get people riled up about the “raids” on trump. But that is dangerous territory if/when it turns out trump has documents that he had zero business keeping.

The House is still looking like a tough nut for the Dems to crack. The good news, for both parties, is the ability to concentrate on the relatively few competitive districts. Maybe 40 could ultimately go in either direction.

I don’t see the Trump raid thing actually getting people to the polls to vote. Trump isn’t on the ballot this year. Those people weren’t going to vote anyway.

[RDCanecutter 26198]

17 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

speaking of pathetic

 

Oz said "gay." huhuhuuuhuhuhuhuuuuhuuuuuuuhuu

Edited August 19, 2022 by RDCanecutter

[Sawbonz 27301]

16 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

That “majority” has been remembered as something that never actually existed.

Let's clear that all up, shall we?

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.

Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).

Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.

But legislation does not become law without the Senate.

The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.

“Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.

The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)

The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.

An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.

Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.

In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.

Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.

The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

Obama burned all of his political capital getting ACA through. He wasn’t going to get any other major legislation done after that. He’s probably happy with that legacy. I think he could’ve gotten more accomplished if he had focused on other things

[Snake Diggity 4607]

Preparing reactions based on senate race outcomes:

GOP wins 53 or more (meaning they likely take GA, NV, PA, and AZ) : “It’s the end of the world.  Literally.”

GOP wins 51-52: “We.  Are.  Fucked.  For at least 6 years but probably longer.”

GOP wins 50: “They elected Herschel Fucking Walker.  We aren’t fucked forever but obviously Trumpism/stupidity isn’t going anywhere.”

Dems win 51: “ok.”

Dems win 52: “This is a pretty good indication that America is waking up.”

Dems win 53:  “America is waking up.”

Dems win 54 or more (including McMillan): “America is awake.” (This would likely mean Dems win the House as well.)

To me, Walker or Oz winning means big trouble.  Flipping one of the WI, NC, or OH seats would be good signs that Trumpism is in real decline.  Flipping UT or FL means a new day is dawning and we are leaving that horrible shit behind.

[Satchel 6908]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Obama burned all of his political capital getting ACA through. He wasn’t going to get any other major legislation done after that. He’s probably happy with that legacy. I think he could’ve gotten more accomplished if he had focused on other things

Probably, but promise made, promise kept

[Js1 85009]

 

[The Dog 43716]

Dunno where else to put this:

[Biff Tannen 45439]

16 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Too many things are going well now for the Dems in terms of news and economy. Only 80 days until election. The one wildcard is whether Fox News can get people riled up about the “raids” on trump. But that is dangerous territory if/when it turns out trump has documents that he had zero business keeping.

The House is still looking like a tough nut for the Dems to crack. The good news, for both parties, is the ability to concentrate on the relatively few competitive districts. Maybe 40 could ultimately go in either direction.

Just thinking outside the box here.  Wouldn't it behoove Fox to have the Dems win by a narrow margin to keep their fear campaign intact?  The Rs are already seeing the dog catching the car with the repeal of Roe.  Their entire existence is built on fear.  If they keep winning too much, their rubes will maybe get disinterested?  

[Satchel 6908]

It’s stuff like this that makes it possible for the Dems to enlarge their territory in the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/03/ron-johnson-medicare-social-security/

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has suggested that Social Security and Medicare be eliminated as federal entitlement programs, and that they should instead become programs approved by Congress on an annual basis as discretionary spending.

Those who work in the United States pay Social Security and Medicare taxes that go into federal trust funds. Upon retirement, based on a person’s lifetime earnings and other factors, a retiree is eligible to receive monthly Social Security payments. Similarly, Medicare is the federal health insurance program that kicks in for people 65 and older, or for others who have disabilities.