And Republicans have never been disdainful of the voter (cough cough 47% cough cough).
As far as Reid goes, yes, he will no longer be Majority Leader, but interestingly his position as Minority Leader seems assured. The other Senate Democratic leaders endorsed him last night. I find this very surprising.
Sorry for not reading the entire thread, but after last night are there no more Southern Democratic Senators at all (assuming Landreiu loses the runoff)?
The Republicans stand for crazy and the crazies come out to vote. The Democrats run from their crowning achievement and they don’t turn out to vote. Since the ACA is no longer toxic to Democrats and fertilizer for Republicans, there seemed to be an agreement by everyone to stop talking about it. It’s like Republicans said “OK, we’ve been running against this for 5 years and trying to scare everyone to death but now it looks like it’s working so we’ll just stop talking about it” and Democrats said “OK, we’re sick of trying to defend it when we didn’t know it would work, so now that it is we won’t try to take credit for it”.
Both sides are capable of lying, but Republican voters are the only ones capable of believing the lies. And evil triumphs yet again.
A 54 seat lead would be impressive 
Great night for the GOP establishment. After a couple cycles of failing to take the Senate solely due to goofy Tea Party novices running bad campaigns and saying dumb shit, they finally pushed in the candidates they wanted and won the thing.
Noo doubt they’ll reinstate the previous filibuster rules, right?
Now they have to show they can govern like adults, instead of all these repeal-Obamacare votes, lawsuits, rumblings of impeachment, shutdowns, debt ceiling refusals, credit downgrades, opposing their own bills, etc. that have been their hallmark. Not betting on it, though.
If their voting base didn’t care that they didn’t when they were sharing the power, why would they care now? I think you’re being entirely too optimistic here.
Indeed. Has the Senate ever been 77-23?
I was vaguely hoping Reid would get bounced in favour of someone who was pro-Yucca, but my wish for a pony took more of my time.
BPC: Maybe. They have fewer excuses and scapegoats available now, though.
Cue the Republican calls of “See? We don’t need a federal minimum wage standard; the states can do this on their own!” in three, two, one,…
Besides, even at state (as opposed to local) level, minimum wage can be a problem; how do you set a minimum wage in California that both (a) doesn’t cause problems for employers in the rural parts of the state, and (b) is viable in the San Francisco area (where gasoline is still something like $3.75 a gallon)?
You misspelled “vouchers”.
Also, the Democrats aren’t exactly opponents of private education. Refresh my memory - which “public” university (which, “if I heard the story right”, was built with money that came in no small part from the backs of the transcontinental railroad workers) did Chelsea Clinton attend?
Disclaimer: I’m a Cal-Berkeley graduate - that was not intended as a slam on Stanford
Add me to the :eek: column on that one - I thought for sure that the remaining votes would swing for Hagan, the way a couple of eastern states swung for Obama in the late counting in 2012.
It’s all Fox’s fault - if only it had demanded that Chris on Family Guy stay at Buddy Cianci Junior High School (hey, if Stewie doesn’t get any older, then why should Chris?), he might have had enough name recognition to win… :rolleyes:
CNN deals in national politics. State legislatures do not, which is why they are very rarely mentioned.
Question: why does the number of Republican and Democratic governors matter? The only real effect they have on national politics is in those states where they are involved in drawing the congressional district lines, and how many of them are in a position to change them in 2014? (Didn’t some state - Texas - try to redraw the lines outside of a year right after a census? How did that go?)
Yeah, I meant 54-seat majority.
I knew I forgot something, and I missed the edit window…
Question: how many of the GOP Senate gains were by Tea Party candidates, and how many by “mainstream” Republicans? CNN kept mentioning one state - Colorado, I think - where the party made it a point to keep the Tea Party out.
It can be hard to identify sometimes. Gardner is Tea Party, IMO, but he ran as a mainstream Republican, and since I don’t like liars very much, I hope he actually is a mainstream Republican.
Tom Cotton though is Tea Party through and through.
But in general, yeah, the establishment got more of their candidates elected than the Tea Party. Keeping the Tea Party muzzled is why they didn’t fall short again.
What the Dems need to so is figure out some way to get their base all fired up. Or, they could just sit back and let the Republicans do it for them. They’re far more reliable.
Bring back the rape-talkin’ guys for 2016, please.
They were pretty much all establishment candidates. Erick Erickson (RedState) has a column in Politico grousing about it.
Good candidates are the only way. Obama=turnout. Boring Senate incumbents who run far away from Obama don’t inspire turnout. And the challengers weren’t much more exciting. Democrats had a really bad recruiting year. And you know whose fault that is? Harry Reid. There is no just world in which he does not get fired for this debacle.
I can’t help but think that running away from Obama was a terrible idea. Yeah, he’s somewhat unpopular, but all the candidates jabbering about how much they aren’t like him just played into Republican hands. Obama-haters generally aren’t voting for Democrats anyway.
we have some adult supervision in the Senate now.
Going to be fun to watch all the uncomfortable votes and vetoes that the GOP can now put Hopey McChangey in.
Trouble is, the Tea Party is nuts. You can make all sorts of sensible noises, but they believe that this is all about them, that they have the Republican Parties shriveled balls in their pocket, they want something, they just reach in and squeeeeeze…
So, what are you guys going to give them? They want it all, now, today. What can you give them that won’t ensure disaster in 2016?
Or, you can continue to point with pride at how Republican ideology is making Kansas an economic miracle… Low economic growth? Cut taxes! High unemployment? Cut taxes. Neuritis, neuralgia, the heartbreak of psoriasis? Oh, you better believe them’s a tax-cuttin’.
Lot of people gonna get hurt over the next couple years. Can’t do anything about that we ain’t already doing. But if I were a cold, calculating cynic, a Leninist, I would be plumb tickled, Because now, what happens next, none of it is our fault. The Republicans have built a time bomb, set it for two years. Tick tock, tick tock…