Be careful what you wish for, GOP

[lawgator1]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

 

[McDad]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

You certainly are constantly looking out for the GOP's interests.

 

[FLVOL69]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

I smell fear

 

[DC_Vol]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

That's an interesting viewpoint. So the Senate passes bills but because they may be filibustered by Democrats or vetoed by Obama, they are obstructionists.

The change in majority in the Senate will be a direct result of Democratic policies that don't sit well with the American people. This point was skipped in his brilliant analysis.

 

[hog88]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

All they have to do is appear to be moving "forward" and Obama will take care of the obstruction.

 

[Gramps]

I smell fear

 

[McDad]

I smell fear

Thats just LG's adult diaper.

 

[ajvol01]

You certainly are constantly looking out for the GOP's interests.

lol:

 

[FLVOL69]

Thats just LG's adult diaper.

Lol, you and gramps are in rare form today. Keep it going.

 

[lawgator1]

That's an interesting viewpoint. So the Senate passes bills but because they may be filibustered by Democrats or vetoed by Obama, they are obstructionists.

The change in majority in the Senate will be a direct result of Democratic policies that don't sit well with the American people. This point was skipped in his brilliant analysis.

I think it depends on the bill.

Take the House and what they've done with Obamacare. 50 votes to repeal it. Not really any offering of a substitute.

If the Senate starts doing the same thing, I think that would be seen as wasteful demagoguery, which would be an accurate characterization.

On the other hand, if they passed bills that modified Obamacare, and Obama just vetoed them without agreeing to sit down and try to work out differences, then that could be turned on him, easily.

A lot of it would have to do with how the acts are presented. If you have Cruz out there front and center, just bashing Obama, that would feed the perception of obstruction. If you have more moderate Senators taking the leadership on the PR front, I think you could accomplish a lot and put the pressure on the Dems.

 

[McDad]

I think it depends on the bill.

Take the House and what they've done with Obamacare. 50 votes to repeal it. Not really any offering of a substitute.

If the Senate starts doing the same thing, I think that would be seen as wasteful demagoguery, which would be an accurate characterization.

On the other hand, if they passed bills that modified Obamacare, and Obama just vetoed them without agreeing to sit down and try to work out differences, then that could be turned on him, easily.

A lot of it would have to do with how the acts are presented. If you have Cruz out there front and center, just bashing Obama, that would feed the perception of obstruction. If you have more moderate Senators taking the leadership on the PR front, I think you could accomplish a lot and put the pressure on the Dems.

Yawn.

will your pony ever learn new tricks?

 

[FLVOL_79]

Taking over the senate will be the nice finishing touch on Obama's bungled presidency.

The GOP can just say they want to pass "common sense reform" and the obstructionist Democrat is unwilling to budge/be a leader/not suck at golf.

 

[LouderVol]

Taking over the senate will be the nice finishing touch on Obama's bungled presidency.

The GOP can just say they want to pass "common sense reform" and the obstructionist Democrat is unwilling to budge/be a leader/not suck at golf.

not just coming after you but many in this thread. But i lol at how its 'obstruction' when one party refuses to budge but when the other does it it's fine. we have no idea which sides 'plans' would actually work because neither actually gets it implemented usually because of their own obtuseness.

 

[utvolpj]

Winning the Senate would remove the true obstruction to the process - Harry Reid. He had kept Obama from having to make real decisions and then explain them to the American people. Has to make him a little queasy to think about that

 

[37L1]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

Well then, the Democrats should keep the Senate to avoid this calamity.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

The Republicans may not win the Senate, but they will increase their majority in the House. I am really hoping to get rid of Reid.

If the Republicans do gain control of the Senate, people need to keep in mind the number of Liberals that will comprise that majority. I can see 'Comprehensive Immigration' legislation being one of the bills that Senate would pass.

 

[Gramps]

The Republicans may not win the Senate, but they will increase their majority in the House. I am really hoping to get rid of Reid.

If the Republicans do gain control of the Senate, people need to keep in mind the number of Liberals that will comprise that majority. I can see 'Comprehensive Immigration' legislation being one of the bills that Senate would pass.

Who do you consider to be the liberal republicans in the senate?

 

[Danl]

Who do you consider to be the liberal republicans in the senate?

Everybody except that John Birch guy. And maybe him too.

 

[hog88]

Who do you consider to be the liberal republicans in the senate?

John McCain - Ringleader
Lindsey Graham - 2 behind McCain
Mitch McConnell
Susan Collins
Kelly Ayotte
Rob Portman
Pat Toomey
Lamar Alexander

 

[theFallGuy]

Republicans will probably take the Senate. Here’s why it will be a nightmare for them. - The Washington Post


Very interesting piece about the quandary of having control of both houses, but being forced to choose between mollifying the base or seeking broader appeal.

And in 2016, the POTUS election year, there are 10 seats up in the Senate controlled by Dems. But 24 controlled by the GOP. If the GOP paints itself into an obstructionist corner, they could lose the leadership offices before the paint dries.

This is the same thing said by Dems everytime Repubs gain control. "Don't dare try to pass anything you were elected for because it's too extreme for the masses."

 

[lawgator1]

This is the same thing said by Dems everytime Repubs gain control. "Don't dare try to pass anything you were elected for because it's too extreme for the masses."

I don't think you quite understand...

Because Obama can veto any outside pitches, there's zero risk for the Dems, and nothing but Dem upside politically, for the GOP to go off the deep end...as even diehard GOPers must confess has occasionally been their penchant.

 

[BeecherVol]

You certainly are constantly looking out for the GOP's interests.

LGs all about some political games.

 

[hog88]

I don't think you quite understand...

Because Obama can veto any outside pitches, there's zero risk for the Dems, and nothing but Dem upside politically, for the GOP to go off the deep end...as even diehard GOPers must confess has occasionally been their penchant.

I agree with this, sadly. All the Rs have to do is pass minor bills framed as economic starters, A BUDGET and some reforms to Obamacare. He will veto or have Harry Reid block.

 

[lawgator1]

I agree with this, sadly. All the Rs have to do is pass minor bills framed as economic starters, A BUDGET and some reforms to Obamacare. He will veto or have Harry Reid block.

If they limited themselves to reasonable starting points on budgets and what not, they'd be far better off come '16. I am 100 % sure that the leadership will preach this, and try to keep the Cruz's and Bacchman's in line. But there is going to be an immediate surge from them to try to turn it into just an opportunity to lash out at Obama.

While perhaps personally satisfying to them, and likely to make their numbers at home at least temporarily spike, it just plays right into the Dems hands come 2016.

 

[FLVOL69]

If they limited themselves to reasonable starting points on budgets and what not, they'd be far better off come '16. I am 100 % sure that the leadership will preach this, and try to keep the Cruz's and Bacchman's in line. But there is going to be an immediate surge from them to try to turn it into just an opportunity to lash out at Obama.

While perhaps personally satisfying to them, and likely to make their numbers at home at least temporarily spike, it just plays right into the Dems hands come 2016.

Lotto numbers please oh mighty sage