GOP Insiders no longer see Senate takeover

[WI_DEM]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/28/gop_insiders_no_longer_see_senate_takeover.html

Republicans no longer think they're going to retake the Senate, according to the latest National Journal Political Insiders Poll, "a stunning drop in optimism for a party that began 2012 confident it would regain control of the chamber."

Just 4% of GOP insiders rate their chances as "high," a free fall in confidence from February when 66% of Republicans were bullish they'd win the four seats necessary to take control.

[still_one]

1. and if that happens reid better set the rules to stop the filibuster /nt

[davidn3600]

4. And if the GOP retakes control in 2016?

We won't be able to stop them on anything.

And don't give me the arrogant bullshit about how the GOP will never take control again. I heard that same crap after 2008 and look what happened in 2010.

And if the GOP keeps the House, they will simply shut every piece of legislation down in there anyway.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Democrats don't use the filibuster.

If we did, we wouldn't be in the situation we are now. We would never have had John Roberts or Samuel Alito on the Court, the extension of the Patriot Act, Bush's tax cuts, or any of a thousand other things that brought about the disaster Obama has been cleaning up.

Better to be done with it.

[outsideworld]

10. this makes me so mad

Dems need t o grow a fucking backbone ughhhh

[RDANGELO]

6. We would still be better off in the long run.

Part of the problem we have is that policies never get implemented in the first place so that people can see what works and what doesn't, or how things can be improved. If the Republicans ever actually privatized Social Security, how long would that last.

[Cosmocat]

9. Like not going it will keep them from doing it?

You think for one second, if they get the senate by one seat, McConnell won't change the rules even if Reid does not?

[Silent3]

7. I'd reform the filibuster, not end it

There needs to be a way for a minority party to assert itself, just not anything so open to abuse like we have now.

I'd change the Senate rules so that the longer a filibuster went on, the more votes it took to sustain, with a maximum duration. (Say, six months max, and, maybe, 45 votes required to keep it going after three months?)

I'd limit the number of filibusters allowed to in effect at any given time (5? 10?) so that a party is forced at a certain point to pick and chose what it thinks is important enough to filibuster -- they can't simply filibuster anything and everything, they have to carefully set priorities.

While I wouldn't require the full "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", cots on the Senate floor, someone's got to hold the floor and keep talking type of filibuster, I'd certainly require that a maintaining a filibuster requires serious ongoing effort in one form or another.

Beyond the filibuster, I'd certainly change the rule where a single Senator can hold up a vote, especially anonymously. That's utterly ridiculous.

[brooklynite]

8. I've discussed this with him and most of our Senate candidates...

...I think we'll be seeing significant changes.

[donco]

2. Thank you Tood Akin nt

[Silent3]

3. What I want to see now is more fear of losing the House. n/t

[Kteachums]

11. I think many of them don't like their own party and how it has turned.

[Panasonic]

12. Actually they may just lose five (at most) seats while the Republicans scramble to save their seats.

They got too cocky, and this is the end result. The sleeping giant has finally been awakened and ready to kick ass and take names.

MO, AZ, IN, NV, ME (I), and MA

We hold MT, ND, OH, VA, and WI, along with the safe Dem seats, +5 Dem, from 50 to 55 with 2 I's caucusing for the Dems, totalling to 57.

2014 and 2016 are death sentences for Republicans.