The Republican Senate Majority Is Collapsing Around Mitch McConnell

[beastie boy]

Source: Talking Points Memo

Since the cycle started, Democrats have bet they could net four or five seats with a specific eye on Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Illinois and Florida, but the prospect of Cruz or Trump on the top of the ticket is making them more bullish.

Now, Democrats are seriously looking at expanding their map to North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana and even Iowa –states with strong incumbents once viewed as hard to knock off. In Iowa, Democrats successfully recruited former state agricultural secretary and lieutenant Gov. Patty Judge to challenge six-term incumbent Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/democrats-are-looking-really-good-for-2016

---

Five Senate seats likely to flip to Democrats, ten possible. What better argument for funding downticket candidates!

[packman]

1. Wouldn't that be something!

A Demo Senate, maybe a House, and a Demo President. I just hope they don't squander it like last time the stars conjoined for them.

[Grown2Hate]

113. Not to mention, if that happens, a left-leaning Supreme Court. ::swoon:: NT

[ViseGrip]

2. Florida will not go Hillary, nor will the dem senate candidate win.

the race has deflated a lot since NY. It was not the win or loss, but the fraud. People have now left this process.

[HooptieWagon]

7. That is true.

Obama won Florida twice, but by extremely narrow margins (roughly 1%), based on good turnout from young voters and minorities, and good support from Independants (who are far greater in number than registered voters in either party). I am certain that Clinton will not get that turnout or support, and will lose Florida. Winning Florida is even uphill battle for Sanders, but his strong support from Independants may pull it off.
For Senate, the Democrats have pretty weak candidates. The DNC candidate (one of DWS's pets) is Patrick Murphy, a former Republican who excites no one but Debbie Downer. The other candidate is Alan Grayson, who is a solid Democratic candidate, but is viewed as a loose cannon and the Party establishment is working against him. Republicans have fairly strong candidates, including my Congressman David Jolly, who is a relative moderate. The State Dem Party tries to be as Rrpublican as possible, is a dysfunctional mess, and given a choice of Republican or Republican-lite Florida voters usually go Republican despite being a fairly purple state.

[Democat]

17. Clinton or Sanders would have a chance of winning Florida against Trump

Democrats have not even started to take apart Trump yet because they want him to win the primary.

If Democrats are ready to fight as hard as Republicans, anything is possible.

If we have another situation like Kerry where Democrats are unwilling to fight, then we could lose.

[Hiraeth]

44. Democrats are unwilling to fight, then we could lose.

Some Democrats are happy with the status quo.

[bjobotts]

50. Dems will win the GE but nothing will change all that much unless Sanders is the candidate

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

119. Absolutely sad and absolutely true

[bjobotts]

48. overcoming all the cheating in FL means twice as many must vote.

[beastie boy]

8. I doubt that the actual numbers reflect your sentiment.

Regardless, my goal was to illustrate the importance of supporting downticket Democrats, no matter who wins the primaries. The elections don't end with presidential candidates.

[Buddyblazon]

114. Okay...

So the down ticket Dems win...and by the grace of a hacker named "God", Hillary wins too...then what?

With all that power...you suppose she'll go for single payer? Nope she's already said she can't do that. Will she move for free higher public education? Will she move for any type of progressive policy whatsoever? Nope. She's already said she won't do that.

So who cares? She just going to piss away the opportunity anyways and continue to support conservative financial policies. Giving her the senate means nothing for us liberals at all.

[beastie boy]

116. It's as if you didn't read my post.

Quit bashing Hillary for a second and concentrate on what I am saying, wontcha? I am saying that it is important to support downticket Democrats regardless of who wins the nomination.

Surely you don't believe that a Republican controlled senate is more likely to pass all that progressive legislation than a Democratic controlled senate!

Then again, maybe you don't care. In this case you have no one to blame than yourself.

[Vincardog]

15. How will it go with Bernie at the top of the ticket?

[anigbrowl]

103. So you say

I am skeptical that you speak for anyone outside your personal social circle.

[Reter]

112. Especially if it's Grayson

How is he polling in the primary there?

[LonePirate]

3. Taking down Grassley and McCain would certainly make for extra cherries on an election sundae.

[NewJeffCT]

22. Grassley would be a big one to take down

McCain would be nice as well, but if I had to choose, I'd dump Grassley first. McCain can be reasonable once or twice per year.

[Dawgs]

4. Funding downticket candidates won't do shit if people don't vote.

And, the only guarantee that people won't vote is to nominate an establishment candidate with extremely high unfavorables. Look at 2014 if you want to see how that works.

[beastie boy]

10. Funding downticket candidates doesn't mean paying their rent.

t means, first and foremost, organizing the get out to vote effort. And it must be abundantly clear by now, even to Bernie supporters, that the Democrats prefer the establishment candidate you frown upon.

Regardless, my point is that the race doesn't end with choosing a presidential nominee. There are plenty of opportunities to make a difference in other ways.

[Dawgs]

72. My point is that the Democrats WON'T do well on with downticket candidates with her as the nominee.

Her approval numbers are nearing 60% and many Democrats don't see her as a better option than the Republicans. People were enthusiastic about Obama because he had a clear message of 'hope'. She doesn't offer any of that.

In 2014, when Democrats should have been motivated to vote out Republicans, they stayed home. Why would they come out now?

And, I don't think Bernie has any chance at all. She will be the nominee and the Democrats will lose badly...again.

[beastie boy]

75. I wish I could share your pessimism.

Her approval numbers are a reflection of years, if not decades, of right wing media bombarding the airwaves with negative coverage. This is priced into her candidacy. And there is no evidence that the Democrats don't see her as a better option. In fact, there are increasing signs that the independents and even Republicans see her as a better option.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

85. I respectfully disagree.

Only the approximately 30% of RWers who believe Faux News bought into the relentless RW attacks against Hillary. The rest of us pretty much believed she was unfairly targeted; we remember "Clinton Derangement Syndrome." But now that she has a record as Senator and Secretary of State, and professional presidential aspirant, we can assess her judgment and choices. THAT'S where much of her negatives come from.

[Dawgs]

89. Said it much better than I did.

[Dawgs]

88. Her approval numbers to many are much more than right wing attacks.

Much has to do with her judgement - like her decision on the Iraq war.

[John K]

97. Most admired woman for the record 20th time

This is why we need to stop repeating what is on RW websites and TV stations.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

[gordianot]

19. I wonder if the down ticket may have reverse coat tails for the top.

I have yet to find one person in my Democratic circles excited by the prospect of Hillary Clinton, to be fair Sanders has his supporters but not by much. The year of voting against Republicans.

[LonePirate]

41. What unliked, establishment candidate was atop the ballot in 2014?

[Dawgs]

61. The point is that you have to give people a reason to vote.

They should have had one in 2014 and they still didn't. No difference in 2016.

[LonePirate]

66. You're making excuses for bad behavior. Voting for the best candidate is always a reason to vote.

The winning candidate will be making decisions that impact my life. That is reason enough to vote. Nobody should be making excuses for the lazy, ignorant or sore loser voters who refuse to understand that very simple fact. I vote to ensure the best candidate on the ballot makes those decisions. Apathy only breeds more apathy as disasters like 2010 only fuel more disasters like 2014. Protecting America is the only reason any adult should want for a reason to vote. Anything beyond that is just being selfish.

[Dawgs]

70. Ah, that's where you are missing the point.

Many people don't see one candidate as better than the other.

[LonePirate]

73. I'm missing nothing. Their laziness/refusal to educate themselves has caused our dysfunction.

Responsible voting requires work and so many Americans want everything handed to them with no effort that they think the candidates are the same unless there are publicly discernible, night and day differences. These lazy voters are destroying America.

[Dawgs]

74. Understand, you're talking about something completely different now.

And, you're right. They need a reason to vote.

Too bad we weren't smart enough to give them one.

[LonePirate]

76. They already have a reason to vote. They simply refuse it while others prefer scapegoating for them.

Nobody needs to give them a reason to vote as it's in their possession right now.

[Dawgs]

81. Fine, what's "the reason"? n/t

[tblue37]

83. To avoid SC justices like Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts.

To avoid state governments like the ones that are destroying their states right now.

To slow down our headlong rush to disaster, even if we cannot quite stop it altogether.

[Dawgs]

86. Those are NOT reasons to vote FOR someone or something.

Those are reasons to vote AGAINST something.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

78. Well women and minorities and immigrants and Muslims have a reason, but

I suppose if you arent one of those, then who cares.

[Dawgs]

80. Those are reasons to vote AGAINST someone or something.

Not, FOR something.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

82. In the grown up world, that is often our only option. But as adults we have

a responsibility to always be part of the decision.

You are either actively being a part of the decision or you are not.

[Dawgs]

87. Don't you mean, 'AS A DEMOCRAT, that is often our only option'?

Because that's exactly what it sounds like.

And, the discussion you joined is about why to vote FOR SOMEONE.

[pandr32]

5. Turn the Senate blue again

...and progressive policies stand a better chance. This is wonderful news. Good thing Hillary Clinton has been raising money for the DNC, and no doubt she will do all she can to help Democrat senators get elected, as will others.

[HooptieWagon]

9. Voting for Third Way Democrats won't get any progressive legislation passed.

All it will do is change is who the corporate checks are made out to.

[sharp_stick]

11. That is such myopic garbage

Totally sick of this "the parties are the same". It's never been true and it never will be true.

[Vincardog]

16. The Corporatist Dems are the ones making "the parties are the same" true. Don't blame the messenger

who is fighting to ensure the parties are NOT the same. Go Bernie.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. So true. Go, Bernie, go!

[LanternWaste]

69. That's a very creative allegation

That's a very creative allegation, and despite lacking any supporting or objective evidence, I have little doubt you place great belief in your faith-based belief system.

[Vincardog]

106. Watching the DLC and Democratic sellouts for 30 years is is "faith-based belief system" right! What

evidence is NAFTA and TPP?

[Chan790]

29. FTFY.

Totally sick of this "the parties are the same". It's never been truer and it should never be true again.

[sharp_stick]

32. Keep telling yourself that

and soon enough you'll get another George W. Bush or worse in office to remind you of the differences.

[Chan790]

33. ...you mean like Hillary? n/t

[sharp_stick]

34. What a load of horseshit

So you can't see a difference between her and Bush? That's fucking both stunning and pathetic.

[Chan790]

35. They're both fully owned by Wall St. and the brothers Koch.

So...that's enough similarity for me to say that she's not exactly different.

It's like the contrast of a black cat in a light-less room.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

68. And both Uber-hawkish NeoCons. n/t

[Unicorn]

90. +1

[gregcrawford]

62. Wrong...

... the so-called "Third Way Democrats" are essentially a third party. One might even equate them with a Trojan horse within the Democratic Party. Their existence cannot be refuted, nor can their detrimental effect on the Progressive ideals that REAL Democrats hold dear. How else can you explain someone like Debbie Wasserman Schultz wreaking such havoc, and the supposed "Party Elite" not saying a goddamned word?

They will answer for their self-serving treachery sooner or later. And FUCK the TPP!

[beastie boy]

65. The so called "third way Democrats" are actually the mainstream and the majority of the party.

If you can imagine a Trojan horse bigger than Troy...

And they are so called because you decided to call them so instead of calling them what they are.

[gregcrawford]

95. Pretty sure they called themselves that...

... back when Clinton described his economic policies with that very term, "a third way." And just because they may be the majority doesn't make them right.

[Bradical79]

100. Just so there's no confusion

"Third Way" is a specific Democratic think tank dedicated to promoting right wing leaning economic policy with left wing leaning social policy. It's a real thing, not a made up name.

[beastie boy]

105. I am aware of the think tank, and they have as much to do with the mainstream Democrats as

Americans for Prosperity PAC has to do with America or prosperity.

They represent a small segment on the right of the Democratic spectrum, and they certainly cannot claim to be anything resembling a third party or a Trojan horse.

Their name has been co-opted by Bernie supporters on DU (mimicking the same tactic by fringe media personalities like Thom Hartman and Cenk Uygur) to be applied as a derogatory term to any Democrat who shows the slightest propensity towards fiscal conservatism, no matter how appropriate it is in a given situation. As a label, it is a useful device to establish guilt by association and it is meant to communicate intolerance, or at least disdain, towards the party's mainstream.

Bernie resembles a third party Trojan horse much more more than anything or anyone associated with the Third Way.

[Bradical79]

109. Your post is not true in a few different ways

The idea that "Third Way" is a term co-opted by Bernie fans just to rag on Clinton is kind of ridiculous. It's been used to describe Clinton, and her husband previously, for over two decades even prior to the forming of the organization itself. Yes, it's used negatively, though not necessarily inaccurately. The term was also used previously for the DLC whose policies were along the same theme of rightward Reagonomics style economic policies. That's the organization Hillary Clinton and Bill were major parts of. "Third Way" and "DLC" have been used almost interchangeably to describe the same type of Democrat for a long time now.

Your minimizing of Third Way influence is kind of silly too considering the members who have worked for the Obama administration(including his former chief of staff) and the influence they have had on legislation.

[beastie boy]

111. Just because the term "Third Way" has been used before, doesn't mean it hasn't been co-opted by

the Bernie fans. In fact, it would be ridiculous to claim that the term has been co-opted without it being used previously in a different context. The fact that it is now used on DU as a derogatory label being arbitrarily slapped on anyone to the right of Che Guevara is undeniable.

It is also important to differentiate between Third Way the political philosophy and Third Way the think tank. The latter is almost entirely inconsequential, and the former has its fans for a reason: economic conservatism has proven again and again to be an incredibly effective vehicle to advance social liberalism. If you divorce the former from the latter and criticize the entire approach by only examining one part and ignoring the other, you are missing the point. It would be similar to the right wingers bashing Bernie as a socialist and ignoring "democratic" in "democratic socialism". Good for flashy demagoguery, but not much else.

[Bradical79]

115. Again, you are wrong

You're trying to push the idea that "third way" is something Bernie Sanders fans have co-opted to smear Clinton with when it's a label that has been following her for over a decade. As for third way the political philosophy vs. Third Way through think tank, does it really matter when they both refer to the same conservative economic philosophy? Also, I'm not sure why you keep calling the Think Tank itself inconsequential considering its influence in the party.

[beastie boy]

118. If you say so.

Your post doesn't change the fact that "third way" became a label with derogatory connotations only after it was picked up by Bernie supporters. So what if it was used before? It is the context that matters. Your insistence that Bernie supporters have nothing to do with making it a slur is as ridiculous as insisting that the right wing did not co-opt "Muslim" as a derogatory term in reference to Obama because he has had Kenyan ancestry since the day he was born.

And it does matter how you refer to Third Way. If you keep calling it "conservative economic philosophy" you are guilty of distortion by omission. Third Way is not just conservative economic philosophy. It is a blend of mainly Keynesian (which is different from trickle-down conservative) economic principles applied to advance social progressive goals.

[Stuckinthebush]

84. No kidding

It is so ridiculous and a dangerous way of thinking.

Ignore it. Those individuals who spout that nonsense are lost.

[Democat]

18. Republicans and Democrats are the same?

Thanks for the Iraq war, Ralph!

[HooptieWagon]

23. Same Iraq war Hillary voted for?

[pandr32]

92. The one Bernie turned right around and voted to fully fund

Sanders lies about Hillary all the time
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

[zalinda]

98. So you want a war

but you want the soldiers to fund their protection? Because that was what was happening, or don't you remember? How could you forget that they had to go to trash heaps to find metal to try and reinforce their humvees? How could you forget parents having to raise money to send their child body armor?

Bernie voted to fund the war to protect the soldiers, not because he believed in the war, unlike Hillary. Hillary has never met a war she didn't like.

Z

[snort]

107. +1

[LonePirate]

37. Many states are lucky to field a single Dem candidate for Senate, let alone more than one.

There's not much choice if only one candidate is in the primary. You take what you get sometimes.

[harun]

38. +1, out with 3rd way trash

[pandr32]

91. Sure, like Democrats haven't been working to do progressive things for decades.

Please proceed!

[zalinda]

99. The have only been working to do SOCIALLY progressive things

there is a big difference when talking about the economy.

Z

[scottie55]

6. We Can't Pander To Wall Street And Take Back The Senate At The Same Time - Sorry

You can't protect the billionaires, and ignore the 99% any more and expect to win.

[beastie boy]

14. Sorry, but if we don't take back the Senate, we guarantee the perpetuation

of Wall street pandering for the foreseeable future, and legalizing it further with the Supreme Court decisions.

Besides, elections don't end with presidential nominations. Part of what you are arguing is that Bernie or Elizabeth Warren being Senators doesn't mean jack shit. I don't think you meant it.

[Chan790]

31. The argument is nonsensical.

It amounts to "You either have to chop off your own hand or your own foot. You have to choose between two maimings."

I refuse to accept that logic. We need to both take back the Senate and deny the Presidency to stealth Republicans of the DLC-bent, such as Hillary Clinton, that represent Wall St. and not Main St.

[beastie boy]

36. If you are into mutilation, this analogy would be more accurate:

you either get a shave with a dull blade, or you get your head chopped off.

I guess chopping of your head makes more sense to you. Like it or not, you cannot deny the nomination to Hillary. You are not refusing to accept any logic, you are refusing to accept reality.

Off with your head, then. I hope the majority of Democrats will find their heads more useful than you do.

[Chan790]

39. No...it's more like being garrotted or a beheading.

Either way, you're dead. The dead don't care how they got there.

Do I think I can deny Hillary the nomination? Yes, actually...still.

Can I also consider her to be not a Democrat--refuse her my support and my vote if she's the nominee? Yup. Going to, too.

[LonePirate]

42. It's irrational posts like this one which make me yearn for Skinner to clean up DU.

[Chan790]

47. Good for you.

You'll be yearning a long time. It hasn't happened yet and I've been remarkably consistent on this point since 2007:

Hillary isn't a Democrat and isn't entitled to my support, here or in any election.[i/]

[LonePirate]

51. So you're voting Trump or third party in November?

[Chan790]

52. Nope.

I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee as long as that nominee is Sanders. Otherwise, I just won't vote at all for President.

[LonePirate]

56. So, you're helping to elect Trump. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Chan790]

59. If you say so.

I prefer to think of it as "Clinton supporters are electing Trump by not shanking Hillary's candidacy."

Also, it doesn't matter who I vote for--Trump's not winning CT.

[beastie boy]

45. Do you seriously see no difference between President Clinton and President Trump?

Do you seriously think Bernie has a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the nomination? And do you seriously think your opinion changes Hillary's party affiliation?

I detect a pattern here. I am beginning to suspect that you don't consider losing your head to be much of a loss, and therefore my analogy didn't impress you at all.

[Chan790]

49. ...as opposed to be being strangled with the nomination of fake Democrats?

No, I don't. Like I said, the dead don't care how they got to be dead.

Your bullshit analogy didn't impress me in the least.

[beastie boy]

53. Thankfully, you do not decide who is a real Democrat and who isn't.

The real Democrats do. If you don't see the difference between Trump and Hillary, I am talking past you.

[Chan790]

58. But I do get to decide who I don't consider a Democrat. :)

...and with it, who has to prove they share my values to earn my vote.

Hillary had that opportunity and squandered it by being a Third-Way lackey. Tomorrow, I get to vote against her in the CT primary. It's the best day of the year.

Edit: Real Democrats are those that share and hold Democratic values. It's explicitly exclusive of Clinton and her supporters. They're all RW interlopers and I wish they'd all get the fuck out of the Democratic party since they're, by definition, not really Democrats.

[beastie boy]

60. You absolutely get to decide whether you want to cut your nose despite your face!

There is little risk that Hillary will lose to any Republican nominee, so you can safely grandstand in her case without facing the consequences of your grandstanding.

But the original post is about downticket candidates. you know, the real Democrats that fall under your ridiculous definitions you think are derogatory. Thankfully, the real Democrats in Connecticut can do without your vote. It is not the case in many states.

[Chan790]

63. I'm voting downticket regardless...

but I'm in a position to be able to express my disgust at the nomination of an enemy of Democratic values like Hillary Clinton.

So, yeah...that's what I'm doing.

[beastie boy]

64. Mazel tov!

You got off your Hillary bashing high horse just long enough to understand what I am talking about. Quite an accomplishment.

You may now return to your grandstanding.

[Democat]

20. If Republicans keep the senate, then those billionaires win

The only hope of changing anything is for either Democrat to win.

If we don't support whichever Democrat wins the nomination, then we are helping the "billionaires" win.

[Plucketeer]

25. The billionaires know the odds

of the machines on BOTH sides of the aisles. When the General kicks off, we'll get to see which slots get the most coins. The "Dems" won't be left wanting.

[stopbush]

12. I hate Grassley.

Because of his lies about Obamacare death panels, my mom refused to write out a living will or to indicate at all how she wanted people to handle her affairs if she lost the mental capacity to do so. She believed a living will started the death panel process, and she believed it because those god-fearing Rs wouldn't lie.

When the dementia set in, my sibs spent all their time arguing over what was best for mom. It was a bunch of Bible thumpers arguing over make believe. At one point, my sister who had demanded she be given power of attorney called me up and asked if I could take over that responsibility, which I couldn't.

Assholes like Grassley don't give a shit that their sloganeering has real effects on people's lives. Fuck him.

[Plucketeer]

26. If Grassley said the sky's blue

I'd have to get up, go out and check. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Not that he's alone with that phenomena!

[NCjack]

13. The U.S. Senate's average IQ will rise 10% if Patty wins. /nt

[fred v]

21. A Trump Nomination + SCOTUS Obstructionism =

The Senate is already ours, and the House isn't out of the question.

[hollowdweller]

24. There is no problem with the US or our people that traditional conservative ideas can now remedy

That's why Trump is popular. He's at least partially thinking outside the conservative box.

Media and propaganda have made conservative orthodoxy sort of unquestioned. Dems have helped too by embracing many of their ideas during the DLC era.

When the public got screwed in 2008 they elected Obama, but there was no way he could turn it around by 2010 so GOP regained control, then the voters gave them even more power in subsequent elections.

But now I think people are wising up. The GOP didn't do anything.

[curiouso]

27. Who's countin' the votes?

Is Mitch really the best Kentucky can do?

[Blue Owl]

30. Payback's a Mitch

n/t

[oldandhappy]

40. please fund candidates directly

We learned the hard way that sending money to the county committee did not always result in funds going to the candidates.

[PSPS]

43. This analysis piece doesn't belong in LBN.

[redstatebluegirl]

46. This would be fabulous!

I don't get excited anymore, but I do think that if Trump or Cruz are the nominee a lot of Republicans will stay home making it easier to win in states we didn't expect.

They will run ads scaring the hell out of them that the Supreme Court and their precious second amendment and abortion views are in danger, but I think we have a chance this time.

[houston16revival]

54. The proof is in the pudding

But I do expect our Democratic nominee, whoever it may be, to
accelerate in October, show every bit of barnstorming, media control,
messaging that Barack Obama just about perfected, and go for the
jugular. It's been a long time since the Democratic Party has been able
to really throttle up at election time.

Obama had few coattails. Not sure if that was about race, or funding,
or .....?

And I'm not sure what we're getting on our ticket anyway - a candidate
none too popular and with liabilities, or a candidate popular with his base but
without experience in hands-on party control and support as an organization
and with members of Congress. It is very early to celebrate that Trump or
Cruz could be the opposition. Remember Reagan 1980.

[Fla Dem]

55. Thank you Hillary for all those fund raisers you have attended.

Without the money raised at fund raisers, down ticket candidates cannot campaign effectively against RW incumbents. No one likes all the money that's in the political process, but thanks to Citizens United we have no choice but to raise as much as we can to help our candidates. They are up against candidates backed by powerful PAC's funded by the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and their ilk.

There is no virtue in taking a pocket knife to a gun fight. No Democratic president, whether it's HRC or BS will accomplish anything without a congress and senate behind them. We must retain the White House and take back the Senate then get left leaning SC justics on the bench that will overrule Citizens United and get the money out of politics.

[snort]

108. And thanks for lining your pockets with corporate money.

Not only have you raised money for down ticket Dems, you've made it impossible for many of us to trust you. Great job!

[Betty Karlson]

57. What better argument to go with the candidate who has positive coattails (Sanders)?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

67. ^^THIS^^ n/t

[libodem]

71. GOOD NEWS

[usaf-vet]

77. No problem "turtleman" will just pull his head back into his...

shell and mumble something from the dark recess.

[Funtatlaguy]

79. Beating GrASSley would put a huge smile

on this old liberal face of mine.

[Calista241]

93. Maybe if Obama was running.

But we're counting on Hillary Clinton to drive people to the polls?

[Soxfan58]

94. Thank you

Donald Trump for exposing the ugly truth about the Republican party

[ffr]

96. And why shouldn't they? Republicans are terrible at governing.

I only wish there were two of me to help GOTV in November.

Sweep the RWNJs out!

[Angry Dragon]

101. but I heard that the republicans have a god on their side

[Thinkingabout]

102. Getting the Senate to a filibuster proof would be a great start. Hillary has raised money to fund

Campaigns for down ticket and to reap the rewards would be wonderful.

[Justice]

104. When you stand for nothing, not surprising you have nothing to defend.

[dicksmc3]

110. snake in the Grassley needs to go#!

Maybe he can take cutting pig balls from Joni Ernst.. Fits old Grassley to a t..

[GOPblows431]

117. Good news

The GOP are a bunch of old racist bigots who don't care about the interests of Americans. They deserve to lose hard.