Democrats positioned to widen majority in Senate

[babylonsister]

Democrats positioned to widen majority in Senate
Sun Oct 7, 2007

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats are positioned to bolster their Senate majority in next year's elections, which would give them more clout regardless who succeeds President George W. Bush in the White House.

With Republicans dogged by retirements, scandals and the Iraq war, there's an outside chance Democrats will gain as many as nine seats in the 100-member Senate in the November 2008 elections, which would give them a pivotal 60.

That is the number of votes needed to clear Republican procedural roadblocks, which have been used to thwart the Democrats' efforts to force a change in Bush's policy on the Iraq war, particularly plans to withdraw U.S. troops.

The last time Democrats had an overriding majority in the Senate was in the 1977-1979 congressional session, when they held 61 seats.

"Sixty is not outside the realm of possibility," said Jennifer Duffy, who tracks Senate races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0544310120071008

[Flabbergasted]

1. No wonder they're trying to lose.

[tridim]

2. We need 61.. But 65 would be even better.

The 61 is to neutralize Joementum.

[slick8790]

4. Ah, what a dream. To be able to tell Joe to go to hell, and make him irrelevant for 4 years...

[NanceGreggs]

11. Amen to that!!!

And I'll make my prediction now as to what will happen: Joementum will immediately start rethinking his positions on a lot of issues, and suddenly realize that he agrees with the Democrats on any number of things.

He is a classic example of someone whose loyalties lie with whoever is picking up his tab, or whoever is in the position of more power - whichever is the most expedient at the time.

[Demeter]

3. No DINOs or Blue Dogs, Please

We need Progressives, people who aren't in anyone's pocket and have a sense of Constitutionality!

[slick8790]

5. DINO/Blue Dog > Republican. n/t

[Demeter]

8. Maybe--If the Speaker Is Worthy of the Job

otherwise, it's just one more hole in the Ship of State, like Pelosi with Hoyer and Rahm holding her hostage.

[slick8790]

9. Maybe?

Are you honestly suggesting any republican is better than any democrat (zell miller excepted, of course)?

[cali]

13. Sad that you don't know the difference between the SENATE

and the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

[Demeter]

18. Doesn't It Take a Senate AND a House to Prevail?

[cali]

21. Isn't this thread about the Senate? n/t

[avrdream]

6. Great possibility.

I wonder what the Democratic turnout is going to be like? It will probably need to be even larger than last year to overcome the madness of election fraud.

[Hydra]

7. With Diebold in play, I wonder how many we'll actually pick up

I remember the commentators being surprised that we picked up the Senate in 2006.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. We could lose what we have now if we pick the wrong nominee

[cali]

14. Actually, you're wrong.

It'd be difficult to lose seats in the Senate no matter who are candidate is.

If you don't understand why, I'd be glad to explain.

[Nimrod2005]

12. Nominating HRC can negate all of this...She will hurt us everywhere!!!

[cali]

15. Wrong. Whether she's the nom or not,

the dems will pick up seats in the Senate.

[Nimrod2005]

17. Mark my words, not in the purple states...It is a nightmare for a Democrat

if s/he is running in a red district...And her name is on top of the ballot.

[cali]

20. Mark mine. Mark Warner will win in VA and that's a purple state

and Shaheen will win in NH and that's a freshly minted blue state with streaks of red.

[sufrommich]

16. Great news and most posts to thread are negative.

That's just sad.

[cali]

23. Actually, it's fucking pathetic. n/t

[mark414]

19. 60, but how many of those would actually vote with the Dems most of the time?

[cali]

22. Most of them. Just as most now do. n/t