Let's Get A List Together Of What We Could Accomplish If We Take Back The House In 2014....

[global1]

and retain the Senate. There are so many big issues that are riding on this election that if we aren't successful - we will be in gridlock until 2016.

I would like to get a list of all those important issues that are riding on this election. Here are a few that I came up with:

- comprehensive immigration reform
- closing of Gitmo
- raise the minimum wage to $15.50/hr
- a jobs bill
- monies allocated to improving the infrastructure of the U.S.; putting people back to work to rebuild America
- extension of unemployment benefits
- overturn Citizens United

I know that these are just some of the things that we can accomplish with control over the House and Senate. I'm sure that there is a lot more that we can accomplish and I was hoping that DU'ers would help generate a comprehensive list.

Please help me assemble this - so that we could use it in drumming up support during the run-up to Nov 2014 to GOTV.

Thank You.

[Duckhunter935]

1. well you would need at

least 60 in the Senate to do any of that

[Mnpaul]

9. I'm thinking you would need at least 70

to get 60 Dems that would vote for the legislation listed above. Remember card check?

[TheKentuckian]

2. Why would we do most or any of that? Do you think that this would be the first time we held the

House?

Already forgotten when the Senate was where good legislation went to die just a few years ago? A better Senate than we have now?

[jmowreader]

6. Then we need to get rid of the 60-vote threshold

The Clinton tax increase of 1993 passed an evenly-divided Senate on a 50-50 party-line vote with Al Gore providing the tie-breaking vote as Vice President. During the pre-Kennedy-death Senate era plenty of legislation died with 56 to 58 aye votes. The Constitution does NOT say routine bills require supermajorities; if they did that line about the VP casting tie-breaking votes would have been unnecessary.

[TheKentuckian]

10. I don't disagree, I just can't pretend "we" actually want to govern in such a fashion.

[jmowreader]

12. The 60-vote threshold has changed Congress into the Post Office Naming Bureau

Are you saying you want this threshold because it makes us look more inclusive? If we can't get 65 seats (because Democrats vote their consciences, we need a few extra seats just to make sure) the GOP runs the show.

[TheKentuckian]

20. No, I don't favor it particularly it all, I'm saying it is something to hide behind

I guess I do favor a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" fillabuster so if the minority feels strongly enough to put some skin in the game they can have some options to fight back.

[silverweb]

3. An excellent idea!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]In order to reach goals, it's necessary to set them first.

At the very least, such a list will get our issues out into the spotlight, and campaigns can then highlight these issues in the public mind. Even if we don't achieve all of our goals, we'll raise awareness and move them closer to reality farther down the line.

[1awake]

4. Add pass laws against mass surveillance and I'm with you.

Without that, I won't be voting for anyone regardless of party. Sorry.

[Nay]

5. We're going to get ZILCH done, house or no house, until Democratic

leaders embrace and endorse actual democratic principles.

[polichick]

8. True. We can no longer assume they support democratic principles...

simply because there's a D behind their name.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. Want to know what's on my list? Candidates I can actually believe will

do those things and not just break promises after they win the election.

[Fumesucker]

11. Public option?

[Joel thakkar]

13. For many things

we need to change president from barack obama to elizabeth warren or bernie sanders...to implement this : "raise the minimum wage to $15.50/hr" ---> Obama currently supports just $9 per hour...which is a shame as many progressive states at already at $10 per hour.

[PeteSelman]

14. I hate to throw water on your scenario but look at 2009.

When we didn't get much of anything that was promised because of blue dogs and other traitors. Particularly in the senate. And because of constant appeasing of Republicans in the name of bipartisanship.

[RandiFan1290]

15. Another round of tax cuts for the rich!

Just like 2010!

Thank god they passed, eh!

[treestar]

16. We couldn't close Gitmo even with a Democratic House

But maybe a new one.

And we would not have to have a drama at every year's budget and every debt ceiling raise.

Plus we could strengthen the ACA.

Edited to add: look at all the posts here discouraging this outright!

[global1]

19. Your Edit Says It All.....

It's kind of depressing that we can't get the people here at DU to be more positive about the upcoming 2014 elections. First I thought that we would get all kinds of responses of possible accomplishments that we could achieve - and that really didn't happen - which to me suggests Dem voter apathy. Second I thought we see more team spirit and positivity here and there are many very negative posts.

I don't understand it - the Repugs have just about harmed and pissed off every interest group of voters in this country - and they still are trending toward more support for them than the Dems.

What is wrong with this picture? Are we just gluttons for punishment? Do we want to continue being taken advantage of? Are we happy with perpetual gridlock?

It's almost as if we're our worst enemy. I guess the Repugs have demoralized us to the point of surrendering - this is just sad.

[Capt. Obvious]

17. Impeach Bush

[brooklynite]

18. Before you throw your party...

Remember that to win the House (as we did in 2006) you'll be winning back Republican seats; those Republicans were voted in by conservative Republicans and Independents; the type of Democrat you can elect to the House in rural Ohio or Pennsylvania may not be a liberal as you want.

Also - you can't "overturn" Citizen's United. That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

[Glassunion]

21. Well, since elections are not publicly funded, I don't think you would get your wish.

You need to look at the economic impact these issues would have. If they do not stand to make millionaires into billionaires, then it's probably dead in the water.