Prediction:If god forbid we lose badly on November

[Robbins]

The Clintons will see that as reason the country is moving right since they just rewarded tea party for shutting down
government and giving tea party control of congress and Hillary will move even further to right of obama and expect democrats and liberals to just shut up and accept it.

She may call on Obama to approve keystone pipeline

She may start blaming Obama for endless war In middle east saying if he would have listened to me we wouldn't be In trouble now.

If close races mostly break for republicans expect In 2015

Cuts to social safety net and entitlements to pay for endless war

Tea Party threating government shutdown and going off fiscal cliff if they don't get even more cuts

The impeachment and trial In senate of Obama although they will lack the votes to remove him from office

[cali]

1. they won't impeach the President.

and it will be MORE cuts and more tax breaks. It's not like that hasn't already happened.

[Robbins]

2. Don't be so sure about that

The tea party wants that.

Of course they would bring up repeal obacare and more tax cuts for welathy up fro votes.

[B Calm]

5. It would take a Super Majority to repeal ACA, that's NOT going to happen!

[Robbins]

8. It won't get replead

Because Obama will veto It.But there will be votes to do it.

[B Calm]

10. Two-thirds is a super majority vote. They don't have the votes, period!

[Robbins]

12. They won't repeal obamcare

But a GOP controlled senate will have votes to do it.

Obama will veto any repeal of obamacare and Republicans lacks votes to override veto.

[B Calm]

15. Seriously, where are the votes?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. Actually, no.

It was passed under the rules of reconciliation as a budgetary law. It only takes a simple majority. Even then, as a matter of budgetary law, it could be defunded on a simple majority. The senate rules state budgetary votes do not require cloture.

[tritsofme]

23. Not completely correct. The guts of ACA was passed through regular order

There were just some minor budgetary issues that were settled through a Reconciliation bill after Democrats lost their 60 seat majority.

Most of ACA is policy related, with only incidental budgetary impacts, and would not be available in Reconciliation.

If Republicans tried to move a Reconciliation bill repealing ACA, Harry Reid would use the Byrd rule to turn it into Swiss cheese. The resulting bill would serve no purpose but to sabotage and cripple the ACA, and would be the easiest bill Obama ever vetoed.

A future Republican president, God forbid, wouldn't even be willing to sign that bill.

It will take 60 votes to do serious damage to the ACA.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. They don't have to fund the federal subsidies or any office administering it as part of a

regular budget bill.

That would leave Obama in the position of threatening to shutdown the entire government with a veto to save a law that has yet to find a plurality of support. And they need only keep this up for 3 more years if they reoccupy the WH in 2017 (especially if Obama's popularity continues to wane. No one will fight for ObamaCare).

I was excoriated at the time for saying the passage of the law was weak at best; a disaster waiting to happen at worst. I think time will prove me right.

[tritsofme]

25. Most of the funding is permanent, and not subject to the appropriations process.

Much of that funding, for things like subsidies, would continue even if Republicans forced a partial government shutdown.

Obama would be on very high ground to veto a bill that did nothing but strip millions of people of insurance coverage, without any sort of replacement. And that is about the only type of bill they can pass without 60 votes, regardless of who occupies the White House.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. There's no such thing as permanent funding. No Congress can obligate a future Congress.

[tritsofme]

39. There most certainly is, and it accounts for about 60% of federal spending.

Spending bills don't all expire after a year. Call it what you like, "permanent" or "mandatory," but this spending is not subject to the yearly appropriations process.

When Republicans partially shut down the government last year, it was that 40% of spending we were fighting over, programs like Social Security and Medicare did not have to completely shutter, because the program funding is mandatory. I think you may have some reading to do on the federal budget process.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. They have parliamentarian gimmicks to expedite the spending of $3 trillion dollars but

if Congress passes a budget that says, "the appropriation for X shall be $0.00" then the President has no authority to spend money on X. A president cannot compel Congress to provide funding nor can a president legally spend money that has previously been appropriated.

[tritsofme]

42. You are very right. Congress may pass such a bill.

And the could president veto, it may even cause the government to partially shutdown. But the permanent spending would continue, until the president signs the bill limiting it or has his veto overridden.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. In which case it becomes a political battle half of which was decided during the election.

And unless there is a sudden heretofore unseen popular support for X then the headlines will read, "President stonewalls budget over pet agenda; economy, needy hardest hit"

Wanna make a bet on whether I'm wrong about the framing?

[tritsofme]

44. Not even the most optimistic Republican strategists dream it would play out that way

It certainly didn't play out that way last year, or during the Clinton years. The GOP always thought it would play out just how you describe, but it never has. I'm not sure why you think the framing would flip on a dime.

No one seriously thinks, especially after last year, that Republicans could prevail in a shutdown fight with Obama. I would be incredibly surprised if they even try.

[CK_John]

22. He will be impeached in the House and they will drag it out and the final result

may not even go to the Senate for a trial.

[pscot]

31. Would you be surprised if the House

held impeachment hearings?

[cali]

48. yes. very.

[DonCoquixote]

3. Of Course

and this is what hillary is coubnting on so she can get her coroonation, and then be praised as the one who saved america from the left and right, never mind that the rich get everything they want, and still sell us out to Asia.

[Robbins]

7. Remember

There isn't much difference between her and republicans on endless war and economic policy.Maybe she wouldn't call for tax cuts
but that's it.

She will make some speeches trying to get minority voters to come out for her and do some to women.

Single mothers were hurt by Bill Clinton's era of big government Is over

WIth her support of endless war what Is she going to promise.

Unlike other minority of democrats opposed to her I think she could win.Public Is stupid enough to reward Tea party according to
polls.But,what happens when she walks Into white house is when we would really get screwed.

It remains possable the likely voter screens on these polls are undercutting dems and there could be turnout by those pollsters are ignoring.But if not we are all screwed except for top 1%

[Youdontwantthetruth]

4. F that mess, if Dems lose control of the Senate NONE of it will matter

People best prepare for the worst happening in society including civil unrest.

Secure, food, shelter, water, medical supplies and arms else one will become a victim.

Good Luck to all most are going need it.

No I will NOT be taking anyone in either, yeah I will be a selfish prick, unless you bring something to the table then we can talk.

[wyldwolf]

6. One of the most unintentionally funny OPs I've read in a while.

[Robbins]

9. This is no laughing matter

and i remember the 1990's well so I know what to expect from Clintons

Nafta
welfare reform passed by republicans
ending assistance to poor mothers
repeal of glass seagull

now her support for endless war

[wyldwolf]

16. yeah, your post is.

[merrily]

27. And the Telecommunications Act, DOMA, DADT

[bigbrother05]

11. If they (RW) pick up even one seat, they'll declare a mandate

That will remove any restraint they had and they'll feel vindicated in their behavior during the last 6 years. I fully expect Bundyvilles across the country daring the police and government to shut them down. Could be full on Mad Max.

[pscot]

34. they're already framing a win

as a repudiation of the President. We'll see just how bad they can be.

[wandy]

13. "If god forbid we lose badly on November"........................

Hillary Clinton will be the least of our problems!

[Robbins]

14. I agree

but we have nothing but trouble on horzion Including the CLintons if people will actully remember the full Clinton record.

[wandy]

17. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a Clinton 'lover'..............

I'm not even going to carry on about eight years of peace and prosperity.
Ah ha, but the eight years after that. That was the left hand of darkness.
Hillery,Smillery, ask your self.
In 2017.
What would Romney do?

I really do not like this one party system.
One semi sane political party and one gaggle of raving mad dogs.

With apologizes to mad dogs of the canine verity.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. 3.9% unemployment and the lowest poverty rate in a generation was awful...

And don't even get me started on how disappointing it was to see record minority employment and home ownership...


SARCASM

[Brigid]

18. If we lose badly on Tuesday . . .

There won't be a 2016 election, because this country will be a complete shambles by then.

[demwing]

32. Don't talk crazy talk!!!

of COURSE there'll be an election. sheesh!

[Brigid]

36. Look at the mess the Repugs have created already.

But it doesn't have to happen, if we GOTV now.

[demwing]

38. OK, That's NOT crazy talk

Republicans will jack our shit up.

But no one will stop the 2016 election.

[Brigid]

41. With all the crazy talk from the Repugs . . .

It's just plain scary to think what they will do if thry do well next week. Two years can be a long time.

[Ykcutnek]

19. Doubtful.

She's already moving left because she realizes the popularity of Warren could become a speed bump for her in 2016.

This is the last hurrah for the GOP. We take back everything in 2016.

[Robbins]

20. If republicans win big tuesday

She will go right.Bill CLinton did same after 1994.

If we lose 8 seats In 2016 Republicans may keep both houses of congress for who knows how long.

[merrily]

29. Her "I still desperately want to be Prez" campaign rhetoric moved left a bit, and

nothing really concrete, anyway. Doesn't mean she moved left. Just means she perceived her center right stuff wasn't going over with all Democrats--and she still does very much want to be the first woman President.

[VanillaRhapsody]

26. IF we were to lose badly in November ALL you will see is Impeachment proceedings...

Obama will have nothing but a veto pen....and say goodbye to Executive Orders...He will be lame duck for 2 yrs..

[TheNutcracker]

28. I'm sticking with Bernie, cuz Hillary to me is already too far to the right.

[merrily]

30. This is the second thread talking about big losses next week I've seen in 15 minutes.

[Politicalboi]

35. Let's ALL move to

Canada. That's if they'll have us. We can claim our country IS insane.

[freshwest]

46. They won't take us.

[Populist_Prole]

45. Did my part to stem the tide today

Voted today. Waited in line just shy of 2 hours to do so, all but the last 10-12 minutes under the baking sun in an unseasonably warm day in a southern red state. At least in my eye and ear-shot, noticed great support for democratic/progressive candidates and resolve to vote so, even as they wilted in the heat. One of the democratic "electioneer-ers" ( apparently a lawyer ) gave a great soft-sell rundown on the issues that really seemed to captivate the local crowd.

I feel pretty confident that we'll turn our formerly blue state back from red to blue again.

[freshwest]

47. Thanks, PP for voting and the events. Sounds good.