Democrats are a MINORITY in both houses of Congress!

[MineralMan]

Every time someone here says "The Democrats need to do this or must do that," they are forgetting that the minority party can't do much of anything. It can't insist on stuff to be included in bills. It can't block anything. It can't "go to the mattresses."

Everything in Congress gets voted on. When the majority party wants to make something happen, it simply votes that way. The minority party, which is the Democratic Party right now, can do absolutely nothing to stop that from happening.

The only way that Democrats will be able to make things happen is to win a majority of seats in the House and Senate. The ONLY way!

I wish everyone would understand that simple fact and stop getting angry at congressional Democrats for failing to do things. They simply cannot get anything through either house right now. We failed to elect enough Democrats in 2016 to gain a majority in at least one house of Congress.

When will we all learn this lesson? If we want to win, we have to win at the ballot box. If we want Congress to do things, we have to elect enough Democrats to make up a majority. If we fail, or don't bother, to do that, we have only ourselves to blame.

Want to win? Then GOTV like crazy in 2018! Don't feel like doing that? Is that too much trouble? Then you'll get more of the same.

What's so hard to understand about that? Sheesh!

[ksoze]

1. Winning at the ballot box insures nothing

These days, having temporary control of the branches of government means less. The underdog can do something - artfully and regularly pint out the deficiencies in the ruling party and offer an electable alternative. The republicans are better at shutting out dems that we are - look how we missed our supreme court pick when we at least had the white house.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Republicans are authoritarian fascists

and Democrats aren't.

[MineralMan]

3. OK, then. Ignore the 2018 midterms.

Let the Republican continue to be in the majority. See how that works out.

Right now, the Republicans have the majority in both houses, temporarily, as you say. How's that working out, do you think?

Do you know how ridiculous your claim is? Do you not understand that we do better when Democrats are in the majority in Congress?

Your example of the Supreme Court pick illustrates my point. We had an insufficient majority in the Senate. Therefore, Obama's pick was never confirmed. What would have happened if a filibuster proof majority had been Democratic? Think, please, before writing.

WTAF?

[tonyt53]

27. BINGO111

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. Like 2010, Obama hadnt fixed 200 yrs of fuck ups in 2 years so you know who told

him to fuck off.

[Initech]

55. Look at what the GOP did to Obama in 2009 and 2012.

Nothing but obstruction, countless hours spent investigating a Benghazi boogeyman and Hillary's e-mails, and convincing the rest of the country that death panels were coming to kill your grandma. This is what happens when one side is drunk with power and doesn't abide by the rule of law, and kicks the other side when they're down.

We can help by getting out the vote as much as possible. We saw that in Alabama and Virginia, but we're going to need a massive blue wave in 2018, and if we're going to be taken seriously, we need to tell the Fox News crowd to get the fuck out.

[rtracey]

10. your statement is absurd

Absurd. Lets take the congress back and test your theory. The supreme court nominee was benched BECAUSE we did NOT control the Senate. You think if Harry Reid had control the court would have Trumps pick? noooo. The house and senate have always been temporary, every 2 for house every 6 of senate. If the house stays republican, then Trumps term stays a stalemate. House will send the senate republican shit bills, and the senate majority will just table or not pass them, then the country will hear Trump spout his bs about how the democrats are not doing anything... It will be very important to get he house back too.

[BoneyardDem]

20. This isn't about the White House

making Supreme Court picks...it the Congress finalizing it...and until we are a majority we can cry and whine all we want we cannot make our policies the law of the land. Op is correct.

[Gothmog]

4. In the House in particular, the minority party has few if any rights

In the Senate the filibuster is available for many items but not all. The bills that rescinded many of President Obama's regulations were exempt from the filibuster. The current tax bill is exempt under reconciliation.

The only real threat is to use the filibuster to shut down the government and that strategy has real downsides and risks.

The Democrats are using ever lever and tool available to them but these tools are limited.

2018 needs to be a wave election for Democrats to take the House. It has to be a major wave election to have a chance to take control of the Senate. These waves look promising now but it still 11 months until the 2018 mid terms

[MineralMan]

6. Apparently, a lot of people, even on DU, are unfamiliar

with how government actually works. More's the pity.

We need an historic congressional victory in 2018. If we can only get a majority in one house, then we need to work even harder in 2020.

Until we understand that, we will continue to lose by not having enough Democratic voters.

We need to get to work, or risk losing everything we hold dear.

But, we need, even more, to UNDERSTAND how government operates. We're woefully ignorant about that.

[tonyt53]

30. Sadly to most, it works in the manner that they read on facebook. They have no idea how it really is

[Gothmog]

39. I agree with your analysis

The Democrats are currently using what levers of power that they have available to them. The Congressional Democrats have no ability to block the actions being taken.

We need to turn out and vote in 2018

Trump took Alabama by 28%. Trump took Georgia by 5% and Texas by 9%. Good turnouts consistent with Alabama can put a number of seats into play

[Hekate]

5. KnR and a deep sigh

Thanks for fighting the good fight

[MineralMan]

7. I wish we could get everyone into the fight.

Apparently, that's too much work, though. If we can't convince DUers, how the heck are we going to convince the rest of the country.

Ugh!

[bdamomma]

9. again

I will not do this

[bdamomma]

8. I will join you in

that deep sigh.........................I find myself doing that a lot.

[nahant]

11. Votes

Yes Democrats are the minority BUTT they got way more votes than republicans got! And why? Gerrymandering and it is happening in most states! But don't forget voter suppression on a massive scale through Id's and then make it impossible to get the required Id which they limited to only a certain few which the poor and people of color could never afford to get and don't forget Khorbach's Cross check where they delete voters from the rolls if they didn't vote in the last election whether local or national and if similar names show up in multiply states.. This is how republicans have maintained their power and will wield to cling to power.

[onenote]

36. Actually, in 2016, repub House Candidates got more votes than Democratic House Candidates

Repub candidates got around 63,200,000 or 49.1 percent of the votes cast in House races. Democratic candidates got around 61,800,000 pr 48 percent.

That being said, the repubs won 57 percent of the seats. But to a certain extent, the possibility that total vote percentage won't align with total number of seats won is baked into the system, with or without gerrymandering. That's because there always are and have been (even before gerrymandering became as prevalent as it is now) some races that are landslides and others that are squeakers and where some candidates are, in fact, unopposed.

For example, in 2008, the Democrats captured 53.2% of the votes cast in House races compared to the repubs getting 42.6 percent. But the Democrats ended up with 59 percent of the seats and the repubs only with 40 percent.

In short, looking at the national vote in 435 separate house races doesn't really tell much of anything.

My pointing this out is not intended to downplay in any way the problems of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Just to point out that arguments based on national House vote totals don't actually prove much.

[BamaRefugee]

12. But DEMS have to kick ass and take names if they get in the majority again! And let's make OUR laws

PERMANENT!
I call for a scorched earth policy of progressive concepts, no handwringing and gnashing of teeth, and none of this "IMPEACHMENT IS OFF THE TABLE" famous last words that branded us as milktoasts to Republicans and Tea Party types!

[MineralMan]

16. There are no PERMANENT laws in our system.

Any law that can be passed can be repealed at a later time by a different Congress. Even the Constitution can be amended.

What you call for is not possible in our system, so your call is wasted. I suggest you learn more about our political system, so you can act based on factual information, rather than wishful thinking.

[BamaRefugee]

37. Thanks for your lecture. Are you familiar with "PERMANENT TAX CUTS"?

That is mainly what I was talking about. "PERMANENT TAX CUTS" for the PEOPLE, not corporations.
Just LABEL THEM AS SUCH for impact. It will make an impact on those who are unsure about supporting Dems. Those people want bumper sticker concepts. It's all they can handle. SO GIVE IT TO THEM
Of course laws can be repealed, but let's exhibit some kind of strength and command when we finally get the chance.
Use language that backs up that image.

[dumbcat]

44. So, you are saying, "Let's pretend"

and call things permanent that are really temporary?
Lying?
Subterfuge?
Hyperbole?

That'll help?

[Codeine]

45. That's. . . that's just stupid, honestly. nt

[BamaRefugee]

49. So lets see...you two would have called The New Deal

“A Novel Approach to Equilibrium”?
Called the Civil Rights Act “A Good Measure of Fairness”?
Called The Great Society “A Teeming Hive of Satisfying Outcomes”?

Get real, strong words and strong images, backed up by actions that produce great outcomes, is powerful politics. I don’t know how old y’all are,but I’m 66 and I’ve seen it in action, maybe you never have.

[Gothmog]

53. All this means is that these tax cuts do not automatically expire

These tax cuts can be undone by a later congress. If the Democrats win in 2018, I expect to see some moves made to undo these tax cuts

[BamaRefugee]

56. IIRC Obama BOLDLY EXTENDED the "permanent" Bush tax cuts

[Gothmog]

60. That was part of a compromise

This was a two year extension and was the best that President Obama could do at the time http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/37/extend-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-lower-incomes/

The first time President Barack Obama tried to revise the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush, he had to settle for a compromise with Republicans in Congress. Obama wanted to extend the rates for lower incomes and repeal them for the wealthy. Republicans wanted to extend them for everybody.

Obama relented in December 2010, agreeing to a two-year extension of all rates. That timetable ran out as the nation neared the fiscal cliff. On Jan. 1, 2013, Congress passed and Obama signed a law permanently extending the Bush-era rates on incomes below $450,000 for families and $400,000 for individuals.

That income threshold is higher than Obama wanted -- he sought limits of $250,000 and $200,000 respectively -- but the effect is the same for middle- and lower-income Americans: their lower tax rates are permanent. We rate this a Promise Kept.

If the Democrats had not lost control of the House in 2010, President Obama could have gotten a better deal.

The current tax cuts can be undone but only if Democrats retake control of the House and hopefully the Senate. Right now the Democrats lack the ability to stop these tax cuts.

[BamaRefugee]

61. Thanks, I was around, I know all about it, but you're making my point for me

Why is it always a shoulder shrug and a "the best we could do at the time" with Democrats nowadays?
There would never have been Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, countless others if we acted that way back then!

[Gothmog]

62. I live in the real world and compromises are part of the real world

If the Democrats had turned out to vote in 2010 and stop the tea party, then President Obama would have had a stronger negotiating position. In the real world, President Obama negotiated the best deal possible at the time and under the circumstances. The recovery from the worst recession since the great depression tied his hands and his only alternative would have been to let tax cuts for the middle class to also expire and possibly restart the 2008 mess. I personally believe that this was the best deal that was available with the tea party in control of the House.

Right now, the Democrats have no real power in Congress. Wanting the the Democrats to take actions that are not possible makes no sense to me. The premise of the OP is that we should not be making demands on the Democrats in the Senate and Congress to take actions that they do not have the power to take. We need to get out and vote to retake control of Congress.

I would love to see Democrats have the power to block Trump's agenda. To get that power, Democrats need to turn out and vote in 2018 and 2020.

[BamaRefugee]

63. We are in total agreement on that, I just long for some ROBUST campaigning that creates a tsunami of

DEMOCRATIC VOTERS!

[Gothmog]

64. Agreed

I and others are working to turn Texas blue. Trump won Alabama by 28 points and only carried Texas by 9 points. Cruz is very unpopular and there is polling that shows that the Democratic AG nominee is within 5 points with Paxton if you do not tell voters that he is under indictment. The Democratic AG nominee leads Paxton once voters know that Paxton is under indictment.

There is a ton of energy at the grassroots level in Texas. It takes work on the ground including registering voters

[ProudLib72]

13. Well, there is speaking out against horrible legislation

Just as long as we are on record for having been against the atrocities. I think a lot of DUers have this view of Dems not speaking out and, in some cases, actually voting with rethugs. The truth of the matter gets buried among the millions of articles about tRump/Russia.

[MineralMan]

19. Yes, of course people are speaking out against those things.

Bravi to them all for doing so. It's ineffectual, however, as long as Republicans are in the majority.

[RandySF]

28. Theyre not watching C-SPAN

[mcar]

14. Every time I see one of those "why aren't the Democrats..." laments, I

[pnwmom]

15. Thank you. It's hard to believe anyone would argue with your OP . . . but of course someone did. nt

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. It's the RepubliCONgress. They have no excuses now. All the crap is RepubliCON. . . . nt

[smirkymonkey]

18. K&R

*sigh*

[ck4829]

21. When do we start saying the voting system failed us?

[diva77]

23. THIS!!!! +1000 nt

[MineralMan]

24. Worked just fine in Minnesota. If it doesn't work where you are,

it's time to go to work to fix that, don't you think? I don't live where you do, and can't help with that.

[diva77]

25. as long as computerized voting equipment is used in elections you can never say for sure that the

election was accurate.

link to Minn. SOS site showing equipment certified for use in Minn.
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/election-administration/election-equipment/

[MineralMan]

31. We use paper ballots that are read by optical scanners.

We have had two statewide hand recounts since 2008. Both demonstrated the accuracy of our voting system. We also hand recount a number of randomly-selected precincts after every election. No discrepancies have been found.

I know Minnesota's voting system. I know California's voting system. They both work very well and are accurate.

I don't know how your state's system works. Elections are a state-by-state issue. Citizens in states with bad voting systems need to sue their state to get that fixed. Any citizen has standing. Have you participated in such a lawsuit in your state?

Minnesotans have made sure our elections are fair and accurate. We have safeguards. We take voting seriously here.

[diva77]

35. I still stand by my statement. Just because you "know" a voting system does not mean that it is

impervious to malicious code being inserted. Are you guarding every memory card, every machine that goes home with a pollworker; is every precinct being hand counted with public oversight and the results posted at the precinct in every election?

True, I am not following Minn. election processes, but your SOS has certified and uses corporate voting equipment from ESS (the most widely used company for election equipment) for which the code is proprietary, including optical scanners; all of which are nontransparent and hackable.

I am done with this discussion. Germany banned the use of computerized voting equipment because it is not transparent.

Best wishes.

[Gothmog]

43. The GOP does not rely on secret codes but on good old fashion voter suppression efforts

I volunteer in the area of voter protection. The state party and others try to discourage talk about fixed machines in that this suppresses the vote. It is hard enough to get voters out to vote without telling them that the system if fixed. There are mechanism and testing in place that makes me believe that there is no fix in place.

I am one the team that has watched the certification and testing of machines each cycle. A very boring job but is necessary. Basically each machine is tested to confirm that all candidates are properly on each ballot and then a zero tape is run to show that there are no votes on the machine. Every state has some sort of certification and testing system in place. I have talked to programmers and it would be difficult to fix the machines used in most counties in Texas without getting into the hardware which would not be easy. Again, test votes and other tests are done each cycle to make sure that each judge booth controller (the unit that counts the vote) are set at zero votes and then there is a special seal placed on each machine. If that seal is broken, then that machine will be tested to make sure that there was no tampering. There are three redundant counters in the JBCs used by my county that can only be accessed by taking the machine apart. It would be very difficult to fix such a machine.

If the GOP had a magical fix or computer bug that would give them these elections, the GOP would not be so busy using normal voter suppression tactics. . I helped trained 200+ poll watchers and helped organized and ran a statewide voter protection hotlines. The GOP relies on standard voter suppression tactics like voter id laws. We got a great ruling in Texas so that any registered voter could vote with among other things a voter registration card (one is issued to each voter each cycle), a bank statement or bill if they signed an affidavit. The GOP stilled tried to cheat by having poll greeters tell voters that they need ids to get into polling location (we stopped this fairly quickly).

There was a motion filed today in the Texas voter id case to lift the stay on the injunction declaring the Texas voter id law void http://electionlawblog.org/?p=96463 Even if that stay is not lifted, the plaintiffs have won significant victories that still allow any voter to vote with a number of forms of id if they sign an affidavit. The Democrats won a great victory here but the GOP is fighting like crazy to keep what is left of the Texas voter id law in place.

Democrats are fighting voter suppression. I honestly do not believe that the machines used in my county are fixed and I trust the measures used to test these machines.

[diva77]

22. In between (and during elections) we also need to work on restoring the 4th Estate!! nt

[Codeine]

46. It's dead.

It died because people refused to pay for it.

[RandySF]

26. Many also assume

That floor debate will convince House Republicans to change their minds.

[MineralMan]

33. Yabbut, the current Congress is pushing measures through and

waiving the rules to avoid floor debate. Republicans are voting to do that, and they have the majority.

[Gothmog]

40. These votes are based on partisan decisions and not on polls or public opinion

The GOP is pushing this tax cut through because this tax cut is necessary to reward the GOP's donors. If public opinion played a roll in this matter, this bill would not get a vote.

The only real alternative is to turnout and vote in 2018 to hold the GOP accountable for their actions

[stpetegreg]

32. Virginia is getting its act together

We have several different county, district, LGBT, etc. Dem committees meeting together next month to come up with more GOTV coordination for 2018 and 2020. We flipped I believe 15 delegate districts from red to blue this past election and some of them had gone unopposed for years. It took a lot of door-to-door and rallies to educate people, but it did work. Keep the message and momentum going and we can do this.

[MineralMan]

34. Yes. That was quite a success story!

Yay, VA!

[YOHABLO]

38. Well you are preaching to the choir here. DUers are informed voters.

When I ask people if they've ever heard of Democratic Underground Web site they say .. NO.

[MineralMan]

57. Not as much as you think, really.

While almost all DUers are very interested in politics, a lot of DUers don't really know that much about how government actually operates, nor do they understand things like the Constitution very well. We learned that many DUers also didn't know much about the delegate selection process in 2016.

So, if many DUers don't know that stuff, it stands to reason that even a higher percentage of the general public doesn't have a clue.

The news media used to try to explain such things, but stopped doing that pretty much. I remember watching the 1960 Democratic Convention on TV. TV people were explaining how the process worked, in detail, helping viewers understand the whole convention caucus system. In 2016, there was little of that in the coverage.

Schools no longer teach Civics effectively. We're a nation that has little knowledge of how government operates, who can do what, and what things mean, politically.

We can't fix that here on DU of course, except with regard to DUers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. Thx for pointing this out. When I was in high school, Civics was not an elective, it was required.

I'm always fascinated at some of the complaints I read here, some of which can be attributed to lack of understanding about just how our system of government works, and in some cases it's just a failure to understand basic math, or the difference between majority & minority status. Even back in the day, I was always shocked at how foreign students were more knowledgeable about how our government works than we were.

[aikoaiko]

42. I'll remind you that politics is the art of the possible.

If the anger is righteous it is good. Never let up on our people.

[Cary]

48. Ah yes.

Scorched earth has worked out so well.

<rolling eyeballs>

[Cary]

47. VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

Do not sow discord and discontent. Do not pass Go. Do not collect.$200.

[JHan]

50. I've read idiots on twitter suggest Schumer has some serious sway over bills brought to floor

I can't even. The ignorance is so staggering.

[Gothmog]

54. Agreed-as minority leader Schumer has no say on what is brought to the floor

[still_one]

51. Gee, ya know you're right

[Blue_Tires]

52. It's the old "Green Lantern" theory of politics...

[librechik]

58. What makes me laugh is Republican Congresscritters moping about how the Dems won't help

them pass their brutal child-killing bills. Making it impossible for us to have input, then shaming us for not doing anything.

[mercuryblues]

59. They sure are

I laughed straight to a person's face when he said....Democrats won't pass a bill for trump to sign. When I got done laughing I explained that republicans have had majorities in in both houses since 2014 and now in the WH. If republicans can't pass a bill it is their own fault, they own this. Then I asked if he knew what a majority meant? he got all huffy and stomped away.