Never thought I'd say it, but I don't care if dems lose seats in 2010

[cali]

What is having a dem majority doing to advance progressive legislation? Not too damned much. I think it's likely that the dems will lose big in 2010, and frankly, at least right now, I don't give a damn. Blanche Lincoln losing won't be much of a loss. Harry Reid losing won't break my heart. Yes, it will be a shame if some good dems get the boot, but the dems are doing a lousy job with a large majority.

[Ian David]

1. I don't care if we lose seven seats. The five traitors plus Dickless Harry and Pelosi. n/t

[cali]

7. Pelosi won't lose. Harry Reid? Quite possibly. Also

Bennett of CO, Lincoln, Dodd in CT and Kelly Ayotte could beat Paul Hodes for the open (Judd Gregg) seat in NH. That's the Senate. I'm less familiar with House races.

[Jennicut]

44. Pelosi has been for the public option. I have no issues with her right now. Reid can totally go.

[stray cat]

2. Things were good under Bush and the GOP is much more likely to promote progressive values

:rofl:

[dkf]

5. Having Dems doesn't do much for progressive values either.

All it does is prevent excessive harm to the country. It is sad that we have no true opportunity for good governance.

[TornadoTN]

10. The old addage "voting for the lesser of two evils" really sums up where we are at

The problem being is that I really don't think this is helping our country - it's hurting it and merely stalling our eventual collapse.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Voting for the lesser of two evils

is still voting for evil. Surely we can do better.

[Jakes Progress]

42. ANd the lesser is getting more evil every year. nt

[RoccoR5955]

23. yeah, right. And pigs fly too! n/t

[ShortnFiery]

61. Yes, secret renditions and summary executions via drone have ramped up under DEMOCRATS.

We are losing our civil rights JUST AS FAST as if the GOP were in charge.

Lord, I'm embarrassed for my party. I don't recognize these rabid blue dogs. :puke:

[cali]

65. because you say so?

you provide no credible evidence for that claim. Note the word credible.

[frylock]

75. did you pick up a book on creative writing..

or did enough people call you out on your "would you rather have palin for prez" bullshit that you felt pressured to change things up a tad?

[DireStrike]

89. At least when the march off the cliff is fast, people get alarmed about it

This nice slow rocking motion puts everyone back to sleep.

[secondwind]

3. ah, giving up so soon?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Maybe it's not giving up

as much as coming to a realization of the facts on the ground.

If it's giving up it might be considered giving up on false hope or giving up on illusions. That's a good thing.

[bigmonkey]

78. Of course it's giving up.

It's likely we'll get a public option at least with a push from the public. Even if it were unlikely, saying "nothing will come of this" is precisely the same kind of thinking that the Democrats in Congress exemplify, much to our disgust.
Giving these kind of "the smart money is on failure" predictions is inarguably discouraging, when courage is what is needed. I'm sick of it, and sick of people who feel they need to express themselves by discouraging others. It's cowardly behavior.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

81. Are you

taking bets on the matter?

I'll give you good odds.

We are the realists here and know who runs this country. Time to wake up.

[bigmonkey]

99. Cram it with that "realism" crap.

You might just as well say that people should listen to you because you're always right. You can't predict the future, and the story you're telling yourself and others discourages progress. If you believe in a progressive future, you're actively discouraging it.

Very few people are encouraged by this "realist" all-is-lost talk. You may feel you've awakened. Good.

Now grow up and act responsibly.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

102. Quite the opposite

Your continued "belief", which is religion not politics BTW, in the tooth fairy or the latest canned corporate politician has proven time and again that folks such as yourself are the ones who perpetuate the unjust status quo and prevent any "progress" no atter how you would define it.

But prove me wrong and show me the results of your childish "belief." You can't cause there aren't any. You won't because you don't want to give up your immature reverie and take note of reality.

[bigmonkey]

103. Admit that you are expressing an opinion.

I'm expressing mine. You call yours "realism", and that nomenclature is arrogant nonsense. If you want progress, stop talking failure.

If you feel that by crying "all is lost!" you are serving as an alarm, you are fooling yourself. If you were trying to get people out of a burning building would you shout at them that they are all doomed to burn to death?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

106. Mine is based

on observable, demonstrable facts and history. Yours are based on, as you say yourself, "faith." Not all opinions carry the same weight and one based on some pie in the sky faith-based hope has zero credibility by definition.

There is no tooth fairy no matter how dearly one holds that belief.

[bigmonkey]

107. You're a storyteller, telling a depressing story.

Stop trying to assert that you're a scientist. You have no certain knowledge of the future, and to discourage your fellow activists, if they are your fellow activists, is both selfish and counter-productive. Even if the chance of success were low, as it was, say, in the American Revolution, your kind of advice would have had us still under the British crown.

You could try giving up a safe, pessimistic opinion for one with some spine.

Oh, and I can find no instance of the word "faith" in what I've written here. You are telling a personal, depressive story and arguing with fantasy people. And you say this is awake and realistic.

[cali]

27. the dems don't look to be capable of wielding their majority effectively

to enact legislation that benefits the working classes and the poor.

[tekisui]

45. Waking up.

Our Party is compromised by the conservatives allowed in when building the 'big tent'.

[ThomCat]

52. Our party is compromised by lobbyists and corporate interests.

When our own party goes so far out of their way to make sure that Insurance Companies are there for every discussion, and have every opportunity to set the tone and control the language, and get to make secret agreements that will steer the whole process, then there is no way we can say that our party represents US. It represents the Insurance Industry.

:(

Every one of them who took campaign contributions from the insurance industry and big pharma took Bribes. They are clearly delivering a service in exchange for that money. There is an obvious quid pro quo. So that money was clearly intended and accepted as Bribes.

In an ideal world they would all be under investigation by the justice department with serious charges pending.

[MilesColtrane]

101. Indeed.

There's the rub. We'll never see the kind of legislation we want until we shut the money spigot off.

Ugly chart showing the donations to members of the Senate Finance Committtee by sector.

http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/overview.php?cmteid=S12&cmte=SFIN&congno=111&chamber=S

[dkf]

4. It would be better if we lost some of these pseudo Dems so we can

have real Democrats instead of useless ones.

I'm beginning to think that the only purpose of some of these fools is to sabotage us when we do get a majority.

[cali]

9. for sure, but it's almost certain that the psuedo dems will be replaced

with real republicans rather than progressive dems.

[kctim]

35. Bingo!

[dkf]

39. Oh I don't need a progressive Dem, just a real one.

This protection of insurance companies is a real eye opener for me. We've got a bunch of people who are corporatists before they are Repubs or Dems. Or maybe a better description is that they are all bought and paid for. We the people don't have a chance.

We really need to strip Health Care Insurance from the Congress. They have been beneficiaries for far too long that they have no clue what the real world is like.

[cali]

40. We really can't strip healthcare from Congress critters.

there's no vehicle for doing so.

[dkf]

51. Well lets give them one choice, the crappiest choice with a super high deductable.

Then they can pay to supplement their pathetic insurance. Of course then some insurance company would give them a super good deal and threaten to dump it should the critter not vote their way. Pathetic.

[bdamomma]

97. nice thought though.

bring them back to reality.

[verges]

53. It's easier to recognize

a wolf without sheep's clothing.

[cali]

62. actually, it quite easy to recognize a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[verges]

74. Not always before it's too late.

[redqueen]

86. Constituents have the option of supporting primary challengers.

They may lose (e.g. Lieberman)... but it seems worth the effort IMO.

[hlthe2b]

6. Like saying the damn holding back the calamity is not pleasing

as had been promised architectually, so let's just destroy it. Dems may not be advancing our progressive values, as we expect, but you'd pull the rug out from under them (destroy the dam) and let the REPUGS totally dismantle everything? Send us back to the stone age?

Good God.

[TornadoTN]

13. Agreed. But continuing on this same path isn't really helping us

I agree with what you are saying but it really is a shitty deal to have to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils, where one side will completely screw you and the other will at least put a nice face on it while they screw you (albeit not as much as the GOP'ers).

I don't think this country can continue on like this. Two parties that are beholden to corporate interests and have lost touch with the people that they supposedly represent. I really don't feel like I have a choice in elections - it's either vote for the GOP (which I'll never do) or vote for the Democrats, who claim that they support my views only to switch their allegiance and prove to be completely ineffectual at best.

[bdamomma]

98. too bad we couldn't have a people's progressive party?

[Jakes Progress]

49. Silly analogy.

How about one where the dam is leaking more and more every year. Soon it will collapse and we will drown.

Solution is a new dam. One that actually holds back the tide of ignorance, greed, and hate rather than let it rain down on us until we die.

Right now, we have no choice but to drown. I would rather drown building a new dam than huddle like a bleating sheep as the waters raise over my head. Especially when the dam experts I hired are the ones flooding my basement.

Maybe 8 years of bush wasn't enough. We thought it was. We thought that 8 solid, unrelenting years of stupidity and greed would teach the country the difference between Democrats and republicans. Seems not.

It took 8 of reagan and 4 of bush1 to get Clinton eight years. Maybe the country deserves the reign (rain) of more republican crap to learn its lesson. It does not need or deserve to have both parties working against them and for the corporations. As it is now, a good number of those with D's by their name are working against America just as hard as dick cheney ever would.

I think it would be better if America could count on Democrats to be Democrats. Even if we are the minority for a while, we could be the party that they knew would get them out of the mess. That's what they thought when they elected a Democratic president, senate, and house. But that is not what they got. They got screwed.

With the dam we have now, we are going to drown anyway. Damn.

[hlthe2b]

92. What is really silly (foolish & irresponsible) is to promote

putting the RW back in power. No one is saying we should not primary non-progressive Dems. That, however, is quite different from throwing up our hands like children and saying we did not get our way so we'll take our ball and go home. Your rhetoric is identical to Nader's before eight years of BUsh* economic destruction, dismantling of our constitution and endless wars. That worked out very well, now didn't it? :eyes:

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

96. My dear reader.

You completely misunderstand my post. I did not recommend putting republicans in power. Gentle soul, please read the post carefully. I believe, in your admirable and most eager pursuit of a progressive agenda, you may have overlooked the fact that the right wing is indeed a majority now. Many of those who run as Democrats only arrive in Washington to become shills for corporate interests. So having a majority for the party is not the same as having a left wing majority.

I know, kind and delicate soul that you are, you are aware of this and have only misunderstood my clumsy effort to state a case. Please forgive my brutish ways that so offend more refined natures.

I know that your well-known wisdom and sagacity was taxed to the extreme by the need to share so much of yourself in so many places and that must be the reason you fell so low as to claim that I was a nader supporter. How else to explain such an illogical leap for one so versed in the world of reasoning? How else to explain the fact that the same sentence indicated a lack of awareness that the "economic destruction, dismantling of the constitution, and endless wars" are in no way abated by actions of the congress which is a Democratic majority institution? How else to explain the snide and snarky last sentence which only makes the point of my post that the new congress isn't working out any better?

Pray overlook any tone that seeks to rebuke your manifest wisdom or offend the ethereal realm of your most perfect sensibilities. Simply shrug it off of your august shoulders as the inept musings of a commoner these words that seek to show how wrong you are.

[madokie]

8. As I've said before I don't see us loosing any seats in '10

In fact I see us gaining seats in both the house and the senate. No matter what the naysayers are saying the fact of the matter is the :puke:ies are lower that whale shit and the american people for the most part see them as such. We all can see why nothing is getting done, its obvious as the nose on ones face, all one has to do is keep an open mind and pay attention. The last poll I seen a few days ago had the :puke:'s in the teens and the Dems in the 40's so how does that translate into loses for us?

[cali]

14. I'm afraid you're in for a nasty surprise in 2010.

Dodd is in trouble in CT for pete's sake. Lincoln is trailing all 4 possible repub challengers. Ayotte is polling ahead of Paul Hodes in NH. And nothing is more meaningless in Congressional races than national polls. Nate Silver certainly thinks that dems will lose big in 2010. And his record on predictions ain't too shabby. In fact, there's no one close to being as accurate as he's been.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/senate-rankings-august-2009-edition.html

[madokie]

26. I don't agree at all

I don't take what someone else says as gospel. I look at whatever it is I'm seeing and make my own assumptions based on what I know. What I know is we dems are going to increase our lead this next election, hopefully I'll still be here to gloat about it when it comes.

[cali]

31. one doesn't need to take anything as gospel. but history and

current conditions as well as virtually all the analysts and pundits, indicate that you're living in a fantasy world.

[madokie]

32. I said what I think and nothing you say is going to change that

especially by saying that someone else says it, so it has to be true. that to me is bull and a weak argument.

Can I ask you a personal question here or should I pm you with it?:hi:

[cali]

33. fair enough. and if you'd like to ask me a personal question, please

pm it. thanks for asking before asking.

[Kahuna]

11. If the Dems lose the majority, absolutely NOTHING will get accomplished

by President Obama, and that will lead to a repuke, even a palin presidency in 2012. Is that what you want? It is always so easy to think of punishing the Dems, when you don't consider the consequences. Talk about cutting off one's nose... :eyes:

[cali]

15. I doubt they'll lose the majority in either house, but I think the margins will

be significantly narrowed. Frankly, it's not a matter of what I want, but what I realistically see happening.

[ShortnFiery]

63. Better nothing than UNIVERSAL MANDATES that continue to financially rape the middle class. eom

[Kahuna]

68. Can you make yourself clear?

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

70. What good is being insured when you can't afford the premiums and you must go bankrupt

from the ranks of the middle class to get properly covered?

Without a ROBUST public option the redistribution of wealth will continue unabated from "what's left" from the middle class to the super wealthy.

We'll be left with a very small "ruling class" a larger SERVICE "merchant class" and "the unwashed masses."

This is vile. :thumbsdown:

[el_bryanto]

12. The counter argument is obviously that a Republican Congress is even less likely

to pass decent legislation, since their goal will be to do exactly the opposite.

Presumably you already know that.

Bryant

[mmonk]

17. I care, its just I'm not going to reward the turncoats.

I will be joining in the effort to produce better primary candidates that put us first over monied interests.

[cali]

20. I'm all for that. It's a noble approach. Noble but doomed

Anyone who thinks that a progressive candidate will, for instance, beat Blanche Lincoln in a primary, is not grappling with real world exigencies. And even if that miraculously happened, it's exceedingly unlikely that a progressive would be elected to the Senate in Arkansas.

[mmonk]

22. Maybe, but I know a lot of people are mad at Ross in Arkansas.

He is in hot water.

[Cosmocat]

18. ABSOLUTELY, cause we need more Bachmanns and Kyles ...

We ALL are frustrated here that a lot of what we know to be commmon sense and what would be in EVERYONE's best interests is attacked so virilently, and that the dems are generally cowardly wimps.

But, as hard to swallow as it is going to be that health care reform won't be as sweeping as we know it needs to be, make no mistake, if we did not have a D president and D majorities in both chambers, there woult be NO reform, there would not even be attempts for the legislation.

And, what people just do not get is that while this country may in fact me more progressive than the media lets on, it DOES have a sizeable portion of people who are right leaning.

The reason there is a majority on both houses is that there are Ds in districts and states that have an equal share of R types to D types. It is easy to be "courageous" in pushing for "liberal" agenda's when someone is a a safe D district - someone like Kucinich can be Kucinich because his bosses in a good majority are on line with him.

But, a good number of elected officials do not have that kind of backing for a hard progressive stance.

And, if you think the alternative to some of these people is going to be a major progressive, you are wrong. A moderate wins in these districts because that is that is the most to left you can get there.

The altennative is an R, and you can count on one hand the number of Rs right now who are not bat shiiite crazy lunatics.

[cali]

21. Oh, I don't think dems will lose the majority in either house

but really, what does it matter if Blanche Lincoln is replaced by a puke?

[Kahuna]

59. And president palin because Obama won't get anything passed with

repuke controlled congress. If Dems are stupid to allow this to happen, I don't want to hear any complaining.

[Inuca]

66. Yep! And Grassley

would do such a better job in chairing the finance committee than Baucus does. Can't wait.

[KharmaTrain]

24. So Gridlock Is The Answer?

And it doesn't take the GOOP taking control of either house, just enough gains for the corporate media to trumpet that the rushpublicans are on the way back. It would embolden the wingnuts who will amp up the intimidation as they see both the Democrats and the Administration as weakened.

I can relate to the frustration, but to condemn the entire party due to the actions of a few or a faction destroys any progress made and hopes of any future change. Democrats have gained control but this is an on-going process...one that can't be played out in months but needs to be built over years. Reversing 8 years of boooosh debris and 30 years of the "Raygun revolution" won't happen overnight and it's being done with an "opposition" party hellbent on obstruction and destruction than construction. Giving them more power emboldens the worst elements in that party that have steered it into the rocks but win by default.

There are many Democrats I'm proud of and will gladly support next year. For those who I feel have sold out on their constituents, I will gladly support primary challengers in hopes to get "better" Democrats. The last think I want is to give the rushpublicans any opening to mess this country up again.

[cali]

28. There are individal dems I'm happy to support

I'd rather see dems in then repubs, but it seems to matter less and less when it comes to such vital issues as healthcare reform, that dems are in the majority.

[KharmaTrain]

34. We're Not Even In The Homsestretch Here...

I see a lot of angst and we're still not close to having a final health care bill. There is a lot of negotiating to go as the House and Senate along with the White House will nail down a final bill. It probably will be sent via reconciliation where 51 votes will do the trick.

Someone posted a great observation about the pitfalls of even the most conservative Democrat going against cloture and trying to fillibuster a bill. While they may be against parts of the bill, there'll be tremendous pressure on a Nelson (Ben) and Lincoln to move to reconciliation where they can vote no all they want for political cover yet not stand in the way of a major party objective. We'll see if this is the strategy.

While Democrats are in the majority, it doesn't mean all Democrats act as an organic body. To get the majority, many conservatives were recruited who won in purple and red districts and whose interests are different than those in solid blue cities. The rushpublicans have shrunk to represent whites...predominately rural and southern and far easier to whip into both a frenzy and a bloc. Democrats are now victims of their own success. We wanted a party that represents many interests and with it will come those who see things differently. As is said, the goal now is to find and elect "better" Democrats.

Cheers...

:hi:

[RoccoR5955]

25. Just lower your expectations

There's no need to be defeatist. Get out there, and get more LIBERAL candidates to run. The more WE THE PEOPLE actually get off of our asses, and get involved, the better things will get.
It has been a long time under Republicon rule. It's gonna take a lot of hard work to get them out. We may not win all the battles, but we have to fight the good fight. If you simply give up, than they win.

[cali]

29. Well, honestly, I don't see what I can do to get more liberal candidates

to run in places like Arkansas and Indiana. And in my own state, I don't need to look for more liberal candidates. I've already got what arguably is the most liberal Congressional delegation.

[RoccoR5955]

88. I know how you feel.

And I know what a hard battle it was to get my part of NY to get more Liberal candidates out there. One thing that we Northeasterners can do, is to lend at least our moral support to Liberals in the South. You can also give money, if you have it, and that's what they need.

[struggle4progress]

30. I care. I don't expect perfection from the Dems. What I expect is that our side gets

breathing room and an opportunity to organize for what we want, rather than having to spend all our time putting out major fires set by wingnuts

[Hannah Bell]

36. but dems are doing great things for glb issues in vermont!

wasn't that your story yesterday to the poster who complained the dems weren't doing enough on that front.

& now here you are throwing in the towel yourself.

[cali]

38. and just what does that have to do with dems in Congress, honeybunch?

Let me explain something to those who don't understand even the most basic things: The Vermont statehouse is not the same body as the U.S. Congress, genius.

Pathetic, hannakins.

[Hannah Bell]

41. Do you drink inordinately? & what about maine, huh? what about maine!!!!

Hannah Bell (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-29-09 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. he's not talking about vermont. & vermont doesn't lead the party.


gee, ya think the Dem's find gays, minorities as "useful idiots" ? crazyjoe Sep-29-09 04:03 AM #24

really? so the entire dem delegation to the VT statehouse cali Sep-29-09 04:12 AM #28

he's not talking about vermont. & vermont doesn't lead the party. Hannah Bell Sep-29-09 04:14 AM #31

he's making sweeping statements about dem politicians cali Sep-29-09 04:16 AM #33

vermont is 600,000 people. just slightly more than metro portland, ore. Hannah Bell Sep-29-09 04:24 AM #36

so? what about MA? and CT? ME? NH? cali Sep-29-09 04:27 AM #38

There Is More To the World Than Vermont, Dear Toasterlad Sep-29-09 07:16 AM #46

and as I mentioned, honey, MA, ME, CT, NH cali Sep-29-09 07:18 AM #48


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6661876&mesg_id=6662176

[cali]

43. what in tarnation are you babbling mindlessly about now, honey?

it's clear that you have some sort of thinking impediment. Seems like it might be glue, darlin'.

[Hannah Bell]

47. you;'re so unfunny, honey.

[cali]

50. ooh, I'm just heartbroken that I don't meet with your approval, hannahbear.

[Arkansas Granny]

37. I care. I may not be happy with some of the votes that some of the Democrats

make, but I am pretty certain that I would be even more unhappy if they are replaced with Republicans.

[tekisui]

46. I would love to see a party purge.

Out with the blue mutts, out with the corporate shills, out with the conservative Democrats.

[Walk away]

55. It sure would be nice if Baucus, Lincoln et al had some great...

primary challenges from people who aren't corporate shills like they are. It would take a real effort by progressives across the country helping to fund their runs.

Why turn our backs on the Democratic party? Maybe we can keep changing it for the better if we try.

[ecstatic]

48. Playing devil's advocate: If the blue dogs felt comfortable in their seats

maybe they'd vote our way. But they don't, and for good reason--the left won't support them so all they can rely on is republicans to get re-elected. Maybe we should make them feel more secure in their seats and maybe then we'd get what we want. Just a thought.

[T Wolf]

56. Right - NOT! Rewarding them for being traitors will certainly NOT get them to act like

Democrats.

The consequence for acting and voting like a puke HAS TO BE loss of Democratic support. Let them become rethugs officially so we know who the enemy really is.

[ShortnFiery]

64. It's not their constituents the blue dog's care about, it's the $ from the corporations. eom

[saltpoint]

54. The bluer the better.

There's no magic wand out there that can convert a Ben Nelson or a Mary Landrieu to a Russ Feingold or a Barbara Boxer.

Wish there was but there ain't.

[seabeyond]

57. shhhh, dont tell anyone, but i hear ya. nt

[Frances]

58. I'm old enough to remember Californians refusing to vote

against Ronald Reagan when he ran for governor because they thought it was wrong to vote "for the lesser of two evils."

We all know how that kind of thinking turned out. Or maybe not.

[ShortnFiery]

60. On this we agree. The GOP is not too good at "providing cover" for the man behind the curtain.

WALL STREET!

Let every last peon American Citizen realize that they work for "The Corporation" run by the power elites on Wall Street.

But, the Democrats at least figuratively give us a "kiss on the cheek" before they set to financially screw the middle class. Hey, I say bring the pain with GOP rule in order to reveal the horrid truth about who truly runs this nation?! - Fascism with a velvet glove ... is still fascism. :grr:

[JCMach1]

67. Yeah, the pox on your house approach has worked so well in the past

:eyes:

Remember Reagan? Remember Newt and the impeachment?

Forget about it!

[Kahuna]

69. You said it the best. They wonder why "progressive" interests

never get addressed. They never get addressed because DEMS like to punish their legislatures if they don't do what they want right now. Not realizing that the reason why the Dems don't do what progressives want is because progressives are fair-weather allies. For them, it's more comfortable in the middle. It's as simple as that. Maybe if progressives worked to elect even more Dems, and make republicanism an anachronism, they could finally get what they want. But nooooo. It's more fun to punish than to work methodically to achieve their goals.

[demwing]

71. Agreed, but which seat will be lost?

Neither of those states (Arkansas and Nevada) look to move toward a more progressive candidate. But Dodd is also in a hell of a fight. I don't think we can afford to lose CT.

If those incumbents lose, three states go Red in the Senate. Our possible flips are Ohio, MO, and NC. Maybe KY. A good trade, numbers wise, but the flips we might pull will not go progressive - it's likely that we'll get another three or four Blue Dogs in the deal.

2010 will be a tough year for Democrats, unless something magical happens with Health Care reform, and jobs start picking up.

[demwing]

72. Great political maps of the 2010 Congressional races

Senate:
http://innovation.cq.com/senate2010_map

House:
http://innovation.cqpolitics.com/atlas/house2010_rr?referrer=rightrail

[Orsino]

73. I care that those seats will go to Republicans.

That is inarguably a bad thing.

Now, put in a few progressive independents, and I will cheer.

[B Calm]

76. It's time to retake our party back from these bought out bastards!

[Liquorice]

77. I care. It would be a disaster for us. nt

[zorahopkins]

79. Defeatist Talk

My Lord, such defeatism.

My hope is that we pick up MORE seats in 2010.

If some here have problems with some of the Democrats in Congress, then they should see to it that alternative DEMOCRATS run in the primaries -- and WIN.

Because I, for one, do NOT want to see any more Republicans in the House or in the Senate. I want to see LESS of them!

[MoonRiver]

80. I guess I do care, but just barely.

Unfortunately nothing will change until we have REAL campaign finance reform and the special, corporate, interests can't buy our politicians. Good luck with US pulling that change off.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Meh...I could tolerate dropping some deadwood but giving the Republicans

the ability to actually drive the agenda rather than just obstructing is semi-suicidal, at best.

Democrats doing a bad job of using a majority isn't a sane reason to give the wheel back to the Republicans. Advancing legislation is only a part of the puzzle, not allowing the Republicans to continue their wholly dangerous agenda isn't sane. The emotions have to dial back or a bad situation will go straight to hell.

[TheKentuckian]

84. Also, I don't think we'll lose any on the net in the Senate

I think we pick up a couple. I'm worried about Governors and the House.

[G_j]

83. without election reform

it will continue to be impossible to ever get progressive legislation through.

..maybe they should have worked on that before HCR.
:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

85. I come from a long line of life long Democrats and I'm horribly disillusioned

So many things I thought could be better if we just got the Democrats solidly in charge are not a lot better. For a lot of reasons health care reform has been my hot button since the 80's. Most compelling, for me, was the damage our system has done to workers. Now, we appear about to pass a bill that will make it worse for the working class. Many other issues I see staying the same under Democratic leadership but this is the one on which I'm currently most focused. Never liked the, "they're all in it together," crowd but I'm starting to think they had a point.

[cynatnite]

87. Yeah, it'd be better having the REPUKES in charge...

:grr:

How quickly some forget when the repukes were in charge.

[varelse]

90. Seeing you say something like this is revolutionary.

You've been nothing if not supportive of the Democratic party. For what it's worth, I think you've got every right to feel this way - and to express it here.

[LWolf]

91. .

[Vinca]

95. If the Democrats vote like Republicans it doesn't matter who holds the seat.

[MilesColtrane]

100. It all depends on how fast the economy turns around.

If companies don't start hiring by next summer they'll be out on their assess for sure.

I'd really like to see a revolt in the Senate, and a move toward more progressive leadership, (i.e. demote Reid) but sadly there are just too many Sortacratic Senators there.

[Cleita]

104. For once I agree with you. Better have a real Rep. there than one who

pretends to be a Dem for votes. Either way you are screwed.

[Robyn66]

105. And we will do so much better

if the rethugs get back in power. Already missing W?