What will happen if the Dem's win in November?
 

What do you think will happen if the Dem's actually get a 2/3 majority in Congress this November? Will Bush finally have to be accountable to the American people? Might he even get impeached? Or will it just be two years of grid lock. Or just business as usual since one party is really just as bad as the other?

PS sorry about the typos, but I guess you can't edit polls once they're posted

They won't get a 2/3 majority. They would need to pick up 87 seats in the House, and that is all but guaranteed not to happen. They would need to pick up 21 in the Senate, and that actually is impossible. Therefore no impeachment.

Bush will be held more accoutable than he has been. Some of the toothless investigations and commissions may gain teeth, and any new ones will be fiercer, but Democrats just don't have it in them to go very far with that unless they happen upon something that is an absolute slam-dunk.

Gridlock is possible, as it isn't possible for the Dems to get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, let alone a veto-proof one.

The Dems could proceed with the impeachment process, knowing full well that they don't have the votes to actually accomplish it - sound familiar?

Dems gaining control could have a positive effect. Clinton became a centrist because of congress's make up. Maybe W will do the same thing. Unlikely, but maybe. Things may very well be like they were in the late 90s, just reversed, party-wise.

They could, but they won't. It just isn't in them.

Where's the "we pray they try to impeach" choice?

Ohhh no...am I going to get into trouble like that girl did with her blog? Are they really....watching? :worried:

I would hope Bush would be forced to explain/defend his signing letters.:rtfm:

Did you mean in the Senate, in the House, or both?

As HM so kindly explained to me, they can't get a 2/3 majority in the Senate. There is a small chance they could manage it in the House. What impact (if any) would such an out come have?

The worst outcome, and one more likely than I'd prefer if the national Democratic Party were given its head, would be that the war gets lost by the following May. This would require yet another war-fighting Administration to fight yet another and greater war some time down the line, to rectify what the Dems would screw the pooch on.

The second-worst outcome would be that the Democrats, now saddled with the responsibility of acting in the national interest for once, would continue with the "Republican" plan for prosecuting the war, as they have no plan of their own -- then doing it halfheartedly and incompetently. In the longer term, this means the Republicans back in the majority, charged with fixing the damn mess.

Could they manage it? I don't know, but I have no reason to confide in the foreign-policy competence of the Democrats.

Neither is the likeliest outcome: I pick "Politics as usual," loud and messy and grandstanding. Calls for a case of cream pies, it does -- I time it right, their mouths shall be filled with sweetness.

You didn't just pass the blame for this war...

:)

Look closely, I have nothing up my sleeve...hocus pocus, boopity boo...presto CHANGO!

It's magic, it is.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker on my wife's car: the problems we face today will not be solved by the minds that created them (paraphrase)...

Well, one thing that will happen is that John Mc Cain will commit suicide. Here's a snip I came across on another discussion board:

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go....ator=local.cfm

So...you're actually asking about a supermajority in the House, not a simple majority in Congress (which means nothing by itself), a simple majority in the House, or a simple majority in the Senate.

I bet you find the Electoral Collge confusing too. :-)

I think lots of people find the EC confusing - self included. I do the best I can, Maggie, in my own little pathetic way. :p

Yeah, whatever a is...:p

You say "national gridlock between the President, Congress, and the Supremes" like that would be a bad thing.

IMO, government functions best for me when it's severely hog-tied.

Are you talking to me? If so, gridlock might just be the best we could hope for. At least the gov't couldn't take anymore of our liberties away.:eyebrow:

It's a typo.

Hi I'm new here- not sure where to go! This seems to be an interesting thread however, so I thought I might jump in! Is there a thread for newbies that I'm missing? As for the topic at hand:
Politics as usual- Just because you have won a battle does not mean you have won a war. Not that I'm completely cynical. I'm pretty sure huge progress could be made from there. Now, let me go back and actually vote.
-Already misspelling the obvious.

Maybe some accountability? Maybe some moderation? Maybe some attention to the scientific and scholarly community rather than just corporations and their sponsored ideological think-tanks. (Not that those wont still be influential, just maybe not the only input.) Maybe some debate about important issues, now a bit more in play, less rubberstamping done deals with the WH.

I think change would be a relief to Bush. Then he can do what he must know needs to be done with/ in/ to Iraq, change course not stay the course, and have options to blame the other side if things get worse, yet still make a claim to leadership if things maintain or even (dare say) improve. It gives him some sympathy room.

Good point, warch. Gives bush's biographers a scapegoat, when they are trying to argue he's not the worst President in history. :litebulb:

The electoral college is a typo? Does that mean we can get rid of it? That silly Ben Franklin and his printing press, anyhow.:rolleyes:

Most things will get better.

"Better" as in "better cache your guns if you want to keep them".

No, the electoral collge.

See, I win my bet.

Boogey-Man Politics...

I'll bet that's the answer.

Gun control is over. There is no significant gun control effort in the Democratic party anymore.

No, but the evil Liberal Overlords that "pull the strings" from "behind the scenes" are waiting to STRIKE!!!1!!1!1!

Exactly, especially in the South & West. They know it harms them. Just not an important issue.

There's no significant effort in the Democratic Party anymore.

But they still make a lot of noise, and if they gain some power they'll be carving away at the same old stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I ain't happy with them... just better than what we have now.

Not really. Other than background checks, but I would assume you support that, based on your support for felon ownership restrictions.

I was not talking about guns.

When one votes for a presidential candidate one is voting for the electors from one's state to cast their votes for the same candidate. If one votes for the Republican candidate, one is really voting for an elector who will be "pledged" to vote for the Republican candidate. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state wins all the votes of the state's electors.

The Electoral College system was instated by Article II of the Constitution and later amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.

Every state gets a number of electors equal to its number of members in the U.S. House of Representatives, plus one for each of its two U.S. Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electors. State laws determine how electors are chosen, they are usually selected by the political party committees within the states.

I bow before you vast wisdom concerning my knowledge of the EC. Sow what did I win, anyhow? My very own vacation in Guantanomo?

PS How did this thread get into gun control AGAIN? We only have 60 billion threads discussing the topic. Go shoot somebody, Maggie - you'll feel MUCH better, I'm sure.

Psst Mari, college not collge. Collge is a typo. ;)

We all know that, I think. But Maggie used my joke about Ben Franklin's type setting abilities to imply that I knew nothing about the electoral collge, electoral college, electoral collage or any other variant there-of. (actually, I admit to being rather poor at collage ;) )

An ear, for making a silk purse from. But anybody can Google up something after the fact. Congress is bicameral, so a simple majority of both houses is meaningless. The implication of ignorance was drawn from that.
See thread topic.

I will be waiting in anticipation down at the post office for my ear. Could you send me van Gogh's?

I love the word "bicameral," don't you? It sings trippingly off the tongue. I believe I first heard the word in 8th grade civics class.

I WAS under the impression that it was possible for the Senate to get that all important 2/3 majority. HM kindly corrected me. You, as usual, started a minor war over it.:rolleyes:

Politics as usual.


Eight more years of fixing the last eight years. That's the way I see it.

A simple majority in both houses, while not as good as a 2/3 majority, is quite meaningful. It's what the Republicans have had for a while.

I'm afraid you're being optimistic....I think it will take more than eight years to undo the damage. :(

Come on, Griff... I've already explained elsewhere why I think this war is blameless, both from a Libertarian point of view as well as an American nationalist one: in a nutshell, removing nondemocracies and replacing them with democracies, especially ones with enough self-confidence to destroy and devour anti-democratic groups within and anti-democratic foes without, is nothing but good for all mankind.

That is and will always be why I think I'm a stronger libertarian than you are. Libertarianism must not be a mere hothouse flower, that can only flourish in a benevolent U.S. environment; it should be something that can not merely defeat its enemies, but ruin them.

MaggieL: actually, a simple majority is critical. Why? The majority party chooses who heads the various commitees. That's important. That == control of what comes up for a vote. Personally, the R's may have dug themselves into a hole by eliminating Dems from Conference Committees. They're gonna be D's bitches.
Seperately, there won't be any impeachment proceedings. For one, only about 1/4 of the country supports them, and the Dems aren't that stupid (anyone remember what happened when the R's impeached Clinton? His ratings when up). Secondly, who becomes Prez if GWB goes down? Cheney! Are you f'in kidding me? Would you really want the man who doesn't release the list of employees in his office to preserve his Executive privilige as the Leader of the Free World? Not me.

Not a simple majority of Congress. Of either house, yes.