How could we have lost it? The President could have done so much those 3 years.......So frustrating that they voters failed the President that year.

You may want some detailed analysis into this Republican canard. An article for you.

http://factleft.com/2012/01/31/the-myth-of-democratic-super-majority/

Written on January 31, 2012 at 3:25 am by elfish
The Myth of Democratic Super Majority.
Filed under Congress, Politics, Recommended10 comments
One of the standard Republican talking points is that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof, super majority for two years between 2008 and 2010. This talking point is usually trotted out when liberals complain that the Republicans filibustered virtually every piece of legislation proposed by Obama or the Democrats over that period of time.

The implication is that Democrats had ample opportunity to pass legislation and that the reason they didn’t pass more legislation doesn’t have anything to do with the Republicans. The Truth is that the Democrats only had a filibuster-proof majority for 24 working days during that period. Here are the details:

To define terms, a Filibuster-Proof Majority or Super Majority is the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. According to current Senate rules, 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster.

Here is a time-line of the events after the 2008 election:

more

the Blue Dogs and the DINOs who screwed up every piece of legislation that did squeak through.

Prove that statement.

When you said control - that implies filibuster proof. It seems like there were a couple of months in 2009 when the democrats had a super majority in the senate. Certainly, they didn't 'control' congress for several years.

Besides - congress doesn't typically pass laws effective immediately. So the positive effects of the 2009-2011 legislative session weren't in effect when republicans took over the house in 2011.

Both had a hostile Congress. How could they succeed without a 'super majority'?

Because they both had the political capital and the will of the people behind them, and they knew how to play the game holding that hand.

BHO could have played the same game; after the 2008 election he had more political capital and support from the majority of the People than either of the 2 bozo's above did - but he choose a different path.

. . . on the other hand, there has regularly been a good chunk of our own party's legislators willing to bend to conservative republican initiatives.

he would not have lost the House but increased the Dem majority, and would have gotten his 'super majority' in the Senate in 2010.

Because of his "Hope and Change" campaign in '08 He had more Political Capital with The People than any President since FDR.

Instead he pissed away that Political Capital supporting a 3rd Way Agenda.

Truly astute politicians can find a way.

administration. Forgiving torturers while you jail marijuana growers says a lot about your priorities. It does not win you respect or trust.

That is a well documented fact. During Nixon's, Reagan's, hell even Bush the Lesser's terms, Democrats have worked and compromised with the Administration to get things done. Republicans have not given that same courtesy, and in fact have done everything they can to stymie Administration policy, more often than not to the detriment of their own constituency.

If BHO had done half of what he promised to The People who voted for him in 2008, we would not be having this discussion as 2010 would have played out much differently.

His actions de-energized his base. Without that active and trusting base he could not hold the big political stick that he may have used to change things. He had a glass that was 75% full but did not drink from it.

his political capital had limited effect. I agree that PBO could have done things differently/better, but it's also a fact that the Republicans in the House and Senate did everything they could to derail as much as they could. Has nothing to do with seeing the glass as "half full" but rather understanding the realities of what has taken place.

Let me guess. You don't think there's any difference between the two parties.

Obamacare was developed by a right-wing think tank - yet the republicans consistently oppose it. The senate minority leader made it his mission to make the president a one term president. That sounds to me like - you either have a super majority or you have nothing.

What do you think he (Obama) could have done better. What would that 'different path' have looked like - so that he could achieve (in your mind) a presidency as great as Reagan and Nixon.

I never said or implied that the Presidency's of Nixon and Reagan were great - only that they were effective. I abhor both men having lived through those times. But saying they were effective is not the same as praising them.

The idea of needing not just a majority but a super majority to get things done is patently false. There are methods that successful innovative politicians in the past have used to get things done. I am not a politician so I cannot name what those would be - if I could I would not be promoting my views on a Blog but out there in the political world fighting the fight myself, lol.

I never said that there was no difference between the 2 major parties. There are stark and obvious differences as far as Social issues are concerned - on the Financial policy side of things not so much.

I don't call it Obamacare - it is the ACA. It is good as far as it goes, it and the expansion of Medicare are good things that have helped millions of People - but it is still just Health Insurance Reform, not true HealthCare Reform. In the US, Health Care needs to be defined as a Right - not a privilege. BHO could have gone that route - but instead he took Single Payer off the table before the debate even started and abandoned The Public Option without a real fight.

If BHO had done at least some of what he promised in 2008 (especially holding the Bankers accountable for their excesses, and using his bully pulpit to get a real bailout for Homeowners along with the Big Banks) we would not be having this conversation as he would have gained those majorities in 2010.

In my mind the last truly Democratic President was Jimmy Carter - though I actively worked for ans supported financially all Dem campaigns from 1976 until today. Just because I criticize them does not mean I am not a Democrat.

Becuase they representedtherchwhomadedanedsuretheought the media, and made sure that anying they did was considered Golden, even if, and especially if, it was right wing crap. Even a lot of his party wanted to see him fail, either because they were some who wanted a farther left type, or more often, the PUMAS who as me speak are ensuring Hillary is crowned Imperatrix de Pax Americana.

The one Obama has will filibuster Ronald Reagan's birthday card. They filibuster things they LIKE.

Earmarks and pork.

If you have nothing to deal, they have nothing to lose.

The big difference between the Congress Reagan had, the Congress Nixon had and the Congress Obama has is simple: the minority party in the Reagan and Nixon Congresses didn't decide, the day after either man was elected, that their only purpose in life was to cause the presidency to fail. The Senate Minority Leader in Obama's Congress, Mitch McConnell, put it very simply: We are here to make sure Obama is a one-term president. That is all they wanted to do and all they DID do the first four years of his presidency. Unfortunately, they seem hell-bent on ensuring he doesn't win his third term, seemingly not realizing the Constitution says he can't have one anyway. (To know this, they would have had to read more than the Second and Tenth Amendments and I don't think they have.) The few things Obama managed to do, he got through Congress either (1) in the very short period of time when the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate or (2) through complex parliamentary maneuvering.

I don't know where you get the idea that Reagan's terms were some sort of triumph of conservatism; he had to compromise constantly.

their constant filibusters, and most of that time we didn't have 60 votes.

It beat most of LBJ's time, for that matter.

I know there's a collective liberal amnesia about exactly how much got passed, but you're going to have to get over that at some point.

Because the other side's voting.

It is just that simple.

"there is no difference between the two parties" and hyperbolically telling them that Hillary Clinton et al are also Republicans or super scary in some other way..... then perhaps we could get them out to vote!

No, it is a fact that moderates and conservative dems stayed home in 2010 and lost us the House. Sorry Charlie.

telling them that "it doesn't make a difference"...

They usually turn out to be libertarians.

but they are still poisoning the water...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4990636

I rest my case...

I can only surmise their agenda. To say both parties are the same, is to admit to a certain bias imo. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously that makes that claim.

Still, we need moderates and conservative Dems to show up in large numbers at the polls...(liberals are a solid 90% voting block) however if they listen to idiots that say the parties are the same, then they really don't pay attention or they already made up their minds and no amount of evidence will sway them otherwise.

We need to take back the House. The GOP is crippling this country daily with their hatred of the common person.

its the people that either party HAVE to woo in order to win. When they vote they vote for whom they think are the "winners". If they hear those presenting themselves as Lefties saying things like that then they are justified in NOT voting at all.

I am still thinking that Randi Rhodes is so brilliant. Her final advice was to "shame them". Stop accepting the "malarkey" that these fools spout....being so polite....shame them! They vote Democrat because they have got no candidates themselves....yet they constantly piss and moan while pretending that THEY are the true Progressives because they vote Democrat. Lets stop putting up with their bullshit and call them what they are....Libertarians in sheeps clothing. If you cannot see the difference in the parties at this point.....how else can you explain it? We have to start shaming them! Then and only then do we look like winners and the Mushy Middle will want to be a part of that movement.

Like I said, most of the people that espouse that 'both parties are teh same' are NOT the Left. Libertarianism is so far from the Left that calling them the Left is like saying the GOP is the party of equality.

The far left is Marxism and socialism...something completely different from libertarianism. Not even close in the animal kingdom.

Shaming libertarians should be a full time job!

then they turn around and vote for Democrats anyway because Republicans suck and they know it....then they piss and moan some more....but never ever presenting any alternative candidates of their own! They think THEY are the sole arbiters of shaming!

They sound more like Republicans, but I guess that is just me.

because they got nuttin'.

....to WEAKEN legislation that Democrats crafted. That's a great way to GOTV, not. Collude with Republicans to WEAKEN legislation against the expressed wishes of duly elected Democratic representatives. Not.

Your Honor....I would like to enter into evidence...example 2....

"far left" media. None of them have heard of Hamsher, West, Smiley, Goodman, et al.

what are YOU telling YOUR friends and family about Democrats and President Obama huh?

DUers who *may* have criticized Obama (and Democrats in general), hence the low turnout in 2010?

Huh, indeed.

The 2010 non-voters voted for Obama in 2012. Why didn't they turn out in 2010? Why were they influenced by these mythical anti-Obama negative forces in 2010, and not in 2012?

My family and friends are "run-to-the-polls" voters, some even work the polls, so, what else ya got?

Do you constantly criticize Democrats while never having a single complimentary thing to say about them?.....Then YOU too could be the Far Left I am talking about...

I don't keep tabs on race, either, but let's not open *that* can o' worms.

Even if someone suggests Obama is the anti-Christ, why did so many voters believe the negativity in 2010, but not 2012 when he was given a second term? It doesn't make sense to suggest these 2010 non-voters were influenced by bad-mouthing of the president.

Midterms aren't as sexy as presidential elections. That's one reason they don't vote. Why did they miss the message that Obama needed a Democratic congress to advance his agenda? No magic wand, civics lesson, yada yada...

November is right around the corner. What's being done to get them to vote?

What am I doing? First of all I am shaming those who criticize the Democrats while never having a complimentary word to say about them on a Democratic Forum....who call nearly all Democratic candidates Republicans or "Third Way" etc.....meanwhile calling themselves Democrats!

Scarlet ... ?

Let us know when you get to the part about educating voters, registering voters, and driving voters to the polls. Just to name a few that might have more of an impact on Obama's agenda than *punishing* DUers in the town square.

one is not prohibitive of the other is it? I never said it was the ONLY thing I do did I? It is just what I was doing when you asked the question....

is good use of your time, knock yourself out. But I'm pretty sure you're not changing any "hearts and minds," sorta like Eye-raq.

It simply doesn't get any better. He used that power to bail out Wall Street bonus checks (literally) along with a whole slew of absolutely heinous anti-progressive measures and appointments. At this point, after six years of deceptions, if Obama told me it was sunny I would reach for an umbrella. He doesn't inspire me to vote, his every speech is a reminder of why I shouldn't bother.

Last edited Fri May 23, 2014, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . you didn't give him a filibuster-proof Congress, so it's sophistry to pretend like he had carte-blanche with the legislature to do whatever he pleased.

In fact, if Congress had acted on the public investments the President proposed, he would have accomplished much more. As it stood, President Obama's 'Stimulus Act' lifted at least 7 million people out of poverty.

from interview with Michael Grunwald, Time magazine correspondent who published The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, an account of President Barack Obama's stimulus bill:

GRUNWALD:

____ The Obama team thought a lot about the New Deal while they were putting the stimulus together, but times have changed since the New Deal. The Hoover Dam put 5,000 Americans to work with shovels. A comparable project today would only require a few hundred workers with heavy equipment . . ..

The New Deal was a journey, an era, an aura. The Recovery Act was just a bill on Capitol Hill.

Yet its aid to victims of the Great Recession lifted at least 7 million people out of poverty and made 32 million poor people less poor. It built power lines and sewage plants and fire stations, just like the New Deal. It refurbished a lot of New Deal parks and train stations and libraries.

Most of the money in the stimulus went to unsexy stuff designed to prevent a depression and ease the pain of the recession: aid to help states avoid drastic cuts in public services and public employees; unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other assistance for victims of the downturn; and tax cuts for 95 percent of American workers. And the money that did flow into public works went more toward fixing stuff that needed fixing — aging pipes, dilapidated train stations, my beloved Everglades — than building new stuff.

In its first year, the stimulus financed 22,000 miles of road improvements, and only 230 miles of new roads. There were good reasons for that. Repairs tend to be more shovel-ready than new projects, so they pump money into the economy faster. They also pass the do-no-harm test. (New sprawl roads make all kind of problems worse.) And they are fiscally responsible. Repairing roads reduces maintenance backlogs and future deficits; building roads add to maintenance backlogs and future deficits.

The stimulus included $27 billion to computerize our pen-and-paper health care system, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and fatalities caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. It doubled our renewable power generation; it essentially launched our transition to a low-carbon economy. It provided a new model for government spending — with unprecedented transparency, unprecedented scrutiny, and unprecedented competition for the cash . . .

read more: http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/what-the-stimulus-worked/1246202

What bigtree said.

filibusterproof timeline is available in all sorts of places, but here, I'll make it easy for you.


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/fleeting-illusory-supermajority

I guess you expected everything to be fixed in the moment he walked in the door.

(And per my previous posts I give you Prime Example #1...I would like to enter this into evidence Your Honor)

Agree with ya there. Obama has had to work against a hostile House of Representatives since day ONE!

less than 24 hours later...back to pissing and moaning and revisionist history! Not hypocritical AT ALL!

Some people....

Saving your life and still cannot stop telling lies about the man!

will govern from anywhere near the left, regardless of Congressional makeup.

. . . how one votes? It depends.

But, I think you are correct, in that these conservative and moderate candidates usually only feel the need to give fealty to the right-wing and regularly give progressive issues short shrift or the back of their hand.

" On every issue we are more than happy to sit down in reasonable fashion and compromise".
-
Not what I want. Many times I don't want a President to compromise.

I also defend PBO.
He has the shittiest congress ever...imagine where we'd be now if FDR had to deal with the same congress.
As I understand it, there was a Whole 72 days the Dems actually had a majority of members in both chambers--that did not/does not mean diddly when "some" Dems vote with the GOP-the Senate was Never filibuster proof -
In spite of all that during those years Pelosi/House did deliver a Lot of good stuff.

You will NEVER guess who stopped us.

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

with Lamont in CT.

The DSCC and the DCCC has done MORE to thwart the will of local Democrats
than any Republican Organization.
They will use National Donations to influence local Primaries so the the Chamber of Commerce, Business Friendly Conservative DLC Democrat wins.

If you consider yourself a Liberal or FDR/LBJ Democrat,
never, EVER donate to the DSCC or DCCC.
They WILL use your Working Class money AGAINST your Working Class Interests.

If anyone wonders HOW the Democratic Party became so Anti-Working Class Conservative, look no further.

BTW: The above speech was delivered to the DSCC.
(Progressives & Liberals need not apply)

What the hell does Obama supporting Lieberman in the primary have anything to do with this? If anything, bringing up Connecticut proves just how questionable your point is - as nothing changed. Lamont won the primary and still lost the general - by a sizable margin!

So, even if Obama had supported the primary challenge of Lamont, and Clinton did and the DNC did, what changes? Lamont still beats Lieberman, Lieberman still runs in the general and still wins.

. . . because he benefited from a sufficient number of republicrats to overcome filibusters on conservative-oriented legislation.

Conversely, there hasn't ever been a similar number of republicans willing to bend to Democratic initiatives.

So did Nixon and Reagan.

That Will can overcome any legislative tricks such as filibusters if the cards are played correctly.

. . . republicans are acting right now against the 'will of the people'. If that was the standard, Obama is winning that debate.

He may be ahead in polls but without that Trust he has the support of a skeptical population, a much weaker position politically than having the enthusiastic support he had in '08.

He left the People behind and lost their full trust in his first term by abandoning most of the planks of the platform he ran on - "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."

I stipulate that BHO has done good things, more than a rethug would have done, such as the ACA, and supporting Immigration Reform.

But, for example, his support of the TPP and TAFTA, not using his bully pulpit and firmly speaking out in favor of Net Neutrality and reclassifying the ISP's, continuing the War on Drugs despite the obvious Will of the People to end it, supporting the Surveillance State, keeping Guantanamo open, not running a transparent WH, are all things that have drained his Political Piggy Bank.

in near landslide fashion.

How does that work?

Reagan and Bush got cooperation from Democrats because Democrats actually want to govern.

Republicans can obstruct everything because they do not care about governing.
They are perfectly happy with a do nothing government.

The things that did pass, Medicare Part D and NCLB, were triangulations worthy of Bill Clinton.

Is that what you're saying here? Is that the proof we blew it in 2010 because Obama didn't throw his full weight behind a primary battle in a state that was likely lost anyway?

I love how you mention how Bill Halter polled better than Lincoln.

Halter trailed in every poll against Boozman that election season - and almost entirely by double-digits:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/21/10-ar-sen-ge-bovh_n_727657.html

The best he ever did was from a poll done by Daily KOS that showed him down 5. Every other independent poll showed him trailing between 7 and 27 points and an average deficit of 17 points - which wasn't dramatically different from the outcome we eventually witnessed in November.

There was never ever 'what could have been' with that seat. It was lost. Regardless if Halter won the primary or not.

I live here. Halter was a better promise than Lincoln (particularly from a DU perspective), but it was a promise destined to be unfulfilled.

If Boozman could beat Miz Blanche as he did, he'd have made short work of Halter. The Obama team knew that.

We would have settled for just winning the Primary.
Nobody knows what could have happened in the General.

But your post begs the question:

WHY would the White House spend all that money in a Democratic Primary supporting a sure LOSER
and alienating Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots?

The Official White House Endorsement of Lincoln ran 24/7.
That ain't cheap.

Running Bill Clinton all around Arkansas bashing LABOR and the Grass Roots
ain't cheap either.

So WHY did the White House and DSCC spend all that time and money supporting a LOSER in a local Democratic Primary. Maybe YOU can answer that question,
because all LABOR got from the White House was ridicule and Na-na-nanana.

Apart from school teachers, there's really not that much organized labor here. Not even state employees have a collective bargaining unit here (yes, there's the ASEA, but it's a voluntary association, not a recognized union). We have a few tradesmen's locals, but organized labor is NOT a major player in Arkansas politics. The Farm Bureau holds a lot more clout.

Arkansas WAS going to be the battleground state for bring pressure to UNIONIZE WalMart,
but the White House took care of that.

Steelworkers union endorses Halter for governor
http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2013/feb/22/united-steelworkers-endorses-halter-governor/

AFL-CIO Backs Halter In Arkansas, Commits $3M To Defeat Lincoln
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/afl-cio-backs-halter-in-arkansas-commits-3m-to-defeat-lincoln

Labor Jumps Into Arkansas Senate Race
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/labor-jumps-into-arkansas-senate-race/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Do you think it was a wise move for the White House and Bill Clinton to use National Party funds to alienate Organized LABOR and rescue DINO Blanche Lincoln...a SURE LOSER in the General?

Arkansans generally don't vote on labor-management issues. It's much more farmers/rural v. urban here. Lincoln was quite farmer friendly.

..and dispatching the Old Dog to Arkansas to keep Halter & LABOR from winning the Primary.
If that was "unrealistic", then the White House would have done nothing.

Halter was polling BETTER than Lincoln against the Republican in the General.

WHY did the White House come down like a sack of Big Money Hammers if Halter's chances were "unrealistic".
Remember, I live in Arkansas too.

In 2010, at that point, it was all about keeping the U.S. Senate and not necessarily making it more progressive. Obviously they were wrong - but that doesn't mean there was some ulterior motive at play here. Generally incumbents do do better. Hell, in 2010, A LOT of DU would've loved to primary Harry Reid and would have absolutely ridiculed Obama had he backed Reid in a primary fight.

Sometimes you hedge your bets. For Obama, Lincoln seemed like a logical person to back because she had proven in the past successful in that state. Was it the right move? Eh, either way, it wasn't going to matter. 2010 was a bad, bad year for Democrats and even some good Dems (Russ Feingold) lost because of it.

they just have to keep the lid on another 400 years

Which was exactly my impression at the time. When Dennis Kucinich dragged his feet there were no concessions made to him for his vote. POTUS just twisted his arm until he got his way. I am disgusted with the feigned helplessness as an excuse for tacking rightward all the time, but never to the left.

It is Kabuki Theater.

Blanche was rewarded for her loyalty to the MISSION by killing the Public Option.
That so many can NOT see this,
or refuse to see this,
only proves the PT Barnum was wrong only about the rate at which SUCKERS are born in America.
That rate FAR exceeds a "Sucker born every minute".

In many areas, he is moderate, or Conservative.

All the votes in the world won't make him stop the privatization of America's formerly Public schools, put a Wall St crook on trial, or stop NSA meta-spying, or stop the drone killings, or stop federal harassment of medical marijuana facilities, or stop pushing the hideous TPP or other similar trade deals.

If we elect a rightwing GOP president, he will also privatize public schools, kill many foreigners with drones, try to stop cannabis legalization, push NSA spying, and keep his hands off wall st, no matter what they do, while pushing huge elite-favoring trade deals.

Thank God, Obama is Progressive on social issues, at least.

But economics? Not so much.

In fact, practically not at all.


I now surrender to the notion that I am unlikely to see a real Progressive president in my lifetime.

Seemingly, having Klaatu and Gort come to Earth in a flying saucer to force peace upon us, is more likely.

in 2008.

He choose to spend that coin to support the 3rd Way corporate agenda instead of using it to harness the power of The Will of The People who elected him based on their perception he was supportive of a true Progressive Agenda.

It wasn't just "perception".
Candidate Obama made some very specific promises to the Working Class:

*Hold Wall Street Accountable

*Re-Negotiate NAFTA

*Make EFCA the Law of the Land

*Raise Taxes on the Rich

*Raise-the-Cap on SS deductions to protect SS forever

*Label Foods with Country of Origin and GMO Warnings.

*A national Public Option to "Keep the Health Insurance Industry Honest"

...If he had even bothered to give the appearance of working for these promises,
taken to the Bully Pulpit to lobby for them,
most would be willing to cut him some slack,
but he didn't.
Most of these promises were never mentioned again after the inauguration.

The will of the people doesn't mean a damn thing. The will of the House and the Senate is what matter. If the will of people had anything to do with jack, the gun control bill would've passed, immigration reform would've passed.

But oh no, forget reality, scream about 3rd way boogeymen and throw the corporate in there, I believe you forgot oligarch and triangulation though. I mean if you are gonna rattle off "more left than thou" cliché nonsense, at least include all the favorite buzz words.

You left out authoritarian, and an Orwell quote.

By the way, that's Democrat and Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, uncredited in the photo.

But here I am in one of the most solidly Democratic districts in the pretty solidly Democratic state, California.

I traveled to a crucial state to help get Obama elected in 2008, but I can't do that this year.

Please, please. If you live in a red state or a state that could go either way, please get your walking shoes on and volunteer to get Democrats elected. We really need Democrats in Congress.

1. Do you require 61 Senate votes to get anything done? If so, you've given up, because it ain't going to happen. If not, how many do you need?

2. If you do somehow get governing majorities, will you then stop fracking? Stop the corporatization of public schools? Cancel the awful Heritage Care and replace it with health care? Declare TPP dead in the water? Shit-can the KXL? Cancel or let expire the Bush/Obama Billionaires' Tax Cuts? Stop playing golf with Bain Capital?

The answers to these questions tell us if he's being sincere or if he's just passing the buck as cover for implementing the 1%'s agenda.

they don't sound like a full agenda for the President. . . there are other important and worthwhile initiatives that he's going to be working to advance.

I'm not sure of the value in setting a number of seats that he'd like the party to hold. How about 100?

are not going to trudge back to the polls. If he really wants more (D)'s in Congress, then he needs to actually re-commit to the agenda that he campaigned on the first time. "I don't have the votes" is a cop-out. Votes for what? And what is he doing to get those votes?

. . .that aside, you should realize that progressives and liberals didn't falter at the midterm polls - it was moderate and conservative Democrats who stayed home.

Progressive folks here have taken great pains to point out that it wasn't their absence from the polls which brought us a republican House. Most progressives and liberals are already in Barack Obama's corner (DU excepted, maybe).

Fracking. Off-shore drilling. "All of the above". Replacing public schools with for-profit "charter" schools. Fast-tracking TPP, sometimes called "NAFTA on steroids". XL Pipeline. Appointing Wheeler to the FCC. Heritage Care.

This is not the agenda that the 2008 landslide voted for. If he wants those people to show up again he should try adopting a Dem agenda, and fighting for it.

. . . but, I obviously don't share your point of view.

Besides, the dynamic of an off-term election favors those folks voting against the party in the presidency and doesn't draw a lot of contented voters.

I don't think the election process, in which disparate candidates represent a myriad of motivations and interests around the country, is as simple and straightforward as you're representing here.

of Obama hold a bat!