nominees sent by the President or not. Other than that, your OP is correct, and scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatorial_courtesy

Senatorial courtesy is an unwritten political custom (or constitutional convention) in the United States whereby the president consults the senior U.S. Senator of his political party of a given state before nominating any person to a federal vacancy within that Senator's state.[1] It is strictly observed in connection with the appointments of federal district court judges, U.S. attorneys, and federal marshals. Except in rare cases, the courtesy is typically not extended by the president to a state's senators when the president and senators of said state are of different political parties.
......
In the case of federal district court judgeships, the custom of senatorial courtesy is enforced within the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senators may summarily remove a person from further consideration simply by stating that they find the individual "personally obnoxious".[3] The custom is easily applied by a single senator or both senators from the state where the district is located. This is because federal judicial districts do not straddle state lines, thereby limiting the senatorial involvement to only one or both senators from only the state wherein the district is located.

her before 2016 a new scotus judge would not be confirmed. Then it would be a fight in 2016 with a known scotus appointment up in the air. Certainly big corps would empty their pocketbooks to make sure they had another pro-business Federalist type in that seat. I hope if we do lose the Senate that she retires before the new Senate is sworn in so Obama can appoint someone else.
Eric Holder announced that he is stepping down. I think it's because he wants to leave before 2016 but if he doesn't go now and we lose the Senate we'll be screwed there too.

I wish she'd retire today.

She's made it clear in interviews that she views this kind of partisanship in SCOTUS retirees inappropriate.

She's going to leave SCOTUS when she dies or when she feels she cannot do the job anymore, with no consideration as to who controls the Senate or occupies the WH. She's of that old-school "you serve until you cannot and you do not play political games as a member of SCOTUS." mindset.

...she is over 80 years of age and has a history of health problems. If she doesn't step down before Obama's presidency is over, I cannot see her making it past the 2020 election. If the Rethugs take over the White House (God Forbid), she will be replaced by a Samuel Alito-type justice.

God Save This Honorable Court.

I hope that's just empty wind macho.
If they do the Democrats will have to bear the mantle of filibuster kings for the next two years.

I think the pundits are making way too much out of that ... President Obama will not be on the ballot in 2014 and two of those 7 states have demonstrated a willingness to elect Democrats in state-wide races, as Montana and W. Virginia have Democratic Governors. Alaska has a strong Democrat running for the Senate ... N. Carolina has an awakening Democratic base and for the most part, Folks in Louisiana like Landreau.

Arkansas and South Dakota are totally Republican now. And there is no strong Democrat running in either the Montana or West Virginia Senate races. Those four (4) losses right there will take us down to 51 seats. North Carolina and Louisiana are shaky at best and the latest news is that Gary Peters is now trailing in Michigan and is losing the fundraising battle to his Republican opponent. Begich is ahead in Alaska, but remember we're talking about a blood-red state and you know the Rethugs will hammer him for casting the "deciding" vote in favor of Obamacare (in Dec. 2009, the Senate passed the bill 60-39, the exact number of votes needed to end a filibuster).

The only possibility for a pick-up is Kentucky, and given how redneck that state is, I'm not holding my breath.

Not going out to vote in 2010 cost us the Senate races in PA, IL, and WI, which we should have won. Had so many liberals not stayed home on Nov. 2, 2010 we'd have a 58-42 majority right now and the chances of the Rethugs taking over the Senate would be next to zero.

GET OUT AND VOTE IN 2014!!! VOTE as if your LIFE depends on it...because it DOES.

and this:

Is why we need to stop looking past 2014 with all the "Who should challenge HRC/Run EW, Run" posts.

Yes ... Get Out The DEMOCRATIC Vote in 2014.

There will be plenty of time for 2016 after this November.

I think those so vocal and focused on 2016 are doing so to keep 2014 turn out low. And who does that benefit?.

Think that ain't the plan?

...how Hillary's not-yet-a-campaign is going.

Thanks, pnwmom.

but at some point the Repubs are going to have to defend senate seats in democratic leaning states and their gerrymandering will eventually be wiped away as people move. Right now the Repubs are becoming more like the democratic party post Civil War Reconstruction; unable to hold the presidency, overly strong in certain regions of the country and opposed to any change.

I wish one party or the other were able to win a solid majority so that we could get some work done instead of lurching from one election to another with both parties doing little in hopes of winning a majority in the next cycle. Oh, the money and resources we have all wasted financing political campaigns over the last two decades.

Our side seems to be actively trying to throw this election. We have NO MESSAGE other than "not the Republican".

Should be a good enough reason, shouldn't it? I mean, have you heard about their policies and obstructionism? Why shouldn't it be enough to know that Democrats stand for responsible governance and generally support policies that support the average person. I know Dems aren't perfect but they're not simply a "lesser evil" either IMHO

When I was still working, I listened to many a sales pitch. The vendors who had nothing to say except "our competition's awful" never won my business.

"Vote for Democrats because Republicans are bad" gives me no reason to vote for Democrats. We either stand for something or we stand for nothing.

Nothing doesn't inspire voters.

Democrats are (hopefully) out there talking about positive policies and plans that will help people. I'd be really surprised if the only message Democrats are sending is, "We're not Republicans" (which is still a plenty valid argument for me). I know that, for some people, the Democrats are basically the "lesser of two evils" but I don't agree with that line of thought. I think that most Democrats are generally supportive of policies that help the average person whereas most Republicans are not and I believe that the country has, at least in recent history, been more prosperous and fair whenever the Democrats have been in charge.

for starters. Pretty much everything good that Republicans are busy blocking.

Extending UE is good.

Raising the minimum wage to far less than a living wage is not very inspirational.

I still don't hear any unified message from the Dems.

and none of them- except for one or two marginal Dems have ever supported repealing ACA. Dems are also still fighting for Medicaid expansion in those states hampered by right-wing extremists and their blinding hatred of President Obama. I don't know about you but I feel plenty inspired by Democratic policies. As for messaging, why does it matter so much if they have "a single unified message" or not? Do you need that to be inspired by their policies?

... a whole bunch of potential voters.


Defending our past achievements instead of promoting our next policy is allowing the Republicans to set the agenda.

Where is ....

... Medicare for All, including dental, optical, hearing aids, mental health and nursing home services? This would be wildly popular.

... Where is raising the minimum wage to a living wage? Again, wildly popular.

... Where is lifting the cap, increasing SS payments, lowering the eligibility age? Again, wildly popular.

... Where is cutting military and spy budgets? Wildly popular.

... Whre is getting the very wealthiest to pay more of their fair share of the tax burden? Again, wildly popular.


Would we lose the votes of "moderates" with these policies? Maybe a few. But we would gain 10 votes for every one we lost, with those votes coming from the half (or more) of the electorate who didn't bother last time because none of these policies were on the board.

on second thought.

(just)
Hope.

particularly here in New England where the less you say other than "Not the Republican!", the better off you are.

Policy positions are grist for the mill. They're toeholds for the GOP to run on or against.

We win every race here when there are no policy positions because there is no traction for the party of evil and they start every round of the political game down 15%.

It's more of the problem now.

and that's largely what Lawrence O'D anticipated tonight, considering the 'work' one of the main Dem fundraising groups (don't recall the name) has been doing, fundraising exclusively for Hillary!