The executive and legislative branches are designed to be equal... (even though recent events lead one to doubt that in some ways)... half the legislature and complete control of the executive > just controlling one branch. Moreover the meaning and danger of a an amoral douchebag like Trump being seen as the leader of the free world is more destructive to America than Moscow Mitch obstructing in the Senate.

Moscow Mitch gave us the disgusting right wing Supremes. That screws us for years to come. He could make it even worse.

Not if the president is a Democrat??? Which was the choice which was posed.

will nominate a decent candidate to the SC and this time mitchy will just roll over? You don't seem to remember Merrick Garland.

It was an either-or proposition... you get the presidency or the senate... which do you choose? the supreme court is problematic without both. Holding the senate but not the executive does not help you nominate decent judges.

you can enact legislation, override vetoes, make republicans show their colors by making them vote. Most importantly, you can impeach and remove the president. (And remove the crooked VP that takes his place giving us President Pelosi and the host of honorable judges she would nominate.)

We'd need to take 67 senate seats correct? I do not think this is realistic given the number of red states and the current level of political division.

Four years of exactly what we have now? Four years?

The point of the OP was that we needed the Senate. I think it is highly likely that we win the executive office. More likely if we don't have our best and brightest slugging it out between themselves, creating little pockets of resentment and frustration. If 15 or 16 of those running for ego would run for Senate or state office instead of clogging up the campaign with bickering and inane gotcha's, we would have a better chance at the Senate. If those ran for Senate, we would also have a better chance at the WH.

Thats what I responded to.

that trump can't do as much damage without mitch in the Senate as mitch can do without trump in the WH.

No nominee for the SC by Warren/Biden/Harris or whoever will ever make it to the Bench. No Democratic nominated district or appellate court judges will be approved. No gun control laws will ever pass. No immigration reform will ever be voted on. No extension of Obamacare, let alone single payer will ever see a vote.

With the House and Senate, Democrats can investigate and actually impeach the orange buffoon. We can put sanctions back on Russia.

Without the Senate and the House, nothing meaningful can be done by the most dedicated of Democratic presidents. I am on record as supporting Warren, but if her seat was in play, it would be the height of narcissism to give it up so that she could get to be a figurehead president. I feel that way about any of the Senators running for president. And a dozen of our best chances for winning the Senate or Statehouses are chasing that dream. A little sacrifice is called for.

Then what? Mike Pence magically nominates acceptable judges? I don’t see how the Supreme Court is the decisive factor in this theoretical exercise.

It is only one of the many reasons capturing the Senate is so important. If trump is impeachable, the pence is likewise guilty. I believe President Pelosi will nominate very good candidates for judgeships.

Take Moscow Mitch’s toys away! (Or was that Mass Murder Mitch?)

"Mass Murder Moscow Mitch.

and it's treated them well, perhaps* it's time to give back.

*"Perhaps" is to mild a word. I was trying to be nice. I don't want to go on a rant about how someone who just "doesn't want to be a senator" for what ever reason, lifestyle inconvienience, loss of status, to much work is selling us out. I don't wan't to lecture them on how much they need to put the good of the country ahead of themselves for a while. And I definatly don't want to call them selfish or greedy. And I'm not looking at you, Steve Bullock.

believing only they have the answers.

I can see why, beyond just ego, a decent person wouldn't want any part of that.

every day. Immigrants mow lawns and pick fruit when it's 110 degrees outside. Teachers and nurses and doctors pass up cushier positions to work in neighborhoods that desperately need teachers and nurses and doctors. Firefighters and other first responders put themselves in harm's way every single time they clock in.

So while I appreciate it's their choice and I would never wish something on another human being that would make them truly miserable... when I read some of these articles where multiple (awesome!) senate candidates have said "I just have more of an executive mind" or whatever justification pales in the face of women being stripped of their rights, kindergartners returning to school over the next few weeks to active shooter drills in their classrooms, and our country descending further into a cruel, intolerant place... I'm hoping we're going to start seeing some heroes step up.

I also worry a big piece of it is too many potentially great candidates believe they will be picked for vice president.

And the Senate, frankly, should be abolished. Just as the late John Dingell argued.

Whoops...you probably didn’t mean that about YOUR candidate.

Warren's seat will come up for a special election shoertly after she is sworn in so the Dems won't lose it.

So they have different rules for this kind of thing. Again, there will be special election for her seat should she win. Facts can be your friend if you accept them.

Scott Brown.

I have picked Warren because I think she would be the best of the candidate to be president. If her winning the presidency at the expense of the Senate is the question, she should reconsider. This year is a bad time for Democratic senators to run for president. I'm not wed to any candidate; I just think Senator Warren is the best Democrat for he job.

One of the problems with two dozen candidates is that it breeds little pockets of pique and resentment for other wonderful Democrats. I see people on this forum attacking really good Democrats just in the name of another Democrat. That is counterproductive.

This is not 1980. Or 2008. Or even 2016. We have a mad man soviet agent in the White House. All hands on deck.

total nonsense

Find a president who ran a second time after 8 years of his party's administration. I've tried, but I'm too tired to look it up. There may be one, but we have 20 that would have to try.

Not nonsense. History and numbers.

As for "your" candidate. He would be in a stronger position 8 years from now to have served as a Senator. I spent lot of money and time campaigning for Beto in the last election. I think he could turn Texas blue and get rid of a truly nasty Texas roadie. cornyn is not as disliked as cruz, but he does a lot more damage.

instead of advising what other candidates should do

instead of telling other DUers what they should think and do.

Quite rude.

Pointless and off the subject as it was, you got it.

Neither O'Rourke nor Castro would be likely to win against Cornyn.

Bullock and Hickenlooper, though, should definitely run for Senate.