Current Events > So what can the Senate do now with 54+ seats that it couldn't do with 51

(+) Yeah! (+)

Obviously they'd be more immune to losing votes but is there anything they'd introduce now that they wouldn't have wanted to before?
---

They have a nice, cushy margin for stacking the judiciary with chuds.

house is much easier to flip than the senate

gaining seats is a HUGE loss
---

Not relevant to my question
---

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump
---

I think the main thing is that Susan Collins just lost a lot of power.
---

They have enough leeway that we're probably done having the "which GOP senators might vote against the bill" discussions that we were having before, but with the House under Dem control, it won't matter all that much.
---

Anteaterking posted...

I think the main thing is that Susan Collins just lost a lot of power.

And what's-her-face in Alaska?
---

Disrespector posted...

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump

To me it sounds like the Senate is the real story. Those are statewide elections and Republicans gained ground. That means an overall acceptance of Trump.

The House elections are in small gerrymandered districts. The Senate is a lot more representative of the general population.

TheKentster posted...

Disrespector posted...

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump

To me it sounds like the Senate is the real story. Those are statewide elections and Republicans gained ground. That means an overall acceptance of Trump.

The House elections are in small gerrymandered districts. The Senate is a lot more representative of the general population.

The Democrats just had the second biggest popular vote margin in our lifetimes

But you do you
---

The only real problem is it'll be harder to win back later. But getting back the house is good enough for now.
---

Rhode Island has the same number of senators as California does. Yep totally representative of the general population.

TheKentster posted...

Disrespector posted...

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump

To me it sounds like the Senate is the real story. Those are statewide elections and Republicans gained ground. That means an overall acceptance of Trump.

The House elections are in small gerrymandered districts. The Senate is a lot more representative of the general population.

You realize most of those "small gerrymandered districts" are gerrymandered FOR Republicans. And they STILL lost.
---

Mr_Biscuit posted...

TheKentster posted...

Disrespector posted...

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump

To me it sounds like the Senate is the real story. Those are statewide elections and Republicans gained ground. That means an overall acceptance of Trump.

The House elections are in small gerrymandered districts. The Senate is a lot more representative of the general population.

The Democrats just had the second biggest popular vote margin in our lifetimes

But you do you

I saw that. There's like a seven million person difference in democrat's favor, in a mid-term election. And they're losing seats? That's crazy.
---

(R) gain 3 seats

BLUE WAVE

Disrespector posted...

Literally nothing lmao. Don't listen to trumpanzees saying tonight was a win for trump

but i thought it was going to signal the blue wave where we complete eradicate trump?
---

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.
---

2020 will be the real blue wave. The Senate map was in the Republican's favor, but that will not be the case in 2020.
---

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.
---

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.
---

DarkRoast posted...

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.

dems won in WI, PA, and MI, three of the seven most consequential elections from a long-term gerrymandering perspective

and in CO, ND, and MI, anti-gerrymandering state constitution amendments passed that pretty much end the significance of state legislature control on national election influence

FL and OH are very relevant losses, esp FL.
---

PiOverlord posted...

2020 will be the real blue wave. The Senate map was in the Republican's favor, but that will not be the case in 2020.

2022*

The Repub Senate map in 2020 isnt bad.

hollow_shrine posted...

I saw that. There's like a seven million person difference in democrat's favor, in a mid-term election. And they're losing seats? That's crazy.

12 million as of this morning
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!

The next two years are going to be a gigantic political headache.

My god.
---

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

They also lose compete control over the SCOTUS nomination process. Last I checked, that was the cornerstone of this whole rebuke.
---

DarkRoast posted...

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.

Coffeebeanz is still gaslighting.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

I saw that. There's like a seven million person difference in democrat's favor, in a mid-term election. And they're losing seats? That's crazy.

12 million as of this morning

tbh, the entire florida election, across the board, is suspect

but everywhere else, yeah, it's just unfortunate for dems because high turnout in PG county, MD and SF county, CA doesnt help

my house rep won 77.9% to 20.2%. my vote is not useful for anything except ballot initiatives.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

DarkRoast posted...

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.

Coffeebeanz is still gaslighting.

Excuse me for wanting to get the GOP out of government and not just "emotional victories"
---

DarkRoast posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

They also lose compete control over the SCOTUS nomination process. Last I checked, that was the cornerstone of this whole rebuke.

The Kavanaugh process showed that they controlled of the judicial at 51 no matter how toxic the nominee. Nothing changes with 54.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Excuse me for wanting to get the GOP out of government and not just "emotional victories"

youre not wrong that things went poorly for dems in places they should have gone well

OH gub, FL gub/senate both are trainwrecks

the problem is urbanization. most of our population lives in the top 10 states by pop now

so most senate elections have nothing to do with what america as a whole wants, and even un-gerrymandered states tend to have really noncompetitive house districts

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

The Kavanaugh process showed that they controlled of the judicial at 51 no matter how toxic the nominee. Nothing changes with 54.

what changes is speed of lower court appointment, because there's no fear of collins blocking some nut
---

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

They also lose compete control over the SCOTUS nomination process. Last I checked, that was the cornerstone of this whole rebuke.

The Kavanaugh process showed that they controlled of the judicial at 51 no matter how toxic the nominee. Nothing changes with 54.

At 54, Kavanaugh never would've been investigated.
---

DarkRoast posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

DarkRoast posted...

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.

Coffeebeanz is still gaslighting.

Excuse me for wanting to get the GOP out of government and not just "emotional victories"

Dems did better than expected for governors. The biggest disappointment was Abrams because of a crushing amount of voter suppression.
---

Darkman124 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Excuse me for wanting to get the GOP out of government and not just "emotional victories"

youre not wrong that things went poorly for dems in places they should have gone well

OH gub, FL gub/senate both are trainwrecks

the problem is urbanization. most of our population lives in the top 10 states by pop now

so most senate elections have nothing to do with what america as a whole wants, and even un-gerrymandered states tend to have really noncompetitive house districts

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

The Kavanaugh process showed that they controlled of the judicial at 51 no matter how toxic the nominee. Nothing changes with 54.

what changes is speed of lower court appointment, because there's no fear of collins blocking some nut

Seriously though
Fuck gerrymandering
---

Wait, DarkRoast is Coffee beans?

ignore
---

suck trumps dick even harder.
---

PiOverlord posted...

2020 will be the real blue wave. The Senate map was in the Republican's favor, but that will not be the case in 2020.

The senate itself favors Republicans right now, because all the shitty little red states get equal power to states where people actually live.
---

DarkRoast posted...

NinjaWarrior455 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

They also lose compete control over the SCOTUS nomination process. Last I checked, that was the cornerstone of this whole rebuke.

The Kavanaugh process showed that they controlled of the judicial at 51 no matter how toxic the nominee. Nothing changes with 54.

At 54, Kavanaugh never would've been investigated.

And the investigation was meaningless.
---

The senate map was heavily against Democrats this year (something like 26 Blue Seats were up for grabs). I am not surprised the Republicans gained seats in the Senate.
---

fire_bolt posted...

Wait, DarkRoast is Coffee beans?

ignore

yes. came back for the good of CE after being chased off.
---

iClockwork posted...

(R) gain 3 seats

BLUE WAVE

Democrats were never winning the Senate, so to think that's indicative of the "blue wave" is silly.
---

I don't know, Republicans gotta defend a lot of seats in 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2020
---

PiOverlord posted...

I don't know, Republicans gotta defend a lot of seats in 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2020

depends what either side does to impact our country because they'll remember in 2020.
---

PiOverlord posted...

I don't know, Republicans gotta defend a lot of seats in 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2020

Yeah but theyre red states.

Dems swap Alabama for Maine maybe and pick up one or two but dont take majority.

DarkRoast posted...

Seriously though
f*** gerrymandering

ps glad to see youre back
---

DarkRoast posted...

I'm just wondering how losing nearly every governor race and losing several Senate seats can, in any way, be considered a successful night for Democrats. If that's their definition of a successful night, no wonder they're so inept at getting elected.

Dems have flipped the most governorships in a long time... wtf are you talking about

Anyways it means that bipartisan defections are much less likely to happen.

Yes the math is worse for the Dems later but keep in mind the pickups they originally had in red states were really good back in the day because they were such hard seats for them to hold onto. This was going to happen sooner or later, and was the main reason why the map was so bad.
---

the obvious answer is staff a full size roster NFL team
---

Well Pence won't be the deciding vote as often. That is the big change.
---

Tel_Fry_733T posted...

PiOverlord posted...

I don't know, Republicans gotta defend a lot of seats in 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2020

Yeah but theyre red states.

Dems swap Alabama for Maine maybe and pick up one or two but dont take majority.

That's the point about this election. The Dems won heavily gerrymandered red districts for the house. The odds are going to look much nicer when 2020 rolls around. Red seats are threatened.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

The odds are going to look much nicer when 2020 rolls around. Red seats are threatened.

also, more significantly, many states that were gerrymandered in this election won't be in the next
---

frozenshock posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

DarkRoast posted...

The Senate votes as a singular block much more consistently than the House. A slim majority in the House is nowhere near as politically advantageous as a majority, especially a large one, in the Senate.

I'm actually kind of amazed there are Democrats who are happy with yesterday's outcome. Losing more Senate seats is a huge problem, especially when it comes to nominating extreme judges.

You do realize control of the house means

1. No new laws will be passed by Trump

2. Democrats gain total control of all committe chairs, which means they have subpoena power and full control of all investigations.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

If the Democrats think they are going to waste Taxpayer Money investigating us at the House level, then we will likewise be forced to consider investigating them for all of the leaks of Classified Information, and much else, at the Senate level. Two can play that game!

The next two years are going to be a gigantic political headache.

My god.

jfc the President is trying to threaten other members of the Government
---