What if... Democrats retake the House & get to 60+ in the Senate this November?

[Blue3]

Highly unlikely,  but let's say everyone is surprised by Democratic turnout, and they not only keep the Senate but get to over 60 Senate seats, and retake the House by 10-20 seats.

How unlikely that is, is NOT the purpose of the thread.

I'm wondering, if that happened, what would the Democrats do? What would they accomplish in 2015 & 2016?

[Mister Mets]

Both sides would be shocked, so there might be some initial confusion. One issue for Democrats is that they wouldn't be prepared for this contingency.

You'd be unlikely to have the problems with party-line voting in 2009 and 2010, as the size of the Democratic victory would suggest that the voters are on their side, given all the Democrats that will have won in Romney sides.

The earliest votes would likely deal with protections of previously enacted policies. I'd imagine that the debt limit would get torched. There might be some national Voter Rights laws.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Highly unlikely,  but let's say everyone is surprised by Democratic turnout, and they not only keep the Senate but get to over 60 Senate seats, and retake the House by 10-20 seats.

How unlikely that is, is NOT the purpose of the thread.

I'm wondering, if that happened, what would the Democrats do? What would they accomplish in 2015 & 2016?

At the very least, we'd get a minimum wage raise and immigration reform. And a government actually running smoothly for 2 years.

[Franzl]

Highly unlikely,  but let's say everyone is surprised by Democratic turnout, and they not only keep the Senate but get to over 60 Senate seats, and retake the House by 10-20 seats.

How unlikely that is, is NOT the purpose of the thread.

I'm wondering, if that happened, what would the Democrats do? What would they accomplish in 2015 & 2016?

At the very least, we'd get a minimum wage raise and immigration reform. And a government actually running smoothly for 2 years.

What makes you think that? It wasn't exactly smooth last time, even though they did get a good deal done.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Highly unlikely,  but let's say everyone is surprised by Democratic turnout, and they not only keep the Senate but get to over 60 Senate seats, and retake the House by 10-20 seats.

How unlikely that is, is NOT the purpose of the thread.

I'm wondering, if that happened, what would the Democrats do? What would they accomplish in 2015 & 2016?

At the very least, we'd get a minimum wage raise and immigration reform. And a government actually running smoothly for 2 years.

What makes you think that? It wasn't exactly smooth last time, even though they did get a good deal done.

The thing is, you don't get much done with presidential election just two years away.

[SWE]

The Republican party would probably end up disbanding

[Flake]

I'm guessing it would end up like this with the three independents caucusing with the Democrats.

[Vega]

In order to get to 60 seats in the Senate, there would have to be quite a few Blue Dogs, which might be problematic.

[Blue3]

At the very least, we'd get a minimum wage raise and immigration reform. And a government actually running smoothly for 2 years.

The earliest votes would likely deal with protections of previously enacted policies. I'd imagine that the debt limit would get torched. There might be some national Voter Rights laws.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Along with passing ENDA.


What would be done on infrastructure, taxes, and entitlements? Or civil liberties? Or drug policy? Or foreign policy? Or government reform?

[King]

I'd suspect voter fraud.

[Person Man]

There could be things with immigration, environment, minimum wage and maybe card check?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd suspect voter fraud.

[KCDem]

Not happening #muhRepublicanwave

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm guessing it would end up like this with the three independents caucusing with the Democrats.

Senator Curtis, Tennant, and Alameel would all be hilarious.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'm pretty sure Senator Childers is likelier than Senator Alameel.

[Vega]

Senator Curtis would be a pipe dream for progressives, except it wouldn't be a dream.

[eric82oslo]

Highly unlikely,  but let's say everyone is surprised by Democratic turnout, and they not only keep the Senate but get to over 60 Senate seats, and retake the House by 10-20 seats.

How unlikely that is, is NOT the purpose of the thread.

I'm wondering, if that happened, what would the Democrats do? What would they accomplish in 2015 & 2016?

At the very least, we'd get a minimum wage raise and immigration reform. And a government actually running smoothly for 2 years.

Exactly my thoughts. These would be the two main issues handled.

[7,052,770]

Senator Tennant would probably switch to the Republicans to deny Democrats 60. She already disagrees with Obama on every issue.

[Bacon King]

Senator Tennant would probably switch to the Republicans to deny Democrats 60. She already disagrees with Obama on every issue.

Honestly this is probably the scenario where she (or any other conservative democrats) would be least likely to switch parties. She would automatically get a ton of leverage and influence on policy by virtue of being the least reliable vote that a Democratic proposal would need in order to pass.

On an unrelated note, the Democratic House Caucus would be fine in this scenario even with a lot of new members from conservative districts. Pelosi is the Wizard of the Whip, possessing a superhuman ability for coordinating the votes of Blue Dogs in order to pass progressive legislation

[DrScholl]

The minimum wage would clearly be the issue they could get the most done on, since it probably would be something the caucus would universally vote yes on.

It won't happen, but if it did, it would be hilarious to see Republicans explode.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I can see Dems netting 9 house seats and having 53 senate votes. Very easily. Realistically, 2016 was their goal, holding our own in House and Senate, and adding gov seats.  So we have netwok im 2016 to retake House.