Republican Senate takeover = good for Hillary?

[Mehmentum]

2016 is a good year for the Dems to retake it back considering all the 2010 seats up for re-election.

True, true, but keep in mind that if Hillary has bad midterms like 2010, 2018 could see all of it undone and the GOP back in control. That really depends on how many seats flip in 2014 and 2016.


The trick for the GOP leadership from 2015 - 2017 is to
1.) block Obama's agenda and implement their own by putting through low-hanging fruit that Obama will cave to (ACA modifications, tax reform, Keystone XL, veteran's bill, etc.)
2.) control their Tea Party members (sacrifice the Ex-Im Bank, investigate a lot, beat up the EPA & Common Core)
3.) Give their 2016 candidate ammo ("Obama didn't want to compromise with us about stuff everyone supports!)" while not damaging them with embarrassing shenanigans (shutdowns, defaults, etc.)

Difficult, but not entirely impossible.

Considering what happened in the past two years, I'm skeptical that the GOP can control itself to that point.   If they can, I'd be happy.  The last thing anybody needs is another government shutdown.

[Mehmentum]

2016 is a good year for the Dems to retake it back considering all the 2010 seats up for re-election.

True, true, but keep in mind that if Hillary has bad midterms like 2010, 2018 could see all of it undone and the GOP back in control. That really depends on how many seats flip in 2014 and 2016.


The trick for the GOP leadership from 2015 - 2017 is to
1.) block Obama's agenda and implement their own by putting through low-hanging fruit that Obama will cave to (ACA modifications, tax reform, Keystone XL, veteran's bill, etc.)
2.) control their Tea Party members (sacrifice the Ex-Im Bank, investigate a lot, beat up the EPA & Common Core)
3.) Give their 2016 candidate ammo ("Obama didn't want to compromise with us about stuff everyone supports!)" while not damaging them with embarrassing shenanigans (shutdowns, defaults, etc.)

Difficult, but not entirely impossible.

Someone seems to have forgotten that the filibuster is still in place when it comes to legislation.

McConnell could easily do away with it if he wanted. However, that won't be necessary just yet, because there are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who want to be seen as moderate and centrist and are happy to vote with the GOP if Obama (who wants to still be seen as bipartisan) seems likely to sign something Congress passed.

Plenty of blue dogs? If the GOP takes the Senate, more likely than not Manchin and Donnelly will be the only ones left.

I don't think McConnell will eliminate the filibuster.  He probably knows that there is a chance that Hillary wins massively in 2016, with her coattails putting the House and Senate back in Democratic control, if only for 2 years.

So the question is this:  Are two years of getting vetoed by president Obama worth the risk of having 2 years of an unchecked Democratic control of the government?

[Mehmentum]

The Republicans also have a few members who'd restrict how conservative the bills they pass can be.  Orman (if he caucuses with them), Collins, and Murkowski come to mind.

[Mehmentum]

2016 is a good year for the Dems to retake it back considering all the 2010 seats up for re-election.

True, true, but keep in mind that if Hillary has bad midterms like 2010, 2018 could see all of it undone and the GOP back in control. That really depends on how many seats flip in 2014 and 2016.


The trick for the GOP leadership from 2015 - 2017 is to
1.) block Obama's agenda and implement their own by putting through low-hanging fruit that Obama will cave to (ACA modifications, tax reform, Keystone XL, veteran's bill, etc.)
2.) control their Tea Party members (sacrifice the Ex-Im Bank, investigate a lot, beat up the EPA & Common Core)
3.) Give their 2016 candidate ammo ("Obama didn't want to compromise with us about stuff everyone supports!)" while not damaging them with embarrassing shenanigans (shutdowns, defaults, etc.)

Difficult, but not entirely impossible.

Someone seems to have forgotten that the filibuster is still in place when it comes to legislation.

McConnell could easily do away with it if he wanted. However, that won't be necessary just yet, because there are plenty of Blue Dog Democrats who want to be seen as moderate and centrist and are happy to vote with the GOP if Obama (who wants to still be seen as bipartisan) seems likely to sign something Congress passed.

Plenty of blue dogs? If the GOP takes the Senate, more likely than not Manchin and Donnelly will be the only ones left.

And Heitkamp. But yeah, your point is still valid. With Pryor, Landrieu, Johnson, Baucus and Begich gone there won't be many Democrats left willing to play along with McConnell.

They don't even have to be member of the Blue Dog Coalition. If Obama signals he's willing to sign something in the name of compromise and bipartisanship (some on the left refer to this trait as "spinelessness"), the Democrats have good enough party discipline and unity that many will go along because Obama will.

I'm sure plenty of Democrats would agree to tax reform, a veteran's bill, ACA modifications, some deregulation efforts, and maybe even Keystone XL. The Democrats still are a big tent party and tolerate varied views more than the GOP does. And the Congressional Democrats as a whole aren't as mean-spirited as the Congressional GOP has been.

If the Democrats are smart, they'll agree to some of these only if they get something they want in return (probably wouldn't be smart to do this with the veteran's bill).  If the Republicans don't cooperate, then Democrats can just accuse them of not being willing to compromise.