Progressives: Would Arkansas be better off if Mark Pryor had won re-election?

[/]

Yaaaah

[Xing]

Just about anyone on the planet would be better than the evil piece of scum known as Tom Cotton.

[Figueira]

Arkansas is part of the United States, so yeah.

[Kingpoleon]

The 2016 election is gonna be a referendum on Senate anyways. Begich, Nunn, Hagen & Udall shoud have won. But, so far 2014 class as a whole hasnt lived up to expectations.

. . . Are you suggesting vast voter fraud?

[pbrower2a]

The 2016 election is gonna be a referendum on Senate anyways. Begich, Nunn, Hagen & Udall shoud have won. But, so far 2014 class as a whole hasnt lived up to expectations.

The Koch syndicate bought the election fair and square.

Don't like the results? Boycott their products!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The 2016 election is gonna be a referendum on Senate anyways. Begich, Nunn, Hagen & Udall shoud have won. But, so far 2014 class as a whole hasnt lived up to expectations.

. . . Are you suggesting vast voter fraud?

No, the college age students who were supposed to turn out, unlike in 2010, didnt turnout again giving GOP the senate. But, the senate was in GOP leaning states, AK, MT, SD& WVa.

The GOP will have a harder time in 2018, due to the fact that there are term limited GOP govs and Joe Donnelly seems to be the most endangered Dem. Tester & McCaskill & Manchin have been in tough races before. HEIKAMP is a political newcomer.

[VPH]

Hell yes Pryor would be better than Cotton

[Rockefeller GOP]

The fewer Southern Democratic populists around, the better.  Not that their replacements are great either.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Yes, in the way that failing a test with a 59% is better than failing with a 20%

[RFayette]

I'm a little conflicted.  On one hand, I wish the Democrats still had more socially-conservative Evangelicals, but on the other hand, I prefer GOP control of the Senate.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Progressives,
Do we feel the same way about Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson? I feel some anger over the fact that those two alone were responsible for watering down the Affordable Care Act, degrading it from what could have been a single-payer system down to a private system with individual mandates?

Single payer would NEVER pass House. Never! Even in 2009. Even "degraded" ACA did pass extremely narrowly (something like 219 - 212), and ONLY after heaviest arm-twisting on part of Pelosi and Obama's Administration. And 2 Republican waves of 2010 and 2014 are, mainly, it's result..

Single-payer would not have passed the Senate, either. Nelson was an extremely reluctant vote as it was (and rightfully so, as it ended his career), and Lieberman wouldn't have supported it, either. Without them, you'd need two Republicans, and there's no way a Republican would have voted for single-payer. I also wonder just how far left some of the southern and western Democrats like Blanche Lincoln would have let the bill go before they would have been out as well. I doubt many of them would ultimately have supported single payer, either. It's possible that single-payer may not have even gotten 50 votes in the Senate, let alone the 60 required to end debate.

Even Hillary Clinton opposed single-payer in her 2008 campaign if I remember correctly.

[Bojack Horseman]

Yes, considering how much his successor is obssessed with starting another damn war.

That's what I said. It's really sad to see the state that gave us Bill Clinton would elect a terrorist to the Senate just over two decades later.