So where do we go from here?

[Savannahmann]

We have two basic choices. 1) Obstruction. 2) Cooperation and seeking to accomplish something.

If we go with option one, the Republicans will go nuclear and change the rules on ending filibusters. That doesn't help us at all. Already, the Republicans inherit the simple majority rule on bringing nominee's to the floor, unless we want to change that back before Harry Reid steps down as Majority leader.

Cooperation, I don't mean giving into the Republicans and just surrendering. I mean compromise and willingness to find common ground. The voters rejected by a fairly significant margin the argument that the Republicans were to blame for everything. If we go with Obstruction now, then we're the ones who look like it's all our fault.

The truth about Congress over the last four years is this. Harry Reid passes legislation in the Senate, and John Boehner dumps it into the garbage can in the House. The House passes legislation and sends it to the Senate. Harry Reid uses it to line the bottom of a bird cage.

Neither side was talking, now, there is going to be legislative action. We can work to mitigate the damage that the Republicans do, in other words pull a Clinton, taking credit for the things we accomplish, or we can petulantly stand with our arms folded and be viewed as children. If the Republicans do away with the Filibuster rule, we could phone it in for the next two years, we'll be viewed as irrelevant.

We have to start working towards 2016, and part of that is showing the American People that Democrats to care about them, and do want to address the problems. We want to look at and work on the problem of 92 million people who are unemployed, and uncounted. We need to be seen doing so. Stop the hype about the best economic recovery ever. It's impossible to have that with nearly a third of our population not in the job market. It's not possible to be a great economic recovery when average household income has barely ticked up and kept up with Cost of living during that same period.

We can push for immigration reform, it can't be ignored much longer. But we also have to discuss border security, that's obvious. The big wins by the Republicans proves that security can't be ignored. The people won't tolerate it.

The biggest thing is this. Representing our constituents. We have learned an important lesson, again. The consent of the governed gave us the job to represent them. If we ignore them, they will give the job to someone else. When we are elected, we have to wake up every day and bust our asses to serve the needs of the people. Taking them for granted causes discontent. Enough Discontent and we lose the election.

[Katashi_itto]

1. Downhill fast.

[n2doc]

2. Democrats might start by stating what they are for

Rather than hiding from their principles. I think the base is more articulate than its leadership.

But it might not make any difference. The Oligarchy has shown that spending billions on propaganda works. They don't even need to bother with telling the truth, outright lies are just fine and seem to work better. People probably won't even notice as their retirement and healthcare are taken away.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. Didn't seem to matter to Arkansas voters for sure

Cotton lied about ISIS and basically said he was going to keep right on lying and voters gave him Pryor's US Senate seat.

[marions ghost]

7. "outright lies are just fine and seem to work better"

Lying won. Oligarchy won.

What do we do with that?

[el_bryanto]

3. It depends on how draconian the border security proposals are

It also depends on whether or not you think that Republicanoids will be fair bargainers. My sense is that they won't be - in other words they will pretend to compromise until they get enough blue dogs, then strip out democratic proposals and take a vote - on the assumpition that the blue-dogs have bought into the process at that point.

Bryant

[B Calm]

5. Act like the republicans have been great

teachers and obstruct!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

6. I don't see a lot of areas for common ground with this bunch

It's just the amount that we will get screwed by the GOP that remains to be seen. I expect that Obama will vigorously defend ACA and Dodd-Frank unless there are a few bipartisan fixes to make. I just can't see any other real room for discussion other than, maybe, immigration reform, which will probably end up being worse than the already lacklustre proposal approved by the Senate. Everybody is concerned about Keystone XL, which may yet get approved even though its benefits have been wildly overstated. I would just be prepared to have to deal with some budget cuts in terms of social spending and stand offs. I'm sure Obama and the Dems will try to mitigate them but the Republicans will, in the end, win some more cuts. I hope that the Dems obstruct more than not. If the public rejects what the Republicans try to enact, they will support PBO's vetoes.

[Savannahmann]

9. President Obama approval rating is too low to try the across the board obstruction.

Democrats will go into 2016 playing the prevent defense. The Republicans will be talking about how their initiatives would have worked if we had done them. Hillary (or whoever the nominee ends up being) will be playing an uphill battle. We lost not only the Senate, but more seats in the House. My own Rep got voted out of office by a wide margin.

We have to start addressing the problems the people see. We have to start doing that, or we are going to find ourselves in the minority with the Republicans holding both Congress, and the Presidency.

Look at the exit polls. Take Florida for example. Look at the exit polls, we didn't do astonishingly well in any demographic. 12% of African Americans voted for Scott. We barely got a plurality of women voters, but we didn't get the majority. 12% of self described liberals voted for Scott.

Now, look forward to 2016 question on down the page. More people are saying they'll vote for the Republican Candidate than Hillary. 29% are unsure. Those are the people we need to reach. Those are the people who don't care what letter follows a name, they want results. They want jobs, and they want good jobs. They want to see the Government working for them, and taking action to protect them from what they are powerless to prevent.

The race for 2016 has started. We can start marching towards that goal as a unified party. We can learn from our defeat, and we can start working for the people and show them that we are responsive to their wants and needs. Or we can play the obstruction game, and watch the Republicans win again.

The public wants the Republicans to take action, and the Republicans will do so. If Obama goes all veto all the time, then the Democratic Party label is damaged for 2016. That would be akin to ramming the iceberg with the Titanic, backing up, and ramming it again. The people want something done, and if the Republicans are seen as trying and the Democrats continue to be seen as obstructing, we're doomed. The argument that the Republicans in the House were the problem didn't resonate last night, what makes you think that the argument will work any better tomorrow, or the day after, or next year?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. What do you think PBO and the Dems should accept?

If they want to propose some solid policy ideals and try to meet PBO and Dems halfway, then that's one thing. I have the feeling, however, that Republicans are going to spend most of the next two years harassing PBO and trying to undo a lot of what he has already done. If that is the case, then I WANT him to obstruct the Republicans on that and then, I guess, the people will get to decide in 2016 if he made the right moves. I wouldn't get hung up on opinion polls about 2016 quite yet, especially since a majority of the voters were Republican (and most of them part of their teabagger base at that).

[sabrina 1]

13. Why did Republicans win? Because they refuse to compromise. THAT is what Dems SHOULD

have done on the issues they were elected to fight for. Instead, and here it is again, we are told that 'if we don't compromise Repubs will paint us as obstructionists'. So, on issue after issue, Dems 'compromise', handing Repubs wins and angering THEIR OWN BASE.

Now, you're telling us to repeat that same failed strategy??

Exactly what we were told after 2010. The polls showed what the people cared about. Dems bailed out the Corrupt Banks and left Main St to fend for itself. Maybe they didn't realize how MANY Americans lost their jobs and their homes because of those corrupt bankers.

What we need is a party that FIGHTS for what it believes in. The question is, what DOES the Dem Party believe in anymore?

Dems will have to be obstructionists now just as the Repubs were. Stop worrying about what the Repubs are going to say and stand up for what is right.

I cannot imagine why you are advocating caving to them AGAIN. That is why we lost.

[Bettie]

8. So, just let them pass what they want to

and hope that some of it isn't destructive, in order to look like our side is 'helping'?

No matter what happens, our side gets blamed.

It doesn't matter anymore. We the people are now owned by Koch industries.

The US government isn't for sale anymore, it's been bought.

[Savannahmann]

10. We have some leverage in the Senate

We have some leverage in the Veto. But we don't have unlimited leverage. We can moderate the Republican moves, but we can't stop them from reaching President Obama's desk. If we overuse the Filibuster, they'll dump it and go for straight majority. They'll give us straight down votes on the nominees. What will we complain about then? Obstruction for the sake of hating the Republicans and hoping to show how outrageous they are wins us little and potentially costs us dearly. It wins us points with the base, but we have the base. We need the more moderate voters, the ones who vote for candidates, and issues, and not petty partisan bickering.

[HereSince1628]

12. If the US Senate follows the pattern of behavior shown in WI

'some leverage' will be of little value without an active filibuster team.

The R's won't be into compromising, at least not in the next year.

Expect some Dems, especially those coming up in 2016 in purple states, to try triangulation toward the right.

[Bettie]

14. It gets tiring

Our side always has to play 'fair' and yet, if even one thing they shove through doesn't get signed or if there is a single filibuster, we'll forever be called "The Party of Obstruction".

Overuse of the filibuster for non-republicans is once.

I get sick to death of Dems rolling over and playing dead.

But, there isn't a point in fighting anymore, is there?

All we can do is watch as they tear apart the social safety net and everything else.

We're now a corporate holding, not a country.

Oh, and then we'll be expected to say "Thank you sir. May I have another?".

Moderates will vote for the real Republican rather than the Democrat who sounds like one.

[Savannahmann]

16. How many times did President Clinton veto Welfare reform before he signed it?

I think it was three, but I could be wrong. Each time he told the Republicans what he would be willing to accept, and in the end, he accepted a bit more, and got huge credit and a re-election from the voters for his popular reform of the system.

Imagine legislation like haggling for a price. You're willing to pay one amount, the seller is asking another. You haggle, and you end up somewhere in the middle generally speaking. You pay a little more than you had wanted to, but not as much as he wanted you to.

That's what I'm talking about. If President Obama comes out and says he's willing to discuss the medical device tax part of the ACA, then we watch the negotiations. We don't agree to the mandate, or whatever is unacceptable, but we do agree to some small changes. They're going to pass bills changing it, and we're going to accept some, so start out willing to talk, to negotiate.

If we stomp our foot and loudly pronounce no. We're doomed in 2016 anyway. Politics is the art of the possible. What you want may be wonderful, but you're going to get something that isn't as bad as it could be most of the time. Start looking at populist issues, and trying to get some work done on them. Reign in the NSA, who doesn't think that is needed? Reduce the type of equipment that the police can get from the military. Nobody thinks the cops really need machine guns and tanks.

People vote for self interests. If they have a job, they want to keep it. If they have a job, they want a better one. They want security, they want safety. If you ignore those issues, you ignore the concerns of the voters. If you threaten to exacerbate their trouble, they will not vote for you.

If you are going to cut the use of coal, you have to address the people who's jobs and economic reality is tied to coal. You can't just shrug and say it's for the best. You have to come up with the carrot to go with the stick. Yes, we're going to move away from coal, but I'm pushing an economic package to get some manufacturing jobs into the region. This coupled with Federally funded job training will mean that people in the Coal regions will have better, safer jobs, while the nation moves away from coal as an energy source. In other words, make the package beneficial to those who would otherwise suffer, and they'll support you.

If all you do is threaten to take away what little they have, they will vote against you every time. That explains West Virginia don't you think? Senator's Byrd and Rockefeller always worked to protect the status quo as far as economic issues went in the state.

Carrot and stick, not just the stick. That is what I'm talking about. Negotiation, and recognition of the problems the people of this nation, the voters of this nation, endure.

[Bettie]

17. You are assuming two things

1. That the other side has any intention at all of negotiating. They don't.

2. That the president will not just sign what they put in front of him. More likely, he'll roll over and hope that they'll finally like him.

[Chathamization]

15. The filibuster hurts Democrats much more than it hurts Republicans. Overall we're probably better

off without it. When Republicans are in the minority, they'll block every single thing. When Democrats are in the minority, they might occasionally block something and then get called obstructionist in the media. It's going to be hard to get 60 Democratic senators again, and it'll be even harder to get them all lined up. Without the filibuster, we have a much better shot at getting things done when we do regain power, and don't lose too much when we're out of power.

[bullwinkle428]

18. So what is your "dream legislation" that the Dems should compromise on?

Keystone XL? The TPP? Corporate tax reform? Elimination of the EPA? Dismantling of the ACA?

I'm sure you have some specific ideas, so have the courage of your convictions to run some things up the flagpole!

[Algernon Moncrieff]

19. They get the first move, so it depends

Right now, there are two theories:

Theory "A" - They claim a mandate to move as far to the right as possible. The new congress essentially dismantles most of the social safety net and lets Obama veto it.

Theory "B" - They reign in the Joni Ernst/Ted Cruz wing of the party, and govern Center-Right. They forge some compromise on some key issues to show that they can get things done and that they can, indeed, work with the President. This strategy will be less satisfying to hard-core conservatives, but puts them in a better position to win the White House.

I think we start by agreeing what issues are out there on which there may be some room for discussion and compromise (i.e. corporate tax policy) and where we have to stand fast as a matter of principle (i.e. health care for all).

Truth be told, I hope they do get rid of the filibuster. Part of what hobbled this administration is that a President whose party controls both houses of Congress can't effectively govern.