If Democrats had held onto the Senate, would it have made a difference?

[ProSense]

If Grimes, Hagan, Udall, Landrieu, Pryor, Braley and Tennant had won, would Obama's agenda have been different from what you now expect?

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, he would have been more progressive
	0 (0%)
	Yes, but it would have made little difference
	1 (50%)
	No, it would still be more gridlock
	1 (50%)
	No, he would have pursue the same agenda as before
	0 (0%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Rowdyboy]

1. Keep senate control-then you can keep confirming federal judges. Lose senate control and lose that

ability. Of course it would have made a difference.

[hfojvt]

2. Why just hold on to the Senate?

Unless we can re-take the House, holding onto the Senate is only a delaying action.

[Lurks Often]

3. Losing the Senate means there will be NO progressive or liberal replacement judge

if one of the current judges dies or chooses to retire.

It means no treaty has a chance of being approved without the majority of Republicans being approved.

It means if the Republicans don't like any of the President's choices to replace existing Cabinet members and other appointees that require Senate confirmation.