Assuming the Presidency and a Senate majority

[SHRED]

Do you think gridlock will continue at its current rate?

[Demsrule86]

1. Yes, the House feels no pressure to work with the Dems.

House member are immune from public sentiment. However, the Senate is huge. We can get judges through...three maybe for judges and we can also fill vacancies the GOP have not filled since they took the Senate. I always said the election is for the Courts...I doubt anything else will be accomplished unless we get the House. Now, if Hillary wins by a blowout, we have a chance for the House. Also, there is a "gerrymander" bill heading to SCOTUS which has a method to calculate if a district is gerrymandered...Kennedy has said he would offer relief if one could find a way to determine if a state is gerrymandering. We need to take back governorships and legislatures in order to prevent the Census from being rigged for another 10 years.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

2. you are so right. nt

[Demsrule86]

5. Baby steps and those who think they get it all right away are going to be disappointed. nt

[bettyellen]

8. It's a great start!

[JoePhilly]

3. Only need the Senate to appoint judges.

So clearly it would be less.

Then, we go after the House relentlessly.

[Hortensis]

4. No, not quite as bad. But I'm also assuming

at least some unspecified shrinkage of the House Republican caucus due both to loss of seats to Democrats and also a number of the 2010 "tea party" Republicans just leaving/retiring. Most were funded by dark-money backers, who may lose a few legislators. Or not, but in any case this all should change the dynamics in the House, even if the GOP still has control.

One would think the populist revolt this election should also force some change, but the Koch alliance/Ryan/tea-partiers/McConnell and other GOP leadership may fight to keep on course. Charles Koch is 81...

But, excitingly, as JoePhilly points out, with the Senate we would be able to fill cabinet positions without obstruction and also make over 100 judicial appointments to vacant seats right away, including at the appellate court level.

[Demsrule86]

6. When you have Democrats shoved into tiny districts and make more

GOP districts out of the remaining areas...populist revolts will not matter. Those who are engaged in such a thing are in Democratic areas. And our vote has been deliberately watered down. And consider the drug laws that are used to incarcerate POC thus denying them the right to vote forever.

[Hortensis]

9. It is very undemocratic that far more Democrats

must vote than Republicans to get a candidate elected because voting districts don't equalize the effects of population distribution. The weight given to rural areas was built in long ago, of course, so they wouldn't be steamrolled by urbanites, but there's never been a time when they weren't more conservative. Without this distorting thumb on the voter results, we would be a more liberal and democratic nation.

I'm not sure what you mean about populists. Populist sentiments, with resentment against ruling "elites," seem to grow with dissatisfaction under virtually any political system. We have two main populist movements this year, one coalesced around Sanders and one around Trump. ??

So agree about that other thumb on the vote counts. Fixing that would also at least eliminate disenfranchisement as an evil incentive for prosecution. This next may be the term when we finally stop it. We were unable to do it during Obama's presidency, or back when Hillary tried to pass a bill in the Senate. A couple states allow people to vote even while in prison, which I like, but overall nearly half the millions barred from voting are in just a dozen states.

[Demsrule86]

7. This is huge and would help us for 30 years or more. nt

[Hortensis]

10. Yes! I'm guessing without so much known to

be at stake with just SCOTUS more Republicans would be rejecting Trump flat out. As it is, many millions will go vote for control of that court. They're almost certain to lose, but even the remote chance that they could win makes me clutch up.

[Demsrule86]

11. I agree.

[Exilednight]

12. A Senate majority is not good enough. this is why it matters which

Democrats we elect, not just how many. ConservaDems aren't much help in more liberal policy issues, or controversial ones.

Look at all the opposition that Obama faced from within the party when it came to the ACA.