What Could We Do with a 2/3 Majority in Both Houses of Congress?

[MineralMan]

Almost anything...

How about a Constitutional Amendment taking away corporate personhood? That'd be a nice start.

There's so much more, too. Just think about it.

What do you say we start working on that for the 2012 election and stop fighting over Obama? How does that sound? Perhaps we could get a little unity going. A little solidarity.

I already began. Any takers?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. By number of D's or by number of policy accord?

Big difference.

[MineralMan]

18. Actually, it would be a matter of leadership.

Even the blue dogs vote with the caucus 90% of the time.

[Mz Pip]

2. Probably just more squabbling n/t

[PCIntern]

3. Vote to give Republicans vetoes if we don't have 3/4 Majority?

[Vincardog]

4. AS long as we have a STRONG LIBERAL contingent

[JoePhilly]

5. Create one.

If you want a more liberal democratic party, you have to build the candidates from the ground up.

[Vincardog]

6. Oh noes that is what I haven't been doing for the last 35 years

[MineralMan]

20. Not much chance for Iowa to make a change in 2012.

You're halfway there, though.

[JoePhilly]

46. Apparently, your current approach isn't working then.

[MineralMan]

48. Al Franken. Betty McCollum.

One state; one senator. One congressional district, one congress member. I work locally.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

9. AS long as we have a STRONG LIBERAL contingent without any Bluedogs

All those that keep voting against the party most of the time

[MineralMan]

22. Actually, they don't. Blue dogs vote with the caucus almost

every time.

[MineralMan]

19. That's up to Democrats in each state.

What state will you be working in to GOTV?

[elocs]

A better question would be: what would Republicans do to us if they had those majorities

plus the White House.

What has happened in Wisconsin is just a foreshadowing of what would happen on the federal level if that happened.

[MineralMan]

34. Well, we must not let that happen. And the way we prevent it

is to make sure every Democratic voter shows up at the polls. That would do the trick.

But, will we go to that effort? Thats seems unclear to me. I will, but who knows what others will do.

[elocs]

37. Democrats need to be realistic adults about voting and not like little children

who need to be begged and badgered to go and vote, something that millions of people in the world would love to have the right to do and who die to get it.

[pintobean]

7. I think we're defending

23 senate seats to the repubs 10. Good luck with that. Not to say that it wouldn't be nice, but it's a pipe dream.

[MineralMan]

21. Then let's make it 33 Democrats in 2012.

Elect them all.

[karynnj]

42. Do you mean 63?

Where we magically keep all 23 Democratic seats and get all 10 of the Republican ones? (When in reality, we will do very good to keep the Senate - even with 50 and Obama as President. )

[pintobean]

47. Magical thinking. Oh, the irony.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=9067807

[damntexdem]

8. A 2/3 majority of what kind?

With Congressional Dems of the current stripe, we might be able to win a few cloture votes.

As to a constitutional amendment, we'd also need reliable majorities in at least 38 states.

On the other hand, a 2/3 majority might allow a few adequate SCOTUS appointees to be confirmed.

[forty6]

10. I like the way you think! I hope you and I could work on this with about

ten thousand other DU folks....awesome idea.

[MineralMan]

24. Thanks. I'll be working in Minnesota.

[JI7]

11. we need blue dogs to win 2/3rd of congress

other than that we have to campaign in the conservative areas and convince those people to support liberal ideas which in turn would make it easier for those who lean more left to win but that's hard work and frustrating.

[MineralMan]

25. Look at the record of Blue Dog Senators.

Seriously. They vote with the caucus on almost every issue. Strong leadership is the key.

[JI7]

32. Senators are seen different than House members

especially if they are long time members.they have more respect. Bob Kerrey got elected because they voted for the person more in his case rather than policy. Ben Nelson isn't as well liked so people are less likely to overlook some votes as they did with Kerrey.

there are a few house members who have this type of support but a lot of them don't. that's why it moved so easily from different parties .

but i do agree that blue dogs are a lot better than republicans. at the least it would mean Pelosi could set the agenda and would have more say in what actually comes up for a vote.

[Karmadillo]

12. Come up with really innovative excuses for why we caved on key issues?

nt

[Poll_Blind]

27. A tear-soaked +1 for that.

Goddamnit.

PB

[TheKentuckian]

30. In light of that remark, I have nothing further to add at this time. (nt)

[Marr]

36. Those Blue Dogs are in very red districts, you know!

And the Senate leader *had* to put the Republican bill up for a vote and not the Democratic one. It's a basic Senate rule that goes back to whenever!

[mmonk]

13. Maybe as much as 41 vote Republican minority in the Senate.

[liberal N proud]

14. Let the Republicans run things

It is so stupid, when we were in control they controlled the agenda, now they control the agenda.

:wtf:

[badtoworse]

15. Self Delete

[badtoworse]

16. IIRC, the Repub's are defending 10 Senate seats in 2012

I hate to shit in the punch bowl, but even if they lost all of them, they would still have more than 33 seats. We would also have to run the table and defend 23 or 24 Democratic seats that are up for re-election. 2012 is going to be a tough election.

[rug]

17. With a 2/3 majority they would not do what they could do.

[MineralMan]

26. Whatever you say, there, Rug.

Seems like a battle worth fighting to me. But you do as you please.

[SoCalDem]

23. Not gonna happen in my lifetime..

[zbdent]

28. well, if the consensus of DU is any indication ...

the surrenders would be done much more quickly ...

[MineralMan]

29. So it seems. If we can't stir up even DU, then we've lost

before we've begun. Very sad shit. Never mind. There are plenty of people still willing to actually work toward progress. Not everyone gives up that easily.

I'm in. Minnesota has a Senate seat that is up in 2012. I'm there.

[quaker bill]

31. Ignore the bluedogs / DLC

and still get things done. A big majority is good because folks like Lieberman and Lincoln become irrelevant. They get to hold nothing hostage.

[MineralMan]

33. Yup. The blue dogs will vote with the majority caucus.

That's pretty clear from past performance.

[quaker bill]

38. They will if the bills will pass anyway

If one or two of them can negotiate by holding the only key to victory, bad things will happen. You need a majority big enough that none of them hold this much power individually. This is also clear from past performance.

[hulka38]

35. The DLC scuttled that plan

as it was about to be realized a few years ago and amazingly remain in complete control of the Democratic Party even now.

[tkmorris]

39. Capitulate in new and interesting ways

Sorry, feeling cynical this eve.

[MadHound]

40. Given the lack of Democratic spine, little or nothing

As shown with the last Congress, even when we have overwhelming majorities, somehow the Dems can't manage to do a damn progressive thing.

[kenny blankenship]

41. Probably they'd do the same kind of bullshit they did in 2009

And you know full well the Democratic Party would never pass an amendment taking away corporate personhood.

You KNOW that.

[ecstatic]

43. If I recall, there was a filibuster risk in '09 nt

[killbotfactory]

44. Depends on how the blue dogs in the Senate behave

[ecstatic]

45. Sigh... seems like most people here just want a magical progressive dictator

I see all sorts of highly rec'd threads declaring we need a "strong far left," and then I come to this thread and see every excuse in the book for why we can't get more democrats in the Congress/senate.

[tom_paine]

49. Comedy. Very unfunny comedy.

I am not accustomed to asking these questions of DUers, how this site has fallen, but do you actually know anything about how a Constitutional Amendment gets passed?

(hint: it requires considerably more than simple 2/3rds majorities in the Imperial Congress)

Aside from that, it's a great idea, except it completely dismisses the curent ironclad reality that Repubs currently and for the last couple decades walk in near-Nazi-like lockstep while the Democratic Party, which is exactly as the Watergate conspirators envisioned it almost 40 years ago (spineless, confused, shamed, weak and impotent...hating it's own constituencies), almost always produce defectors to the Repub side.

So, if you would truly want untouchable Democratic Party 2/3rds majorities in Imperial Congress (not that it anything to do with the actual day-to-dayrunning of the former USA), then it can only be achieved by 3/4s majorities, if not more.

Even with 3/4s Democratic majorities in the Imperial House and Senate, I have absolutely no doubt that such a Constitutional Amendment could or would NEVER pass.

Though they would put on the usual Democratic "we're beaten before we start" Dog and Pony Show (TM), I am sure. The biggest, most expensive Reality Show in human history Must Go On, I say!

Plausible Deniability, the Mother's Milk of the former USA.

I guess you'd say that I and millions of others are not buying what you're selling. Because your product sucks, frankly, and ultimately is manufactured by the same Multinational Corporation that manufactures the product I am supposed to hate, just in a different facility.

There's your unity. Thanks for my morning absurd black comedy "Dr. Strangelove" moment of the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s

[blindpig]

50. About the same as is being done now.

When both parties answer to the same masters policy will not change with a change of parties. Differences in nuance for domestic consumption perhaps but the capitalists agenda in either case.