The house may be in play

[Morphine Prince 110,012]

40 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Clinton better keep her liberal promises then

She'll probably only be able to pass 1 or 2 things. If Dems. don't get the majority in the House or Senate, BOOKMARK ME, they will make her presidency a living hell. Nothing will get done. 

And even if Dems. get control of one or both it will still be a challenge. 

Hillary is gonna be beat to death more than Obama. I just know it. The 2020 election is gonna be full of desperation to get her out of the White House.

And yes, I am assuming she will win next month lol. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

17 minutes ago, Whispering said:

You are wrong. The situations are different. That's why Bernie's suggestion back in 2012 was dangerous and ignorant. We could have very easily ended up with Romney, especially if there wasn't a unified Democratic support for the sitting President. There are multiple reasons for all this, but I'm not going into it all. I know you need to hold onto Bernie running in 2020 and your dreams coming true, but it just won't  happen. 

Okay, there must be something here I'm not getting. If Obama won the 2012 primRy against someone else, why would the party be any less unified then it was anyway? What would cause the party to be not unified? Because it seems that after the convention, Every one wokld just come together. What Makes this situation different enough that that wouldn't happen?

[Born To Slay 10,996]

12 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

She'll probably only be able to pass 1 or 2 things. If Dems. don't get the majority in the House or Senate, BOOKMARK ME, they will make her presidency a living hell. Nothing will get done. 

And even if Dems. get control of one or both it will still be a challenge. 

Hillary is gonna be beat to death more than Obama. I just know it. The 2020 election is gonna be full of desperation to get her out of the White House.

And yes, I am assuming she will win next month lol. 

Why would it be hard if she had both houses?

[Morphine Prince 110,012]

15 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Why would it be hard if she had both houses?

Well that depends on what she plans to pass. But it isn't always easy. 

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

If the Dems get everything it will be a disaster. Single Payer Health Care is a true disaster, you have to wait years to get surgery sometimes, it is horrible. Clinton is corrupt and if she gets everything, we are screwed as a country

[Luc 4,776]

20 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Why would it be hard if she had both houses?

Because not every Democrat always votes the same as the party. Look at the 9/11 suing foreign governments for responsibility thing: many Democrats voted together with the Republicans in a way that really embarassed Obama and the US' good, strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

It will definitely help a lot though. A Hillary presidency with all chambers would move the US system infinitely more to the left than a Sanders presidency with only the Senate or neither would. Just putting 'social' next to the word 'democracy' ruined his chances of finding compromise with the Republicans. Luckily Hillary has managed to make herself seem as both a centrist and a leftist to different audiences, and as experienced as she is, I think she would be able to make some good deals with Republicans. They've probably also learnt from this year that all the obstructionism merely led to the downfall of their own party (tho that isn't even true :teehee: ).

 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

1 minute ago, Luc said:

Because not every Democrat always votes the same as the party. Look at the 9/11 suing foreign governments for responsibility thing: many Democrats voted together with the Republicans in a way that really embarassed Obama and the US' good, strategic relationship with Saudi Arabia.

It will definitely help a lot though. A Hillary presidency with all chambers would move the US system infinitely more to the left than a Sanders presidency with only the Senate or neither would. Just putting 'social' next to the word 'democracy' ruined his chances of finding compromise with the Republicans. Luckily Hillary has managed to make herself seem as both a centrist and a leftist to different audiences, and as experienced as she is, I think she would be able to make some good deals with Republicans. They've probably also learnt from this year that all the obstructionism merely led to the downfall of their own party (tho that isn't even true :teehee: ).

 

I think a Sanders presidency with all chambers would've been ideal tho. i don't think his title would've ruined it as long as the policy was reasonable. 

[Whispering 18,865]

29 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Why would it be hard if she had both houses?

Funding for projects, the time involved in starting any new policy...it takes hundreds of people and thousands of man hours to get the infrastructure in place for even a moderate change. We are a country of over 300 million people and fifty states that have their own infrastructures in place. It takes a great deal of time, funding and manpower to put a policy in place for that many people across that many states. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Funding for projects, the time involved in starting any new policy...it takes hundreds of people and thousands of man hours to get the infrastructure in place for even a moderate change. We are a country of over 300 million people and fifty states that have their own infrastructures in place. It takes a great deal of time, funding and manpower to put a policy in place for that many people across that many states. 

I'm sure they could some awesome things done in the 2 years tho, if she tries her best to do what promise liberals, then I'll be satisfied. I just want someone who will fight for the left.