Seeing my first push for Alabama to have the lottery now.  Those lobbying for it want to do what GA and FL have done with the funds, and the ads say Alabama money leaves the state and goes to GA, FL, and MS to give their kids scholarships and college educations.  Well duh!  Something has to be done.  It's insane expensive to go to the University of Alabama now, only someone crazy would.

Would it be foolish to do so?  Pretty sure it would be, in the end, but the GOP has lost its collective mind and is, in my opinion, incapable of rational, forward-thinking, legislative stewardship, much less responsible leadership.  

My one fear - well, so far - is that the GOP will use the threat of impeachment to extract some sort of major concessions from Obama not to veto some particularly odious legislation  - perhaps the Grand Bargain that Obama wholeheartedly supported but the passage of which he failed to engineer himself.  

Because, really, what is gained by impeaching - and convicting  -Obama?  President Biden?  How's that going to change anything?  Do they go for broke and make it a two-fer, and impeach, try and convict both Obama and Biden, so they can elevate the GOP House Majority Leader to the presidency?

Does anyone in his or her right mind believe that if they could vote articles of impeachment, that  2/3 of the Senate would vote to convict Obama, much less Obama and Biden?

I'm sort of at the stage where I think that if, in fact, we do end up with the GOP in charge in Congress, we should all hope for two solid years of gridlock, with little to show for GOP insanity by the time the 2016 election rolls around.

The worst possible outcome here would be a President Obama who decides the GOP majority is something he can "work with," and he ends up actually making the promised horrors possible because the American people want to see Democrats and Republicans "working together" to "get things done."

You know I discovered I enjoy reading about the weekly episode of Homeland on PreviouslyTV to actually watching it.  It's funny and it takes less of my life.

If Obama takes executive action on immigration, he should be impeached.  Our Constitution was set up so that one person would not have the power to decide such things and taking executive action on immigration would be a clear abuse of power.

If you follow the law he is right.

What?  How can you say this premise is right:

If Obama takes executive action on immigration, he should be impeached.Our Constitution was set up so that one person would not have the power to decide such things and taking executive action on immigration would be a clear abuse of power.

and in the very next sentence claim this?

But that's whats great about our democracy.   The law is interpritable and politics are equally as important.

If Obama's action on immigration is a clearly unconstitutional abuse of power worthy of impeachment, how can you then say it's "interpritable" (sic)?  From a strictly legal perspective, the President has broad authority to take executive action on immigration:

"As a purely legal matter, the President does have wide discretion when it comes to immigration," says Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell University Law School. "Just as DACA was within the purview of the president's executive authority on immigration, so too would expanding DACA fall within the president's inherent immigration authority."

Link

"I think there's little serious question that the administration has broad discretion in almost every aspect of the deportation machine," Michael Wishnie of Yale Law School told me ...

As Hiroshi Motomura of the UCLA School of Law put it, "He would reach political constraints long before he reaches legal ones.

"Presidents have pretty much complete discretion when it comes to enforcing criminal and other statutory regimes," said Peter J. Spiro, who teaches immigration law at Temple University. "President Obama can't start handing out green cards. Short of that, from a legal perspective, there are no serious constitutional or other legal constraints that apply here.

That isn't really a valid reason as it has nothing to do with the actual policy.  I would imagine if they really thought about it, the prospects of an easier entry for others, like friends and family, just might have them reconsidering their rather petty and selfish stand.

Either way, there is an exception to every rule.  So you found a couple non-whites, that is like the Tea Party digging up a Democrat to claim they aren't really republicans.  And I am positive Alan Keyes and Herman Cain didn't vote for Obama.

Those folks you know are on their way to becoming real Americans, make and close the door behind them saying, "No more all filled up suckers."

Noted:

• Markets need regulation
  
• Jim has little faith in the American worker's abilities.

That is the definition of a republican market, ensure it favors the people who don't need it.

Between your ridiculous insistence that it's Democrats who are talking impeachment, and your belief that all white people are opposed to immigration reform, and the not-so-surprising revelation that you're fine with unskilled labor as long as it's unskilled US citizen labor - gotta keep those tomatoes cheap! - the takeaway is that you apparently know about as much about immigration as you do about all the other things you go on and on about; the nicest thing I can say about your latest contribution is that it  will make a great addition to the Illustrated Big Book of jim's Fractured Fairy Tales.

The only ones wanting to talk about impeachment is the Demos who are trying to get you all riled up...

So strange ...

16 Republican incumbents and 3 Republican candidates calling for impeachment

Not to mention Sensenbreener, Sarah Palin, Alan Keyes, Alan West, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News (numerous people).

Who knew they were "Demos"?

Re getting the white vote. That is the same thing that Pete Wilson thought in California didn't he? Well, that did not work out so well did it? It eviscerated the GOP there in California and a lot of states in the west.

25 years ago, even though its demographics were then recognized as being in great flux, California was still generally considered by the Beltway folks to be a reliably Republican state in presidential and congressional politics. But then came the huge racially-driven overreach that was Prop. 187 in 1994.

Fast forward to today, and the Republicans have been almost thoroughly marginalized as a political presence in Sacramento. They hold sway only in the Central Valley's farm belt, sparsely populated eastern California and the high desert communities of Palm Springs and Indio, where mostly wealthy white retirees reside. They have all but consigned themselves to regional party status in the Golden State.

And further, given that sociologists have long considered California to be a bellwether state for the nation, therein probably lies the GOP's future as a national party, should it continue to maintain its present trajectory as the party of  older, misinformed and paranoid white cranks.

Even then, while Republicans will likely continue to dominate in those increasingly impoverished rural communities and generally wealthy gated communities, they will do so in the former for only as long as one's white European ethnicity still matters as a primary criteria for holding public office.

Because once the bleak state of the local economy overtakes racial disdain and ethnic mistrust to become the primary factor driving those poor rural white voters to the polls, the GOP's well on track for achieving political irrelevance or even oblivion, perhaps within a generation. Therefore, unless the Republicans alter their present course, they're staring at a pretty sobering and dire political outlook.

According to the conventional wisdom, American politics and politicians are more polarized now than they have been since the Civil War, reflecting a growing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? There's no question that politicians are more divided; just look at their voting records. But what if the polarization of politicians reflects a common mistake about Americans -- a widely held but false belief that Democratic and Republican voters are more divided than they actually are?

Yes, Democratic and Republican voters are more divided today than at any time in recent memory. Polls show that, compared with just a few decades ago, Democrats and Republicans disagree more about the role of government in providing basic services. Democrats and Republicans dislike one another more, and have fewer social connections with one another. Democrats and Republicans even distrust the opposing side to protect basic health and welfare, illustrated in the deep divisions over what to do about Ebola and terrorism.

But here's the thing: As strong as political polarization is, it's not as big as people think. Democratic and Republican voters are far less polarized than people believe them to be.

SNIP

It matters because the very people who are most mistaken about political reality are the people who are most politically active. People who perceive the greatest polarization between Democrats and Republicans are more likely to vote, to make campaign contributions and to persuade other people. And, as we have seen, political ideologues are the people who perceive the greatest polarization.

When polarization perceivers are disproportionately engaged in political action, false beliefs about political polarization become self-fulfilling. Political ideologues elect polarized politicians.

It often seems as if political extremists dominate political discourse by shouting the loudest. Truth be told, political moderates often remain silent -- particularly in midterm elections -- voting less often and removing themselves from the conversation.

This is unfortunate because, as our research shows, political moderates have more realistic perceptions of the political divisions among ordinary Americans.
...

Might not happen tonight or most likely Republicans will get to 50 but have to wait until January to get to 52.

The problem for deams is they are losing the Senate right now based on the averages.

Then you add the presidents terrible poll ratings, in Red states and the history of the party in power losing in mid terms.

Sorry there is just very little pointing to a Dem hold of Senate.   A Victory would be keeping it to 50/49/1 after the run offs and being able to claim no mandate for republicans etc... etc...