if Romney wins, how do the senate democrats work with him?

[freepcrusher]

In the past, the democrats were willing to work with republican presidents such as Reagan or Bush in passing legislation. Would the democrats act more partisan under a Romney presidency and vote no on everything? Under a romney presidency, i doubt any of the democrats would be at risk for losing re-election so they could feel free to vote no on everything. 

[Stranger in a strange land]

He would still be able to peel off enough "moderates" to get everything he wanted, except possibly a repeal of Obamacare. His real problems would come from the Tea Party House.

[You kip if you want to...]

The Dems'd defend the stuff like Obamacare.

And I agree, looking at my own country's experience, Romney could struggle more with the Tea Partiers than the Democrats. And the Tea Partiers aren't afraid to mount a primary challenge, as we all know...

[Stranger in a strange land]

The Dems'd defend the stuff like Obamacare.

And I agree, looking at my own country's experience, Romney could struggle more with the Tea Partiers than the Democrats. And the Tea Partiers aren't afraid to mount a primary challenge, as we all know...

I doubt they would be able to coalesce around a single candidate, and by 2016, the Tea Party will be even weaker than it is now. The Tea Party really wore out its welcome with the budget fiasco in the Summer of 2011, and it's only become less relevant since.

[Lief 🗽]

Hopefully they filibuster everything non-stop for four years.

[RogueBeaver]

The red-state Dems would be flexible on most things except O-care, as strange said. Pryor/Landrieu/Warner/Baucus/Johnson/Hagan to start.

[Skill and Chance]

It depends on whether or not they hold the majority.  If they have a majority, I expect a decent amount of cooperation on the condition that the important parts of Obamacare are off the table.  Dems would go all out for the House in 2014 to continue to have a say, and I think the senators would do whatever they could to prop up those efforts--i.e. see how well we work with Romney unlike those nuts in the House.

If Republicans take a narrow majority, however, I would expect no-holds-barred complete obstruction, basically 2009 in reverse.  Romney  would have to go well under 40% approval for them to actually make senate gains, so they would be thinking about 2016 from day one.  they basically have nothing to gain by cooperating.  They would make Republicans permanently end the filibuster to repeal Obamacare, with the intention that it would allow the next Democratic president to do whatever he/she wanted.

[sentinel]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

[Hoverbored123]

I can only guess, but I figure if Romney gets elected he'll focus on democratic senators up for re-election in 2014, particularly in the "red" or "swing" states.  

[Skill and Chance]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

If they are still in the majority, they will want something to show for it/help the red state senators out in 2014.

[sentinel]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

If they are still in the majority, they will want something to show for it/help the red state senators out in 2014.

I was mocking Mitch McConnell

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The moron mormon majority leader will be just as big of a dick as he is now.

[Franzl]

I really hate "bi-partisanship" more and more...

[Hoverbored123]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

If they are still in the majority, they will want something to show for it/help the red state senators out in 2014.

This is pretty much my line of reasoning.  Simply digging in and opposing the Romney agenda tooth and nail will hurt them more than help them.  

[Bacon King]

If the Dems have enough solid votes in the Senate to actually block stuff, my hunch is that Romney will be very amenable to compromise- kinda like how Obama has been with most stuff, except unlike Congressional Republicans the Senate Dems will go to the bargaining table in good faith.

Romney isn't an ideologue, and he definitely doesn't want to start on Day 1 already looking like he can't get anything done. He's a businessman; negotiation is in his blood- I'm sure he'll gladly give up some of the more extreme promises he made to the Republican base and let Obamacare stay, in exchange for the deregulation, lower corporate taxes, and other such stuff that he actually cares about. He'll sell it to the Tea Party by saying, "It's either this or nothing, it's the best deal we're going to get for at least two years."

Thus, Romney gets the big stuff passed without kowtowing to his party's crazies, Senate Democrats get to stop some things and remain important, the Tea Party gets a rallying cry to fully take Capitol Hill in 2010, and everyone gets to brag to their constituents about being bipartisan. As Romney is fond of saying, it's net-net!

(Of course, I may be grossly overestimating Romney's leadership abilities, and also might be incorrectly assuming that House Republicans will chill out a bit if Obama's gone. And hopefully this analysis will all be moot in a few weeks anyway )   

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Romney would probably have a better working relationship with a Democratic Senate than a re-energised GOP House.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really hate "bi-partisanship" more and more...

True, bi-partisan means that Democrats capitulate to Republicans. Do they even have this word in other countries?

[Franzl]

I really hate "bi-partisanship" more and more...

True, bi-partisan means that Democrats capitulate to Republicans. Do they even have this word in other countries?

No.

[Fritz]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

[Frodo]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.  It's time Republicans get a taste of their own poison and see how they like it.  

Like Republicans in 2009 and 2010, we must pretend like we're going to cooperate with them, all the while stabbing these bastards in the back, and then blame them (and the Romney administration) for the resulting gridlock and acrimony.  They chose to put party politics ahead of loyalty to their country, and so must we.  

[rwoy]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

Agreed.

Also, demand a public committment from Romney that if the economy is not "turned around" by 2016 that he will not seek re-election.

[Bacon King]

You know, thinking about it, it'd actually be very amusing to see the sort of wacky antics that would ensue with Mitt Romney and Harry Reid forced to interact with each other on a daily basis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The point of opposition is to oppose.

[President von Cat]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.  It's time Republicans get a taste of their own poison and see how they like it.  

Like Republicans in 2009 and 2010, we must pretend like we're going to cooperate with them, all the while stabbing these bastards in the back, and then blame them (and the Romney administration) for the resulting gridlock and acrimony.  They chose to put party politics ahead of loyalty to their country, and so must we.  

I actually don't like this kind of thinking. It can't just be about revenge.

I will be very dismayed if Obama loses, but if Democrats refuse to negotiate they will essentially allow the right to make major changes to the country's finances. The only way the New Deal would be at stake would be if Democrats refused to defend it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Day 1: Our number one priority must be ensuring that Mitt Romney loses reelection.

If they are still in the majority, they will want something to show for it/help the red state senators out in 2014.

I was mocking Mitch McConnell

You may mock, but I fear it will be true.  On January 3, 2013 or whenever the next Congress is sworn in, they will immediately start planning for 2016 in the hopes of getting a Democrat back in the White House come January 2017.