Yeah, that would suck.  It would be like FDR all over again.

Better hurry up and pull the McLever!

I make a statement that is clearly true:

Racism is not a factor in the average life of African Americans.  

You're doing the thing where you state opinions as facts.  You should really stop doing that, particularly if you're not going to present any evidence to support your claims or address the massive amount of evidence that would seem to contradict your argument.

Simply saying something is "clearly true" does not make it so.  You should really be more careful about these things.

It's very unlikely that the Dems would get to 60.  

The diarist takes cues from a leprechaun that lives in his sock drawer.

Though now that you mention it, I do feel the need to apologize for my extremist views that criminal acts should be prosecuted, it is in our interest to protect the environment, and that equal rights should apply to everyone. I'm clearly way out on the fringe there. I also didn't know that "higher gas prices" and "education is fine the way it is" were liberal views. At this point your stereotypes have crossed the line into nonsensical.

You act like it's just the Left wing that's unreasonable.  But would "centrism" really be much better?  All that seems to get us is stalemate on the important issues and a bunch of corporate bailouts.  Witness the budget deficit and congressional approval ratings.

This is one of the weirdest things I've ever read.

Yes, I understand the problem of trying to "overextend" power and the backlash that can result, but we're still having elections to determine who people want to serve.  I don't think 60+ votes in the senate would necessarily lead to, as you say, the "criminalization of politics" (which is a stupid right-wing talking point to let Republicans do whatever they want, btw), but it would almost definitely lead to things that most Americans want that Republicans have been blocking for over a decade: Universal health care, better minimum wage (yes, better than what finally passed), better energy and environmental proposals, etc.

Even if we only got 2 years with this sort of trifecta, the changes and legislation that could be passed could be beneficial for generations.  That's something that could only strengthen the democratic brand.

By labeling other people as extreme and yourself as "right thinking". How the heck can I have any semblance of a rational conversation with you if you prematurely slot us into different levels of correctness based on subjective data?

Even the "hard data" you give is not representative.  And is less than 1/3 of the population of the US. Christ the data you link to proves the opposite point you try and make. 9% of Black household make over 100K 10.5% Latino and 20% white. So white wealth is 2x that of the other two groups. And if you actually graph the data you see inverse planes Black and Latino salaries have higher %s proportional to whites the further down the scale you go.
yes there are people who are black and Latino who make more than some people who are white, but statically your point is screwed.

I would suggest taking a course on critical thinking as you have failed it here, and it makes it hard to take your basic premise with anything by a small grain of salt.

Please give us a list of which Democratic candidates for Senate and Congress you wish us to oppose (and which Republican candidates for Senate and Congress you wish us to support) in order to help ensure that the "worse case scenario" does not come true.

You need to understand that it's hard to take your diaries seriously when there's a severe gramatical error in the title.

The "worst" case scenario, you're saying, is a filibuster-proof majority and Obama as president.  If you're going to say that it's a "worse" case scenario, you're going to have to provide a scenario that is better than that in the remark itself.

You could say "filibuster-proof majority plus Obama is a worse case scenario than a majority with 53 Democrats and Obama," but that's pretty unwieldy itself.  Best to just go with "worst case scenario."

That said, I actually agree that a 60+ majority might end up being a problem, but fights within your own filibuster-proof caucus are a good problem to be having.  

Comparing this to 1992 is clearly foolish, as we were coming off a competant and only marginally corrupt Bush administration then, instead of a completely incompetant and totally corrupt Bush administration now.  Democrats in 1992 were lazy and complacent; now they're energized and impatient (this impatience sometimes looks like complacency; I contend that they're mostly just letting Bush do whatever he wants with the intention to fix everything as soon as Obama takes office).

In any case, fix the grammar so we don't all look bad.

What is it about Barack Obama's political style, or the track record of the Democratic Congress, that makes you concerned in the slightest that they would suddenly develop an interest in pushing an extreme left-wing agenda?

Even if you believe the netroots embody the far left, why would you ever get the impression that Obama or the Democrats in Congress have an interest in swearing allegiance to the netroots agenda?  Gee, remind me how that telecom immunity thing worked out?

I expected the argument of this diary to be that if Obama and a filibuster-proof Democratic majority continue on a course of cautious centrism, with no Bush as a convenient foil to blame for stuff not getting done, that the American people would get outraged and throw the do-nothing Democrats out of office.  While I have no idea if that scenario is realistic, it's a lot more realistic than what you've outlined here.

is that yellowdem1129 continues posting pure bullshit and trying to tell us it's lilacs.

is that the Democrats controlled Congress for the greater part of 40 years.  They became more concerned with holding their majority in the HoR than they did with party building.

I think it's telling that this diarist's worst case scenario is an Obama win and democratic majorities in the house and senate, rather than a McCain win and republican majorities in the house and senate.

Are you against holding government officials accountable for breaking the law?

Or do you think the Bush administration hasn't broken any serious laws as a matter of policy?

I'm all for a debate about the issues you raise, but you should understand from the get go that divided government simply means one where the Democrats can't get anything through Congress (it's not some magical world where compromise rules the day, it's paralysis, much as we have now).

"That is why 53 is a good number in the Senate.  This would mean that more indepedent minded senators like Pryor, Nelson (ne), Feinstein, Nelson (fl),Salazaar, and others could force good ideas into consideration."

By what process do you think these senators would suddenly be translated into the soul mates of Abbie Hoffman if the Dems got 60 votes in the Senate?  They'd still have the influence you're talking about, because the Dems would need their votes to defeat the predictable GOP filibusters on all sorts of issues.  

Yeah, if we had a clear Democratic majority with a Democratic president, those crazy homosexuals might start getting equal rights.  Can't have that, can we yellowdem?  I mean what "normal people" would want to live next to two married men?