Democrats would lose the Senate in 2014 if a serious gun ban were proposed.

[banned from Kos]

That is right.

Hagan (NC)
Pryor (AR)
Begich (AK)
Landrieu (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Warner (VA)
Rockefeller (WV)
Baucus (MT)

All at risk if so.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. those are all the Democrats least likely to vote for such a measure

there are too many conservative Democrats/Blue Dogs to expect a party line vote.

[banned from Kos]

2. Yes they are. But Dem turnout is weak in a mid-term election.

Obama's coattails won Senate seats this year but will not in 2014.

[Recursion]

3. Blue dogs also lost because of health care reform, despite voting against it.

Or, on our side, Chafee voted against the Iraq War and still lost his seat. That's how this works.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. Many also lost in '94 even tho they voted against the Brady Bill in '93...

In a great deal of races, voters aren't voting the candidate ... they're voting the party.

[Recursion]

8. Honestly people who say "I don't vote the party, I vote the candidate" bug the hell out of me

A candidate's party is literally the most important thing about him or her, in our system. Which is unfortunate.

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

23. +1

They bug the hell out of me too. Often times, they just say that to make it sound like they are more "open minded" in their decision making process, even though probably most of them have never voted for a candidate from the opposing party.

[PoliticAverse]

15. Every Democrat in the Senate (including the blue dogs) voted in favor of the ACA...

See: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/111-2009/s396

[Recursion]

18. I was thinking of the House. Your Gene Taylors and Ike Skeltons

The Senate needed every D and I vote which is why the bill in the Senate was so much more watered down.

[Chan790]

4. Some of those are not winnable now.

Also, you'd be surprised...I expect that when we issues-polling on this, there's going to be a massive jump in support for a gun ban. We saw the same thing after Columbine. Gun-tragedies make gun-control palatable to moderates.

You can take Warner off that list though regardless. VA is dominated by NoVA and we're just as likely to lose that seat to liberal voter-revolt if he votes against gun-control. NoVA is not like the rest of VA...but it is the swing-part of the state.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. And yet the first AWB expired after Columbine...

[Chan790]

68. There was public support for its' extension...

Alas, we had two Republican houses of Congress and a Republican President...so it did not occur.

[spanone]

6. if a serious gun ban passed, so be it

[banned from Kos]

11. It won't be. The GOP House won't allow such.

This is a dead end argument for the gun ban crowd. You cannot win.

[democrattotheend]

27. Exactly

If we controlled the House I would be demanding that those senators risk their careers for this. But they should not be asked to take a potentially death sentence vote unless it has the votes to pass both houses.

[Recursion]

12. If someone could come up with a gun ban that would actually keep criminals from getting guns...

...I think it would be worth sacrificing any number of seats to pass it.

I've never seen such a ban, though.

[jorno67]

7. I agree.

And the NRA will bask in the glow of victory as a result of this senseless tragedy - adding insult to injury...yet again.

[rwheeler31]

9. Not a sure thing some minds are changing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. You're right. It would also affect Congress. It appears, however, that a great many do not care.

[ProSense]

13. Wow, that's some threat.

Maybe they should do the right thing. Lives are at stake, but I can see that isn't the important thing.

To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024

NYT editorial: Death in Connecticut
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021988738

[Recursion]

17. Come up with a ban that will actually keep criminals from getting guns. That would be worth...

...losing both chambers.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

30. Thanks for the NRA talking points

You seem to have mastered them. For the record, most of the people involved in these shootings have obtained their guns legally. The VA Tech shooter got his rifle legally thru the mail. The Aurora shoot got his guns and ammo legally. The Tuscon shooter also got his weapon legally.

The estranged husband who shoots up his wife's office isn't a criminal...until he is. Ditto for a messed up 20 year old kid who massacred 20 first graders Friday morning.

The " throw up your hands and surrender" do-dah you are espousing is a path to more of the same.

[Recursion]

61. I'm talking about the majority of crimes, not the corner case of spree shootings

All of these spree shooters went from zero to psychopath in thirty seconds, and hadn't had previous criminal records. How do you stop that?

The estranged husband who shoots up his wife's office isn't a criminal...until he is. Ditto for a messed up 20 year old kid who massacred 20 first graders Friday morning.

Very good distinction, because the orders of magnitude more common cases where the estranged husband shoots his wife and the messed up 20 year old who shoots his dealer are previously criminals, nearly every time. And that's 8,000 deaths per year.

[LibertarianMI]

79. Fact check

It is illegal to mail order a firearm without a FFL dealer receiving it and running the end purchaser through the instant check system. It is difficult to get an FFL, even with a "clean" record.

[JohLast]

31. This

I agree with, it would be worth losing both to get what is needed.

[lbrtbell]

54. That is insane.

Far more people die each year from lack of health care than from gun violence. But dying slowly from illness isn't a ratings-grabber, so the media doesn't give a damn.

Republicans are union-busting at an alarming rate.

Republicans want to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Republicans only care about "legitimate rape"--but not to the point where they want to allow a rape victim to have an abortion.

They're against the Violence Against Women act, they're against minorities, they're against schools, they're against the LGBT community.

Everything Democrats are fighting for, you're willing to give up over ONE ISSUE? One that will absolutely not keep guns out of the hands of career criminals?

Here's "what is needed": Mental health care for people before they go over the edge. Because those people will find a way to kill people en masse. Building one's own gun isn't that difficult, and slapping together a bomb is even easier.

I cannot believe that, on a Democratic forum, anyone is even suggesting letting Republicans take control of both houses. An estimated 45,000 people die each year in the USA, due to lack of health care.

Just because you don't see them on TV doesn't mean it's not happening.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. +1. Well said

[earthside]

14. A 'serious' gun ban isn't in the cards.

At most a ban on large clips.

Maybe an expansion of background checks.

That's about all I see and in light of yesterday's tragedy -- those Senator's could survive that if they have any real prospects for reelection.

What we need more than anything is a long term strategy to frame the gun debate in terms of dialing down the culture of violence in this country ... the ground needs to be prepared politically in advance for any 'serious' gun ownership reform legislation.

[spin]

21. I agree with you totally. ....

There are at least 80 million gun owners in our nation that would be show up at the polls to vote against any politician who proposed a serious gun ban.

[unblock]

16. i would have agreed with you on thursday.

not clear how the politics will play out.

if this plays out with the usual mourning and grandstanding and lip service and hollow gestures and faux introspection, then yeah, i'd still agree with you.


this time feels different. sure, perhaps my perspective is warped because this happened in my backyard. just 15 miles away. it could have been my kindergartner, it could have been his school. still, perhaps this time enough people might demand that congress do something.

then the question is, what? i can't see an actual "ban" in the cards (i don't think this would ever pass, let alone actually work); just more restrictions on getting guns and more penalties for negligence or illegal use of guns. of course, opponents will call that a "ban" anyways.

so then it becomes a matter of how the senators you list can sell it back home.

i think the jury's still out.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Democrats will lose in 2012 if there's still a depression

Except they didn't, because as awful as our elected Democrats have been, Americans have finally had enough of absurdity and bullshit - Americans understood that Republicans were even worse.

After 30 years of burning stupidity, Americans are ready for government that doesn't suck, and they will vote for it once given the chance. Given the choice between Elizabeth Warren and the standard-issue Third-Way Democratic Triangulation Machine, they'll vote for Warren.

[spin]

25. The economy was improving just before the election. ...

Romney was also a weak candidate and Obama is the best campaigner that I have ever seen.

Republicans were pushing their tired old trickle down theory and opposed returning the tax rate on the rich to the levels in the Clinton administration.They pissed on their boot with that one.

Gun owners did not view Romney as a true gun rights supporter as he has been all over the place on this issue and every other issue. It's not politically wise to constantly change your position on important issues. It makes you look like a typical politician which most Americans hate.

[Kennah]

28. Many losing candidates run on the failed strategy of "I'm not the other guy"

You can't win if you don't define yourself.

Bob Dole ran on "I'm not Bill Clinton", John Kerry ran on "I'm not Dubya", John McCain also ran on "I'm not Dubya", but Mittens ran on the "brilliant" strategy of "I'm not Mitt Romney".

[spin]

42. Great reply. I'll have to memorize your "brilliant" strategy comment for future use. (n/t)

[letemrot]

43. Awesome quote..

May I steal?

[Kennah]

45. Please do

[onehandle]

20. The wind is at liberals' backs. Gun culture will fall as the white male diminishes.

It's inevitable.

[The Link]

22. Democrats would lose the south if they supported civil rights.

It just ain't worth it.

[Major Nikon]

24. The GOP might lose the House if one isn't

Just another way to look at it.

You can't possibly know how this is going to ultimately play out.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

26. Max Baucus & Mark Pryor would survive.

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:38 AM - Edit history (2)

I don't think Jay Rockefeller is going to run again anyway.

Mark Warner proved himself to be not a "gun grabber" when he was governor, which is the only reason he won the senate seat. The right used the gun issue against him then, but it didn't float with the voters. In 2014 he'll have 8-years of having served as their senator and not once having done anything to upset their gun rights. I say this because there is no way he'd vote for any type of gun control.

Kay Hagan is already vulnerable without gun control legislation.

Mark Begich introduced the 'National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act' for crying out loud. Yeah, he's inoculated.

Mary Landrieu already has to defend her "Louisiana Purchase" from a Republican challenger. She doesn't want anymore problems since she's going to have a tough time of it as it in 2014.

I'm not real clear on if Tim Johnson is going to run again. If he does, I think he'll have a tough row to hoe against Rounds with or without gun control legislation.


So, I'm not seeing it making that big of a difference one way or another on our chances in the Senate.

[Kennah]

29. A gun ban is more effective at electing Republicans than anything Rove can do.

[liberal_at_heart]

32. passing ACA didn't get republicans elected

[Kennah]

33. Because the nation WANTED it. Clinton's Assault Weapon ban wasn't wanted.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. actually the majority were against ACA when first passed

People like it now that they see how it benefits them.

[Kennah]

35. Similarly with the AWB

There was support in 1994, when violent crime had hit a plateau, but that eroded over time as concealed carry rolled across the country and the "blood in the streets" cries became background noise for most. People also figured out the AWs weren't used all that often in crime.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. general violence is down, mass murders involving automatic or semi automics are up

[Kennah]

38. The argument might work ...

... but I am not persuaded that it will, and the consequences if you're wrong are quite dire.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. I think the AWB is the middle ground

you've got some liberals who want to ban all guns and republicans who want to stick an automatic rifle in every man, woman, and child's hands. Renewing the AWB is just middle gound. There is nothing radical about it. I've heard some other good ideas on this board. I wish I could remember them off hand.

[Kennah]

40. The AWB was seen as radical in 1994, and I think it's seen as even more radical now

[liberal_at_heart]

41. I don't think it is seen as radical now

especially after the rise in mass murders. People are outraged that babies were killed, and are afraid to go to the mall. Fear and anger are usually what motivate people. If people are afraid of getting gunned down at the mall and infuriated at babies being mowed down they will want the AWB.

[Kennah]

44. Regulating private sales would likely get much bigger support

It too wouldn't change any mass killing. Mass killings didn't end or subside under an AWB.

A real ban on all semiautos might change mass killings, but that would ensure 300 GOOPers in the House, 60+ in the Senate, and George P or Jeb in the White House. Then let the destruction of this nation REALLY begin.

[liberal_at_heart]

46. there comes a time when you can't be afraid of the politics

20 children were slaughtered. If they're not worth the fight I don't know who is. If we're not willing to stand up to protect those babies then what the hell are we fighting for?

[Kennah]

48. You have to be afraid of the slaughter that could be far worse

I'm not saying we have to sacrifice kids. I'm saying there's an ideological war going on--much larger than the gun issue--that could be lost through the gun issue.

[liberal_at_heart]

49. I don't think it is a losing issue

[Kennah]

51. We shall see--If the politicians think it is

[Recursion]

64. Not so much "radical" as "stupid", at least the one we passed in 1994

I almost guarantee it didn't do what you think it did. Hint: the Bushmaster the shooter's mother bought was legal under CT's nearly-identical AWB, because it didn't have a bayonet lug.

[Kahuna]

70. Yep! nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

37. I completely disagree.

[cali]

47. uh, with the exception of Rockefeller, they're all at big time risk already.

Odds are we lose the Senate in 2014, though that clearly isn't written in stone- whether there's gun legislation or not.

[leftlibdem420]

50. Define "serious gun ban."

We're not taking rifles from farmers and hunters here. We're taking away death machines from the places in which they don't need to be.

[Recursion]

62. OK, find a way to do one without the other

I'm open to ideas, I just haven't seen one yet

[Bonobo]

52. Many said that was a reason to oppose gay marriage as well. nt

[Deep13]

53. honestly, I think the ground has shifted this week.

I think those who do not comply with the public DEMAND will be at risk.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. I agree this is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of ANY meaningful gun legislation passing

anytime in the foreseeable future. That could eventually change and sanity could eventually prevail - but for the foreseeable future there is not a snowballs chance in hell that ANY serious and credible gun legislation will pass. Of course, no mainstream Democrat is in any way, shape or form even thinking of supporting any kind of broad ban on firearms. But there are a number who would support much more serious restrictions. But the gun lobby, like the insurance lobby, the militarily industrial complex lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, obviously the pro-Israel lobby and no doubt some other lobby's that get less overt attention - hold such a strong political grip over the political process though a combination of their armies of single-issue true believers and their ability to reward and punish - there is not ANY possibility whatsoever that ANY meaningful progress can be made on the gun issue and a number of other issues at least for now and the foreseeable future. Things could change and these events could be pivotal in initiating a change toward a sane and rational view regarding firearms. But for now, and as far as the next few elections cycles are concerned that is of course not going to happen.

[DonCoquixote]

56. all of these are Blue Dogs

the ones that frankly are not help on the Senate anyway..

As long as the right sees us kowtow, we will never have power anyway, we need to actively FIGHT, not just play some fake advantage that does us no real good. Obama realizes why he lost debate one, and why we won debate two.

[Cali_Democrat]

59. So what's your solution to gun violence?

Just asking......

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Tough. It's time to fucking do something.

[Berserker]

71. Thank You

For a clear minded and well thought out post. The craziness that has been displayed in this forum has been unlike anything I have seen in 9 years that I have been a member. The hate filled lunatic fringe also exists in our party and has been clearly displayed for the world to see.

[Cali_Democrat]

73. Looks like my alert got your Republican buddy banned

You mad?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

72. This right wing troll

admits he's a right wing troll.

[BrentWil]

65. Well...

First if is going to fail you simply let them vote agaist it. Second it isn't a political loser for all these senators. Third, you are voting on this almost two years out after a national tradegy.

In sum, to proclaim the Senate is gone if this happens is a little extreme.


On another note, 2014 favors the GOP in the Senate. If the GOP wasn't crazy as shit they would have a clear majorty in the Senate.

[MyNameGoesHere]

66. To save children from dying I would gladly sacrafice these fools.

A political idea did not kill these children, it was a gun. This needs to be hammered home over and over again. When someone tries to deflect and offer a "new" reason bring them back to reality. It was a gun.

[Laelth]

67. Generally speaking, gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.

On that, I agree with the OP.

While I have sympathy for those who wish to do something to curb gun violence in the United States, the 2nd Amendment remains the law of the land, and I see little or no upside to any attempts by Democrats to tighten gun laws. On the other hand, the potential downside is enormous, as the OP suggests.

-Laelth

[Kahuna]

69. The NRA helped to defeat Al Gore. Since then, it is the real third rail for Dems.

They won't touch it.

[jwirr]

74. I looked at the list you have here and I suspect you are correct. Sadly.

[_ed_]

75. 8 Senators or 20 dead kids

The choice seems obvious to me. What kind of party are we if we care more about a couple of politicians instead of doing the right thing and creating good law and policy?

[still_one]

76. Really, then why did we win 2008 and 2012 because the NRA was 100% against voting for the Dems

[Politicalboi]

77. If we make it about gun control

Like they made it about taxes, we could see a rise in people voting on our side IMO.

[LibertarianMI]

78. AWB a bad idea

There are many swing voters who are such because while they lean democratic, the value their 2nd amendment trumps all else. A vote on this AWB legislation created by Feinstein could end badly for the democrat controlled senate in 2014.