[GonzoGOP]

We were looking at eight to nine seats in the Senate. We’re now looking at seven to eight.

So according to this logic we were not going to be in the majority in either case. The difference between 49 and 47 is practically NIL. The difference between RINOs that are scared of being primaried and RINOs that feel free to side with Obama on judicial filibusters is monumental. Putting terror into the hearts of the RINOs was a fair trade for a seat that wouldn't matter and a candidate that only voted with the conservatives 47% of the time.

[SideoutFred]

Gonzo, the difference between 47 and 49 is not nil...it’s huge. It means you get 50 with Lieberman on some issues. It means you are one special election from 50 during the next two years. It means you only have to pick up 1 more vote in 2012.

To suggest the difference between 47 and 49 is nil is both foolish and inaccurate. We need EVERY vote to stop Obamism. 49 is better than 47. Even if some of the 49 only voted with us 65% of the time, that’s better than putting these liberal Dems in that will vote with us 0% of the time.

But yippeee, we won the primary with an ultra conservative who can’t win the general and only keeps more liberals in the Senate. Yippeee / sarcasm

[kevao]

The difference between RINOs that are scared of being primaried and RINOs that feel free to side with Obama on judicial filibusters is monumental. Putting terror into the hearts of the RINOs was a fair trade for a seat that wouldn't matter and a candidate that only voted with the conservatives 47% of the time.

Well said!

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

A Senate majority isn’t worth warm spit anyway without the Presidency and 60 votes, exclusive of RINOS (closet Dem-rat moles).

What 48 Senators rather than 49 means that you need a Gang of 16 rather than a Gang of 18 to subvert conservative filibusters. But with one less RINO, it comes out the same.