US Elections - The white power-suit vs the white-power suit

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I think it is bad for optics. She said she would continue on Obama's path. Then taking his last nominee and basically too him into the trash bin, it looks a bit like breaking with Obama on an not unimportant issue. Again, this might be just me, that feels that is bad for the optics.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Notone said:

I think it is bad for optics. She said she would continue on Obama's path. Then taking his last nominee and basically too him into the trash bin, it looks a bit like breaking with Obama on an not unimportant issue. Again, this might be just me, that feels that is bad for the optics.

I'll admit I have very little patience with "optics" arguments, so take that as you will. In any case, saying, "I will continue on Obama's path" hardly means that Clinton will do everything exactly as the Big O would have done. That's a rhetorical flourish and not a commitment to specific policy/staffing/nomination choices. I'll bet most voters aren't even aware of that kind of thing, and they're unlikely to react in any significant way if Clinton ditches Garland for a nominee of her own choosing. In the event they do...well, they'll have four long years to forget all about that.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Doesn't it seem like a lot of Republicans are coming out of this election worse than when they went in? Rubio and Jeb! were both humiliated by Trump, Cruz bollixed himself up over not-endorsing, then endorsing, then considering un-endorsing, Ryan is the target of Trump's anger--the whole thing is a big, red mess. I'm starting to think Scott Walker was the smartest of the bunch, getting out before the arrows started to fly.

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. Trump has tarred and feathered most of the Republicans' "deep bench." Nikki Haley's path to the 2020 nomination will be a cake walk. 

Agree that Nikki Haley seems like she's in a pretty sweet position right now, but it's a long time until the next election, and people have a tendency to come out of nowhere.  I wouldn't count Kasich out entirely either. The Republicans are going to have to get control over the field and the message early though to win despite some of the advantages I think they intellectually could have.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

 

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

I'll admit I have very little patience with "optics" arguments, so take that as you will. In any case, saying, "I will continue on Obama's path" hardly means that Clinton will do everything exactly as the Big O would have done. That's a rhetorical flourish and not a commitment to specific policy/staffing/nomination choices. I'll bet most voters aren't even aware of that kind of thing, and they're unlikely to react in any significant way if Clinton ditches Garland for a nominee of her own choosing. In the event they do...well, they'll have four long years to forget all about that.

She doesn't have to, but I think it's really totally unnecessary to deviate from Obama on that point, unless she considers Garland as a terrible choice. If she thinks Garland is a reasonably good choice, she should stick with him (afterall he is replacing Scalia so from a progressive perspective almost anybody is a reasonably good choice and pushes the court to the left), and the optics argument might come back to haunt her during an election season. So why take that risk (no matter how minor). And like I said in my prev post, there's a very good chance she will get to pick 2-3 other SCOTUS nominees. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Garland is a good well qualified candidate.  It helps disarm the crazy people who want to claim Clinton wants cram her agenda by any means necessary.

[Wrl6199]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

Garland is a good well qualified candidate.  It helps disarm the crazy people who want to claim Clinton wants cram her agenda by any means necessary.

They just wont approve him because of Obama. Even Lindsey graham said he was qualified.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

I'm not so sure about that.  If the Senate flips, I think there is a greater than 50% chance they rush to confirm Garland.  

[The Wedge]

15 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'm not so sure about that.  If the Senate flips, I think there is a greater than 50% chance they rush to confirm Garland.  

Can Obama rescind the Garland nomination?  Or can Garland say he wants to step aside, so that the current Senate cannot hold hearings and confirm?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

The problem with Pence is that while the Speaker doesn't need to be a member of the House, it always has been. I think there's too much inertia to go against that. And if Republicans do break that barrier, I think it opens up way too many other options for people. There's no reason from them to all converge on Pence when all of a sudden everyone can go with their favorite other politician/media personality.

I also don't expect a coalition like that to happen, but there is precedent of it happening in the states. It would depend on what the agreement looked like, but I can easily see Democrats going for it; and no Democrat who loses in 2018 would lose because of this, they'd have been doomed anyway because they won a very Republican district this year thanks to Trump. The Republicans involved would probably all lose, which is why this would only work if the margin is very small; like 3 or 4 of them. That's a small enough number that you might find that many who are close to retirement anyway and want to make a legacy.

And I really wouldn't be so confident about Pelosi getting the gavel back if the Democrats win. She got 184 of 188 Democrats in the October 2015 Speaker vote, 164 of 188 in January 2015, 192 of 200 in January 2013, 173 of 191 in January 2011, 255 of 256 in January 2009, and 233 of 233 in January 2007.

Other than that first time, she's never had unanimous support, and if Democrats only have a 2 or 3 seat majority, it'd be very easy to see the number of holdouts be larger than that

Normally I'd agree with you that the Speaker must be an elected Member of Congress, but 2016 has flipped the board over. Going forward I think it's prudent to assume that anything can happen. And Pence is the only person I can think of who could actually unite the party. 

Your Dent scenario makes sense if the margin is really that small, but I'm skeptical that the Democrats will pick up 29 seats. Clinton would probably need to be +8-10 for that to happen. I think a safer bet is the the Democrats pick up 15-20 seats, and there's no way the Republicans will compromise on the Speaker if they have a 21 seat edge. And if you assume, as I do, that McCarthy is damaged goods, then who else can the Republican Congressional delegation turn to? I've ran off like 20 or so names in my head and there aren't any strong candidates who can unite the party. I guess Marsha Blackburn makes the most sense. 

Also, you're really selling Pelosi short, and I've heard over and over again from Congressional Democrats that she will be the Speaker if they retake the House. I see no reason not to take them at their word. 

[TrackerNeil]

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tracker,

Garland is a good well qualified candidate.  It helps disarm the crazy people who want to claim Clinton wants cram her agenda by any means necessary.

Will it? Every time someone says that this or that will break the Republican fever it doesn't work and that fever continues. So you'll pardon me if I am skeptical that Merrick Garland is the cure to that illness.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yup. Trump has tarred and feathered most of the Republicans' "deep bench." Nikki Haley's path to the 2020 nomination will be a cake walk. 

Think this is missing the point of what Orange is doing right now and plans to do in the future.  He's getting set up to call all the shots from now on -- see the Bloomberg piece referenced and linked to above.

 

[Ariadne23]

Tossing Merrick Garland to make a political statement would not be a very nice way to treat Merrick Garland. The guy really took one for the team here, and this is probably the thing he's been hoping for and working toward his entire adult life.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Will it? Every time someone says that this or that will break the Republican fever it doesn't work and that fever continues. So you'll pardon me if I am skeptical that Merrick Garland is the cure to that illness.

No promises.  But you miss my point.  It's not that it will change the way Republican hyper partisans behave.  It is that taking the stateman's postion and going with a moderate illustrates the existing hyper partisanship of many in the Republican Party without Democrats stooping to the same.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

 

Agree that Nikki Haley seems like she's in a pretty sweet position right now, but it's a long time until the next election, and people have a tendency to come out of nowhere.  I wouldn't count Kasich out entirely either. The Republicans are going to have to get control over the field and the message early though to win despite some of the advantages I think they intellectually could have.

Fair point. We also need to wait and see if the Republican Party can get back to normal or if Trumpism is here to stay. 

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Think this is missing the point of what Orange is doing right now and plans to do in the future.  He's getting set up to call all the shots from now on -- see the Bloomberg piece referenced and linked to above.

 

It depends on if he loses a close one or gets blown out. 

[Swordfish]

7 hours ago, Inigima said:

Of course we would. The rules is the rules. If we can swallow the 2000 horseshit for the good of the country, we can swallow a bad president who's actually supposed to be there.

Ha!  That's the entire point.  You DIDN'T swallow the 2000 'horseshit'.  The left STILL doesn't really accept the results of that election, you even didn't accept in in this very post!

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha!  That's the entire point.  You DIDN'T swallow the 2000 'horseshit'.  The left STILL doesn't really accept the results of that election, you even didn't accept in in this very post!

Complaining about something and "not accepting" something are not the same.  Regardless of who wins and by how much, there will be complaining about this election.  But the last Presidential election that people actually refused to accept was Lincoln.  

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

Complaining about something and "not accepting" something are not the same.  Regardless of who wins and by how much, there will be complaining about this election.  But the last Presidential election that people actually refused to accept was Lincoln.  

So you accept that the result of the 2000 election is completely valid?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

So you accept that the result of the 2000 election is completely valid?

Valid enough that Gore didn't throw out lines about how maybe the 2nd Amendment crowd could do something about it.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

So you accept that the result of the 2000 election is completely valid?

I certainly accept that Bush won the election and became President, with all the authority that conveys. 

I also think that the election was conducted in a shady fashion, particularly striking many eligible voters off the rolls so they were unable to vote on election day. 

Those two sentences are not in any way mutually exclusive. 

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha!  That's the entire point.  You DIDN'T swallow the 2000 'horseshit'.  The left STILL doesn't really accept the results of that election, you even didn't accept in in this very post!

You're aware you're comparing an apple with a (hypothetical) orange.

That's not a question, by the way, it's a statement.

I would note that the behaviour of Democrats during the first Bush presidency demonstrated a great deal more acceptance of his legitimacy than the behaviour of Republicans during either Obama presidency.