Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Not sure why you're so hung up on the "threat."  That threat definitely is not gonna stop the GOP from filling the seat.  Obviously Ripp's right, the Dems have no leverage and the only way to acquire leverage is to win the presidency and the Senate.  If they do that, then they just do it.  Don't see why it matters whether they threaten to do it beforehand or not.

All they need to do is spook a few Senators for a few months. Chances of success? Low, but it's probably the only hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

All they need to do is spook a few Senators for a few months. Chances of success? Low, but it's probably the only hope.

I'd say the chances are nil.  Only chance they have is if they wait til after the election, Collins loses and reverses herself (I think she would at that point), and somehow Cory Gardner or Thom Tillis' heart grows three sizes that day after losing reelection.  They'd still have to get Murkowski and Romney as well, which is still far from certain.

Edited by DMC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'd say the chances are nil.  Only chance they have is if they wait til after the election, Collins loses and reverses herself (I think she would at that point), and somehow Cory Gardner or Thom Tillis' heart grows three sizes that day after losing reelection.  They'd still have to get Murkowski and Romney as well, which is still far from certain.

In a post election nomination scenario, if Democrats sweep the elections, they can absolutely get enough Republican defectors. But absent that, nil is probably correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Time for a new Biden/Harris administration to pack the court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/09/19/mcconnell-biden-pack-court/

Don't sit back and whine about unfairness or victimhood, don't be weak. Biden needs to add as many justices as it takes to ensure Americans are protected from the type of crazies that would take HC away from 35 million people or end women's control of their own bodies.

This is about preserving and protecting the dignity of the masses.

Biden's rhetoric seems too close to how Obama did things. I kind of understand Obama's misplaced faith in the system and compromise, but after Trump, I worry because Biden is courting the right, says he will work with them, etc., etc., it seems to me if the courts get "packed," it will be with moderate, maybe even a bit right leaning judges. I add in the "right leaning" as I think Biden will cave to pressure of trying to please everyone.

I hope he truly understands (without saying it) that his Presidency can't be about compromise. It has to be about rebalancing--even tipping--the scales away from the right's stranglehold over policy. There is no reason to even try to negotiate climate change, for example, with the right, and especially if Dems control both houses in Congress. Packing the courts with progressive judges shouldn't even get a second thought from Dems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

Whoa I am shocked.  And .... Appalled!  

Well, if the Senate did hold a vote before November, and Collins took a stand and voted no for any potential justice, I wonder if she thinks that might give her a chance to win in November. I don't think it will. The damage was done with Kavanaugh, and she directly let that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fez said:

Grassley with an important message in these trying times...

 

Leg bands...does Grassley not know how to spell pigeon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Leg bands...does Grassley not know how to spell pigeon?

Aw shucks, he’s just bein’ homey!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In a post election nomination scenario, if Democrats sweep the elections, they can absolutely get enough Republican defectors. But absent that, nil is probably correct. 

Of the GOP incumbents that could be lameducks, definitely don't see McSally, Ernst, Daines, or either of the Georgia senators - hence why I mentioned Gardner or Tillis.  Of sitting Senators, can't think of anybody.  I mean...maybe Lamar Alexander?  Anyway, like I said last night, that's another reason to fill the seat before the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder for anyone who wasn't aware.

SCOTUS will be hearing oral arguments (In a matter of only weeks from present) from a group of red state's, in their case seeking to strike down The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

It's likely to presume just days after the election.

And there is now ONE LESS JUSTICE to block the evil conservatives from throwing tens of millions off their healthcare after they lose the health insurance marketplace and lose the protections to millions with preexisting conditions.

We have come to a very dangerous place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/21446256/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-supreme-court-obamacare-case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tramp just announced he'd fill the seat. He sounds sick. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the 2 WH staffers who tested positive last week. "It will be a woman... UNLESS...(rambling)"

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something city people often aren't aware of and it's important to keep in mind when trying to guess who will do what. It's not as simple as calculating whether they'll win, lose, or retire. This is actually not a new phenomena at all (goes back as far as I can remember) though it has gotten worse. About Lamar Alexander's absurdly reasoned argument for not convicting in impeachment despite retiring...

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/31/21116689/trump-impeachment-lamar-alexander-witness-bolton

Quote

To put it another way, many Republicans exist in a social world where criticizing Donald Trump is an act of cultural treason. Bucking Trump doesn’t merely risk their congressional seat, but also their ability to find future employment and live comfortably in their communities even after retiring. Alberta describes profound fears of Trump’s “cult,” of “harassment of their families, loss of standing in local communities, [and] estranged relationships.”

...

First, it’s an example of the dangers of what political scientist Lilliana Mason calls “mega-identity” in politics: Partisanship has come to be so closely linked to other parts of people’s identities, like their religion and racial self-identification, that it has become a kind of master stand-in for cultural belonging.

In a country defined by two mega-identities, defeat for your side isn’t merely a political loss, but an existential threat to your entire way of life. When Republicans feel this way about politics, then it makes sense that they’d see a vote against their president as an act of deep betrayal — and treat the person responsible accordingly, even in private life. This kind of extreme identity polarization poisons politics in ways often invisible in day-to-day observation that, nonetheless, contribute to the fundamental dysfunction of our political system.

The second thing is that it shows the ways in which the modern right depends on its own form of “political correctness.” We’re often told that the modern left is in some ways uniquely censorious, particularly on issues relating to race, gender, and sexual orientation. “There’s no right-wing equivalent to this kind of ideological policing toward people sympathetic to right-wing causes,” as the journalist Cathy Young recently put it.

Alberta’s explanation of Alexander’s vote shows us that this is simply not true. In conservative cultural spaces, even a very long right-wing record like Alexander’s doesn’t immunize you from the consequences of violating the community’s political standards. Stalwart conservative legislators are, according to Alberta, terrified of what people in their communities think of them. Imagine the ways in which many ordinary people in red areas, who have far less financial and social capital than the Lamar Alexanders of the world, feel about expressing anti-Trump sentiment!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of the GOP incumbents that could be lameducks, definitely don't see McSally, Ernst, Daines, or either of the Georgia senators - hence why I mentioned Gardner or Tillis.  Of sitting Senators, can't think of anybody.  I mean...maybe Lamar Alexander?  Anyway, like I said last night, that's another reason to fill the seat before the election.

I'm not sure it really matters at this point. There will be a 6-3 SC unless a few people do the right thing, which they probably won't. And if Biden wins and Dems hold both chambers, welcome to a brave new world my friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOW he's getting back to topic (I swear he was even less coherent than usual) and said: "I actually like women much more than I like men." Aaand.. off again we go, Hunter Biden, "Blackstone".... It's morbidly fascinating. "Where is Hunter?"

OMG, now he's asking the crowd: "Would you rather have a woman or a man?" They cheered louder for a woman, so he's asking again: Who would rather have a MAN on the SC?" LOL. "It will be a woman... we haven't chosen yet"

"Last time we got a lot of votes from Bernie, because Bernie is all about trade..."

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not sure it really matters at this point. There will be a 6-3 SC unless a few people do the right thing, which they probably won't. And if Biden wins and Dems hold both chambers, welcome to a brave new world my friend. 

But what good is a 6-3 court if it only lasts a few months and then there's a 6-5 court with Roberts as swing again; or a 6-7 court even? I think the biggest priority for McConnell right now is trying to ensure that Trump wins and/or Republicans keep the Senate. And if that means delaying the nomination to the lame duck, I think that's what happens; and, stemming from that, if Biden wins and Democrats take the senate, I could see him trying to strike a deal. Giving up the seat in exchange for no filibuster reform or court packing; which is a deal that, unfortunately, I could see at least some senate Democrats going along with.

And in related news,

Selzer's the best. And an incumbent at 42% at in mid-September is a real bad spot to be. Especially with the crazy amount of cash that Greenfield, and every other Democrat, has raised the past 22 hours. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

This is something city people often aren't aware of and it's important to keep in mind when trying to guess who will do what. It's not as simple as calculating whether they'll win, lose, or retire. This is actually not a new phenomena at all (goes back as far as I can remember) though it has gotten worse. About Lamar Alexander's absurdly reasoned argument for not convicting in impeachment despite retiring...

City people?  Really?  If you're referring to my mentioning of Lamar Alexander, I was just trying to throw out one name and thought of him as someone who was retiring AND has shown some semblance of reasonableness - albeit not for quite a long time.  I don't actually think he'd flip.

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

But what good is a 6-3 court if it only lasts a few months and then there's a 6-5 court with Roberts as swing again; or a 6-7 court even? I think the biggest priority for McConnell right now is trying to ensure that Trump wins and/or Republicans keep the Senate. And if that means delaying the nomination to the lame duck, I think that's what happens; and, stemming from that, if Biden wins and Democrats take the senate, I could see him trying to strike a deal. Giving up the seat in exchange for no filibuster reform or court packing; which is a deal that, unfortunately, I could see at least some senate Democrats going along with.

And in related news,

I think you're vastly underestimating the myopic opportunism that informs not only Trump, but especially McConnell.  He will take the 6-3 majority and hope it helps ensure Trump stays in office by any means.  Also, if he was really committed to protecting his vulnerable incumbents, he wouldn't sabotaging any chances at a stimulus deal - let alone funding the fucking government.  

Great news for Greenfield, that's encouraging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

City people?  Really?  If you're referring to my mentioning of Lamar Alexander, I was just trying to throw out one name and thought of him as someone who was retiring AND has shown some semblance of reasonableness - albeit not for quite a long time.  I don't actually think he'd flip.

 

 

I haven't seen that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think you're vastly underestimating the myopic opportunism that informs not only Trump, but especially McConnell.  He will take the 6-3 majority and hope it helps ensure Trump stays in office by any means.  Also, if he was really committed to protecting his vulnerable incumbents, he wouldn't sabotaging any chances at a stimulus deal - let alone funding the fucking government.  

Look, I hope you're right. I think a confirmation before the election helps Democrats, and I think it guarantees retribution in January if Democrats win.

That's why I think the smarter move for McConnell is to push it to the lame-duck to try to protect his caucus and use the seat as a carrot to dangle to conservative voters. It also keeps his options open, if Republicans win in November, they can safely do whatever; and if they lose, he can consider a deal like I said (or have the vote anyway and hope Democrats can't Manchin/King/etc. on board with anything).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Fez said:

But what good is a 6-3 court if it only lasts a few months and then there's a 6-5 court with Roberts as swing again; or a 6-7 court even?

No, you tell them enjoy the 9-6 court. And the expansion of every court in the entire federal judiciary. With new courts too. 

All that's left is dismantling laws designed to suppress the vote and the Republican party is dead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Fez said:

use the seat as a carrot to dangle to conservative voters

I still don't see this as a credible premise - at least why it'd be superior in turnout than simply banking the seat. 

Overall, I don't think McConnell cares what Dems may do if they win.  Exhibit A:  The Garland gambit.  Most people - almost certainly McConnell - expected Hillary to win.  But he was still willing to risk the adverse consequences of  and Dem reaction to hijacking Obama's constitutional power in the hopes that he and Trump would get to fill the seat.  It's not his MO to take the risk-averse approach you're suggesting.  I also think he definitely has zero interest in engaging in any type of deal like you described.  Not even sure how such a deal would work in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...