US Politics: Weimar, Washington, Whining, Bush II

[Tywin et al.]

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. 

[DMC]

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.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Nevermind I got deepfaked

[Fez]

41 minutes ago, DMC said:

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.

Well, a 6-3 court maybe causes some abortion-only voters to decide they don't need Trump any longer. Probably not many of them, but I don't know the data. At the same time, I do think the hypocrisy of having the vote before the election does cause some additional independents to swing to Democrats.

As for Garland, it was the smart play for McConnell. I'm sure he expected Clinton to win, but if that happened he'd be no worse off than if Garland got the seat. And there was always the chance that Trump would win, in which case the rewards would be so great. There also the exit polls showing just how many voters back in 2016 had the Supreme Court as their top priority, and Trump won them. So McConnell holding the seat may have directly helped Republicans in the election. But the calculus is different this time.

As for any deal, obviously it would be handshake only. But the filibuster itself is essentially just a handshake deal too; they can still exist. You're right that McConnell probably wouldn't go for a deal, since it risks splitting the Republicans for the 2022 midterm. But the point is that waiting until after the election lets him keep his options open; and it probably helps for the election itself.

Like I said, I hope McConnell doesn't think this way; but there is the danger he does. Its all about the election for me, and anything that helps Democrats is what I want at this point. And that's a hasty, rammed through nomination that they can attack.

[Zorral]

Far more concerned about this, which somebody here said couldn't happen, because you know law and cops and stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/trump-supporters-early-voting-virginia.html

People with guns doing this, very soon:

Quote

A group waving Trump flags and chanting “four more years” created a commotion at a polling location in Fairfax, Va. A county official said some voters and staff members felt intimidated.

.... In an unnerved electorate, where concerns about voting rights and safely voting amid the coronavirus pandemic are at a fever pitch, the demonstration outside of a polling place served as preview of a likely contentious election season, and how groups may be utilizing tactics that rattle or even deter voters over the next six weeks.

The disruption came as President Trump has repeatedly sought to undermine confidence in the upcoming election, spreading falsehoods about voting by mail and declaring the election “rigged” before any votes have even been cast.

The demonstration originated from a “Trump Train” parade that began in nearby Prince William County and featured Tommy Hicks Jr., the current Republican National Committee co-chairman. The event was set to end in the parking lot of the government center, which was also serving as the polling location on Saturday. Some of the people who attended the parade walked over to vote. Others gathered outside and began chanting, “four more years, four more years!”

Sean Rastatter, a vice chair at the Fairfax County Republican Committee who was at the polling location, said that he did not think any actions came close to voter intimidation, and that many of the discussions from members of the group were with journalists....

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Any notions that McConnell would delay a confirmation one moment longer than possible are waaaay over thinking it.

They will ram a new justice on that court as quickly as possible.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

Its all about the election for me, and anything that helps Democrats is what I want at this point. And that's a hasty, rammed through nomination that they can attack.

I think you're kidding yourself if if you think much of anybody is going to be motivated to vote Biden because the GOP rammed through a confirmation before the election.  The people that would mobilize are already thoroughly mobilized against Trump.  By the same token, btw, I don't think it's going to move the needle much one way or another for potential Trump voters on if he confirms a nominee before or after the election.  Almost everybody has already made up their minds.  And the people that haven't are very likely to be low information voters which mean the SC is not going to be a high salience issue for them.  This is why you ram through the confirmation now when you still have leverage with at-risk GOP incumbents rather than rolling the dice on what they'll decide in the lameduck session if they lose reelection.

12 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Far more concerned about this, which somebody here said couldn't happen, because you know law and cops and stuff.

Uh, no, I never said that couldn't happen.  Typical complete mischaracterization coming from you.  What I said was fantastical is armed militia seizing and/or destroying ballots, not voter intimidation at precincts.  The GOP, or the white supremacists that compose the current GOP, have literally been doing the latter since the 15th amendment was ratified.

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

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

This is not entirely accurate-

the lawsuit doesn’t go after the entire ACA, it targets the individual mandate specifically.

also, while they begin hearing arguments, they will not be ruling until next year on this case.

 

Not that this isn’t still an important moment and the composition of the court is of terrible importance- but this case will not strike down the ACA and whether Republicans fast track a nomination or not we will have a new justice ruling on that case

[Fez]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think you're kidding yourself if if you think much of anybody is going to be motivated to vote Biden because the GOP rammed through a confirmation before the election.  The people that would mobilize are already thoroughly mobilized against Trump.  By the same token, btw, I don't think it's going to move the needle much one way or another for potential Trump voters on if he confirms a nominee before or after the election.  Almost everybody has already made up their minds.  And the people that haven't are very likely to be low information voters which mean the SC is not going to be a high salience issue for them.  This is why you ram through the confirmation now when you still have leverage with at-risk GOP incumbents rather than rolling the dice on what they'll decide in the lameduck session if they lose reelection.

All on the margins. I'd take a thousand extra voters in PA if that's all its worth. Every bit counts. I think it's more than that though. Not from the hypocrisy angle, but from the "Republicans just confirmed the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade" angle. It's no longer a hypothetical, it happened. I could see that netting some extra votes from women who were going to go third-party or sit out the election.

 

In other news, I finally got around to checking my mail, and my ballot arrived. Mailed on Wednesday, showed up on Saturday. Pretty good actually. So I voted today. Feeling pretty excited about that. Now I just need to make sure the ballot safely gets back to the election board.

Voted against a state redistricting amendment that sounds all good government but would really just strip redistricting power from the state legislature now that Democrats finally have unified control. Voted for a vehicle property tax break for disabled veterans. And voted for 6 different county bond issues. Plus for all the Democratic nominees of course.

The only part I didn't love is that while the instructions clearly say that you can ignore the witness requirement if you don't feel its safe to have one (which I don't), the envelopes are the regular ones that say multiple times that you must have a witness present. I hope it doesn't confuse anyone and prevent anyone from voting. Now granted, there are no restrictions on witnesses; it can be a spouse, family member, roommate, anyone. It's just single folks like me who live alone that run into an issue during these pandemic times. 

[karaddin]

I feel like this person and a whole bunch of the replies are living in a reality almost as far from mine as the hardcore Trumpists and Qs.

Appreciation for Biden's campaign is one thing, individual tastes vary of course, but the overweening pride and certainty of victory combined with contempt for people that are fearful of an authorization seizing power is really a different story.

Not sure how these types account for the potential impact of those intimidation crowds that will pop up everywhere now the first ones are getting attention. Like Zorral I'm sure the guns will follow.

[ThinkerX]

I am seeing increasing Facebook commentary about an 'Antifa Offensive' - apparently featuring heavily armed 'Antifa terrorists' swooping into white suburbs to cause havoc.   One posted about a massive cache of seized 'Antifa' weapons, another posted a short clip that showed black clad people (Antifa? brave militia defenders?) attacking a van in Pennsylvania. 

There is a pervasive, iron held belief on the right that Antifa is a sort of left wing version of the far right militias, complete with officers and training camps.  Tell them otherwise, and the responses range from genuine bafflement to utter contempt.

[Ran]

44 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I feel like this person and a whole bunch of the replies are living in a reality almost as far from mine as the hardcore Trumpists and Qs.

Having followed Weigel's commentary in the past, I think you're misconstruing what he's saying. Most of the pundits he's referring to are of course right wingers, and then there is, I guess, the "doomer" wing of the left who have as a prior that there's no way Biden can win, and therefore they read every event in that light as being a thing that will contribute to their prior.

Weigel's very much an inside-baseball guy and his perspective is very different -- and much more cynical, really, about punditry and politics -- than that of the electorate. I don't think he's intending to suggest complacency at all, merely that pundits who keep trying to find evidence that Biden's going to lose from headlines are making an unforced error.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

 

 

I shared these earlier and then deleted because I thought it must be a parody account.  But nope!  It's legit!  It's real!  Iowans having a hell of Saturday on Twitter.

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

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)"

Does that mean Ann Coulter?

[karaddin]

4 hours ago, Ran said:

Having followed Weigel's commentary in the past, I think you're misconstruing what he's saying. Most of the pundits he's referring to are of course right wingers, and then there is, I guess, the "doomer" wing of the left who have as a prior that there's no way Biden can win, and therefore they read every event in that light as being a thing that will contribute to their prior.

Weigel's very much an inside-baseball guy and his perspective is very different -- and much more cynical, really, about punditry and politics -- than that of the electorate. I don't think he's intending to suggest complacency at all, merely that pundits who keep trying to find evidence that Biden's going to lose from headlines are making an unforced error.

A whole bunch of the replies certainly were thinking what I'm referring to though. I'm not even assering that I'm necessarily right about this, just that there's almost as much gap between me and people with that level of confidence as there is between both of us as the out there as fuck right. If you've watched Dark I'm essentially going with "I'd been seing an infinity symbol but its actually a triquetra" kind of scenario.

3 hours ago, Triskele said:

A sign of the times though, but it seems to me like Karaddin's also saying don't make that other unforced error... like last time.  
 

No idea what's right

I'm not actually seeing much evidence that anyone with the power to make a difference even is taking it for granted, and there is just as much argument that the things I'd identify as unforced errors are actually the right moves, so I'm not here throwing around judgement. Just amazed at how big a difference there is.

I am very scared that Trump is going to win "legitimately" despite all the signs to the contrary, and I'm convinced he will do everything in his power to try steal it even if he loses, but I don't think I have anything like the conviction some of those people seem to have. Or the adoration for Biden's apparently perfect campaign? It can be weird as an outside observer of American politics trying to identify what actually appeals to your voters that would go down like a lead balloon elsewhere but I don't think that's the case here. I'll be very happy if they turn out to be closer to right than I think they are.

[DMC]

7 hours ago, karaddin said:

Appreciation for Biden's campaign is one thing, individual tastes vary of course, but the overweening pride and certainty of victory combined with contempt for people that are fearful of an authorization seizing power is really a different story.

I don't think Dave Weigel is a good representation of punditry - let alone the voters - when we're talking about potential complacency or detachment from reality.  Remember this is a guy that's publicly advertised he voted for Jack Ryan in 2004 and Ron Paul in 2008 (both primaries).  Such choices suggest his electoral leanings are indeed more detached from reality than the normal voter, and he's made his living by posing as an "eclectic" or (faux) "independent" commentator.  (Personally I've always thought he's just a douchebag.)

As for the guns coming out, they most certainly are going to.  But there's a very important distinction from such trash using them as intimidation props in their pathetic political cosplay and actually brandishing a weapon in an attempt to seize ballots.

2 hours ago, karaddin said:

I am very scared that Trump is going to win "legitimately" despite all the signs to the contrary, and I'm convinced he will do everything in his power to try steal it even if he loses, but I don't think I have anything like the conviction some of those people seem to have. Or the adoration for Biden's apparently perfect campaign? It can be weird as an outside observer of American politics trying to identify what actually appeals to your voters that would go down like a lead balloon elsewhere but I don't think that's the case here. I'll be very happy if they turn out to be closer to right than I think they are.

Maybe it's just cuz I just woke up, but this graph seems hard to parse while also including interesting points I want to respond to - so sorry if I misinterpret here which is quite likely.  First, I and pretty much all highly politically interested Biden voters share your strong concern that Trump will figure out a way to steal the election.  What I'm missing, however, is this apparent lauding of Biden's campaign being "perfect," or anything close to that.  Who exactly are you referring to there?  I mean, I don't have much complaints about Biden's campaign, but that's because it's barely existent and that's the right strategy. 

When your overall campaign strategy is a return to normalcy - and subsequently your electoral strategy is to ensure voters view the contest as a referendum on the incumbent you're challenging - then staying out of the spotlight and simply raising obscene amounts of cash for ad-buys sounds like the right way to go to me.  Still, though, that's hardly inspiring like Obama 2008, or even Clinton 1992, or really down the line.  So, I don't see much adoration for the campaign at all, or at least I certainly don't.  I definitely think it's the right move, but so too is running out the clock when your team has a lead.  It'll get you the win, but it ain't really anything to write home about.

Anyway, one last comment on the complacency thing - and this is just in general, not really in response to your posts specifically.  Perhaps I live in a bubble, or did even before covid forced us all into a bubble, but anecdotally talking to friends from all three cities I've lived in over my adult life I have to say I distinctly do not think there's the level of complacency there was in 2016.  This includes eggheads and (unfortunately former) bartenders in Pittsburgh, a diverse group that (at least used to) lives in Orlando, and about 7-8 old DC friends from my formative 18-22 years - five of which currently have high profile positions in politics, including *gasp* two Republicans.  To a person, each one of this group - including myself - basically assumed Hillary was going to win four years ago.  That is decidedly not the case today, even though Biden is running substantially superior to her in essentially every facet except for male minorities.

[Tywin et al.]

5 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I shared these earlier and then deleted because I thought it must be a parody account.  But nope!  It's legit!  It's real!  Iowans having a hell of Saturday on Twitter.

Grassley is known to have a really bizarre Twitter account. There are all kinds of gems on it.

He's also a good example of why there should be term limits.

ETA: not sure why I can't fix the spacing in the quote...

[Tywin et al.]

4 hours ago, SeanF said:

Does that mean Ann Coulter?

Haven't you heard? She famously turned on him a long time ago.

The pick will be the woman who literally is in a covenant where women are called handmaids. Art reflects reality only for reality to reflect art. 

We're in a brave new world. 

[karaddin]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

When your overall campaign strategy is a return to normalcy - and subsequently your electoral strategy is to ensure voters view the contest as a referendum on the incumbent you're challenging - then staying out of the spotlight and simply raising obscene amounts of cash for ad-buys sounds like the right way to go to me.  Still, though, that's hardly inspiring like Obama 2008, or even Clinton 1992, or really down the line.  So, I don't see much adoration for the campaign at all, or at least I certainly don't.  I definitely think it's the right move, but so too is running out the clock when your team has a lead.  It'll get you the win, but it ain't really anything to write home about.

Either I'm still not being clear or you're not getting what I'm saying, which it is doesnt really matter lol. A bunch of the replies to that tweet before looked like this one below and I was just very confused by it. I hadn't seen that kind of sentiment expressed before and this made me feel like there was a whole bunch of people who are basically orgasmic for Biden and it really confused me. As I said, I'm not actually critising his campaign or anyone for complacency here, I just don't know what the fuck you need to be looking at to see the campaign like this. The bolded in your post makes it sound like you are similarly not critical of his campaign but also not blown away by it either. Its just been reserved/solid type campaign trying to play things safe. I will even give Biden that he didn't just focus on beating Trump in the DNC but tried to highlight other things - I've long felt that the left needs to offer something to vote for, not just someone to vote against and he is trying to do that.

So yeah, I really wasn't talking complacency at all today. Just confusion at the below.

 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Haven't you heard? She famously turned on him a long time ago.

The pick will be the woman who literally is in a covenant where women are called handmaids. Art reflects reality only for reality to reflect art. 

We're in a brave new world. 

Paradox though it may seem - and paradoxes are always dangerous things - it is none the less true that Life imitates art far more than Art imitates life

-Oscar Wilde

@karaddin

I saw that bottom tweet yesterday and thought at first it had to be satire.  I guess it's just part of the !Team Sports! crowd in politics?