Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

It's funny how people blame FOX.  The recent voting patter for the country suggests a fairly even split.  Look at MSNBC and CNN now.  Most of the other regular media is much closer to MSNBC and CNN.  So it's ok for say 45 percent of the country to get their news from Fox and the other 45 percent get their news from all of the rest.  What does that tell you?  The Media is biased.  It has been since Bush JR.  There have been polls that show even some Democrats think the media is biased.  The reason FOX is powerful is because it is the only right leaning media outlet on TV.  Hence why it a lot of the time it's rating are as high as CNN and MSNBC combined. I don't consider FOX fair and balanced.  But they do have some Democrats on reguarly including Juan Williams daily.  But if you think CNN and MSNBC are balanced either then i can't imagine how.  How many times does a CNN correspondent have to do his report in front of burning building and say it was peaceful protests?

That is very accurate. I recall several times this summer where Fox was covering "peaceful protests", pointing out the violence and CNN/MSNBC wasn't even acknowledging them.  Because they knew they couldn't ever straight-faced show what was on the screen and defend it. That night in Chicago at the statue and the frozen water bottles thrown?  Couldn't even find it anywhere except Fox.  The 16 person funeral shooting in Chicago? Wasn't even discussed the next day on CNN. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jm192 said:

Yeah.  It's comical to me that people are hemming and hawing about how the Republicans are hypocrites for changing positions.  

The Dems are somehow just trying to go by the new rules the Republcians set forth in 2016--even thought they've criticized the position for the last 4 years.

Just about the point about "hypocritical" it seems to me that is not really accurate.

To echo JM in the other thread, it's about power, all of it. The Republicans are not being hypocritical, McConnell himself acted fraudulently in 2016. That is he made up an excuse that was false. It was false then, it was false before, it's false now. 

In truth yes the Senate really should consider, advise/consent on the current nominee. The problem is what happened before in what has always been a staggered, very delicate and sensitive power arranging tradition that was created in 1869 (consider the date to consider how important that was)  and McConnell of his own decision and without the advise and consent of the Senate breached that.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also intended to be staggered: the FBI Director. And Inspectors General.

Trump fired the former, and has fired multiple of the latter. He abhors democratic norms. In truth he wants a form of government that is like authoritarian nations around the world. Oversight does not happen, one party is shut out (if it's allowed to be anything beyond vestigial at all), and media, the courts and other institutions are under unitary control.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Just about the point about "hypocritical" it seems to me that is not really accurate.

To echo JM in the other thread, it's about power, all of it. The Republicans are not being hypocritical, McConnell himself acted fraudulently in 2016. That is he made up an excuse that was false. It was false then, it was false before, it's false now. 

In truth yes the Senate really should consider, advise/consent on the current nominee. The problem is what happened before in what has always been a staggered, very delicate and sensitive power arranging tradition that was created in 1869 (consider the date to consider how important that was)  and McConnell of his own decision and without the advise and consent of the Senate breached that.

I have said repeatedly Garland should have gotten a vote.  But in McConnell's defense the Republican senate was saying they weren't going to vote for Garland.  After Harry Reid killed the filibuster for judicial appointees it only took 50 votes to get Garland a hearing.  This means that the republicans had more than 50 to vote against Garland.  The SAME thing was threatened by Biden.  He had enough votes in 1992 to make it stick.  Personally i think any President's nominees should get a vote no matter the situation in the Senate.  They don't have to pass anyone but they should vote.

In the end Harry Reid's decision to kill the filibuster is the problem.    Kavanaugh and whoever is nominated now would be blocked.  He did it because he wasn't able to get his lower court judges through.  The Republicans warned him if he did this it would be used against Democrats  just like he was doing to them at the time.  Do you think Trump would have some many judges cleared through so far  without this?

As for 1869  are you referring to the 15th Amendment?  If so that wasn't bipartisan vote.  The  vote gaurenteeing the right to vote was passed purely  in Congress by Republicans.  Not one Democrat in the House and the Senate voted for it.  Some Abolitionists voted against it because it didn't go far enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Also intended to be staggered: the FBI Director. And Inspectors General.

Trump fired the former, and has fired multiple of the latter. He abhors democratic norms. In truth he wants a form of government that is like authoritarian nations around the world. Oversight does not happen, one party is shut out (if it's allowed to be anything beyond vestigial at all), and media, the courts and other institutions are under unitary control.

Comey deserved to be fired for how he handled HRC email investigation.  He should have never commented publicly on the investigation.  If you don't charge someone with something then you don't comment on their conduct.  (That is the pro HRC part)  But he also was supposedly preparing a letter of exonoration before the investigation finished.  

His own words in his findings say she broke the law.  The FBI told her not to remove any information from the server but it got wiped.  That alone is against the law.  Why the FBI just didn't take the Server in the first place is also something really wrong.  If you are investigating a crime  you don't give the evidence back to the potential suspect.

IG Hororwitz made a report for Comey's conduct in the 2016 election and was critical of what he did.  Horowitz is an Obama Appointee.  He since critized the Russia investigation and said that once the dossier was found to be not founded with any truth and that was the primary  reason the investigation was kept going and it should have been stopped.  It didn't stop and the FISA court has critized the FBI for not giving it the full information to it.  That is why the Durham investigation is happening.  The FBI is required to give FISA all information that it has on someone if they want to get a warrant and they didn't.  Even FISA court has said that. 

I agree on the IG's though.  That is wrong.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

After Harry Reid killed the filibuster for judicial appointees it only took 50 votes to get Garland a hearing.

I don't think this is right. I believe you could have 99 votes for a hearing and not get one if the majority leader says no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Comey deserved to be fired for how he handled HRC email investigation. 

That’s not why Trump fired him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think this is right. I believe you could have 99 votes for a hearing and not get one if the majority leader says no.

I am pretty sure that isn't right.  The majority leader has only one vote.  He can steer his caucess to his opinion but he can't stop his own party from over ruling him.   The only reason it doesn't take 60 votes like the other legislation is due to Reid.  The filibuster rule only applies to judiciary.  If it didn't then the Covid passage in the Senate would have been passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

That’s not why Trump fired him.

I agree.  But that doesn't make what i said wrong.  If i was Trump he would have been out JAN22

Share this post


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

I agree.  But that doesn't make what i said wrong.  If i was Trump he would have been out JAN22

But this is what I’m talking about. Primarily you’re talking about a normative reason for firing JC, not only was that not Trump’s reason he also does not value such norms. - The point was about staggered terms which do not give any one party the chance to control such oversight positions. - And what of the IGs that have been fired and forced out? Same issue.

Share this post


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

I am pretty sure that isn't right.  The majority leader has only one vote.  He can steer his caucess to his opinion but he can't stop his own party from over ruling him.   The only reason it doesn't take 60 votes like the other legislation is due to Reid.  The filibuster rule only applies to judiciary.  If it didn't then the Covid passage in the Senate would have been passed.

The filibuster was to block votes that the majority leader wanted, not to force votes that the majority leader didn't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

But this is what I’m talking about. Primarily you’re talking about a normative reason for firing JC, not only was that not Trump’s reason he also does not value such norms. - The point was about staggered terms which do not give any one party the chance to control such oversight positions. - And what of the IGs that have been fired and forced out? Same issue.

Was it normal for the IRS to investigate only Republican orginazations?  And have the IRS person claim the fifth?  Was it right for hillary not being charged?  The fact she had the server violates the Federal Records act.  And when Comey reported he he said classified information was on the server, which if you intentionally do that repeatedly that is against the law.

The idea of breaking norms is one sided is false. And I agree with you on the IG's.

Share this post


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

The filibuster was to block votes that the majority leader wanted, not to force votes that the majority leader didn't want.

MT. I am not sure what your are saying.  No party has had 60 votes for either side for a while like back past reagan i think.  The filibuster was to protect the party in minority power  not the majority..  It takes 60 to get a floor vote on a bill in the senate, hence why the recent Covid package that the Republicans supported didn't get a full floor vote.  The Dems stopped it.  The only thing that is not filibuster now is judiciary appts.  That is one of the things the Dems want to change if they win in 2020.  And it will come back to bite them.  All these games hurt either side ....

Edited by NightStalkers

Share this post


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

I am pretty sure that isn't right.  The majority leader has only one vote.  He can steer his caucess to his opinion but he can't stop his own party from over ruling him.   The only reason it doesn't take 60 votes like the other legislation is due to Reid.  The filibuster rule only applies to judiciary.  If it didn't then the Covid passage in the Senate would have been passed.

Related...I thought the majority leader is the one to decide on what gets voted on and thus, they don’t bring anything up for a vote they don’t have a good idea on how everyone in the party is going to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

MT. I am not sure what your are saying.  No party has had 60 votes for either side for a while like back past reagan i think.  The filibuster was to protect the party in minority power  not the majority..

Lots of bills have garnered more than 60 votes in the Senate.

My understanding: The Senate Majority Leader is the single person who schedules a vote in the Senate. The minority party could block a vote by filibustering, in which case it took 60 votes to overcome the filibuster and get to an actual vote. Therefore, in effect, it took 60 votes to pass something. Without a filibuster, only 50 votes are needed to pass something as long as it comes to a vote.

But nothing will come to a vote if the Majority Leader doesn't schedule one. There's no procedure by which anyone else can set the Senate's agenda.

That's why the Hastert rule can be a thing. Fifty votes don't get something to the floor unless the Majority Leader agrees.

Share this post


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

Related...I thought the majority leader is the one to decide on what gets voted on and thus, they don’t bring anything up for a vote they don’t have a good idea on how everyone in the party is going to vote.

i am almost sure this isn't correct.  There have been bills that have passed without McConnel supporting it and have had Republicans vote for it.  The reason that McConnell has been able to block certain things is his ability to keep the rest of the Republicans behind him.

Look at impeachment.  The Dems in the house didn't allow Trump's witnessess.  Nor did they release all the testimony. (The first person subpeonaed has never had his statements realeased by House Judicianry_)  And the House is allowed to do that because they have the votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

Look at impeachment.

Impeachment trials have their own procedural rules that aren't relevant to anything else.

Share this post


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

My understanding: The Senate Majority Leader is the single person who schedules a vote in the Senate. The minority party could block a vote by filibustering, in which case it took 60 votes to overcome the filibuster and get to an actual vote. Therefore, in effect, it took 60 votes to pass something. Without a filibuster, only 50 votes are needed to add something as long as it comes to a vote.

But nothing will come to a vote if the Majority Leader doesn't schedule one. There's no procedure by which anyone else can set the Senate's agenda.

That's why the Hastert rule can be a thing. Fifty votes don't get something to the floor unless the Majority Leader agrees.

That is a yes and no thing. If he has 51 votes he can block anything from getting to the floor.  And bills have passed without having 60 votes and still got considered.  The reason being that McConnell didn't have the votes to block it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

That is a yes and no thing. If he has 51 votes he can block anything from getting to the floor.  And bills have passed without having 60 votes and still got considered.  The reason being that McConnell didn't have the votes to block it. 

If he has zero votes he can block it from getting to the floor. What's your understanding of how something gets to the floor if it's not brought there by the Majority Leader? Can someone else bring it to the floor? If so, who?

Bills pass with fewer than 60 votes because people often vote for cloture even if they're going to vote nay on the bill.

Share this post


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

Impeachment has its own procedural rules that aren't relevant to anything else.

True.  But the founding of the evidence is done by the House and they don't have any rules for their side.  The Senate is the jury the house is the prosecution.  Once the House finished their part of the case the Senate could have vote no right then and Trump wouldn't have to present his side of the case.

The reason that it relevant is that each side uses the rules to their own benefit.  I mean is it fair to have only one witness allowed to testify on your behalf?

And I am not a Trump fan just a Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Phil Elliott said:

Related...I thought the majority leader is the one to decide on what gets voted on and thus, they don’t bring anything up for a vote they don’t have a good idea on how everyone in the party is going to vote.

Right. And not only that, but Republicans won't bring something to a vote even if it has enough votes to pass -- unless a majority of Republicans (not just a majority of the Senate) are in favor of it. That's the Hastert Rule (which Democrats have not yet adopted).

So if Republicans are in the majority, and 49% of Republicans support something in addition to 100% of Democrats (for a total of 67%+ of the Senate), it won't get voted on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

True.  But the founding of the evidence is done by the House and they don't have any rules for their side.  The Senate is the jury the house is the prosecution.  Once the House finished their part of the case the Senate could have vote no right then and Trump wouldn't have to present his side of the case.

The reason that it relevant is that each side uses the rules to their own benefit.  I mean is it fair to have only one witness allowed to testify on your behalf?

And I am not a Trump fan just a Republican.

But none of this has anything to do with who decides what the Senate will vote on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

If he has zero votes he can block it from getting to the floor. What's your understanding of how something gets to the floor if it's not brought there by the Majority Leader? Can someone else bring it to the floor? If so, who?

Bills pass with fewer than 60 votes because people often vote for cloture even if they're going to vote nay on the bill.

Then it should be changed.  In practical terms though if the Majority leader is going against the wishes of  his own party all the time or is overriding a vast chunk of his own party then he won't be majority leader for long.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightStalkers said:

Then it should be changed.  In practical terms though if the Majority leader is going against the wishes of  his own party all the time or is overriding a vast chunk of his own party then he won't be majority leader for long.

No Majority Leader does that. McConnell will go against the wishes of the Senate as a whole, but generally won't go against the wishes of the majority of Republicans.

If 67% of the Senate likes some legislation but only 49% of Republicans do, it won't come up for a vote. But if 51% of Republicans like it, and it has enough support to pass, a vote will be scheduled. (Though unless 60% of the Senate agrees to vote on it, the vote may be blocked via filibuster.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

No Majority Leader does that. McConnell will go against the wishes of the Senate as a whole, but generally won't go against the wishes of the majority of Republicans.

If 67% of the Senate likes some legislation but only 49% of Republicans do, it won't come up for a vote. But if 51% of Republicans like it, and it has enough support to pass, a vote will be scheduled. (Though unless 60% of the Senate agrees to vote on it, the vote may be blocked via filibuster.)

I gotta believe if half his cauces is wanting something then he lets it through or even 35 percent.  And as far as i know the rules of the senate have only been changed by the Harry Reid change.  So the Dems have to have been doing the same things....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Senate rules have changed more recently than under Harry Reid. 

In 2019 McConnell changed the Senate rules to speed up some lower level confirmation hearings, and did so on a 51-49 vote. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees

Edited by The Z Machine

Share this post


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

The two parties don't follow all the same conventions.

By the way the Hastert Rule is the House not the Senate.  Pelosi said she is doing the same thing.  And the House has an escape provision.  If just unlikely to be used as it takes 218 votes from the majority party to get the provision used and no Speaker is going to be fighting that much of their side...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

The Senate rules have changed more recently than under Harry Reid. 

In 2019 McConnell changed the Senate rules to speed up some lower level confirmation hearings, and did so on a 51-49 vote. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/03/709489797/senate-rewrites-rules-to-speed-confirmations-for-some-trump-nominees

Yes that jibes with what he told Harry Reid when he got rid of the filibuster for his court appts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NightStalkers said:

By the way the Hastert Rule is the House not the Senate.  Pelosi said she is doing the same thing.  And the House has an escape provision.  If just unlikely to be used as it takes 218 votes from the majority party to get the provision used and no Speaker is going to be fighting that much of their side...

I think the only time she has done this was the rules package that would require a majority of the majority to remove her from power. That makes sense, considering it is her party that should decide who is in a leadership position.

In other instances, she has been adamant about not following the Hastert rule. 

In 2003 Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[1] In May 2007 Pelosi said, "I'm the Speaker of the House...I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."[13] She also said at that time, "I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say 'the majority of the majority does this or that.' We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."[13] Pelosi's former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, "On the larger issue of the 'majority of the majority,' she has talked about that for quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process... That's the kind of Speakership she wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

I think the only time she has done this was the rules package that would require a majority of the majority to remove her from power. That makes sense, considering it is her party that should decide who is in a leadership position.

In other instances, she has been adamant about not following the Hastert rule. 

In 2003 Pelosi, then the House Minority Leader under Speaker Hastert, decried the Hastert Rule as a partisan attempt to marginalize elected members of the Democratic Party in Congress.[1] In May 2007 Pelosi said, "I'm the Speaker of the House...I have to take into consideration something broader than the majority of the majority in the Democratic Caucus."[13] She also said at that time, "I would encourage my colleagues not to be proposing resolutions that say 'the majority of the majority does this or that.' We have to talk it out, see what is possible to get a job done. And as I say, we do that together."[13] Pelosi's former chief of staff, George Crawford, expanded upon this saying, "On the larger issue of the 'majority of the majority,' she has talked about that for quite a while. She does want the minority party to engage in the legislative process... That's the kind of Speakership she wants.

LOL we are looking at the Same Wiki :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, NightStalkers said:

By the way the Hastert Rule is the House not the Senate.

Thanks. In the Senate, maybe the convention is that the Majority Leader will simply do as he pleases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

Thanks. In the Senate, maybe the convention is that the Majority Leader will simply do as he pleases.

Personally i don't like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phil Elliott said:

You are right.  My point is there is hypocrisy on both sides.

Over time, I buy this statement.  It's a very "water is wet" statement actually.  In this case I don't.  It doesn't seem to apply at all.  As MT points out, the GOP is not doing what they said just 4 years ago and the Dems are essentially saying "Why aren't you using the precedent you were claiming then, now?"  That's very different.  When your position is essentially "I didn't do my job before, but am deciding to do it now" you have some major mental gymnastics to work through to make it something else.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways - it does not matter.

 

All politicians say and do things to hold onto power.  This is no different.  The Trump Party base will reward candidates who do whatever it takes to win.

The question is whether "independent" voters care enough.

I think, in this case, true independents will care - and it will cost the GOP.  It remains to be seen if that has an overall impact though.  If the Dems do not retaliate in some form, then it will probably be worth the loss in the Senate.  But, if the Dems push back - then it will be for naught - at least until the next election cycle. 

 

If this is a landslide election, the Dems will feel emboldened.  But, if this is a narrow win for the Dems, I expect they will be too timid to respond in kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I think, in this case, true independents will care

Sure

37 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

and it will cost the GOP.

If there were actually more than a handful of these people.  I don't think there is.

40 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

f this is a landslide election, the Dems will feel emboldened.

I don't think this is true either!  Obama's "elections have consequences" wasn't really followed by the "mandate" behavior that the GOP claims and uses to push through stuff even when that mandate is less than half the vote.   (Sure Reagan eventually captures the Anderson vote ;)  in '84...)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Sure

If there were actually more than a handful of these people.  I don't think there is.

I don't think this is true either!  Obama's "elections have consequences" wasn't really followed by the "mandate" behavior that the GOP claims and uses to push through stuff even when that mandate is less than half the vote.   (Sure Reagan eventually captures the Anderson vote ;)  in '84...)  

I think there are a lot of former Republicans who don't feel comfortable in the Trump party.  If I had to guess, I would say Trump Party is about 25%, with another 10% that are never-Dems.  I would guess Dems are about 40%.  So, that leaves ~25% of people who will vote based on how they feel in any given election.  Sure some (many?) have leans - but I don't think those are insurmountable.

The polling is suggesting close races in places where they're shouldn't be close races.  That suggests, to me, there is a groundswell of support for "Not Trump" - and most of that movement is coming from the 25%,

Lets consider that the Trump Party rushes through a SC justice.  I think the Trump party will be very happy, but less enticed to get to the polls in November (or sooner).  That opens the door to a real swing via turnout.  Given that about 50% of the people vote - if that drops on one side, and goes up on the other side - that has an over-sized influence on the election.  That could lead to the kind of landslide blowout that gives everyone a false sense of the state of the nation.  But, it would embolden Democrats to enact their agenda.  (It might be overconfidence - but it would be there).

 

So, what does that mean?

1.  Legislation gets pushed through that deals with thorny issues.  Abortion legislation would be at the top of the list - and I think the Dem, right to choice position is shared by a majority of Americans, so this won't cause heartache in the heartland.  Yes, Mississippi and Alabama will be angry, but that's not a political hot spot.

2.  Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico.  Both of these can be couched in terms of providing better representation for a lot of Americans who are underrepresented right now.  I am also in favor of PR getting statehood just so they can deal with their own financial crisis with the same tools given to other states (but not currently permitted by PR).

3.  Judicial Reform - many will call this court packing - but realistically, we should be at 13 Justices - one for each Judicial Circuit, and perhaps its time to get some Jurists from the West Coast, and Mid West on the bench.  I would also not be opposed to looking at the 9th Circuit and determining if that should be broken into two circuits.

 

It certainly takes some bit of follow-through - but with the audacious moves by the GOP fresh in their minds - I think the Dems will be up for bold action, rather than business as usual.  You will also have some populists agitators keeping pressure on the Dem leadership to make these kind of changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Romney has hammered the last nail in the coffin of Dem hopes to delay this nomination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

So, that leaves ~25% of people who will vote based on how they feel in any given election.

Exit polling consistently puts this number (independents without a discernible lean)  at less than a half of this, usually less than a third.  And while this tidbit could help your argument most of these end u being "band wagon" voters that vote for the winner.  (Even in those "surprises" of 2016 this seemed to somehow happen.)

Now party bases not being excited and staying home is actually relevant.  Problem is that it is seldom a problem for the GOP.

 

Share this post


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

Exit polling consistently puts this number (independents without a discernible lean)  at less than a half of this, usually less than a third. 

To be fair 25% is less than a third...

😉

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

To be fair 25% is less than a third...

😉

 

Less than a third of 25%.  (i.e. around 8%)

I don't think this particular survey was exit polling, but it comes to the same conclusion -

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

Quote

Just 7% of Americans decline to lean toward a party, a share that has changed little in recent years. This is a long-standing dynamic that has been the subject of past analyses, both by Pew Research Center and others.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Looks like Romney has hammered the last nail in the coffin of Dem hopes to delay this nomination.

Was really surprised to hear he'd be the one to go along with the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Less than a third of 25%.  (i.e. around 8%)

I don't think this particular survey was exit polling, but it comes to the same conclusion -

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

 

Right - but that includes leaners - which I alluded to in the original post.  I think almost everyone is at least a leaner.

But, leaners are subject to shifting sands.  So, in any given cycle, I think the direction of the lean is susceptible to movement.

 

Even more important though - turnout.  I think this ends up being the Trump Party rubbing the noses of the Dems in the ####.  And I expect a bigger turnout among Dem voters and Dem leaners than Trump voters.

2018 was not an aberration - it was the result of a more inspired party taking action.  Biden is not the best standard bearer here - but Trump replacing Ginsberg will be just the thing to shock apathetic  Dem voters into action.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Right - but that includes leaners - which I alluded to in the original post.  I think almost everyone is at least a leaner.

But, leaners are subject to shifting sands.  So, in any given cycle, I think the direction of the lean is susceptible to movement.

 

Even more important though - turnout.  I think this ends up being the Trump Party rubbing the noses of the Dems in the ####.  And I expect a bigger turnout among Dem voters and Dem leaners than Trump voters.

2018 was not an aberration - it was the result of a more inspired party taking action.  Biden is not the best standard bearer here - but Trump replacing Ginsberg will be just the thing to shock apathetic  Dem voters into action.

Right I agree on the turn out being the key.  I just don't agree that you win by pulling in "true independents".  That the cause and effect is backwards.  "True independents" don't pick the winner but they do tend to go with the winner.

I think trying to appeal to the center has proven repeatedly to be a losing strategy.  The only similar losing strategy is believing that "this time is different".  Knowing this doesn't exactly give me the warm and fuzzies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no rule that says the nominee for SCOTUS  has to undergo questions in a hearing.  just saying McConnell could bring it to a vote without the vetting process from congress.  man would some heads explode then.

Share this post


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

"True independents" don't pick the winner but they do tend to go with the winner.

Agree 100%

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, shadrap said:

there is no rule that says the nominee for SCOTUS  has to undergo questions in a hearing.  just saying McConnell could bring it to a vote without the vetting process from congress.  man would some heads explode then.

Meh.  Why bother with questioning or any sort of vetting if Mitch and the Republicans are flip-flopping back to a Presidential deference approach to the process?  It's not like intelligence, philosophy, or judicial temperament matter anymore when it comes to Trump's SCOTUS picks.  Just get one of Scalia's old law clerks in there and call it good.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mookie said:

Meh.  Why bother with questioning or any sort of vetting if Mitch and the Republicans are flip-flopping back to a Presidential deference approach to the process?  It's not like intelligence, philosophy, or judicial temperament matter anymore when it comes to Trump's SCOTUS picks.  Just get one of Scalia's old law clerks in there and call it good.  

on the flip side I don't see any Dem voting for the nominee anyhow regardless of intellect, qualifications, etc.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.