|
Mitt Romney posted:The GOP can only turnout so many people though. Romney's turnout in 2012 was great but it was still 332 EV for Obama. Yeah, it feels like the strategy was less "maxing out our turnout" and more "minimizing the other guys' turnout". Right now there's a much bigger reason for the Democrats to vote for someone, and that conflicts with the plan.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:What's the eta on McConnell announcing they will not bring up a SC nominee for consideration this year? Less than a couple hours? Any official announcements from anyone before the body is in the ground are Bad Ideas. So probably soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
In terms of firing up their voting base, it seems to me that Republicans have everything to gain from taking a brave, obstructionist stance against our usurper-in-chief.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The GOP can only turnout so many people though. Romney's turnout in 2012 was great but it was still 332 EV for Obama. what are you talking about, that was horrible gotv. Their mobilization system literally crashed on election day because they had never tested it, they were scrambling the whole day. Go look up "Romney Orca" vintage Republican Tears. 2012 was an excellent year, I find the bitter, salty taste goes well with beef or game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:So is McConnell in the air back to DC yet? God I hope Obama actually recess appoints someone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Justice Obama is gonna own He wouldn't be able to rule on any case within the past 8 years. He'd be fantastic, but useless because he'd have to recuse himself more or less constantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:53
|
|
Cat Army 
|
The Iron Rose posted:He wouldn't be able to rule on any case within the past 8 years. He'd be fantastic, but useless because he'd have to recuse himself more or less constantly. Didn't stop him from appointing Kagan!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:what are you talking about, that was horrible gotv. Their mobilization system literally crashed on election day because they had never tested it, they were scrambling the whole day. Look at the actual numbers though 2004 and 2012 were pretty similar for the GOP, and are considered decent turnouts for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:In terms of firing up their voting base, it seems to me that Republicans have everything to gain from taking a brave, obstructionist stance against our usurper-in-chief. It's strange how "voting against [x]" is only a disadvantage when Democrats are doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
I'm popping a bottle of champagne with dinner tonight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
And Cruz gets there first: https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/698634625246195712
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:He wouldn't be able to rule on any case within the past 8 years. He'd be fantastic, but useless because he'd have to recuse himself more or less constantly. Did Taft have any issues as Chief Justice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
I don't think the Republicans can win this and I think their best option is to confirm as soon as possible. If they're ultimately going to relinquish then every day they drag it out is a day closer to election day and being fresher in their base's memory. If they stall through the election it turns it into a SCOTUS election which is guaranteed to drive liberal/democrat turnout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:I'm popping a bottle of champagne with dinner tonight. I walked to the nearest bar as soon as I heard and ordered shots of Patron for everyone in my vicinity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Well tonights Debates are going to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
[quote="whitey delenda est" post="456240494"]This is the exact opposite of my read on it. The obvious obstructionism leaps into permanently delaying a lot of the cases they are seriously concerned with furthering their agenda. Not to mention the horrible optics with anyone even mildly politically aware going into the election.[quote] I do not agree with this at all. As for "delaying cases they are concerned about", if they don't have 5 votes without Scalia, then they obviously don't want Obama to pick the 9th justice since they'd likely lose anyway. If they do have 5 votes without Scalia, there is no delay. As for the "optics", preserving the chance to pick Scalia's replacement if they win in November is going to be more important than almost any amount of backlash, and I am skeptical that there will be much backlash. Normal people who don't follow politics every day like we do are not going to get worked up over a delay to fully staff the high court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Well tonights Debates are going to be interesting. Ooohhhh poo poo, I forgot about that 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:And Cruz gets there first: I was going to point out that scalias corpse isn't even cold yet but it wasn't warm to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Is there precedent for increased election turnout after the death of a sitting supreme court justice, or is this all hypothetical? I don't know if the average voter particularly cares that a SCOTUS seat is now on the line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:I do not agree with this at all. As for "delaying cases they are concerned about", if they don't have 5 votes without Scalia, then they obviously don't want Obama to pick the 9th justice since they'd likely lose anyway. If they do have 5 votes without Scalia, there is no delay. The only thing I could see making them accept an Obama nominee if it meant them losing their senate seats if they didn't. Like if public opinion turned against them so much that it was obvious. Really though I think it's just going to be a partisan issue which the news media reports both sides and the 'controversy' and the GOP will successfully be able to block the nominee without too much consequence. But the turnout among dems is guaranteed to be high now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:He wouldn't be able to rule on any case within the past 8 years. He'd be fantastic, but useless because he'd have to recuse himself more or less constantly. There aren't any hard rules, though. There are commonly understood standards, but the only rule is the justice decides whether they need to recuse himself or not. If Obama says "no, I can be fair on anything, even laws I signed", there's not really any way to stop him. Not that there's any chance at all that Obama would become a supreme court justice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Supreme Court's a big enough deal that it will increase voter turn out. However I still want Obama to just appoint a recess judge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
I can already imagine the election ads. "Do you want this man to choose the next supreme court justice?" [Trump / whoever saying horrid poo poo]
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The only thing I could see making them accept an Obama nominee if it meant them losing their senate seats if they didn't. Like if public opinion turned against them so much that it was obvious. That is true, but I'll go out on a limb and say that I do not believe that this radical shift in public opinion will happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
What is the incentive for the Senate to approve anyone at all? These days I tend to think that unless there is the proverbial gun to their head, they won't decide on anything at all forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Supreme Court's a big enough deal that it will increase voter turn out. However I still want Obama to just appoint a recess judge. He's got nothing to loss if he does appoint. He's got less than a year left and the seat is already going to be a election turnout factor regardless of what he does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Is there precedent for increased election turnout after the death of a sitting supreme court justice, or is this all hypothetical? I don't know if the average voter particularly cares that a SCOTUS seat is now on the line. Not only does a situation like this not pop up that often, the court hasn't been this blatantly partisan previously, and judicial appointments in particular have not been this hyperpartisan (like the last few decades basically). In the 50s and 60s the fault lines were in things like civil rights where both parties had different wings. Nowadays the parties are more clearly distinct. 2016 is a very different political environment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:And Cruz gets there first: I am voting for the president that promises to nominate Justice Danny DeVito as Scalia's replacement
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
So is Aaron Sorkin writing America? Are we season 8 of The West Wing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:There aren't any hard rules, though. There are commonly understood standards, but the only rule is the justice decides whether they need to recuse himself or not. If Obama says "no, I can be fair on anything, even laws I signed", there's not really any way to stop him. Not that there's any chance at all that Obama would become a supreme court justice. If he did that he'd be a terrible and unethical justice. It wouldn't be okay just because he's on our side!
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Is there precedent for increased election turnout after the death of a sitting supreme court justice, or is this all hypothetical? I don't know if the average voter particularly cares that a SCOTUS seat is now on the line. I think the recent gay marriage decision will still be fresh in the average joe's mind, at least. People might care about the idea that a conservative president would work to appoint a justice that would be hostile to LGBT issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Cruz's tweet just reminded me of how he hosed up the GOP block of the judiciary not too long ago. Man the GOP must hate that guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:So is Aaron Sorkin writing America? Maybe we'll have a co-GOP/Democratic ticket and teachers unions will agree to get rid of tenure Sorkin is a political wet shart
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Some people in my social media are playing the "don't say bad things about dead people" card. I refuse to feel guilty for celebrating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
The Iron Rose posted:He wouldn't be able to rule on any case within the past 8 years. He'd be fantastic, but useless because he'd have to recuse himself more or less constantly. No he doesn't I mean, he should recuse himself, but I think there is no legal requirement for him to so. Hi Clarence Thomas
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What is the incentive for the Senate to approve anyone at all? These days I tend to think that unless there is the proverbial gun to their head, they won't decide on anything at all forever. precedent is still a thing in the Senate. And the optics of delaying a supreme court nomination for the Longest Time in History are terrible. Not everyone is Ted Cruz. I guess it depends on whether a narrative of 'it's unacceptable to nominate someone as a lame duck president' (even though he isn't) can dominate the conversation or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:precedent is still a thing in the Senate. And the optics of delaying a supreme court nomination for the Longest Time in History are terrible. Not everyone is Ted Cruz. This will be a good demonstration of how 'moderate' GOP senators in Maine and elsewhere are just as bad as the tea party senators in OK/TX etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Some people in my social media are playing the "don't say bad things about dead people" card. I refuse to feel guilty for celebrating. He was 79. The only tragedy is for the conservative movement and he already made a massive legacy for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Antti posted:Not only does a situation like this not pop up that often, the court hasn't been this blatantly partisan previously, and judicial appointments in particular have not been this hyperpartisan (like the last few decades basically). In the 50s and 60s the fault lines were in things like civil rights where both parties had different wings. Nowadays the parties are more clearly distinct. 2016 is a very different political environment. Right. I guess my question is: how sure can we be of increased voter turnout due to this? How much do voters care about which party elects a SC justice? UV_Catastrophe posted:I think the recent gay marriage decision will still be fresh in the average joe's mind, at least. People might care about the idea that a conservative president would work to appoint a justice that would be hostile to LGBT issues. I hope so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:What is the incentive for the Senate to approve anyone at all? These days I tend to think that unless there is the proverbial gun to their head, they won't decide on anything at all forever. Exactly. I've heard a lot of people claim that even Republicans in the senate wouldn't be extreme enough to block an SC nominee indefinitely, but I see no reason why they wouldn't do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 00:11
|
|
