|
Evil Fluffy posted:Yeah I don't get why people don't realize this. If Clinton wins and the Dems get the Senate then Garland's getting confirmed immediately so that the GOP can avoid having Clinton pick someone who might be decades younger and more liberal. Their best case scenario is that she re-nominates Garland and I don't think that'd happen. well, maybe. that assumes clinton doesn't ask obama to withdraw garland, which he would likely do if asked.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:which he would likely do if asked. I think this is a misjudgment of Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
I would hope that they try and pass that stalled bill that would expand employment and housing protections for LGBTQ people which is a total non-starter in this current congress
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think this is a misjudgment of Obama. Obama is too ~reasonable~ to flip off the Republicans on his own initiative, but I think he might do it if requested by the president-elect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:We're also about to find out the true value of a well-run GOTV campaign. Obama outperformed his polls in 2012, at least slightly, and that's been attributed to his better GOTV campaign. We're a couple months from seeing what that same machine does against Trump's Twitter account and whatever the RNC is hastily throwing together. Romney, for all his faults as a candidate, made his best effort at putting together a GOTV campaign. There's also the issue of Hispanics tending to be under represented in polling, also the theoretical existence of youngish people who don't have landlines actually turning up to vote, which is on top of the ground game. Especially if Hispanics turn out at higher than the under 50% rate they usually do. Jack of Hearts posted:Obama is too ~reasonable~ to flip off the Republicans on his own initiative, but I think he might do it if requested by the president-elect. No President is going to give up a Supreme Court nomination just so their successor can name one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Definitely if Dems win the House they'd fix up the ACA and maybe put in a public option. Paid family leave, infrastructure bonanza?? I don't know, it's been so long since we've had a functioning Congress that I don't even dream anymore....
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
If Democrats take the House, they're going to be torn between two forces. First, the knowledge that they've only got 2 years to do everything they ever wanted to do. Second, the fantasy among many of the Freshmen that they'll totally win reelection. Among the first things on the docket are certainly going to be Infrastructure, ACA tweaks, VRA reauthorization, minimum wage increase, various regulatory empowerment bills(for things the FCC, EPA, and other departments are being sued over implementing), stalled LGBTQ legislation, and probably some gun control. Maybe tax reform and lawsuit bait campaign finance reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:There's also the issue of Hispanics tending to be under represented in polling, also the theoretical existence of youngish people who don't have landlines actually turning up to vote, which is on top of the ground game. Especially if Hispanics turn out at higher than the under 50% rate they usually do. This. Obama is standing on principle...the principle that a President in his/her final year can appoint a Supreme Court Justice. If Obama were here he'd say he's doing it for the sake of every subsequent president, including Clinton. No way he backs down even if Clinton asks him to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well, maybe. that assumes clinton doesn't ask obama to withdraw garland, which he would likely do if asked. This is not going to happen, for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that Obama isn't about to vindicate the GOP and their "the POTUS can't do poo poo before an election" argument they're successfully using to block Garland in the tiny chance that it can get them a conservative appointment so that the court doesn't flip Liberal and instantly kill their lawsuit efforts to gut progress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:This is not going to happen, for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that Obama isn't about to vindicate the GOP and their "the POTUS can't do poo poo before an election" argument they're successfully using to block Garland in the tiny chance that it can get them a conservative appointment so that the court doesn't flip Liberal and instantly kill their lawsuit efforts to gut progress. Better to vindicate their argument and make clear that the argument comes with its own set of costs. If Garland is confirmed during the lame duck session, the Republicans will have successfully stonewalled at zero cost to themselves, what gamblers call a freeroll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They absolutely will. The only reason they didn't remove it entirely before is because the Dem leadership were idiots who trusted the GOP. The second Ted Cruz or some other chucklefuck filibusters a Clinton nominee, especially for SCOTUS, the filibuster will finally be killed off entirely. It already got killed for nominees, besides SCOTUS (but that will get killed if it ever becomes an issue). It's only legislation that's still there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Better to vindicate their argument and make clear that the argument comes with its own set of costs. If Garland is confirmed during the lame duck session, the Republicans will have successfully stonewalled at zero cost to themselves, what gamblers call a freeroll. The stalling is part of the attacks being used against Senators who will lose if the Democrats take back the Senate. That is the cost. They gain nothing, since they would have happily voted on Garland in any other situation and end up losing because not voting on a pick they like helped cost them the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Better to vindicate their argument and make clear that the argument comes with its own set of costs. If Garland is confirmed during the lame duck session, the Republicans will have successfully stonewalled at zero cost to themselves, what gamblers call a freeroll. Vulnerable senators are being attacked for the stonewalling, which is why you see some of them occasionally do the "well maybe we should do our jobs" thing. If they stonewall through the election and it contributes to even a single senate seat being lost to the Democrats then no they won't have done it at zero cost to themselves. Maybe as November gets closer we'll see a ramp up of these attacks in states where it could help flip a seat, such as in PA, but sure if the Dems don't put any attention on the issue then the GOP is less likely to suffer for it. evilweasel posted:It already got killed for nominees, besides SCOTUS (but that will get killed if it ever becomes an issue). It's only legislation that's still there. I'm aware. If Trump manages to cost the GOP control of both chambers (still seems very unlikely for the House) then I think it'll be killed for legislation as well because there is zero chance that Ted Cruz or some other shitheel wouldn't be beside themselves with joy to filibuster a revamped ACA or similar legislation as soon as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
If either party manages to gain control of both cambers of Congress and the White House while we're in a hyper partisan period the filibuster will be destroyed. There is no way that either party would let the filibuster get in the way of unified governance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I disagree, especially since we are only realistically talking about a 50/52/52/53 seat majority here. There will be enough Democrats in red or purple states who don't want to be nailed to unpopular/controversial votes that they will let it continue in its current form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
The Dems in vulnerable seats (Donnelly, Manchin, McCatskill, Heitkamp, Tester) are all up two years from now and are likely all doomed no matter how they vote (McCatskill might survive, the others are like 100% doomed). It's totally possible that the Dems just take those losses as a given and just go for it. There's effectively no vulnerable Dems up in 2020, so it might be worth it to just balls to the wall in the next two years and try to recover the Senate in 2020. It's not like there's any way Heitkamp, Manchin, or Donnelly survive no matter how they vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Well you could try that... but they will themselves see it the other way and would probably vote no on that legislation anyway, to try to save the seat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
There's still just enough "reasonable" Republicans in the Senate to get most of the stuff through on a strict majority basis, even if it isn't as awesome as we'd like. Snow and Gardiner are going to have their own electoral pressure, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The Dems in vulnerable seats (Donnelly, Manchin, McCatskill, Heitkamp, Tester) are all up two years from now and are likely all doomed no matter how they vote (McCatskill might survive, the others are like 100% doomed). It's totally possible that the Dems just take those losses as a given and just go for it. There's effectively no vulnerable Dems up in 2020, so it might be worth it to just balls to the wall in the next two years and try to recover the Senate in 2020. well tester and manchin are definitely not doomed. in tough fights, but not doomed. heitkamp and donnelly will have a tougher time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well tester and manchin are definitely not doomed. in tough fights, but not doomed. heitkamp and donnelly will have a tougher time. Manchin's personally popular, for sure, but he represents a state that will almost certainly be one of Trump's top three in the country and will be one of the most Republican states in the Union. The D next to his name is going to be absolutely toxic two years from now. I seriously think Manchin's best hope is to either bail out of the Senate race and run for the much less partisan governor's race, or to switch parties. I don't see a situation where he gets reelected as a D, though he might well get reelected as an R.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Republicans in WV still need to find someone to run against Manchin, and I'm hard-pressed to think of any Republican in the state who has the money and recognition to go up against him. They lucked out with Shelley Moore Capito, and like Manchin, she came from an older WV political family. Other Rs that run for senate or governor just aren't taken that seriously. With the name and money behind him and him having made enough "ugh, Obama" statements and votes to keep the increasingly slack-jawed voting base happy, I don't think him being a D is that much of a liability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Manchin's personally popular, for sure, but he represents a state that will almost certainly be one of Trump's top three in the country and will be one of the most Republican states in the Union. The D next to his name is going to be absolutely toxic two years from now. manchin ran a whole 25 points ahead of obama in 2012. while WV will always be a bit tougher solely due to political gravity, the D label is not really that deadly - registered democrats, after all, still wildly outpace republicans and unaffiliateds there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The Dems in vulnerable seats (Donnelly, Manchin, McCatskill, Heitkamp, Tester) are all up two years from now and are likely all doomed no matter how they vote (McCatskill might survive, the others are like 100% doomed). It's totally possible that the Dems just take those losses as a given and just go for it. There's effectively no vulnerable Dems up in 2020, so it might be worth it to just balls to the wall in the next two years and try to recover the Senate in 2020. it really depends on how Clinton's first two years go, and whether the GOP as a party can pull itself back together, post-Trump. Trump's utter lack of an actual ground-game is actually a tremendous disadvantage going forward. I think Donnelly and Heitkamp are doomed, but McCaskill is a wily devil, Manchin is well-liked and possibly enough of a triangulator to not anger WV voters too much, and as for Tester, Montana is fond of electing Democrats while resolutely voting Republican in the presidential elections. If the Democrats keep their poo poo together while Republicans continue melting down, we could only see three or four pickups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:The Dems in vulnerable seats (Donnelly, Manchin, McCatskill, Heitkamp, Tester) are all up two years from now and are likely all doomed no matter how they vote (McCatskill might survive, the others are like 100% doomed). It's totally possible that the Dems just take those losses as a given and just go for it. There's effectively no vulnerable Dems up in 2020, so it might be worth it to just balls to the wall in the next two years and try to recover the Senate in 2020. You are overstating the doom re: Manchin, Heitkamp, and Tester imo. All three are very popular in their state. Heitkamp is probably 50/50 though. The other two (McCatskill and Donnelly) are probably toast though. Schnorkles has issued a correction as of 18:11 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Montana, as a rule, has a lot of ticket splitting. State Democrats are quite popular while the national party is seen with a lot of distrust. Tester follows this rule and with incumbency should be seen as favored in the 2018 race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:Montana, as a rule, has a lot of ticket splitting. State Democrats are quite popular while the national party is seen with a lot of distrust. Tester follows this rule and with incumbency should be seen as favored in the 2018 race. Not sure I totally agree. Montana does have a lot of ticket splitting, but Democrats still narrowly survive in statewide races. Tester only won in 2012 thanks to the Libertarian candidate and this incredible TV ad (courtesy of a Dem SuperPAC): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFzxnWJfTGw The widely-held belief is that Tester will be challenged in 2018 by Rep. Zinke. That race would absolutely be a toss-up, and maybe the most tightly contested race in the country. Don't agree that McCaskill is doomed. Again, not an easy race but she's been around for awhile and the Missouri GOP has a habit of nominating horrendous candidates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Virginia could be in a bad place for Dems in 2018, depending on Kaine's fill-in, no? Super popular incumbent/former gov Warner was almost upset by Gillespie in 2014 Also, following up on the NRCC's awful fundraising #s this month, big donors getting involved a little early this year: https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/767573500643115008
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
It's so hard to know with midterms. The last two have been catastrophically awful for Dems though. We can expect 2018 will be similar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
The gently caress? http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/gabby-giffords-pac-endorses-pat-toomey-mark-kirk-227268
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:The gently caress? A Republican breaking rank on that kind of vote is pretty important for the precedent it sets, and if they are reelected, the PAC can say that not only did they back them across party lines, but that their vote and the PAC's endorsement didn't cost them the race. On the single issue of gun control, this strategy makes a lot of sense, though obviously it makes no sense if the goal is a widespread liberal legislative agenda. Meaningful gun control legislation isn't going to get passed without at least a few Republican votes, so showing Republican legislators that voting for reasonable gun control measures isn't political suicide is probably the best thing the PAC can do for long-term successon the issue. The NRA has done a remarkable job convincing legislators that they have the power to take out anyone in a purple or red state/district if they are so inclined, so demonstrating that a Republican can vote for gun control and survive is likely the best long-term strategy. Consider, for example, the speculation on what the legislative agenda will be if the Democrats flip both the House and Senate, now consider how high up on the list passing comprehensive gun control legislation will be. Now, consider the likely results of the 2018 midterm after such a wave election. If you're playing the long game, keeping Republicans elected who have historically been willing to cross the aisle on gun control seems to me more likely to produce legislative success than lobbying to get on the very packed legislative list for the next Congress. I don't personally agree with the endorsements, but I do understand the logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:The gently caress? I wonder if these endorsements from gun control PACS actually hurt Republicans on election day. Bloomberg's gun control PAC ran some pro-Toomey (R) ads here in PA , which I didn't even know about it until I saw conservatives accusing him of betraying the 2nd amendment on social media. Maybe it nudges some squishy moderates one way or another, but I dunno. Seems counter-productive to alert a politician's base that they've backtracked on one of their core issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
It is a smart move for the organization to make, in my opinion. If they endorse a select few Republicans they can show that their support (or opposition) is not set solely along party lines and people from both parties will try to appease them. If they just endorse all Democrats no matter what the Republican does then there's no point for Republicans to even try to moderate themselves on the issue. The NRA itself is famous for doing this and its support was, at least until a few years ago, worth more than almost any other special interest group's because of this. If they wanted to do this they pretty much had to endorse Toomey, who co-authored the bi-partisan bill which got sidelined and hey, might as well pick Kirk for the second one since he went along with it and is going to lose anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
i wish I'd been paying this kind of aspergic attention to elections back when swing state project was around, I'm vaguely aware that everything i like about dke and rrh is a pale shadow of that site. i only ever read the daily digests on dke, they focus on downballot poo poo for some reason they removed the ability for all the ex ssp commenters to have a shared space for their writings or some boring poo poo, but i think that's coming back now? random people posting gerrymandering scenarios is fun and if they've been doing those on dke these last few months i haven't been noticing i also haven't read the comments on those sites for months, maybe now that things are getting a bit quieter I'll revisit what those weirdos thought about things there's a congressional primary runoff today for a democratic nomination in an Oklahoma district i think, even by congressional primary standards this truly doesn't matter as the gop will not lose the seat, whichever one it is. the last big primaries are in the next few weeks i think, Florida and stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder what's going on in that special election in Hawaii? Oh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Gee, I wonder what's going on in that special election in Hawaii? Whoa, every paragraph just went crazier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
The Larch posted:Gee, I wonder what's going on in that special election in Hawaii? ...holy poo poo Hawaiian politics seem awesome
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
That whole site's blanked out for me, loving Firefox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
That story is amazing. Small correction: CD2 is Tulsi Gabbard's seat, not the open one from Mark Takei's death. Takei's district is urban Oahu and the most Democratic of the already very Democratic Hawaii CDs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Wait, is she ethnic Hawaiian or not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Wait, is she ethnic Hawaiian or not? 99% of Republicans in Hawaii are haole. So, I'm gonna guess not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 15:34
|
|