|
GlyphGryph posted:They managed to do that in 2006 thanks to Dean's guidance and a decent slate, but it's not like he's coming back, yeah about that https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/796838538641833990
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Holy poo poo e: For those of y'all too young to have been in to political machinations at the time, Dean's 50-state strategy is basically what tacked those coattails on the 2008 Obama victory and made the 111th congress the most productive in history. Dean's legit as gently caress about reaching out to whitey with the no job and it'll be a tragedy when he gets drummed out because impurity. It'll be a shame because he knows how to press the whole map, which is precisely what's needed. FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Nov 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Eleven Justice Supreme Court. (Saved from the bottom of the page) Yeah, this is what they should do. I don't want it, and I won't toxx for it, but it's the smart terrible move.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
gently caress. Yes. This is the best news I've heard since Tuesday. Dean won the 2006 and 2008 elections and the dumbest thing the Democrats ever did was let him/make him (depending who you ask) leave after 2008.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:gently caress. Yes. This is the best news I've heard since Tuesday. Dean won the 2006 and 2008 elections and the dumbest thing the Democrats ever did was let him/make him (depending who you ask) leave after 2008. I don't know him well enough, but he seems like more of the same ala Clinton. He doesn't seem like he will drum up the base enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Not hearing any outcriesPollyanna posted:I don't know him well enough, but he seems like more of the same ala Clinton. He doesn't seem like he will drum up the base enough. Then you should get to know him more. He was the young populist to Kerry's sexagenarian centrism during the 2004 primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Howard Dean did good things for the party but has become an absolute hack in the years since. This is an Iraq war critic and medical doctor who ended up lobbying against the Iran deal and the ACA when the opportunities arose for him to get rich by doing so. He was also one of the most smug, condescending, and rude Clinton surrogates when commenting on Bernie Sanders supporters (who turned out to be correct about HRC's weaknesses). Not to mention the guy is still a bit of a gaffe machine, most recently with his remote diagnosis of Trump having a cocaine problem. I say let Ellison chair the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Howard Dean did good things for the party but has become an absolute hack in the years since. This is an Iraq war critic and medical doctor who ended up lobbying against the Iran deal and the ACA when the opportunities arose for him to get rich by doing so. Who gives a poo poo. Howard Dean is the only Democrat from the last ten years besides Obama with a proven track record of being able to actually make the Democrats win. As DNC chair he wouldn't be giving epic speeches about universal health care and hopefully wouldn't be giving random TV interviews about cocaine. DNC chair is actually a pretty low-profile position considering how important it is (I would hazard a guess that most Democrats didn't even know Debbie Wasserman-Schulz was the DNC chair until she became an election issue), because it's much more about behind-the-scenes organization than it is about holding rallies or giving interviews. The 50 state strategy is what won the 2006 election and it's what gave Obama such a resounding victory in 2008, and the complete abandonment of it by the party since then is completely baffling because it not only has lost them multiple elections, it has also meant a dearth of local talent coming up through the party to make it competitive at the state level and grow into national politicians. I don't care one bit that Dean is ideologically impure or that he was a lobbyist or whatever. He is an extremely talented organizer who has the right ideas about how to build the Democratic Party into a party that can be successful both locally and nationally, and that is what the DNC chairperson's job actually is, so I say give it to him and let him run with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Eleven Justice Supreme Court. Is there anything stopping them from doing this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:Is there anything stopping them from doing this? In government? No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Eleven Justice Supreme Court. Just up it to 999 justices and stack every slot, what's stopping them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Howard Dean did good things for the party but has become an absolute hack in the years since. This is an Iraq war critic and medical doctor who ended up lobbying against the Iran deal and the ACA when the opportunities arose for him to get rich by doing so. Which is all why a management position is perfect. In case you haven't noticed the republicans now dominate the federal and state governments. Dean presided over the best elections the democrats have had in recent history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:words Sure, grant DNC chairmanship to a lobbyist, that'll go over splendidly with all the liberals who didn't vote in 2016 because they feel the Democratic party cares more about elite monied interests than about them.  You're right about Dean's 50 state strategy. But you do realize it doesnt take Howard Dean to reimplement it, right? Somebody with less baggage, who is also regarded as outside the party inner circle could do it just as well, like Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Sure, grant DNC chairmanship to a lobbyist, that'll go over splendidly with all the liberals who didn't vote in 2016 because they feel the Democratic party cares more about elite monied interests than about them. I can say with a lot of certainty that the people who know who the DNC chair is and what role they do are not the people who stayed home.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
A pile of gravel could have won the Dems the House in 2006. I'm all for getting the Dems to compete in races everywhere, but I don't think we need Dean to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:11
|
|
Unormal posted:Just up it to 999 justices and stack every slot, what's stopping them? It's more than is needed and it wastes time they could be using to push through other stuff. But I don't see much reason not to do it, it would really firmly secure the judicial branch for 50-70 years. Assuming we bother with things like a judiciary for the next 50-70 years.   
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
If I'm correct wouldn't it take a constitutional amendment to remove Obergfell at this point? I'm not sure how you could chip away at gay marriage like they did with abortion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If I'm correct wouldn't it take a constitutional amendment to remove Obergfell at this point? I'm not sure how you could chip away at gay marriage like they did with abortion. Yeah, Roe is founded on privacy theory as established by interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Its not as solid as Obergfell's direct application of equal protection by the 14th. That said, any RNC picks going across Trump's desk as possible candidates may well be selected to simply rule "noap, no gays" in their single-sentence majority ruling. RBG needs to survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:He could recess appoint Garland, and that would be fun. Is there an actual way for him to do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Aren't Supreme Court decisions protected mostly by the justices' unwillingness to overrule them without a compelling legal argument? If we're really through the looking glass here, couldn't a sufficiently conservative/crazy majority simply declare that the past decision was wrong because I said so?mcmagic posted:Is there an actual way for him to do this? With opposition control of Congress and the filibuster's days being numbered, not in any way that would stick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Clunk Tap It posted:I heard that the new slightly-less-but-still-majority-Republican Senate takes power a few weeks before Obama leaves. Could Garland still get voted onto the bench in that time if Ginsberg decides to step down? Potato Salad posted:Yeah, Roe is founded on privacy theory as established by interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Its not as solid as Obergfell's direct application of equal protection by the 14th. I am worried about Roe, even though it's solidly based on the logical consequences of Loving, etc. Conservatives love nothing more than ignoring legal precedent in the furtherance of conservative causes. FAUXTON posted:Trump nominates judge judy to the SCOTUS then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Aren't Supreme Court decisions protected mostly by the justices' unwillingness to overrule them without a compelling legal argument? If we're really through the looking glass here, couldn't a sufficiently conservative/crazy majority simply declare that the past decision was wrong because I said so? I mean, this is exactly what people wanted to happen with Heller, MacDonald and Citizens United when they thought Hillary would get to yank the court hard left, so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I don't know him well enough, but he seems like more of the same ala Clinton. He doesn't seem like he will drum up the base enough. Dean tried to build the party from the ground up, building local and state Democratic organizations and candidates in order to build a strong foundation and bench for the party and challenge Republican domination of state governments. The Dems completely abandoned that in favor of a more targeted national-level strategy based on particular vulnerable seats, and they've paid badly for that. Is Dean a progressive superstar? Of course not. But he pushed to grow the party's grassroots at a time when everyone else - including Obama - seemed more interested in letting them wither away, and pushing him out was one of the biggest mistakes the Dem establishment made.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Jeff Merkley was very encouraging on this and seemed to imply that the Dems would filibuster any nominee Trump puts up because of how the seat was stolen from the Obama administration.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Too bad there won't be a filibuster soon
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:0% chance. They sat on him in the hope they'd win. They won. You're right. My brain shut down for a minute and I thought that Republicans would be open to compromise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Too bad there won't be a filibuster soon Depends on how many Senate Republicans think they'll lose the Senate in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
duz posted:Depends on how many Senate Republicans think they'll lose the Senate in 2018. No one thinks Republicans are losing the Senate in 2018. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No one thinks Republicans are losing the Senate in 2018. Oh god McMullen is going to run for senate in Utah and win isn't he.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:No one thinks Republicans are losing the Senate in 2018. Didn't West Virginia go something like +40% for Trump? I'm guessing that's -1D right there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Even if you're incredibly optimistic and think the Democrats will get their poo poo together in under two years if we all pull together and organize and that there will be an anti-incumbent backlash and that Democrats will show up to the midterms for once, simple math shows that they're defending 25 seats, many in red states or states that just went red for Trump, and the Republicans are defending 8, all but one of which (Nevada) is located in a solid red state. For every seat the Democrats could conceivably pick up there are 2 or 3 they could lose. Frankly speaking I think it's more likely the Republicans get a 60-seat supermajority in 2018 than that the Democrats get to 51 seats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
dwarf74 posted:0% chance. They sat on him in the hope they'd win. They won. Lmao look at this guy who thinks Loving is safe and settled law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. He'll probably pick someone more libertarian than conservative. Or his bankruptcy lawyer, Harriet Miers style.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Didn't West Virginia go something like +40% for Trump? I'm guessing that's -1D right there. Comparing Trump/Hillary numbers is a bad way to look at it because of how toxic the candidates were, look at the downballot races. West Virginia elected a D governor 49% to 42%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. Zero issues with gays? He has members of the hate group Family Research Council on his transition team!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Aren't Supreme Court decisions protected mostly by the justices' unwillingness to overrule them without a compelling legal argument? If we're really through the looking glass here, couldn't a sufficiently conservative/crazy majority simply declare that the past decision was wrong because I said so? There is literally no reason he shouldn't try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. He's a moronic pushover who will do whatever the (hyper conservative) people around him say to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
whydirt posted:A pile of gravel could have won the Dems the House in 2006. Just like a pile of gravel could defeat Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. He also doesn't give a poo poo and doesn't actually want to do the President's job, so he'll rubber stamp whoever Pence tells him to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:01 |
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Trump is a NYC social liberal who has probably paid for a few abortions and has zero issues with gays. The panic in this thread is pretty funny. Trump's inherent unreliability and questionable commitment to conservative judges was a big driver of #nevertrump, they didn't see much upside there to overcome all of his negatives. OTOH he likely doesn't give a single poo poo about governing, beyond exploring opportunities to throw fat federal contracts and tax breaks at his businesses, and will instead just greenlight everything his inner circle throws at him. So the real question is how much you trust Bannon/Gingrich/whomever to suggest he nominate and a Republican legislature to confirm "NYC socially liberal" justices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2016 21:56
|
|
