|
Concerned Citizen posted:All you need to know about Chuck Schumer can be summed up from this NYT article when he was roommates with several other members of Congress. I'm more stunned by the fact that senators have goddamn rats in their apartment.  There's a Democrats joke to be made there, I know
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
e: How is Kirk considered a toss-up? Isn't he consistently losing by a good bit in polls?Alter Ego posted:Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS) has called for hearings on the Garland nomination. Tea Party babies in his state are looking to primary him in response to his decision to do his job. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
It blows my mind that McCrory, who got elected, barely, pandering as a moderate, isn't facing a blowout after revealing himself to be a god awful piece of poo poo.Lycus posted:Sestak and Cruz will become inseparable friends. The new Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich odd couple.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:How the gently caress does Joe Vodvarka have 9%, the guy is a tea-partier lol I grew up with Joe's son but I've spoken to them in forever. I had no idea that this was the same Joe Vodvarka. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:He won his suburban Philadelphia seat (and retained it!) despite PA's 2000 era map being an intended Republican gerrymander and then beat incumbent (but party-switching) senator Arlen Specter durring the 2010 primary. Then, despite the Republican wave, he ended up being in what I think was the closest or second closest race in the country. His "blowing" of 2010 is very overstated, I think he actually preformed better than Specter would have. Specter was going to lose regardless because he was going to swap back to being a Republican the moment the GOP retook the Senate and the right wing had been gunning for him for awhile. Toomey was going to beat him in the primary or general.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:If you are Mitch, what's your plan re: Garland now? Other than running around saying 'I'm panicking' Pray you can keep the Senate and block Clinton for the next 4 years. If they lose the WH and Senate in November they're going to confirm Garland though because the Dems will immediately nuke the filibuster if Clinton nominates someone and a GOP minority blocks it.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:How do you feel about Republicans turned Democrat? 'Cause Murphy is more likely to be the Democratic nominee. Still probably a better person than Grayson at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Lycus posted:So as Trump's fortunes go down, Senate Republicans' fortunes go up. Fitting. "The people have spoken and clearly want us as a check against Hilary Clinton's liberal disregard for America" or something to that effect. If they aren't punished for the SCOTUS poo poo in November they lose nothing by saying gently caress it and just leaving the court at 8 justices for another 4 years. I could see them easily refusing to process appointments for fear of being primaried and taken out like Cantor or forced out like Boehner.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are you assuming McCain gets Primaried and the Dem beats a Tea Party nut? Whether due to Trump or people finally accepting he's an even worse person than pilot, McCain's doing badly and IIRC he's polling much worse than Toomey is. Toomey's probably going to manage to keep his seat because PA Dems, while not as bad as Florida Dems, can blow races they should be winning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
I really hope we vote Toomey's rear end out of office but if I had to pick between him or McCain I'd want to see McCain gone more. As long as there's a Dem POTUS and Senate majority I'll be happy though. Clinton would get to confirm a shitload of vacancies (unless the GOP rushes them after the election with whatever nominees Obama made) and we'd get to watch Ryan get attacked by his fringe party members in the House while the Senate throws legislation at them to vote on as the WH called on Ryan to stop causing gridlock in Congress.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:It kind of has to suck to just go all-in on "I'm really a Dem, guys seriously!" and still get crushed. It didn't work for Specter and it wouldn't work for Kirk.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Well it will all come to an end in 2020, Democrats will not hold the presidency for four consecutive terms due to fatigue and anger at the state of things. As long as we have at least 5 liberal justices the country might be able to survive long enough to get the Dems in control of one chamber or the white house. Though it'll still result in long-lasting damage if they get even 2 years to run the WH and both chambers of congress, though it's still far less than if they'd have a majority in the SCOTUS too since they'd rush a shitload of custom-crafted lawsuits through the courts to ensure some 5-4 rulings to dismantle the ACA, abortion, and a slew of other things to send us back to the 19th century.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the subject of the Senate though, when are the Democrats going to start talking about Garland and the raw deal the GOP Senate is giving him? I'll be amazed if it isn't mentioned in Clinton's acceptance speech at the DNC and probably by other speakers there as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Isn't it pretty much impossible they'll win the House though? Or is it now becoming possible that Trump depresses Republican turnout enough that they win it?! There's a much greater chance of Trump winning and the GOP holding a solid Senate majority than the House has of flipping. Clinton winning by 9-10+ points might be enough but even then it's iffy and would rely on depressed GOP turnout or a shitload of right wingers (as in, millions of them) voting 3rd party. Honestly you shouldn't even think about the House flipping because it's so incredibly unlikely even with Trump being utterly toxic. The best to realistically hope for is that Clinton wins, the Dems retake the Senate, and the GOP's House majority shrinks enough that Ryan's life is able to be made a complete and utter mess so that he's able to live in a state of constant misery that approaches the pain his making GBS threads beliefs inflict on others.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:FL is definitely toss-up. If Hillary's FL margin is as large as polls say, Rubio's chances are looking very poor. The wildcard is if Grayson wins the primary and fucks it all up. Florida Dems are idiots so they'll blow an otherwise winnable race, same with PA. The only thing better than the Dems taking the Senate, even if it's 50/50 and VP Kaine* has to constantly be a tie-breaker, would be if it includes McCain losing his seat. Rubio and McCain both losing reelection would be a thing of beauty. * Still hoping for Castro or Perez but Clinton's gonna Clinton I'm sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
thethreeman posted:I'm actually a bit surprised how negative SA is about Grayson after reading this. Sure, he runs a personal hedge fund, but it sounds like he's a total anti-establishment/anti-machine/anti-"anointment" politician who's been dunking on Wall St like a populist for years: Greyson being progressive (when it suits him) doesn't come close to outweighing what a massive pile of human poo poo he is as a person. Progressive or not, he's someone whose career really needs to be destroyed. DutchDupe posted:How did a race that looked like a clear pick up opportunity turn into such a disaster? Florida
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:"democratic congressional candidate Art Halvorson said ... [generic republican talking point about hillary]" Also: "Consolidating the Democratic write-in votes was just the first hurdle, however. Now, Halvorson faces the challenging task of trying to mobilize conservative voters and communicating to them that he is running as a Republican on the Democratic ticket and would serve as a GOP member in Congress." Why are Democrats so loving stupid? There is literally no reason to let him run under their banner.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
So moderate Republicans have had enough of Brownback's poo poo and are cleaning house of his crazy rear end in a top hat allies? It's years too late but good to see it happening.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Garland will be confirmed in the lame duck. 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. evilweasel posted:I would think a new VRA but we'll see. This followed by fixing gaps in the ACA and building it out further where needed. New VRA would hopefully include things such as preclearance for all which was needed from the get-go. Sir Kodiak posted:I take it we're assuming the Democrats remove the filibuster for legislation in this scenario. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Beware the donkey sorcerers! Donkeymancer casts Power Word Yeehawww. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Only people who enjoy getting disappointed are assuming the filibuster is gone in a close senate. It's been made pretty loving obvious that if the Dems retake the senate they are 100% prepared to go full nuclear if the GOP even hints it'll filibuster nominees just because they can. Especially Scalia's replacement* when Hilary makes her pick. If the Democrats have to pick between dealing with GOP filibusters or passing things to then send to the House so that all focus is on Ryan and his crazy assholes that's exactly what will happen. * assuming Garland isn't confirmed in the lame duck. If the Democrats are going to have the WH and a senate majority they're going to say gently caress it and confirm him because nobody who votes fore them will give a drat in 2018 that their "no nominees in an election year" thing was blatant political bullshit on their part.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Rubio is still up by 8 in another recent Monmouth poll; I expect this to continue Rubio is not going to lose reelection. He's going to get reelected and then resign shortly after the new Congress is gaveled in, allowing Voldemort to pick a replacement (who might not have won an election on their own) while Rubio leaves for whatever cushy job he was promised when he agreed to run again. That or he'll stay a Senator through the term and manage to do even less than he has already.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I'm sorta glad Clinton pushed for the DNC to not associate the GOPer in Congress with Trump. It let them get chummy with Trump and now that this happened it's going to be used to bludgeon them in ways that we might not have seen before. Sure, she might've done it for triangulation and bipartisan ideals or whatever, but now? Ayotte, and others, are going to get bashed for this non-stop until the election.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:43 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It could really go either way. The NC voter suppression efforts concern me for that seat. Unless people are out in force at the polls and willing to wait for hours on end the NCGOP will probably manage to steal the senate seat and possibly the governorship if not the state as well. If there was any justice in this country Obama (or Clinton) is going to point the DoJ at the NCGOP and unleash hell on those klansmen fuckstains regardless of how the courts deal with the GOP's over the top, even by GOP standards, AA-targeted voter suppression.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 08:03
|
|