The Swamp

brian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:06 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:33 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 3:17 pm Strategic kowtowing. Catch the 2020 Dem fever.

If this were true, both Heitkamp and Manchin would have literally zero chance since Trump carried both states by 30 points+ in 2016.

The point is not that no Trump voters will vote for Heitkamp and Manchin. It’s to question the assumption that there is any substantial number of Trump voters who will vote for them if, and only if, they support Kavanaugh specifically (and not some other generic conservative pick) for the Supreme Court.

ETA: Even if you accept the premise that red state Dems need to support right-wing judges to get re-elected, isn’t there room to say Gorsuch is acceptable but Kavanaugh isn’t?

Joe K wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:15 pmThe point is not that no Trump voters will vote for Heitkamp and Manchin. It’s to question the assumption that there is any substantial number of Trump voters who will vote for them if, and only if, they support Kavanaugh specifically (and not some other generic conservative pick) for the Supreme Court.

ETA: Even if you accept the premise that red state Dems need to support right-wing judges to get re-elected, isn’t there room to say Gorsuch is acceptable but Kavanaugh isn’t?

The vote on Kavanaugh matters because Kavanaugh is the vote that is happening now. It's the one people are paying attention to - even people who don't pay attention - and the one people will remember when they vote next month.

There are so many people who don't pay close attention. They aren't always (or even usually) logical about their political views. They hate "politics" and "partisanship" and like "moderation". The reasoning isn't "I won't vote for him because he voted against Kavanaugh." It's "I won't vote for him because he's too partisan" - and the vote against this highly respected good man (gah) is what will fix the impression that he's too partisan.

After Jim Matheson voted to repeal the ACA, I had enough of that DINO. I stopped sending him money and didn't vote for him. And now we've had Mia Love instead. Surprisingly, she also voted to repeal the ACA. And she cast hundreds of other awful votes. So I'm not sure how Democrats
in general, or people in her district, are better off because the impure Dem was replaced by a Republican. (Mia Love is no longer my rep because of gerrymandering. Now I have someone even worse, and there is no chance in hell he loses.)

And my point is why is it bad to play realpolitik with this one Senate seat for this one vote? If the 51 Republicans all vote to confirm, then Manchin's vote is meaningless anyway. So if he makes it 52-48, but it increases his chance of winning his Senate seat from 60 percent to even only 65 percent, then why not?

If even one of the Republicans broke away meaning the vote would be 50-50 with Pence voting to break the tie that would be worth having Manchin on the Dem side since that makes for a more compelling campaign ad/negative campaigning against Trump/Pence in 2020.

rass wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:03 pm This shitshow is threadworthy.

Late breaking news:

-Kavanugh is now saying he wasn't at the party in question and this might be a case of mistaken identity (I guess allowing him to deny the allegations and make it seem like he isn't calling the accuser a liar, which is nice of him)
-Senator Hatch says Kavanaugh should be judged on the man he is today, even if the allegations are found to credible

That's the initial posting in this thread.

It is so upsetting to see how this played out.

If, if only John McCain was still alive to make all of this right.

Vic Berger is the best.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:18 pm And my point is why is it bad to play realpolitik with this one Senate seat for this one vote? If the 51 Republicans all vote to confirm, then Manchin's vote is meaningless anyway. So if he makes it 52-48, but it increases his chance of winning his Senate seat from 60 percent to even only 65 percent, then why not?

If even one of the Republicans broke away meaning the vote would be 50-50 with Pence voting to break the tie that would be worth having Manchin on the Dem side since that makes for a more compelling campaign ad/negative campaigning against Trump/Pence in 2020.

Nah, certain things you can’t crossover for. If this were a vote to reinstitute slavery, to take this way too far, would it be ok to look for gains in 52 rather than 51?

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:13 pm

brian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:18 pm And my point is why is it bad to play realpolitik with this one Senate seat for this one vote? If the 51 Republicans all vote to confirm, then Manchin's vote is meaningless anyway. So if he makes it 52-48, but it increases his chance of winning his Senate seat from 60 percent to even only 65 percent, then why not?

If even one of the Republicans broke away meaning the vote would be 50-50 with Pence voting to break the tie that would be worth having Manchin on the Dem side since that makes for a more compelling campaign ad/negative campaigning against Trump/Pence in 2020.

Nah, certain things you can’t crossover for. If this were a vote to reinstitute slavery, to take this way too far, would it be ok to look for gains in 52 rather than 51?

Sure, but as you said, that example takes it way too far. I think it's really fucking important for the Dems to have the best chance possible to get the Senate. Plus, Merrick Garland isn't walking through that door. So it's either Kavanaugh or some other asshole Republican "jurist".

51-49, Manchin with the Rs, Murkowski a no. If that follows tomorrow, Manchin lets Flake and Collins off the hook because it would go to Pence anyway.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:49 am

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:13 pm

brian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:18 pm And my point is why is it bad to play realpolitik with this one Senate seat for this one vote? If the 51 Republicans all vote to confirm, then Manchin's vote is meaningless anyway. So if he makes it 52-48, but it increases his chance of winning his Senate seat from 60 percent to even only 65 percent, then why not?

If even one of the Republicans broke away meaning the vote would be 50-50 with Pence voting to break the tie that would be worth having Manchin on the Dem side since that makes for a more compelling campaign ad/negative campaigning against Trump/Pence in 2020.

Nah, certain things you can’t crossover for. If this were a vote to reinstitute slavery, to take this way too far, would it be ok to look for gains in 52 rather than 51?

Sure, but as you said, that example takes it way too far. I think it's really fucking important for the Dems to have the best chance possible to get the Senate. Plus, Merrick Garland isn't walking through that door. So it's either Kavanaugh or some other asshole Republican "jurist".

Kavanagh is materially worse than just about every other potential nominee, though. He is a POLITICAL HACK that ran in the wolf pack populated by Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and a host of other shitbags.

He is also the only one to signal he won't allow the president to be indicted.

Right, I'm guessing this guy wouldn't have upheld ACA

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:32 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:49 am

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:13 pm

brian wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 5:18 pm And my point is why is it bad to play realpolitik with this one Senate seat for this one vote? If the 51 Republicans all vote to confirm, then Manchin's vote is meaningless anyway. So if he makes it 52-48, but it increases his chance of winning his Senate seat from 60 percent to even only 65 percent, then why not?

If even one of the Republicans broke away meaning the vote would be 50-50 with Pence voting to break the tie that would be worth having Manchin on the Dem side since that makes for a more compelling campaign ad/negative campaigning against Trump/Pence in 2020.

Nah, certain things you can’t crossover for. If this were a vote to reinstitute slavery, to take this way too far, would it be ok to look for gains in 52 rather than 51?

Sure, but as you said, that example takes it way too far. I think it's really fucking important for the Dems to have the best chance possible to get the Senate. Plus, Merrick Garland isn't walking through that door. So it's either Kavanaugh or some other asshole Republican "jurist".

Kavanagh is materially worse than just about every other potential nominee, though. He is a POLITICAL HACK that ran in the wolf pack populated by Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and a host of other shitbags.

He is also the only one to signal he won't allow the president to be indicted.

The political operative point has always been my biggest concern. What good is having control of a WV Senate seat if a right wing Supreme Court will strike down any attempt at meaningful legislation? Roberts is a very conservative Justice but he at least realized the implications of striking down the ACA. I have far les confidence in Kavanaugh’s willingness to give Democratic legislation a fair hearing.

I mean ... the dude explicitly screamed his allegiance to the republicans and beer while lying repeatedly over the dumbest fucking shit and other stuff far less dumb. He's materially worse than Gorsuch or whoever would backfill.

Murkowski a no for tomorrow. I don’t see how Schumer publicly leaving the door open for Manchin isn’t harmful here.

Well, that's that.

I mean, Collins is making Ford's case in a lot of ways with saying how hard it is to come forward with an allegation. Even listed all the ways Ford's behavior is typical of someone who was assaulted. So it must be that she just doesn't care.

I keep coming back to what someone said earlier. There are plenty of judges who would carry out the agenda. Why is THIS one the guy?

Edit: I mean shit, every other sentence she says is in support of Ford. WTF is this?

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:43 pm I mean, Collins is making Ford's case in a lot of ways with saying how hard it is to come forward with an allegation. Even listed all the ways Ford's behavior is typical of someone who was assaulted. So it must be that she just doesn't care.

Yup.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:51 pm

A_B wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:43 pm I mean, Collins is making Ford's case in a lot of ways with saying how hard it is to come forward with an allegation. Even listed all the ways Ford's behavior is typical of someone who was assaulted. So it must be that she just doesn't care.

Yup.

Collins has remained a Republican for the past 25 years. So she is perfectly fine with opposition to liberals being her defining principle.

Can't wait to reap the benefits of Manchin voting yes. Gonna be amazing.

Susan Collins is a human flaming bag of dogshit. Fuck her.

By the way, her future opponent's CrowdPac page has crashed.

https://www.crowdpac.com/campaigns/3874 ... e=carousel

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 pm Can't wait to reap the benefits of Manchin voting yes. Gonna be amazing.

The piss tape is going to get released and then Manchin will cast the deciding vote to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial. But it’s vitally important that he gets re-elected.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:28 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 pm Can't wait to reap the benefits of Manchin voting yes. Gonna be amazing.

The piss tape is going to get released and then Manchin will cast the deciding vote to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial. But it’s vitally important that he gets re-elected.

Please. You're saying 66 other Senators are going to vote to remove Trump? And when that happens, Manchin will save him?

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:30 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:28 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 pm Can't wait to reap the benefits of Manchin voting yes. Gonna be amazing.

The piss tape is going to get released and then Manchin will cast the deciding vote to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial. But it’s vitally important that he gets re-elected.

Please. You're saying 66 other Senators are going to vote to remove Trump? And when that happens, Manchin will save him?

It was a joke. As all my Russia posts make clear, I don’t think there’s actually a piss tape or any other smoking gun that will lead to impeachment. But my point is that there’s very limited utility in having conservative Dems if they vote the wrong way on the most important issues.

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:35 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:30 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:28 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 3:05 pm Can't wait to reap the benefits of Manchin voting yes. Gonna be amazing.

The piss tape is going to get released and then Manchin will cast the deciding vote to acquit Trump in his impeachment trial. But it’s vitally important that he gets re-elected.

Please. You're saying 66 other Senators are going to vote to remove Trump? And when that happens, Manchin will save him?

It was a joke. As all my Russia posts make clear, I don’t think there’s actually a piss tape or any other smoking gun that will lead to impeachment. But my point is that there’s very limited utility in having conservative Dems if they vote the wrong way on the most important issues.

Obviously there is limited utility in having conservative Dems who vote the wrong way on some important issues. But there is *no* utility in having a conservative Republican who votes the wrong way on all issues.

Manchin's vote stopped the Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act. There are millions of people getting assistance through the Medicaid expansion, and millions more protected by the ban on exclusion for pre-existing conditions. Would a Republican Senator from West Virginia have done that?

When will the Democratic party at large realize they need to have some fucking balls in order to lead?

Because having to agonize over a sometimes Democrat senator from West Virginia to do the right thing is bullshit. Republican politicians that weren't Republican enough got primaried. It'll be nice to never have to hear the name Joe Manchin ever again.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:24 pm When will the Democratic party at large realize they need to have some fucking balls in order to lead?

Because having to agonize over a sometimes Democrat senator from West Virginia to do the right thing is bullshit. Republican politicians that weren't Republican enough got primaried. It'll be nice to never have to hear the name Joe Manchin ever again.

Because in this particular case, doing the right thing sometimes is better than doing the right thing none-of-the-times. If the Democrats lose Manchin that seat will most likely go Republican and not come back for the foreseeable future.

Republicans that get primaried do so in states where they are all but guaranteed a win. Only recent counterpoint to this was the Alabama/Roy Moore thing but it took a plain-view crazy person with several sexual assault accusations and criminal past to lose.

*edited to add it looks like I'm saying basically the same thing Steve said the post above...my bad for not paying close enough attention.

Is Manchin even top 5 at risk? At some point you question the ideology and/or integrity of a person willing let this yes be on their record.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:37 pm Is Manchin even top 5 at risk? At some point you question the ideology and/or integrity of a person willing let this yes be on their record.

Not sure. Latest polling:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... -virginia/

And Trump just called him out for pandering. Perfect capper.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:04 pm And Trump just called him out for pandering. Perfect capper.

Throwback to 2002 when red state Dems tripped all over themselves to support Bush’s warmongering in advance of the midterms and the GOP still ran a bunch of ads calling them traitors.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:24 pmRepublican politicians that weren't Republican enough got primaried.

Yes, and this helped the Democrats hold the Senate after the 2010 elections. Through primaries, Republicans replaced Republicans-who-weren't-Republican-enough in a couple of states with complete whack jobs, who then lost winnable elections. (I think we were talking about this for a while in the van during Ragnar.)

I'm all in favor of senators being primaried from the left in places like California or New York, where the primary winner is going to win the general election. And I wish someone had primaried Menendez in New Jersey, because he's a fucking crook who could lose the Dems that seat.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:33 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:24 pmRepublican politicians that weren't Republican enough got primaried.

Yes, and this helped the Democrats hold the Senate after the 2010 elections. Through primaries, Republicans replaced Republicans-who-weren't-Republican-enough in a couple of states with complete whack jobs, who then lost winnable elections. (I think we were talking about this for a while in the van during Ragnar.)

I'm all in favor of senators being primaried from the left in places like California or New York, where the primary winner is going to win the general election. And I wish someone had primaried Menendez in New Jersey, because he's a fucking crook who could lose the Dems that seat.

The GOP supports rapists. A crook isn’t that big a deal in comparison.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:49 pm

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:37 pm Is Manchin even top 5 at risk? At some point you question the ideology and/or integrity of a person willing let this yes be on their record.

Not sure. Latest polling:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/po ... -virginia/

Are democrats losing ground in the generic ballot?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

i still cant imagine them losing the house.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:33 pm

Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:24 pmRepublican politicians that weren't Republican enough got primaried.

Yes, and this helped the Democrats hold the Senate after the 2010 elections. Through primaries, Republicans replaced Republicans-who-weren't-Republican-enough in a couple of states with complete whack jobs, who then lost winnable elections. (I think we were talking about this for a while in the van during Ragnar.)

I'm all in favor of senators being primaried from the left in places like California or New York, where the primary winner is going to win the general election. And I wish someone had primaried Menendez in New Jersey, because he's a fucking crook who could lose the Dems that seat.

Harry Reid would have been beaten in Nevada in 2010 if not for the whackadoodle the Tea Party idiots nominated. Same thing with that Akin guy in MO. Of course, the difference like Steve alluded to is those are swing-ish light blue/light red states. But the idea that the GOP keeps moving to the right and never faces any serious electoral consequences for it is real.

mister d wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:37 pm Is Manchin even top 5 at risk? At some point you question the ideology and/or integrity of a person willing let this yes be on their record.

The other reason why Manchin’s vote is completely unacceptable is that he just gave cover to Collins, Sasse and any other GOP Senators who want to put themselves forward as moderates in either a Senate re-election campaign or a Presidential campaign. Because the vote was 51-49 instead of 50-50, no one Republican can be painted as having had the power to stop this. Something to think about when Sasse and Rubio are getting praised as Presidential candidates in 2024.

I have reservations about this vote given the serious accusations against Judge Kavanaugh and the temperament he displayed in the hearing. However, based on all of the information I have available to me, including the recently completed FBI report, I have found Judge Kavanaugh to be a qualified jurist who will follow the Constitution and determine cases based on the legal findings before him.

This is what Manchin said. Honestly, let West Virginia go. Find a Democrat elsewhere that doesn't need to kowtow to dumb people in order to sometimes have a sometimes Democrat making decisions.

Collins seat in 2020 looks ripe for the picking because no way in fuck she runs again.

And long term: add 2 justices to the SC. It's easier to do that than to impeach current sitting ones or place term limits on them.

Murkowski to vote 'present' on Kavanaugh so Daines won't have to leave daughter's wedding

Wait...so she's not actually a no vote?

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:46 am Murkowski to vote 'present' on Kavanaugh so Daines won't have to leave daughter's wedding

Wait...so she's not actually a no vote?

And the explicit rationale stated in that article for her decision to vote “present” is to keep it a 2-vote margin so that no Senator can be said to have cast a deciding vote. So the GOP fully recognizes the value of the point I made this morning about Manchin giving their “moderates” cover with his vote. And yet there won’t be a single consequence for him from the same Democratic establishment that backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. What a joke.

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:59 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:46 am Murkowski to vote 'present' on Kavanaugh so Daines won't have to leave daughter's wedding

Wait...so she's not actually a no vote?

And the explicit rationale stated in that article for her decision to vote “present” is to keep it a 2-vote margin so that no Senator can be said to have cast a deciding vote. So the GOP fully recognizes the value of the point I made this morning about Manchin giving their “moderates” cover with his vote. And yet there won’t be a single consequence for him from the same Democratic establishment that backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. What a joke.

Still waiting on the style points the Democrats were hoping to accrue for shoving Franken out the door for taking a picture of him fake-groping a sleeping female soldier.