saw this on reddit

lmao

Congressional democrats capitulating to Trump is the best argument against blaming Stein-voters/non-voters for the election results.

the reasoning is just unreal itt. do ppl really think the repubs will let them filibuster next time and not remove it? like wtf is wrong with you guys.

To be fair, the sample size is like four votes and there are outliers there, but yeah, the sooner CA can replace Feinstein (and Pelosi, for that matter) the better.

Schumer and Gillibrand have stepped it up--I was very concerned about them capitulating but both have been pretty strong against Trump so far. NY is winning the CA v NY battle for the liberal base IMO.

There is some thought that the D's want to keep the 60 vote rule in place for SCOTUS nominees to protect against a "bad" second Trump nominee will be interesting to see how this plays out. Ideally for the Ds the nominee steps on his dick during the process.

I had to try about four numbers because the lines were all busy, but I finally got through to Schumer's office in Buffalo:
(716) 846-4111

Micro,

I'm in my mid 40s. I know Democrats across a wide age range. Democrats who are engaged and younger than me seem more inclined to the views on this board -- that is, they think that maintaining norms is far secondary to fighting. Democrats who are engaged and older than me are, if anything, seem more attached to preserving norms than I am. They largely subscribe to Obama's view that there are consequences to election results.

I don't think that this skew says much of anything about who is right. But I find it interesting.

lol this an awful piece of strawmaning garbage

Graham was absolutely praising the choice on camera yesterday. Assuming McCain was the same, but I can't confirm specifically.

Gorsuch was on the list. If there would have been an issue from notable republicans, they could have raised it earlier. I'm sure trump is largely indifferent to the pick and could have been similarly happy with a bunch of others. That is, he wanted to make the pick, but it's not like he came up with that list himself. Other people gave him the list, so these are all pretty much confirmed acceptable choices.

Don't discount the state governments. California is going to lead the way in fighting the federal government. Jerry Brown is a BOSS.

Elections should have consequences? How about the 2012 election that Obama won legitimately? Should that matter?

Do you think that one party can uphold these norms and institutions while another party is working 24/7 to tear every single one of them down?

There is no protecting against bad nominees with the filibuster. Either the nom is so bad that it could not get 50, or the GOP will go nuclear.

Yeah. There is no chance that McCain and Graham oppose Gorsuch. No matter what they think about Trump's immigration orders, they are still Republicans. Gorsuch is exactly the sort of candidate President McCain or President Graham would have nominated. The possibility of someone like Gorsuch being nominated obviously was an election risk, but not a Trump-specific election risk.

Agree, it's just the optics of changing the rules and how it plays politically. The outcome is known (unless there is some big **** up by the nominee) here it's just the process and the politics of the fight.

How does that relate to employing the nuclear option?

Block **** that you can actually win? Stuff that makes them actually look bad when they run you over? My personal strategy would be to say the seat stays open until the FBI report on Trumps Russia links comes in. But you need to understand that this ends with Republicans filling that seat. Going for 4 years of blocking a personally qualified SC nominee just ends with you getting your ass handed to you and McConnell dabbing in Chuck Schumers face.

Obamacare obstructionism didn't work just bc Rs were ridiculously intransigent, it worked bc they convinced people they were fighting to protect their rights against evil dems. What's the PR pitch here? We're just blocking because you *******s deserve it? Sure, that's true, but Schumer going up on Tv with his own version of the "Time for a little game theory" tweetstorm doesn't exactly play great. You need to demonstrate, in some way, how what you're doing is protecting the American public.

I believe that Trump could bully Senate Republicans into the nuclear option, but I think that many Senate Republicans would prefer not to have to use it, if only because they want to make it more difficult for Democrats to use the nuclear option in the future. Old guys in the Senate intuitively understand that nothing lasts forever. Maybe that's an argument for pushing a filibuster.

Trump doesn't care, of course, because he has no respect for norms, long term consequences, or the future of either party.

You're probably just going through a conventional/traditional phase. Perfectly normal thing in your mid-40s. You've finally established yourself and a comfortable life and don't want to rock the boat too hard. In a few years when you're my age you'll loosen up.

Trump is very unpopular. Don't make this too complicated and you can easily win popular support. You're doing this to fight Trump who is not legitimate and stand up for the people of the United States against fascism. ****ing take a stand. If not now, then when, Jesus Christ? When we're sending ground troops into Iran? When we're putting Muslims into concentration camps, I guess we can say "at least they did this through the system."

And his boy Newsome isn't far behind him.

They are protecting the public. The GOP stole the seat from everyone who voted in 2012.

Seriously now, the bench is basically 4-4. You confirm this guy with the intent of filibustering later in some other scenario where the opposition party didn't essentially steal a seat for some reason. RBG then chokes on a kale salad or whatever. What are you going to do, filibuster when it's 5-3? The time is now.

Obstruction is also easier when you control both houses of Congress, as Republicans did for the last two years of Obama's presidency. It's quite difficult to accomplish when you are the minority party.

Why is keep the filibuster even a good thing long-term. We're saving it so that when the Democrats get back in power Republicans will be able to obstruct every possible action just like they did the last 8 years?

Often we do but there are going to be nominations while bullies don't have to steal money.

If you think trump, the republicans and their supporters will be put off rather than encouraged because they won a fight then we're going to disagree big time. if the strategy is to increase his over-confidence then maybe I can get on-board.