Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

02-01-2017 , 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
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.
They did quite well in 2008-2010 too. Every bill that came up during that time raised the discussion of whether there was 60 votes in the senate to support it.
02-01-2017 , 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
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?
Getting rid of the filibuster IS the big goal for the Democrats anyway. That's what nobody seems to notice. If we keep the Supreme Court filibuster, Dems will never get a seat without 60 votes in the Senate. That's called permanent minority control of the Supreme Court. And if you think Republicans will let Dems get a Supreme Court seat with 52-53 votes after they got away with the Garland steal, you need to think more critically.
02-01-2017 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Why the **** are liberals in this forum arguing that we should expect voters to hate obstructionism when it ****ing worked brilliantly for the Republicans?
Moderate and liberal voters (to their detriment) like to show themselves as better people, to the point where "Why didn't you work with them" is more important than any policy position.
02-01-2017 , 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Alex.
They did quite well in 2008-2010 too. Every bill that came up during that time raised the discussion of whether there was 60 votes in the senate to support it.
A big help on that end was all the "blue dog" dems who couldn't be counted as D support.

I haven't heard of any "red dogs" or whatever you'd call the republican equivalent aside from a couple Senators who will occasionally break with the party.
02-01-2017 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportsjefe
Moderate and liberal voters (to their detriment) like to show themselves as better people, to the point where "Why didn't you work with them" is more important than any policy position.
Moderate and liberal voters also value the continued status of the United States as a constitutional democratic republic.
02-01-2017 , 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
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.
There are some Senators who really do not like the nuclear option (McCain..), they would differentiate between blocking all nominees v. ones there is a good objection with. If your stance is we are blocking everyone for 4 years, then your giving them no choice but to make the Senate a majority rules chamber.
02-01-2017 , 02:02 PM
02-01-2017 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
There are some Senators who really do not like the nuclear option (McCain..), they would differentiate between blocking all nominees v. ones there is a good objection with. If your stance is we are blocking everyone for 4 years, then your giving them no choice but to make the Senate a majority rules chamber.
Yeah, there are some senators who also say they don't like Trump's nominees. And then they vote for confirmation.
02-01-2017 , 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noze
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.
The seat is gone. It's 5-4. Maybe you hold out for a year until they can change the confirmation rules to make it filibuster proof, and then it's 5-4. Maybe that's worth it? Idk, someone make the case based on what's gonna get heard this year.

But you're not saving the seat. There's no world where Merrick Garland comes riding in like Gandalf the White to make it a liberal majority. All that matters is what wins votes in 2018 and 2020.
02-01-2017 , 02:09 PM
One liberal to another liberal as they are being led to the concentration camps:
"Well, at least we didn't violate any democratic norms! Those Republicans are such hypocrites!"
02-01-2017 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Yeah, there are some senators who also say they don't like Trump's nominees. And then they vote for confirmation.
A lot of people who "didn't like" Trump who ended up voting for him as well. I think it's just easier for people not to have to defend things they know are indefensible. The media doesn't follow up and voters don't hold them accountable, so why bother, right.
02-01-2017 , 02:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
The seat is gone. It's 5-4. Maybe you hold out for a year until they can change the confirmation rules to make it filibuster proof, and then it's 5-4. Maybe that's worth it? Idk, someone make the case based on what's gonna get heard this year.

But you're not saving the seat. There's no world where Merrick Garland comes riding in like Gandalf the White to make it a liberal majority. All that matters is what wins votes in 2018 and 2020.
It's unclear to me what the best strategy is for the Dems for success in 2018. Maybe going hard and obstructing will keep the base fired up and they can take the House. OTOH maybe they lose the vulnerable Dems in the Senate. It's Schumer and the rest of the D leadership to figure out the best play.
02-01-2017 , 02:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
Getting nothing done and complaining about obstructionists is a losing strategy. "We secured the SC for the next 30 years despite dems best efforts" is very much a winning message.

I think dems are just ****ed here and going for a 4 year block on the SC isn't going to achieve any political or policy goals.
Donald Trump's longest lasting impact will be on the SC. He might be around for 4 (maybe 8) years but if he gets a nominee confirmed who's in their 40s he or she will be around for 30+ years. That's a long legacy to concede without a fight.
02-01-2017 , 02:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinopoker
They are protecting the public. The GOP stole the seat from everyone who voted in 2012.
The public didn't give a **** about this when it happened but you think it's gonna win the day in Montana Senate elections 2 years from now?
02-01-2017 , 02:15 PM
Here's a hint for people who should be paying better attention. The Republican blockade of Garland was pretty unpopular. When it came time to vote, it didn't matter. Nobody voted for Clinton because of the stolen supreme court seat.
02-01-2017 , 02:17 PM
Unpopular with whom exactly?
02-01-2017 , 02:18 PM
Unpopular with the general public, but it didn't really matter because it wasn't high on anybody's priority list. I'd have to dig up the polling from last year but most people didn't really like it, but nobody voted on it.
02-01-2017 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycosid
The seat is gone. It's 5-4. Maybe you hold out for a year until they can change the confirmation rules to make it filibuster proof, and then it's 5-4. Maybe that's worth it? Idk, someone make the case based on what's gonna get heard this year.

But you're not saving the seat. There's no world where Merrick Garland comes riding in like Gandalf the White to make it a liberal majority. All that matters is what wins votes in 2018 and 2020.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments for upcoming cases in 20 days.
02-01-2017 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Here's a hint for people who should be paying better attention. The Republican blockade of Garland was pretty unpopular. When it came time to vote, it didn't matter. Nobody voted for Clinton because of the stolen supreme court seat.
It really was not. The Republicans liked it and the Democrats thought it would backfire, not because of voting but because once Hillary was elected she would appoint someone more liberal.
02-01-2017 , 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
It's unclear to me what the best strategy is for the Dems for success in 2018.
All I got is fight to delay everything as long as possible and hope the economy goes to total hell. If people have jobs, they won't care about anything else. There's going to be a ton of D votes who get booted or restricted in 2 much less 4 years.

I guess the alternative is organize and win the civil war by next saturday.

Trump's gonna force 100% a nuke option though either now or later anyway.
02-01-2017 , 02:20 PM
I'll try to make this my last post about norms, but at the risk of coming across like Sklansky, I have a question.

If there were some subtle, magical way to restrict access to the vote for some demographic (let's say, rural white men) that tends to vote Republican, would you be OK with doing so? After all, that's what the GOP has done to black people for decades.

I think that the GOP's tactics on voting access are repulsive, but my answer is no. And I think that everyone's answer should be no, because voting access is too precious a norm to erode just for the sake of winning an election.
02-01-2017 , 02:20 PM
Take a page from the republicans. Force them to use the nuclear option, then spread a ton of fake news to the idiot voters saying the republicans are working to make using nuclear weapons easier.
02-01-2017 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rococo
I'll try to make this my last post about norms, but at the risk of coming across like Sklansky, I have a question.

If there were some subtle, magical way to restrict access to the vote for some demographic (let's say, rural white men) that tends to vote Republican, would you be OK with doing so? After all, that's what the GOP has done to black people for decades.

I think that the GOP's tactics on voting access are repulsive, but my answer is no. And I think that everyone's answer should be no, because voting access is too precious a norm to erode just for the sake of winning an election.
Taking away basic rights that everyone has from one group of people and preventing republicans from stealing an SC seat without a fight are two suuuuuuper different things.
02-01-2017 , 02:22 PM
einbert is right.
02-01-2017 , 02:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Unpopular with the general public, but it didn't really matter because it wasn't high on anybody's priority list. I'd have to dig up the polling from last year but most people didn't really like it, but nobody voted on it.
I think you could argue that R obstruction didn't help the party and led to an outsider like Trump winning the nom over the career, establishment politicians. Not sure if it is a winning argument but maybe.

      
m