If anyone is in need of a cathartic savaging of this administration's ineptitude, I highly recommend episode 79 of Chapo Trap House.

Can some kind sir give a status report on Gorsuch? I saw a clip of Schumer on Rachel Maddows show today saying they will take it to a vote. So (1) I guess theyre not doing what was done with Garland - or was that never even an option? (2) Schumer was saying the GOP will need 60 to get him through. But this is not taking into account the nuclear option, correct?

Trump doesn't need any Dems to confirm Gorsuch. You're overthinking this.

I think you missed my point. I'm explicitly not overthinking it. I'm just guessing that some people will.

One of the recurring lessons of military history is that the generals are always plotting strategies to win the previous war. They were caught offguard by the Nazis during WWII because they were planning to fight it using WWI tactics. The guerrilla tactics of Vietnam surprised the generals, because they were planning for a WWII in South Vietnam.

Y'all are talking like 2020 is going to be a do-over of 2016 with Hillary 2.0 vs. Sanders 2.0 vs. Trump 2.0, and I'm here to tell ya, it's not going to be like that. An insane autocrat who reads Breitbart is in charge of all three branches of government. A guy who made a name for himself by disrupting voting rights is now the attorney general of the US of A. This is a completely unprecedented time in world history.

I don't know what's going to happen in the future, but things aren't going to get better by making minor tweaks to the 2016 formula and hoping Hillary 2.0 does a little bit better in rural Wisconsin. Nothing improves here without some truly radical seismic-shift changes. Maybe Trump's own incompetence destroys hum, but we can't count on that.

Pretty sure it was Washington post but there was an article about the early stages of Reagan's presidentcy and how it was large protests and a 32% approval rating and then he wins one of the biggest landslide elections 2yrs later.

The volume of kool aid the Republican base drinks is staggering and will be a monster battle to overcome. It's easy to get pessimistic.

This is correct. I just saw Politico reporting that Dem Rep Elijah Cummings is meeting with Trump later this week to discuss voter suppression. I can't wait for the after interview with Cummings.

"I was very impressed. He was actually taking copious notes. I found it odd that he would stop occasionally to rub his hands together and laugh. I didnt think the room was that cold and I hadn't said anything funny."

FYP, it's both of the above. He needs to get 60 votes to give him a faster and slightly more sure path to his SC seat but at the same time avoid pissing off the guy who could have him replaced with someone else.

Warren is in no way Hillary 2.0. She would have won this time. Who knows what conditions will be like in 4 years? Pence sucks ass obviously, but I'm hoping it will be vs. Pence, not Trump.

Looks to be the first deportation prompted by the Trump admin's change of policy regarding undocumented aliens not convicted of a serious crime. This woman has been here 22 years since she was 14 and has been checking in yearly with ICE since being caught up in one of Sheriff Joe's raids in 2008. Big protests trying to prevent the ICE van from leaving for the detention center with 7 arrests so far. This **** is going to get wild.

She's popular precisely because having an old woman lecture you and boss you around is seen as humiliating. Most of those old reality shows are based on watching people get humiliated (Springer, etc). Judge Judy would be an absolute disaster as a political candidate.

It's not merely being a woman that makes someone a bad candidate, it's being a particular type of woman. Michelle Obama would be a fine candidate. She's a devoted mother, a supportive wife in a good relationship, she has a calming voice, and she gets emotional at appropriate times. She's everything a woman is supposed to be. The idea that Warren would be a good candidate because she's a firebrand is bizarre.

You're only counting one side of the ledger here. She lost to the least popular presidential candidate in history. She would have been obliterated by a decent candidate.

You guys really need a crash course in how people that aren't you think. A Democratic candidate needs to combine appealing to the base with exciting progressive policies with appealing on an emotional level to people with conservative values.

Obama did both. Although he's black, in many ways he's the conservative Platonic ideal of what a black guy should look like (well-spoken, strong family ideals, BOOTSTRAPS etc). The attacks on him which resonated during the campaign were efforts to paint him as un-American (Jeremiah Wright) or literally not American (birtherism). These ultimately failed, but efforts to attack e.g. his inexperience or his policy positions didn't get off the ground at all.

Hillary did more or less neither. And what the hell does Warren bring to the table in this regard? People on the left think she's likeable because she exemplifies THEIR values, but what about her makes people with conservative values feel good on an emotional level? If you think that the lesson from Trump is that people want to hear Warren talk about draining the swamp, you are comically off the mark.

^ Her 14-yr old daughter (US citizen). Also a US cit son.

Reports are that her 2008 conviction was for using a fake SSN to be able to work (a felony).

Trump's bad hombres.

LOLOLOLOL

Wow, Trump's "I'm only targeting violent criminals for deportation" lasted all of 2 weeks. Unsurprising.

ChrisV,

You're off the mark. People wanted someone they trusted. Clinton wasn't that. And it wasn't because she was a woman or a liberal it was because she was constantly patently disingenuous and patronizing. Everyone could tell that.

Whether or not what Trump was saying was true, people at least believed he was being himself. That's not much, but there wasn't much competition.

Hillary is someone people could agree with and still not vote for and Warren is someone people can disagree with and still vote for.

had warren been allowed to run this election cycle everyone would by now understand the meaning of the term wafflecrush. of course 2020 might be tougher, especially if republicans vote to convert all our current voting machines into the new and shiny and golden Trump™ Voting Machines.

but on another note, there is this: House Committee Votes to Terminate Agency that Protects Voting Machines from Hacking

Interested in any The Popular Vote President swag?

Gorsuch's comments remind me of the Sasse/Graham/McCain wing of the party's token criticism/opposition.

fwiw I live in SF

Apparently Joe Rogan just gave Alex Jones like 4 hours to talk about pedophile rings. Said Trump told him he was going to clean it all up.

When the enemies purge comes - I predict this will be the vector. Pedophile roundup.

Was the Pope's quote about walls posted ITT today?

I think Kamala Harris has a much better chance of being the politician from California who makes a surprising run in 2020.

I'm not sure how good of a candidate Warren would be, but I don't think this is correct. Or, at least, I think the first part of this is way more important than the second part.

Firing up the base and increasing turnout is much easier today than getting crossover votes. Warren is quite good at generating excitement on the left. So to answer your question about what she brings compared to Hillary, it's that. The Stein voters, the BernieBros who stayed home - those people are voting for Warren.

How many people with conservative values do you think a Democrat can pick off today? I just don't see it. Didn't 90% of them just vote for Donald effing Trump?