• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Jogi

Prophet of Regret
Member
Jul 4, 2018
5,452
What is crazy is how bad Dem messaging is when they knew this ruling was coming down. They had months to formulate some coherent gameplan to place the blame on republicans and showcase what they are going to do to support women's right. Instead, we get whatever this is. Their reaction makes it seem like they had no idea this was coming down the pipe and were caught off guard.
 

qaopjlll

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,788
No, it is not likely. Cook Political has 5 of the 2022 senate races as tossups and 3 of those are currently held by Democrats. If the tossups are 50/50 probability, Dems would end up with with 49 or 50 seats. Only if they win all 5 tossups or pull off an upset in a Lean-R race without losing any others would they get to 52.

If they miraculously get 53+, yeah I agree it would be demoralizing if voting rights and Roe weren't addressed.
Not that I think getting 53 senators is likely but those Cook ratings are several months old, PA has to be considered lean D if not likely D at this point. I'd be very surprised if they flip any more seats on top of that while defending all of seats that they currently hold, though.
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
What is crazy is how bad Dem messaging is when they knew this ruling was coming down. They had months to formulate some coherent gameplan to place the blame on republicans and showcase what they are going to do to support women's right. Instead, we get whatever this is. Their reaction makes it seem like they had no idea this was coming down the pipe and were caught off guard.

They passed a bill in the House in 2021 to codify Roe. They voted on it in the Senate and got Republicans on the record against it.
They started looking at options to mitigate the decision as soon as the decision leaked.

www.nytimes.com

Bracing for the End of Roe v. Wade, the White House Weighs Executive Actions (Published 2022)

The Biden administration has been deluged with ideas to help mitigate a Supreme Court ruling expected to overturn abortion rights, but many come with legal risks.

If you weren't made aware of those efforts, please consider expanding the sources where you get your news from.

Every Dem being asked about it since the decision was released has blamed Republicans. I don't know what your definition of a plan would be if the decision ultimately was the Supreme Court's responsibility.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,623
They passed a bill in the House in 2021 to codify Roe. They voted on it in the Senate and got Republicans on the record against it.
They started looking at options to mitigate the decision as soon as the decision leaked.

www.nytimes.com

Bracing for the End of Roe v. Wade, the White House Weighs Executive Actions (Published 2022)

The Biden administration has been deluged with ideas to help mitigate a Supreme Court ruling expected to overturn abortion rights, but many come with legal risks.

If you weren't made aware of those efforts, please consider expanding the sources where you get your news from.

Every Dem being asked about it since the decision was released has blamed Republicans. I don't know what your definition of a plan would be if the decision ultimately was the Supreme Court's responsibility.
So they've done all this, and ultimately they've failed in their messaging anyway.
 

caseyg

Banned
Apr 20, 2022
70
The issue is the same as it always has been. Dem leadership doesn't have any skin in the game. They're all very well-off people who aren't really affected by any of the legislation being passed.
Yup. It's also painfully easy for special interest groups to bribe democratic senators and congressmen to vote against their own party's interests...not to mention the best interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans.
 

Jogi

Prophet of Regret
Member
Jul 4, 2018
5,452
They passed a bill in the House in 2021 to codify Roe. They voted on it in the Senate and got Republicans on the record against it.
They started looking at options to mitigate the decision as soon as the decision leaked.

www.nytimes.com

Bracing for the End of Roe v. Wade, the White House Weighs Executive Actions (Published 2022)

The Biden administration has been deluged with ideas to help mitigate a Supreme Court ruling expected to overturn abortion rights, but many come with legal risks.

If you weren't made aware of those efforts, please consider expanding the sources where you get your news from.

Every Dem being asked about it since the decision was released has blamed Republicans. I don't know what your definition of a plan would be if the decision ultimately was the Supreme Court's responsibility.
Lol nice passive aggressiveness. I get my sources from a variety of places, but yeah thanks for the concern. My issue is with messaging. If you think they are doing well with messaging you're out of your mind. Every interview from the most important people of the party makes them seem ill-prepared and lacking direction. And a lackof awareness is a staple of the party not making the populace aware.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,963
For the sake of actual beneficial discourse, we should probably avoid posting snippets of snippets just to piss people off.

I just don't understand what anyone gets out of that.
 

Deleted member 8257

Oct 26, 2017
24,586
I mean, you are purposely ignoring the reality of the situation. We cited Trump due to the fact that there will likely not be another figure (at least a Democratic one) with as much of a hold over their respective party, and yet even he couldn't leverage that to push through his priorities.

You constantly point out LBJ…who did not have a 50/50 Senate (and famously did not get his entire caucus to vote for his agenda). I honestly don't think you're even attempting to argue in good faith because you're ignoring the fact that two Senators have been roadblocks for the legislative agenda of the administration. And even with those two Senators as obstacles, some good has been done.
Let's put the personal attacks for a moment. My criticism of Biden admin does not make me a bad faith troll. We can should be able to discuss the failures of our government on its merits. You posted Trump as an example of a strongman unable to convince Mitch to pass his agenda/infrastructure bill/whatever. My argument is that you shouldn't look to Trump as any standard because he is so incapable of anything constructive whatsoever. Just because Trump was a fail does not mean every president is a fail on that regard. Biden absolutely can talk to his majority leader and make a case for a filibuster carveout. In fact, Schumer already hinted he is in favor of that! So Biden just needs to come around.

LBJ had majorities but people fail to realize his majority also included hardcore southerners who would later become Dixiecrats, and those who tried to stymie him when it came to civil rights. I don't have the exact numbers, but he coerced a lot of people. If LBJ was given this congress, you bet he'd be blackmailing congressmen and senators left and right. Lincoln would be outright bribing them.
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
Lol nice passive aggressiveness. I get my sources from a variety of places, but yeah thanks for the concern. My issue is with messaging. If you think they are doing well with messaging you're out of your mind. Every interview from the most important people of the party makes them seem ill-prepared and lacking direction. And a lackof awareness is a staple of the party not making the populace aware.

I was specifically responding to your comment that you thought they were caught off guard. I can show you clips of Hillary talking about Trump and Roe in 2016. I can show you examples of messaging they used against Republicans when the Women's Health Protection Act passed the house, or what Schumer and Dems warned when they voted on it in the senate. If you want to take clips of a few specific interviews and say they're not good messaging, I'm not going to argue against that but to say the messaging about the issue as a whole is bad just tells me that you are ignoring the totality of the message or you wouldn't be convinced by anything anyways.
 

bruhaha

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
4,122
My argument is that you shouldn't look to Trump as any standard because he is so incapable of anything constructive whatsoever. Just because Trump was a fail does not mean every president is a fail on that regard. Biden absolutely can talk to his majority leader and make a case for a filibuster carveout. In fact, Schumer already hinted he is in favor of that! So Biden just needs to come around.

Trump is specifically praised by his supporters as being able to talk to the people rather than elites. If you're only talking about the relationship between the WH and the senate, it's not a decision between Biden and Schumer.

It won't happen with Manchin as the 50th vote, period. Manchin is a Democrat who figured out how to win in a state that voted for Trump by 40+ points both before and after Manchin's last election. If Dems threaten Manchin's seat in any way, all he has to do is cut a deal with McConnell to caucus with the Republicans in exchange for not having a Republican run against him in 2024. There is no leverage to be applied against him. He doesn't have a pee tape.
 

Chaos Legion

The Wise Ones
Member
Oct 30, 2017
16,923
Let's put the personal attacks for a moment. My criticism of Biden admin does not make me a bad faith troll. We can should be able to discuss the failures of our government on its merits. You posted Trump as an example of a strongman unable to convince Mitch to pass his agenda/infrastructure bill/whatever. My argument is that you shouldn't look to Trump as any standard because he is so incapable of anything constructive whatsoever. Just because Trump was a fail does not mean every president is a fail on that regard. Biden absolutely can talk to his majority leader and make a case for a filibuster carveout. In fact, Schumer already hinted he is in favor of that! So Biden just needs to come around.

LBJ had majorities but people fail to realize his majority also included hardcore southerners who would later become Dixiecrats, and those who tried to stymie him when it came to civil rights. I don't have the exact numbers, but he coerced a lot of people. If LBJ was given this congress, you bet he'd be blackmailing congressmen and senators left and right. Lincoln would be outright bribing them.
There was no personal attacks in my post, and I'm sorry if you misinterpreted it as such. I genuinely like your posts and ability to bring an insightful perspective onto the overlooked aspects of many of the administration's shortcomings.

What good is Biden talking to Schumer about a carve out if he doesn't have the votes? You literally say in your post you want the Biden to commit a crime by bribing or blackmailing a sitting Senator. If Manchin leaves the Party, the Democrats have no majority.

Biden, the ghost of LBJ, you name it - nobody should deny that Manchin and Sinema have leverage over whichever D President that would be sitting in the Oval Office. They have willfully refused to even attempt to consider even carveouts for:
- Voting Rights
- DC Statehood
- Roe v Wade

It's just not fair to say that LBJ couldn't get the support of ~40% of his caucus because of contankerous Senators, yet expecting Biden to not lose a single vote to remove a Senate tradition.
 

Drowner

Banned
May 20, 2019
608
Isn't this one of those things where senators can block appointments in their home state indefinitely?

Oh idk. so as in Biden is nominating this person b/c no one else was being approved by the senators? What happens if no one ever gets approved? Is it just that the other judges have a larger caseload?
 

Maledict

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,086
Isn't this one of those things where senators can block appointments in their home state indefinitely?

No, that was only a tradition and not an absolute rule. The republicans have already broken it in the past.

I can see absolutely zero reasons to do this. The republicans have fucked the courts up enough through lifetime appointments for the democrats to start doing it for them as well.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,081
Isn't this one of those things where senators can block appointments in their home state indefinitely?

They can't do this as a rule. It's an older tradition that the Senate would defer somewhat to the state's senator but it was only recently that it meant the senator from the state could block it. McConnell himself has argued this shouldn't be a thing.

A judge he semi approves of

The guy who had his consideration dropped by Trump is semi-approved by Biden? And why does a deal even need to be made with Mitch?
 

Jogi

Prophet of Regret
Member
Jul 4, 2018
5,452
I was specifically responding to your comment that you thought they were caught off guard. I can show you clips of Hillary talking about Trump and Roe in 2016. I can show you examples of messaging they used against Republicans when the Women's Health Protection Act passed the house, or what Schumer and Dems warned when they voted on it in the senate. If you want to take clips of a few specific interviews and say they're not good messaging, I'm not going to argue against that but to say the messaging about the issue as a whole is bad just tells me that you are ignoring the totality of the message or you wouldn't be convinced by anything anyways.
I mean I think we are just talking about different things here. It's clear they've known about the potential of overthrowing Roe v Wade and have done things to try to mitigate that damage. My whole point comes back to how they don't seem to be doing much to energize their base by reminding them of what has been done once the ruling officially came down, and who is to blame. Yes, they've done things in the past, but there is no unified front since it was overthrown.
 

yogurt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,847
No, that was only a tradition and not an absolute rule. The republicans have already broken it in the past.

I can see absolutely zero reasons to do this. The republicans have fucked the courts up enough through lifetime appointments for the democrats to start doing it for them as well.
Ah, you're right. I misremembered, my bad.
 

mugurumakensei

Elizabeth, I’m coming to join you!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,328
Part of the job of a politician is to lay out a vision of the future, even if it isn't achievable right now. Left wing forces all over the west over the last two decades have really hurt themselves because they start from the position of "what is achievable now?".

If Republicans had the same approach roe v Wade would never be removed. Left wing politics is way too full of people who are better suited to being policy wonks than actual politicians. So what if it's not her job or power to do that - should it happen? Thats the only question and answer that matters. If we'd wanted an answer based on the laws and separation of powers and how senate business works we would have asked the senate parliamentarian.

Doing what's possible now is literally how Roe v Wade got slowly chipped away.

You start by slowly closing the window for abortions to be allowed. SC okays. Republicans slowly granted majorities in many states and gain ground in the senate.

Then, you move to limiting the cases where abortion is allowed. Continuing on. Republicans get an opportunity to shape the court. Republicans take it.

Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade. Democrats get blamed for it.

Republicans are fine with no progress as long as it stalls progressive advancement or minimal progress. Democrats have a problem of all or nothing with the younger demographics.
 
Last edited:

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,369
Lmao, imagine believing McConnell will uphold his end of any bargain while he's actively gloating about how refusing to seat Obama's SC nomination within 1 year of an election secured the overturning of Roe v Wade.

Democrats are terrible at this game. Ned Stark vs the Lannisters
 

Disco

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,453


biden you miserable old fuck, why would you trust mitch


5ee8e0d45d3a943d6ee8c080d263702d.jpg
 

Coyote Starrk

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
53,073
You know what, I hope the next appointee Biden want he straight up just obstructs. Sometimes getting shit flung into your face is the only way someone can learn.
Yeah let's not hope that. I get the impulse, but that situation is how we got to where we are.

Human rights are more important than spiteful justice.
 

Drowner

Banned
May 20, 2019
608
So Biden's screwing Kentucky to make things easier for himself in the future? That is unsurprising. The people this judge previously worked for were and are horrible politicians.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,963
Don't take this the wrong way because I also don't like this stank ass shit. Entering into any sort of agreement with Mitch. Just smells stank.

But, I also didn't like it when just a page ago people in this thread were saying that Biden should be doing anything and everything he can, up to and including bribing a Republican.

Didn't like that because, well, what form did people think bribing a Republican was going to take?
 
May 26, 2018
24,021
So when the Dems only hold the White House they can still appoint judges?

Mitch has no reason or motivation or reward to honor this. Ever. Ever ever ever. In fact he has the opposite. He can only continue to be rewarded by obstructing.
 

Drowner

Banned
May 20, 2019
608
Don't take this the wrong way because I also don't like this stank ass shit. Entering into any sort of agreement with Mitch. Just smells stank.

But, I also didn't like it when just a page ago people in this thread were saying that Biden should be doing anything and everything he can, up to and including bribing a Republican.

Didn't like that because, well, what form did people think bribing a Republican was going to take?

At this point I sometimes wish our government would just legalize monetary bribes. This is abhorrent.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,816
It's times like this I envy Fox News in it's prime for setting the agenda for the base's talking points.

That reach/power to suddenly make the smallest of issues the biggest (Ground Zero Mosque, Death Panels, Birtherism, Maranda Rights and etc).

Technology and the base of the Democratic party is so fragmented. They've known the overturn was happening for a while now but the optics of leadership or a coherent plan just aren't visible.

Right wing media outlets somehow convinced working class people tax cuts for the rich and CRT were important to them.
 

Thordinson

Member
Aug 1, 2018
18,081
Don't take this the wrong way because I also don't like this stank ass shit. Entering into any sort of agreement with Mitch. Just smells stank.

But, I also didn't like it when just a page ago people in this thread were saying that Biden should be doing anything and everything he can, up to and including bribing a Republican.

Didn't like that because, well, what form did people think bribing a Republican was going to take?

I think the problem here is that there is no need to bribe him for this. Biden has a majority to make appointments. Why even bother talking to Mitch about this at all? Not only that, appointing someone who is "pro-life" is not going to be good for abortion rights nor look good at all.
 

Dekim

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,301
So Biden got nothing but a "promise" from a dishonest actor that they *pinky swear* won't block Biden's future nominations? And in exchange put someone on the bench that will likely vote against Democratic policies and make it harder to bring choice back to abortion. Oh and also demotivate the base to go out and vote Democrat in a crucial election happening in ~4 month's time?

I dare say Democrats are horrible at politics.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,963
I think the problem here is that there is no need to bribe him for this. Biden has a majority to make appointments. Why even bother talking to Mitch about this at all? Not only that, appointing someone who is "pro-life" is not going to be good for abortion rights nor look good at all.

Oh no, I get that. I just fucking idea gross.

Especially the timing.
 
May 26, 2018
24,021
I think the problem here is that there is no need to bribe him for this. Biden has a majority to make appointments. Why even bother talking to Mitch about this at all?

Because Biden has the best pollsters in the land and I'm guessing they're saying the legislative is utterly toast, so Biden thinks he's making a deal for the future.

When he just gave up a freebie to a fascist.
 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,154
Remember that time Biden torpedoed his own entire agenda because he believed Joe Manchin, a member of his own party?
 

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,121
I can't read the article
And now you see the trick.

That's a mealy mouthed headline with a ton of weasel words. Real curious what the actual article looks like.

With the number of "Biden considers maybe possibly doing X" articles that arethen immediately retracted there have been, y'all should be way less willing to take headlines on faith
 

Drowner

Banned
May 20, 2019
608
And now you see the trick.

That's a mealy mouthed headline with a ton of weasel words. Real curious what the actual article looks like.

With the number of "Biden considers maybe possibly doing X" articles that arethen immediately retracted there have been, y'all should be way less willing to take headlines on faith

I don't doubt the headline, Joe Sonka is legit
 

Aselith

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,373
...

Y'all really aren't seeing the "according to Yarmuth and other officials."

Y'all remember when Rahm Emmanuel was going to be nominated for every cabinet position under the sun according to Rahm Emmanuel's team?

That's kinda different than the person who opposes him saying he's going to be nominated.