US PoliERA 2018 |OT10| McConnell is "mule piss"
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
God, I hope Cruz's career permanently dies come Nov. 6th. I'm gonna press the button to vote for Beto so hard the voting machine fucking breaks.
We only lost 54-46 in 2016.
Also, look at the tweet above. NOT ALL OF THESE JUDGES ARE BAD. Some are people Obama previously nominated. In the last batch there was a lady who'd clerked for the most liberal justice on the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Last edited:
I don't think a single Senator could've stopped anything, one Senator can not give consent and they do a full vote:
Maybe the D Senators are too deferential to Schumer, IDK. It seems most of them wanted to recess
This is idiotic. There is actually stuff the Democrats have power to do here that they are not doing. If you assume everybody is a Buster you'll end up not actually understanding what the Dems could and could not do. But you'll be very confident in your ignorance!
How? 14 democrats could be gone and they'd still not have 3/5ths to overcome a filibuster 51-35. Is there anything in particular we're worried about getting passed by losing the moderate republican buffer?
Interesting anecdotal data from OK: Kevin Stitt may indeed win, but I've noticed no enthusiasm for him. Absolutely none.
But then again, I run in teacher circles, and we're probably voting 90-10 for Edmondson, and in greater numbers than in past years.
Also a fairly large Republicans for Edmondson presence.
But then again, I run in teacher circles, and we're probably voting 90-10 for Edmondson, and in greater numbers than in past years.
Also a fairly large Republicans for Edmondson presence.
The only way this deal makes sense is if the Dems know that getting 51 seats is almost impossible so may as well get a few progressive judges seated before the election.
To quote are dear Durbin, or was it Combswhatevrfuckhisnameis?
"Were not that organized"
So why are people upset at that Schumer McConnell deal? It's not like Schumer had any power to stop the judges from being confirmed. So what exactly is the big deal?
Looking at the VA-10 poll, it's early, but Wexton appears to have incredible name ID for a challenger. Also +24 in favorability.
Regardless of whether or not it would have worked, I think it's clear from public statements and actions that Chuck Schumer is not comfortable playing hardball. I'm certain he knows he could have kept a skeleton crew, like everyone is saying, and dragged this out. That just wouldn't be "fair play" in some bizarre, antiquated notion. If we take back the Senate, we gotta let someone else lead.
Schumer needs to go. He's completely incompatible with the current era of politics and what the voter base needs to see in order to have faith in the party.
The most backbone Schumer ever showed was when he loudly dissented from Obama on the Iran deal lmao.
I can't believe we had people here legit argue his talk about reinstating the filibuster was just "Keeping his hand close to his chest", yeah he is clearly a master card player
Hope that MN-8 poll goes our way. If we pick up MN-2 and 3 but it's a wash because we lose 1 and 8 that's gonna be some bullshit.
It's about protecting red-state senators from the votes in the event they retake the senate since a 41-vote fillibuster is effectively a total blockade. Two can play the bad faith game.
It's also a tell that Amy Klobuchar isn't running because she floated it.
They've had almost no responses in the Duluth area, the most Democratic part of the district.
I think Amazon should get into the polling business. I'll be damned if their psychographic profile of me doesn't anticipate my need for Tide Pods and trash bags, and then notify me about it
Until he doesn't get rid of it if we get a Dem Potus. Which both Klobucher and Durbin have hinted they wanted.
The point is trying to paint Schumer as a schemer of any sort is farcical, it doesn't back up how he acts, how he messages, how he sloppily waits to long to make pics and how he leaps to massage Trump's balls whenever he does anything Schumer. How unbelievably unorganized his caucus is "Were not that organized" infuckingdeed
Its propping up a mediocre white male politician. "Literal Strong White daddy syndrome" For a dude who has done nothing to deserve it because you and others have fantasies about him secretly being a cutthroat bidding time till he can nuke the fillibuster, stack the lower courts in a progressive wave, and not the obvious anchor on any type of progress he is going to be.
Its just the opposite end of people projecting whatever the fuck they wanted onto Trump to believe him during the election, to a less absurd extreme
Edit: The fact that only Warren said anything really says it all about how much we could trust Harris or any of the others to twist his arm when the time comes.
Jesus Christ
LOL at the tweets.
Some are predicting that Denver "won" the Amazon HQ bid
Would be great for us in Boston if the HQ is elsewhere.
Warren is fundraising for Tina Smith. I hope Warren does run.
What's interesting is that Painter actually did seem to help Tina towards taking a very hard line anti-trump stance.
What's interesting is that Painter actually did seem to help Tina towards taking a very hard line anti-trump stance.
That's the other part of this that isn't seen. Not all of these are horrible picks.
Their primary concern is making sure as many red-staters get elected in a nasty election cycle. I get why they're doing it. Things have trade-offs. No one's a goddamn god-emperor.
Add more states, fix the problem. We need major action the next time we have a trifecta, and luckily for everyone, we're about to have a fun time discussing shit like that when the primary election cycle starts in a month. I don't think Schumer is inclined to do those things, which is why we need a candidate who WILL pressure him to do them (or step aside.)
But that isn't this cycle, where we need to win as many of those goddamn elections as possible.
Yes. These justices are packages that are negotiated. Some are judges Obama nominated in the last two years but were blocked by the Senate.
Its not like he is nominating them. His staff is and more likely Kelly. Trump probably doesnt even know what happened with that nominee.
Considering everyone that wasnt Warren didnt say shit about this, you better hope She makes noise forcing the others to move on it.
Though I guess that makes Schatz already breaching that subject even stranger, he's part of Dem leadership so was he speaking with there authority or was he just going solo to force it into the conversation.
When they say "1/6 of all District Court judges are now Trump appointees," are these Obama nominees included?
The filibuster thing you need to lie about until you actually bust it.
The states thing you don't.
There's a reason Warren/Gillibrand are at the top of my voting list! I think they'd go hardball!
Yeah there is a bit of nuance to it I suppose. Doesn't mean it's a great strategy or trade-off but Schumer's not totally rolling over.
Looking at that tweet, only three of the nine judges voted on were passed on a party line vote, while one was held over entirely because of the ABA rating (the GOP applies this selectively then?). One - Martha Pacold - got three Dem No votes from Hirono, Booker and Harris so I'd guess they're still a bad pick, but that doesn't seem too bad overall.
Yes.
Most likely, since they've technically become Trump appointees.
Wait I had no idea there was any sort of bundling going on where they nominate a few token liberal judges here in there in these bundles.
How many of the judges fall into this bucket?
How many of the judges fall into this bucket?
McGahn is picking them. Reason for going w/ an obama pick would be because its a blue state and sometimes the GOP likes to humor democrats by following tradition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_slip#Senate
Last edited:
Just looked them up. Gallagher, McElroy and Rowland were all failed Obama nominees. Not to put too much stock into that but I'm guessing they're fine then.
Seeger and Pacold got significant bipartisan support but are new Trump nominees so eh?
Seeger and Pacold got significant bipartisan support but are new Trump nominees so eh?
3 out of the 8 who were approved by the judiciary committee (as listed by the Twitter thread upthread) were Obama nominees. Seems like they also put a Trump nominee on ice over the ABA giving him an unqualified rating.
Thanks. So it's not as bad as it sounds then. Obviously the ideal number of Trump judicial appointments is zero, but if they're kept fairly low then it won't be catastrophic.
Imagining if Turkey releases the evidence of Khashoggi's murder. International firestorm.
Trump is not going to do a thing though. Which is going to be really sad.
Trump is not going to do a thing though. Which is going to be really sad.
Maddow starting off the night going right after the Senate Democrats about the list of judges.
- Status