The point being, the Republicans took a risk—a big risk—that would have backfired had Clinton simply won the election as expected
One, I don't think the risk was big. If they held the Senate as expected, Clinton probably would have named a more liberal Justice and then there'd be a big fight over whether they would confirm or continue their recalcitrance for another 8 years. She may have ended up with someone like Garland just to break the stalemate. In the meantime, delaying delays a 5 liberal justice majority. So, there was some risk, but it was modest. Worst case, they are only incrementally worse off. But, more importantly, thinking of governance instead of politics, we gave our leaders a job to do for the sake of governing the country -- appoint and confirm justices -- and McConnell shat all over our governance for the cynical exercise of politics. I can't understand why that wouldn't bother you.
There was no "probably" about it. Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz were floating the idea of leaving the seat vacant for the duration of a Clinton presidency.
I’m not one of those lesser men who doesn’t believe in freedom in order to satisfy my biases. However I’m sure there’s plenty of men who aren’t as secure in their sexuality that would be uncomfortable with this.
I think that would have been highly unlikely. perhaps I can't understand why my state of mind would be of concern to you
arguably, if one takes off their own particular ideological blinders for just a moment (and/or tries the shoe on the other foot), "governance" in fact did occur. In other words it is possible to interpret history as Republicans did what they thought was important for the sake of the country, and the end result is that a jurist who fits their vision of "governance" (Gorsuch) was nominated and confirmed . . . thus saving the country from they consider the catastrophe of what-otherwise-might-have-been. Just because you don't like that vision of "governance" doesn't make it any less "governance" in the overall scheme of things. Again, my original comment was that the narrative is tiresome. Trump won the election. Dems should simply get over that and get to work on finding someone who can genuinely beat Trump. I don't see that happening yet. But it is early in the process. Perhaps Obama v.2 will materialize.
I get that. I find the counter-narrative tiresome as well. I think the logic is terrible, but people keep bringing it back. So we both feel compelled to argue an argument we're sick of having. Didn't watch Pete's clip, but I'm guessing he's saying it's okay to add Justices to pack the bench and dilute the current Republican majority because Republicans have already monkeyed with 9-justice court to get Gorsuch. The implication of my argument -- that Republicans should not have abandoned their responsibility to govern -- would imply that the Democrats shouldn't sink to their level by engaging in similar dirty tricks. However your argument that the whole thing could have been avoided by just winning the presidential election, well that tells me that if Democrats win the Presidency and the White House then they should definitely pack the bench. If Republicans don't want the Supreme Court expanded, they just need to keep winning elections.
I saw an interview of the fellow, I think on CNN, and he really impressed me. Do a search and see if you can find it. I also saw an interview of Beto on CNN, and while I can't recall the finer details of either interview at the moment, I remember being far more impressed with Mayor Pete. I'm currently on some serious meds for my screwed up back, so you would do better to search out the interviews rather than depend on my recollection of them. There are some details I do recall about Mayor Pete, however. He speaks 7 languages. He was a Rhodes Scholar and a graduate of Harvard and Oxford (Pembroke College). He was a Lieutenant in the Navy Reserve for 8 years, serving as an intelligence officer. He served in Afghanistan. That's pretty impressive, to put it mildly. I'll add something aimed at the sexually insecure guys here. I could care less if Mayor Pete happens to be gay. I would have felt the same way about George W. Bush, had he been gay and had a male partner or spouse. My vote against Bush, and I did vote against him, against his father, against Reagan, and against Nixon, would have been based on his political views, not his sexual orientation. In my opinion, it is far past time to put the bigotry aimed at those of a different sexual orientation in the rear view mirror. Some of you need to grow up, in my humble opinion.
Not a bad idea. Bernie's town hall on fox was one of the most watched. Plus, Buttigieg has been one of the most accessible candidates... contributing to his growing support.
Trump is not going to like this he is already jealous that Fox let Berny have a platform Will be interesting to see if Trump tried to pull the plug.
Pete Buttigieg has been attending previously undisclosed anti-Bernie meetings with Tanden, Schumer, McAuliffe, Pelosi, and several donors. We now see how Buttigieg has all of a sudden come out of nowhere. Beto is toast. Kamala is getting a run for the money as the establishment candidate. Buttigieg will soon get all nuanced on his announced plan not to accept corporate PAC money if he keeps rising. As an aside it is a curious case to claim a unity concern when trying to gang up to stop the front runner. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html "The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Senator Chuck Schumer, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden."
[Premium Post] Thank you to the patriots at Fox News for giving platforms to completely unelectable general election candidates with Bernie and Buttigieg. Biden is the only Democrat with a real chance of winning a General, and even that's a question mark, given his public molestation of little girls. The better the non-Biden candidates do, the greater the chance of Donald J Trump being president through January 2025 -- and reshaping American society for the better in the process. GOOD DAY
Buttigieg is getting a lot of play lately and I find him quite articulate and thoughtful but I just don't see the outreach to minority communities. Frankly, he hasn't got a prayer without a high minority turnout.
Reality is for Democrats they need to turn out minorities bigly AND they need to recapture the hearts and minds of blue collar voters in the so called Blue Wall states. I'm not sure a gay white guy is going to be able to do that.
