But ultimately it's on Mitch to decide when she will be questioned and when a vote would happen.
-
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.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT6| An Unmitigated Disaster
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Which would show how stupid Republican voters are because they could easily confirm someone in the lame duck even if they lost all their Senate seats.
It's all about motivating the base.
Kennedy really sucks for not waiting until next year to step down.
It's an interesting question, and goes to the heart of representative democracy.
One thing about the electorate is that, in general, it has incoherent policy preferences. For example, polls consistently show that most Americans would like to lower taxes while spending more on every department of government. Obviously this is not possible. One of the primary roles of representatives is to resolve these difficult choices between policy goals. This requires a certain independent judgement.
It's also important to note that most of the opinions of the electorate are weakly held. Most people do not have strong opinions on every political issue. They have one or two strong opinions, which they use to determine a party affiliation, and look to that party to give them a catechism on every other issue. Thus, the representative they elect doesn't just follow the concerns of their constituents, they shape those concerns with their arguments and campaigns. There's a reason why the classic American political narrative is running on a specific policy, getting elected, and implementing that specific policy.
However, ultimately politicians serve to implement the will of the people. To the degree that they have independence, it is in identifying and shaping that will, not in defying it. I generally support politicians shifting their views to match the political climate, while also abiding by the moral requirements of office.
Normally I would sardonically say, "But the president might say mean things about them on Twitter!!!!!"
But it could actually happen, and since they've wedded themselves to him so thoroughly, they need to maintain his favor.
What happens if they delay until midterms with the president screaming every day, "WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG?"
Eh, the Christian right really has a stranglehold over the party. It's not stupid to support them if you want to rollback social progress.
Maybe that would be ideal--though it asks for both ethical foresight on behalf of the representative, and nuanced judgment from a voter. The two don't seem to align very often.
Rolling back social progress is stupid though. Supporting Trump and claiming to be Christian is also a sign of stupidity and hypocrisy. It's a fact that Republicans are overall less educated and more susceptible to fear mongering, which is what Republicans dish out.
He scheduled July 9th, because the government gets all Michael Cohen evidence July 5th. It will distract the news cycle most likely during a time there will be an arrest or indictment.
My best friend in junior high and high school clerked for Scalia. They probably know each other! He didn't have awful FB posts though.
I don't know but I think sooner rather than later is better for us because if it's deiayed until fall, it will motivate the base.
I agree about getting it finished sooner rather than later. My point is just that their best-laid plans could still go awry.
Posted this Milbank opinion piece up in OT cause I think it's a very very good summary to share with people explaining the GOP's behavior over the past 20-30 years and where it's lead us - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d3beccdd7a3_story.html?utm_term=.4d0963414b27
Cynic me is concerned they'll accuse the Dem's of sexism when they try to block the nomination.
Oh, you know it.
That's why I said be glad that Janice Rogers Brown has retired. Then they would've said, "How dare you accuse the president of being racist and sexist!"
No that's the common sense you expecting that because it's gonna happen 100%
Same exact playbook with the gay german ambassador, smokey eye, etc.
I am literally convinced he'll pick Judge Janine from Fox.
Yes, it's something I think about a lot, particularly during election campaigns and especially starting around late 2015 (when I started reading this thread). A candidate puts forward a broad platform, which tends to gain the interest of a potential voter based upon one or a couple of items, and perhaps a different voter for a different item, as you said--or even on the "I could have a drink with this person" rationale. Yet a candidate is of course responsible for much more than one issue. When it comes to the responsibilities of a representative over the course of time, though, it's just always been unclear to me how a representative is expected to continue adapting their platform in an appreciable way, without being condemned as having a loose stance. "Change" elections seem specifically ungenerous to a candidate whose policy history doesn't match the present interests of an electorate, even if their intent is to remain aligned with the will of the people.
There's plenty of fall before the mid-terms. Mitch has *specifically* said before the midterms. Politico ran a story yesterday about it:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/29/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-justice-election-685934
That piece doesn't really get into the most important bit -- not that there's normal election and voter enthusiasm cycles that respond to current power holders -- but that republicans have been using the time they have in power to set the stage for long term minority rule, in contrast with democrats that do what they can when in power and then let the cycles take the power from them naturally.
The response to ACA is not the model to look at when it comes to the public's response to Trump -- the article mentions the rigged district lines, electoral college, SCOTUS, and voting rights, but it doesn't explore how that changes the game, changes the model -- what happens when the backlash can't come through the ballot box.
w e l p
The thing that gets me is, he knows how this looks. He constantly complains about people talking about how bad this looks for him. And yet, and yet and yet, somehow, he always finds a way to be nicer to Russia, despite his image fixation. Almost like they have something on him.
:thinking:
The entire thesis of the piece is "the GOP is trying to set up long term minority rule". You may want to re-read it, he's not talking about typical wave behavior.
I'm at the point where I can't even laugh at a good "Pee Pee Tape" joke anymore. I need a vacation.
Either Putin is cashing in and bailing out or The Dotard is completely invested in entertaining his fantasies of Economic Supergenius and Putin's Cum Dumpster in one grand flourish.
Horse-racing. #4 on my list of things needing to be fixed with journalism.
"OK, so NOW we won't be called 'liberal media' again!" or the EiC is some kind of wrong.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...l-line-hoping-millennials-start-leaning-right
Been a thing. Just another drummer boy in the army of the GOP headed off to senile authortarianism.
I think you're reading into it, rather than actually reading it. It does little more than allude to how the things he lists actually change the model.
This is how he differentiates between backlash to dems and backlash to republicans. ACA and Obama was more popular. That's it.
As I said, it does list how GOP Is setting up long term minority rule, but where does it explain the ways long term minority rule changes the model? This is basically all he provides:
At best, a hint. Certainly not an explanation.
edit: I think the best I've heard on this topic is from Yascha Mounk and Amy Chua, though Mounk tackles it much more directly.
Last edited:
Trump argued before that Obama gave Russia Crimea, not that they took it.
Meaning going against anything Russia is not part of Trump's "Not Obama" policy.
On AFO today Trump said Obama gave them Crimea. Reporter said, no that was Putin, not Obama. Then he said no, it was Obama.
- Status