I think that the “Silent” Trump Vote is much larger than anyone is appreciating.
1 Like
I suspect the same, but as any such silent amount is an unknowable prior to voting day, I’ll keep it as a suspicion.
Trump also won a lot of states by small margin. His base was fired up then. A few things different now:
Joe is much less hated than Hillary.
DEMs should turn out more. I think many thought Hillary was a for sure win, and stayed home. I don’t think that mistake will be made at the same rate.
SCOTUS seats drive turn out. Fill it before the election and I bet GoP turnout is slightly hurt. I think DEM turnout is slightly improved.
Trump did not turn out to be presidential after he won. Are those “hold my nose and vote” going to do it again?
I am sure there are more differences. Just my thoughts here. Very small differences could change a state from GoP to DEM.
1 Like
Trump should nominate Joe Biden so the Democrats will finally accuse him of being the sex predator that he is.
5 Likes
Which is why I mentioned the hurdle of being able to bring it to a vote on the floor. If the senate is legally obligated…Are you saying that they flatly are?
“Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah signaled on Tuesday that he is on board with the Senate’s taking up a new Supreme Court nominee during the current election year; an announcement that all but ensures a nominee put forward by President Donald Trump will be confirmed barring any potential missteps by the nominee during the confirmation process”.
MAGA.
4 more years.
Stop the whining.
(Anyone know if Barrett likes Beer? Probably not…)
She’s tracking down and burning yearbooks as we speak.
1 Like
Flatly legally? No, the Senate makes its own rules on procedure. But norms and customs are part of that. Ans McConnell ditched all that to prevent Garland from getting appointed.
Plus, the justification for the internal rule change was, again, the principle of “we shouldn’t appoint in an election year” - not “don’t have the votes, why waste time on it.” This after the fact justification that they were within the rules, they can bring the vote or not, no biggie, doesn’t square with what actually happened.
Dude man. I want the President to exercise his authority and nominate. I then want the Senate, if they have the power to, to bring to a vote first, then to vote. This Senate has both the desire and ability to do that. If the Dems can’t stop it from coming to a vote, that’s not my problem.
Okay, I don’t want you to complain if the DEMs gain power and pack the court. If they have the desire and the ability to do it then they should. If the GoP can’t stop it, that’s not my problem.
4 Likes
Oh, I won’t. Nor will I complain if it’s done every single change of power.
Any power shift is always temporary. I’ve never been convinced that ‘they’ll kill their party.’
Guys, these organisations are centuries old, they’ll limp on and resurge like herpes.
3 Likes
Huh?
Considers hoary old Tories, and nods in agreement
1 Like
Breyer is like 80 and Clarence Thomas is getting up there too. If someone is voting based on scotus, they’re aware of the likelihood Trump could end up nominating 2 more in the next 4 years.
2 Likes
This is my beef. They sold it on principles the first time around.
I never said it wasn’t legal for them to do.
Hi partisanship by definition means each party gives something. It ain’t just the democrats.
Besides, since the GoP lost all balls when Trump came into office they didn’t have the cajones to stand up and do anything Trump would throw a fit about.
From a purely Machiavellian point of view this is an interesting take, and I suspect it has probably come up in strategy meetings. From that angle, something in the bag is better than the possibility of not getting anything.
But I still don’t support it.
Ugly analogy, but accurate. However there have been several seismic shifts in parties in the past, so I wouldn’t count it out.
Also my reference to political suicide is from a power standpoint, not a party schism standpoint.
3 Likes
Nope, and I have no interest in entertaining any crocodile tears or concern trolling when the Democrats get into power and do exactly that or more. This exercise will have shredded Senate comity - and the new principle henceforth shall be do whatever you want in the name of advancing your power, change rules and then change them back again, whatever it takes, with no embarrassment over hypocrisy or opportunism - how you do it no longer matters, the end will always justify the means.
Just think how fun that will be - the death of these institutional restraints - if and when a very left-wing version of the Democratic takes over and decided to go at this same unprincipled ramming speed in doing what they want.
1 Like
At this point I am thinking one or the other party may run away with too much power. It scares me a bit, so hopefully I am wrong.
If 2020 ends up being big for Dems and they take congress and the white house, I think they also win a lot of state level seats as well. I think the latter will allow them to draw a lot of new voting districts for 2020-2030. The GoP also has an older voting base, which could dwindle as they die if they are not being replaced. The GoP is a hard sell to most Gen Zs from what I have seen. Basically I think if the GoP doesn’t get it’s advantages (more states Gerry mandered in their favor, voter suppression), I don’t know if it can compete. Couple that with the DEMs likely packing the court in this situation, and I just see it as a troubling amount of power.
For the GOP if they do really well and hold power, they will now have pretty good control of SCOTUS. They can perhaps keep their advantages in voting districts.
Ultimately, I think the DEMs running away with too much power seems more likely, but that is just my perception. I think the GoP currently has power that is out of proportion to their support. I think a small amount of changes (who controls the majority of voting districts for example) could make the GoP gaining control nearly impossible.
Any thoughts on this?
I think this assumption is wrong. I have 2 Gen Z boys. They are very conservative and so are all their friends. And if you look on things like ifunny, 95% of the memes are all conservative-leaning. They’ve seen the whiney little bitches that the Millenials turned into and are completely turned off by it.
3 Likes