2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries

[dpareja]

It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).

[mellenORL]

Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.

[davedan]

It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).

What are the Republican supporters saying about their nominations? Who is the most popular and why?

[dpareja]

It's such an interesting contrast between this forum and another one I frequent where there are people who actually support the Republican Party (and some who support the Democratic Party).

What are the Republican supporters saying about their nominations? Who is the most popular and why?

We haven't been talking much about that, actually. It's more focused on specific results from primaries and caucuses, the probable impact of various drops from the race (like Bush) or not (Carson), and I just got through a lengthy, abstruse discussion with a hardline Republican (the sort who considers Clinton and Sanders objectively worse than any Republican in the race) over the impact of Scalia's death on the race, why the Senate Republicans aren't going to do squat with Obama's nominee (whoever it is), where that began (his claim: Roe, which he claims led directly to Bork's rejection), and a discussion of originalist textualism vs the living tree doctrine.

[ironbite]

Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.

Psssst...New York actually.

[dpareja]

Further to my previous post, here's a direct quote from that person after I posted the Quinnipiac poll I linked earlier:

As a Republican voter, I am really crossing my fingers that the (false) Democratic conventional wisdom that Hillary is more electable holds long enough for her to be nominated.

[mellenORL]

Posted by: The_Queen
« on: Today at 07:08:22 pm »

Don't care, if Hillary doesn't win, I'm voting for Trump because vindictiveness. It's simple and ignores pragmatism and nuance.

(sorry, MS Edge browser doesn't do "insert quote", or any other macros on the post reply screen)

Well, you're living in Ohio now, correct? Swing state, usually, so every vote counts. Nicki is in Mass, and it is solidly blue just about every presidential election, so no loss of electoral college votes from there, but still I see your point.

Psssst...New York actually.

I swear, I'm already turning into a "junior" senior. Need to double check profiles for that kind of mention.

[nickiknack]

Damn it, beat me to it. And No I don't live in NYC, I live about 2 hours north, in Dutchess County. Though I was in MA yesterday.

[davedan]

The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

[The_Queen]

The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).

[davedan]

I do think it will (and should) a big impact on the election. I think if the republicans can hold out it will really mobilise their base to turn up for the elections.

[RavynousHunter]

I say Obama goes full-on troll and nominates Brian Johnson to take over for...erm...the corpse, whoever he is whose name I've since forgotten.  Alternatively, we could nominate the corpse.

[nickiknack]

Scalia the douche was his name, lol

[dpareja]

The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).

The Senate once held out a very long time on Supreme Court nominations. Smith Thompson died in December 1843; his replacement wasn't confirmed until February 1845. Henry Baldwin died in April 1844; his replacement wasn't confirmed until August 1846.

Cruz was right about one thing: whoever Obama nominates, they will swing the ideological balance of the Court to the left. That is something the Republicans cannot abide, since (among other things) it would mean things like tighter restrictions against states limiting access to abortion. But if they bring the nominee to a debate and a floor vote, it would destroy whatever thin veneer of justification for blocking that person they've come up with via this "eighty-year" bullshit. Republican moderates (what few remain) might well vote for Obama's nominee in that case, and (assuming that every Democrat votes for the nominee--not a given, Ben Nelson voted against Kagan) they only need four in favour to confirm, since Biden would break the tie. So the Republican leadership is bound and determined not to let the nominee come to any sort of discussion in the Senate. It doesn't matter who it is, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would nominate a textualist in the mold of Scalia, and that would put the Court out of Republican hands for a long, long time unless a Republican wins the Presidency this year and Ginsburg or Breyer dies during his term.

And as for Trump, yes, he's preferable to Clinton or Sanders. (That said, the two Republicans I've been mostly discussing this with are in Maryland and Minnesota respectively, which are both pretty reliably Democratic in the Electoral College these days, admittedly Maryland rather more so than Minnesota, so if Trump gets the nod they might decide that since their states aren't close, they'll vote third-party rather than vote for Trump.)

[The_Queen]

The Republican Senate Majority has already stated that they won't endorse any nomination for the Supreme Court. Which is fucking outrageous given they havent' been given any nominees yet.

So they aren't worried about Trump?

It's debatable how long the Senate can hold out. While the GOP does vote as a bloc, a lot of them are up for reelection this year, and being obstructionist about something as simple as this could hurt them with the base. Or help them. Who knows. All I know is that if something like 3-5 Republicans waiver in opposition, then confirmation happens. I don't think like this really hasn't happened before (a party even trying to obstruct for a year until after election).

The Senate once held out a very long time on Supreme Court nominations. Smith Thompson died in December 1843; his replacement wasn't confirmed until February 1845. Henry Baldwin died in April 1844; his replacement wasn't confirmed until August 1846.

Cruz was right about one thing: whoever Obama nominates, they will swing the ideological balance of the Court to the left. That is something the Republicans cannot abide, since (among other things) it would mean things like tighter restrictions against states limiting access to abortion. But if they bring the nominee to a debate and a floor vote, it would destroy whatever thin veneer of justification for blocking that person they've come up with via this "eighty-year" bullshit. Republican moderates (what few remain) might well vote for Obama's nominee in that case, and (assuming that every Democrat votes for the nominee--not a given, Ben Nelson voted against Kagan) they only need four in favour to confirm, since Biden would break the tie. So the Republican leadership is bound and determined not to let the nominee come to any sort of discussion in the Senate. It doesn't matter who it is, since there's a snowball's chance in hell that Obama would nominate a textualist in the mold of Scalia, and that would put the Court out of Republican hands for a long, long time unless a Republican wins the Presidency this year and Ginsburg or Breyer dies during his term.

Not quite sure that is exactly on point. You did have to go back almost 170 to find those examples, and I think with modern media, and the rise of the Bully Pulpit, things are a bit different.

And I don't think the calculus is that the GOP would auto go obstructionist. There is the possibility that an obstructionist front to an appointment could hurt them in the general, and then give the dems another 4 or 8 years in the White house (during which time they may get to replace Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer). In that sense, it would make more sense for the GOP establishment to allow Obama to appoint a justice, let the Court go liberal for a year or two, wait for Ginsberg to die, and then replace her with a conservative to reset the balance.

I would honestly be surprised to see the senate not have a replacement appointed before August.