If the base didn't demand we use the 60 vote filibuster on Gorsuch, we would have won today...

[Casprings]

Simple fact. It would have been much harder to get 50 votes for the Nuclear option today then it was with Gorsuch. Could Mitch have done it? Maybe. But that would have been the time to use that option.

[Amishman]

1. I have to agree on this

They barely had the political will to force Kavanaugh through as is. Murkowski is proof of that.

I don't think they could have forced both through at the same without Flake or another moderate bailing.

[Casprings]

3. yes... I will take a lot of heat.. but the ABOVE is 100% true

And people here need to see it. This is about winning.

[still_one]

57. how do you feel about those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the DEMOCRATIC

NOMINEE in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting?

[Amishman]

62. I hope they learned from their mistake

We all screw up, it is what we do after that makes the difference.

[still_one]

69. This was no mistake. It was very clear that the SC was at stake, and in fact that was

stated many times that if for no other reason the SC should be the reason to vote for the Democratic nominee, and the response almost invariably was they didn't care.

[Newland56]

78. It's all of our fault

We faught tooth and nail for and against Bernie and Hillary
We cussed and cursed our fellow progressives
And it continues today despite the much more dire situation we find ourselves in.
If it continues it will only do harm and has no possible positive outcome.
Bernie supporters need to give a hug to Hillary supporters and vice versa
We dont need to be talking about Bernie and Amazon today.
Our energy needs to be united and laser focused.
We can fight this out later.
Right now, VOTE and do nothing that has the slightest possibility of pushing someone to do anything other than vote the candidate with the D next to their name

[still_one]

96. bullshit. This had nothing to do with Hillary or Bernie. Over 90% of Sanders supporters voted for

the Democratic nominee, and everyone KNEW THE SUPREME COURT WAS AT STAKE

There were, and are interested parties whose goal was to disrupt the 2016 elections, and these so-called self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee were up to their neck in this shit, spreading disinformation, and lies, and there is no doubt that the f**King Russian assholes were working 24/7 to push this disruption. Our intelligence tells us they are still doing it

There several instances, but a big part of it was foreign influence with the approval of that POS Putin and his henchmen

As to your basic message I agree, nothing else should matter except GOTV, but I find it curious that you seem troubled by the question I posted to the person who wants to blame the situation on the SC on the Democrats, and I was simply asking that posters opinion who seems so intent to cast blame on the Democrats, which is not a way to UNIFY PEOPLE, on the SC, but ignore all the other things that were going on

Interestingly, that person has not to have responded to my simple question, but had no problem casting blame on the SC on the Democrats

It is not a coincidence that a sudden influx of divisionary posts suddenly appear just before the midterms, not unlike what happen in 2016

[Newland56]

98. I respectfully disagree

If that other 10% of Bernie supporters had voted with us we would not be in this position.
We can not allow our differences to cost a single vote.
The margin was razor thin for trump in 3 states.
I do believe we fought so bitterly amongst ourselves, it pissed some off to the point they didn’t vote or protest voted.
I’m not troubled by your question at all. I think we fucked up big time. Republicans united themselves and minimized their internal differences and presented a united vote against us who brought a disjointed front while we raved at each other over Hillary vs Bernie.
I believe every divisive post on this board has the potential to do it again.
People are emotional beings.
People will do irrational things like vote Jill stein in an emotional response to being chastised on this very message board.
I’m saying accept that fact. It is a fact we need to own so that it doesn’t happen again.
I know this to be true from personal experience. No from this board but Facebook wars between democtratic voters who supported Bernie and democratic supporters who supported Hillary.
Yes, shame on them but I know several who didn’t vote in protest and one who voted Stein.
I hope to god we learned from last time and go to the polls united this time.
One way to help that happen is to minimize the in fighting.

[still_one]

100. They were NOT Bernie supporters. If you go over to JPR and read the racist, sexist assholes rants

over there, they were everything that Sanders stood against

The only thing they did was con a bunch of naïve people with lies and deceit. No point to argue, we disagree

Interestingly though you didn't address my point that the OP itself is a divisive post to blaming Democrats


Sometimes things are exactly what they appear, and the influx of divisionary posts occurring right now just before the midterms is NOT A COINCIDENCE

[Newland56]

101. Yes we do

And I know people personally that were. I doubt that they were the only 3 in the country. And yes, shame on them but they did not go to the polls specifically over the fight.
It’s not really an argument with you but it is a fact that there were registered Democrat is that supported Bernie that chose to abstain from voting because they were hurt in the fighting.
Was it wrong of them? Yes I believe so.
Do I want them to abstain this year? Hell no
They regret their decision today.
Are they partially responsible for our current state? Yes
Did in fighting in the party play a part in their decision? Yes

[Newland56]

99. A few other points

The GOP needed a perfect plan.
Purge a few from voter rolls
Put fewer voting machines in populated minority/low income areas
Vote a united front
*engage in a disinformation campaign, supported by Russian trolls to stoke and/or incite fights inside the democratic party*
At this moment, we can not get more voting machines or en mass restore the voting rolls
One thing we can do is NOT initiate new fights amongst ourselves and not revisit old fights.
Want me to eat poop to get you to the polls? Well get your camera and you can film me literally eating shit if that will get people to the polls.
We must maximize what is in our power to our weight what is not.
Look back over the last 3 pages
We are still fighting each other

[mcar]

2. Yes, this is all Democrats' fault

[JI7]

4. or people can just vote . stop seeing politics as something to entertain you

[shanny]

5. Oh bullshit.

The pukes would have changed the rules whenever it suited them. They don't give a flying f@ck about popular opinion, the moral high ground or any other damn thing except putting their guy(s) on the bench and the Court.

Us playing nice would not make a bit of difference. Ever.

[meow2u3]

13. Russiapublicans make up the Senate rules as they go along

...when it's convenient for them to get their way at the moment. They think rules are only for Democrats to follow.

[shanny]

14. Exactly.

Unfortunately, all too often Democrats seem to agree with them.

[Casprings]

50. They need 50 votes to do it..

We just needed to keep Machin, which is likely here, and get one other person that wanted the older rules.

[Drahthaardogs]

17. Yep. I'm not playing "what if" with these fuckers at the wheel

They would have changed the rules again

[shanny]

21. +1

[In It to Win It]

35. Ditto

[Salviati]

27. Agreed

[uponit7771]

74. +1, Some are still fighting tanks with shot guns

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

6. Might be true. But the theft of Merrick Garland's seat was still so fresh

and the anger over it so high... that and the fury at a Trump presidency even existing, it being electoralcolleged into being only with critical FBI and Russian assistance.

It might have been asking for more restraint than humans can muster, to hold fire against Gorsuch.

[Casprings]

7. Schumer did it because he was worried about pissing off the base..

The base needs to allow dems to play strategically. The GOP base let’s Mitch play that game. We are fighting with one hand behind our back.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

10. I agree that emotion over smart strategy hurts us in many ways.

But, the flipside is that emotion is also the only thing that will get a lot of people off their asses to vote. And it's elections that matter most.

[Casprings]

12. You can have both. The people that you need to vote aren't somehow

Fundamentally connected to senate procedure.

[shanny]

28. Wot?

Schumer did not change the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees. McConnell did that...as soon as he needed to. He would have done it regardless of our behavior, as soon as he needed to.

[YessirAtsaFact]

29. Yep. McTurtle would have simply changed the rules for Kav

The repugnant goons don’t have any real principles or act in good faith ever.

[Bettie]

111. Yes that is exactly it

if we didn't use it on Gorsuck, he'd still have got in and McTurtle would simply have waited for Kavenaugh to nuke it.

It isn't as if we're dealing with people with any sense of fairness, decency, humanity, or any positive attributes. Each and every one of of them is a grasping opportunist who would stab their own grandmother to death if it would gain them power or a single penny of profit.

[Casprings]

119. They had less votes now..

And less likely they would do it here. We would have kept Machin for the vote. That means you need one institutionlist. Certainly not 100% but a much higher percentage then when it was done.

[rockfordfile]

19. I still think

I still think that President Obama should have fought harder.

[Gothmog]

84. How?

The GOP had 54 votes in the senate. What could democrats do?

[In It to Win It]

91. The only thing Obama could have done...

was appeal to the people. Go out and gain public support for Merrick Garland. That probably wouldn't have gotten him anywhere. Republican were hellbent on not letting Obama fill that seat. Obama could have nominated Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh himself and the GOP still wouldn't have given them a confirmation hearing or vote. The judges weren't their target, Obama was.

Had Merrick Garland gotten a confirmation vote, he would have been confirmed. Merrick Garland would have been able to get Republican support. ORIN HATCH, the #2 senate republican, MENTIONED MERRICK GARLAND BY NAME as a nominee that Obama should choose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Not only is that plainly not a "fact", it's an opinion with little experience of Republicans

Do you really think the Republicans only got rid of the 60 vote filibuster for SC nominations because of "the base" and some "demands" that were somehow articulated for "the base"? No, they did it because they have wanted push through justices they knew they'd never get 60 votes for since at least McConnell blocked Garland (they've probably wanted to do it since Obama was elected - that was when McConnell said they'd stopped doing anything to keep normal senate functioning going).

You seem to think the Republicans were reasonable people in January 2017. Wake up.

[Casprings]

9. No... I am suggesting they are better at getting what they want

What they want is shit. Their ability to ruthlessly go after what they want should be studied and respected.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I can't see how your OP was about that at all

You were blaming demands of "the base" that Gorsuch should be opposed. What has that to do with "they are better at getting what they want"?

[grantcart]

97. OP full of non sequiturs

Am I bad person for checking on date of entry?

[Volaris]

48. That's because they don't give a flyin monkey fuck about what it looks like

To anyone it doesn't benefit. And since everything they do is to benefit the rich who will keep writing them checks, they basically just don't give a flyin fuck AT ALL.

The fastest way to destroy the system they've created for themselves is to nationalize the funding of Federal elections via a federal (but small) Sales Tax. Say, half a percent. Rich people will pay it when they buy food to feed themselves, (as will the rest of us), but they will ALSO pay it when they buy their own stock back lol.

Limit donations to not more than a thousand bucks per candidate, per cycle.
No more PACS.
Fuck em.

[uponit7771]

75. This reply doesn't address the question around timing of KGOP actions that was asked.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

18. But if they hadn't in fact believed the only way to confirm Gorsuch

Last edited Sat Oct 6, 2018, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

in 2017 was to revoke the SC nominee filibuster, would they have done it anyway then? What would have been the purpose? (They had every reason to suspect Trump wouldn't get a 2nd term and they could soon be back facing a Dem president.)

So the question is, if the SC filibuster was not yet revoked as of Sep. 2018, would they be willing and able politically to do that too, along with all the other outrages we just sustained, for such a nightmare of a nominee as the pathological perjurer, misogynist, and sexual predator Brett Kavanaugh?

It was so close as it was. I too tend to think that this isn't a guy they'd have "gone nuclear" for IN ADDITION TO EVERYTHING ELSE they just had to do, to just barely save. That more likely he might've been gone, and we'd have Amy Barrett in front of us now.

All just conjecture, that many will cry "pointless". But I think it interesting.


We're going to have this fucker plaguing the country now until someday cirrhosis of the liver or diabetes complications* finally relieves the world of him.


* Edited to add: I guess it's at least equally likely to be a heart attack or stroke amid a drunken sputtering rant about his next revenge against Evil Democrats, that finally removes this proud and defiant Renate Alumnus, this pustule, from Our Highest Court.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. Yes, they would have. Because they knew they want to put extremists on the SC

McConnell spent 8 years trying to use the system to screw the Democrats in any way possible, under Obama. He said that was the Republicans' purpose, not to try and legislate for the country. Of course he was going do it. It's ridiculous to try and blame ordinary people for "forcing" him to do it. It's victim-blaming.

They had plans for Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, and they'll have some other nutter, just as bad, ready in case another vacancy comes up. If they reckon they won't get away with a Trump 2nd term, that just makes the urgency of stuffing the SC with their ideologues all the more urgent.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. When "we" lost the Senate in 2014

"we" lost control of the rules, which can be changed by a simple majority (and we were no longer in the majority).

[bronxiteforever]

77. +1000

[Ms. Toad]

16. I predicted that at the time.

Gorsuch was a non-controversial candidate, for whom the senate who would (and did) easily do away with the filibuster rule.

I suggested at the time that we were cutting off our nose to spite our face - and that we should save it for a candidate that some republicans would be reluctant to vote for, because they would be far less likely to go to extremes for a controversial candidate.

[StevieM]

20. There are a couple of problems with that analysis, although I do think it has some merit.

First, after what they did to Merrick Garland we had to filibuster and force them to go nuclear. There was no way we couldn't.

Second, it is entirely possible that they would have turned around and went nuclear on Kavanaugh anyway. They wanted him bad as a reward to Ken Starr.

That being said, it is possible that they would not have come up with the votes to go nuclear, so you might be right.

Finally, let's not forget that the GOP was guaranteed to use the filibuster on a future Democratic nominee the first chance they got, all the while claiming that the Democrats had the option of using the filibuster if they had wanted.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

22. I think you meant "after what they did to Garland" (?)

[StevieM]

25. I did. Thanks for the catch. (eom)

[tritsofme]

23. It was poor gamesmanship, Schumer was clearly pressured into taking an action

he know wasn’t the smartest course.

Senate Democrats chose to filibuster Gorsuch at a time when not only were there more Senate Republicans, they were at their most united and filling a vacancy that would not change he ideological composition of the court. GOP leadership could credibly argue that any nominee would face a filibuster, so they had no choice but to go nuclear.

Would such an argument have prevailed again today? Perhaps. But it seems much less likely, especially given the circus of Kavanaugh that they would have escalated a step further to go nuclear, the filibuster might have been a good off-ramp.

I don’t think it can be plausibly argued that we had a better chance of successfully deploying the filibuster in 2017 than we would have today.

[Casprings]

52. You have to increase your chance is winning. That's the point.

[ecstatic]

24. Um... McConnell is a THUG, working for a thug.

Remember, he stole a SCOTUS appointment from President Obama.

[AlexSFCA]

61. I hope that we get someone like that on dem side

who will fight repubs with any means possible, change rules if need to; fight like it’s war. But we haven’t seen anyone like that on our side. GOPers sre over the moon with mcconnel performance. They really hit the jackpot with trump and all the dreams they’ve been having for decades are now coming true.

[ecstatic]

72. Avenatti? Maybe he should be running for Congress? nt

[Vinca]

26. McConnell would have done whatever he had to do to get Kavanaugh.

Long-standing procedure means nothing to him. It's all winning. The only thing I blame Dems for is not being on television screaming 24/7 when the Garland nomination was hijacked. We have to stop being the civilized party and play as dirty as they do.

[JCMach1]

32. This right here is the correct answer

[irresistable]

33. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand McConnell.

The Republicans express outrage over things that they make up. Democrats don't express outrage even when it is totally justified.

[DeminPennswoods]

44. Yep, exactly correct

nt

[Casprings]

53. And he would need 50 votes... likely 1 more person would have broken

[JCanete]

93. Why are you confident about that? I doubt it myself. We know how the Republicans roll, they aren't

going to play fair or operate from a place of decorum. Their base is way too easily swayed to their will and that base's willingness to be the cudgel to keep other republicans in line, far too effective at ensuring republicans always get their agenda passed. Always taking that high ground and allowing them to exploit the low ground has not paid off for us. Keeping our powder dry has been disastrous. We should have gone nuclear earlier than we did.

[Casprings]

114. A better chance then Gorsuch and strategy is about giving yourself the best chance.

1. He has more unpopular then Gorsuch.
2. We would have just respected the the senate tradition a few months ago.

[rzemanfl]

30. Oh, it's you....n/t

[dalton99a]

41. Laundry is done?

[rzemanfl]

42. It's a constant chore.

[rufus dog]

31. You don't really believe that

do you?

[In It to Win It]

34. Put it into context...

The base was angry about the stolen SCOTUS seat, and rightfully so. The base wants the politicians fight with everything they have.

If the base is doing the ground work by protesting; registering people to vote; getting donations; keeping people informed; getting out their and voting themselves; basically, fighting to make sure their side wins... they feel like their representatives in Congress should fight just as hard as they do. When people see their senators fighting just as hard as they do (even if they lose), it gives them motivation.

[Trust Buster]

36. The central goal of the Republican Party for the last 20 years has been to take control of the

Judicial Branch by all means necessary. They have been planning and spending millions in preparation for this day for 2 decades. They understand that demographic changes will skew the Legislative Branch away from them. They understand that their voter suppression efforts serve as a band aid and short term fix before the demographics catch up to them. They would have done whatever was necessary, including refusing to hold hearings for Garland, to achieve this seminal goal. They see the Judicial branch as their only lifeline. Any Democrat that does not understand this does not understand even the basic motivations of our political competitors.

[In It to Win It]

37. Agreed!

[In It to Win It]

38. I also think...

Even if Mitch McConnell didn't change the rules for Neil Gorsuch, he would have just simply changed the rules for Kavanaugh. Either way, I believe this is a battle Dems would have lost regardless.

The next best scenario was for Dems to get something in return for their SCOTUS confirmation votes, assuming that the GOP kept the 60-vote rule.

[pnwmom]

46. Exactly. McConnell would have just changed the rules for Kavanaugh.

Welcome to DU, In It to Win It!

[Calista241]

39. I would agree. They barely got 50 votes to confirm Kavanaugh.

Getting 50 to abandon the filibuster now, with elections 1 month away, is highly unlikely.

[SuprstitionAintthWay]

47. Good point about timing. Going nuclear right as a new term begins is one type of provocation.

But going nuclear right now, a month before high stakes mid term elections, especially to ram onto the court a nominee as awful and offensive as Kavanaugh turned out to be? And in the context of all the other dirty crap they had to pull? That would be extremely dangerous for them. I increasingly doubt even McConnell would dare do that now. He doesn't want to be Minority Leader.

They'd more likely let Kav go, use it to better stoke their base's hatred of Evil Dems, and after the elections push for confirmation of the next antiabortion, anti-govt, pro-corporate power, young-ish judge off their list. The others, I'm assuming aren't belligerent attempted rapists, so dropping Kav should help them at least SOME with women voters, even Republican ones who are cool with the whole patriarchy thing.

Oh, and with McConnell going nuclear AFTER the mid terms, for a new and better nominee, if "need be."

IF the SC filibuster still existed today, McConnell'd have to take all of these factors into account in deciding whether or not to go nuclear, now, for Kav.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Oh, bollocks. The moment the Democrats said "we don't like Kavanaugh", McConnell would have

changed the rule. It wouldn't have been "1 month" from the elections, it would have been in July. And then, if Gorsuch hadn't been opposed, you'd have legitimated the blocking of Garland by waving Gorsuch through, and have the sexual assault suspect on the bench.

And no, no voters were going to say "ooh, I was thinking of voting for that oh-so-fair and reasonable Republican party, but now they've changed the Senate filibuster rule, why, the scamps have gone too far!!!!". The Republicans have been tearing up precedent, decorum and reasonable behaviour for years; one more minor rule change is not noticed, electorally. If someone wasn't outraged by the detention of children on the border, the corruption in Trump's cabinet, and all the other things going on, then the filibuster limit was not going to make the difference.

[FBaggins]

113. He couldn't have done that. It isn't how it works

They can't just declare that the filibuster is gone for SCOTUS cases. The "nuclear option" is only available once there is a cloture vote.

It's very reasonable to question whether Republicans would have been able to garner the votes to kill the 60-vote threshold for this nominee.

Which, btw, is what the group the OP is referring to was saying at the time - that there was no point in filibustering Gorsuch because he didn't shift the court... but that the larger fight (at that time predicted to either be the Kennedy or Ginsburg seat) was coming.

[Casprings]

116. There was no point in doing it for Gorsuch because the votes were

Clearly there to go nuclear.

[EffieBlack]

68. They would have done this when they had 51 votes

And they would have gotten the votes, with a couple of Dems joining in.

I amazed at this spectacle of watching Democrats - many of whom demand that Dem leaders take off the gloves and fight back - no actually blame Republicans' behavior on the fact that Democrats fought back.

I call bullshit on this bullshit.

The bottom line is if the Dems hadn't gotten rid of the filibuster, they wouldn't have gotten ANY of Obama's judge through, they would have left dozens more additional judgeships open for Trump to fill. And the second the Dems tried to filibuster a nomination, the Republicans would have launched the nuclear option. And don't let anyone fool you - if they can get 50 Republicans and Manchin to install an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court, they would have had no problem getting more than enough votes to take judicial nominations to a simple majority.

So, we'd be right where we are now - the only difference being that we'd have even more Trump judge on the federal bench.

[GeorgeGist]

40. I call BS.

[rzemanfl]

43. Try this-

Фигня

[still_one]

59. That was part of it, but it had help from Comey, and also just enough from some self-identified

progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting.

It didn't take much either. Just 1%

The Democratic nominee lost by less than 1% in each of those critical swing states, and strangely Jill Stein got 1% of the vote in those states

As a bonus every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard

[pnwmom]

45. Not true. The R's could have just gotten rid of the filibuster this time around. n/t

[krispos42]

49. Fanta Menace still would have gotten two SCOTUS picks.

If not specifically Kavanaugh, somebody similar in judicial philosophy.

But now, when the wheel turns in a couple of years, we'll have our chance without the Pukes doing the same thing.

[Casprings]

51. Couple of years? You mean 30?

Go take a look at the ages of the conservative SC Justices. The only one that is close is Thomas and he isn’t that close.

[COLGATE4]

54. Yep. That fucker does so little work that he'll probably

live to 110 and be the longest serving Supreme Court Justice!

[still_one]

58. Why are you ignoring those so-called self-identified progressives who refused to vote for the

Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party or not voting, and doing everything in their power to convince the naïve to follow suit?

I guess that doesn't fit the strawman narriative too well does it, because that was the real f**king problem


it take much either. Just 1%, which was coincidently the percent that Jill Stein received in those states, and the Democratic nominee lost by LESS THAN 1% in those states.

Interesting huh?

Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establisent, republican, and those DEMOCRATS were progressive by any standard

I find it curious that you find this such a pressing issue for discussion RIGHT BEFORE THE MIDTERMS

[krispos42]

89. Dammit, that's right. they've been loading it with younger people.

Well, at least we get the rest of the Federal judiciary.

[still_one]

55. Well if thiose so-called self-identified progressives had voted for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, instead

of voting third party or not voting, this wouldn't be an issue


Of course the OP is WELL AWARE OF THAT

and I find it curious that so many posts have suddenly appeared this close to the midterms, that seem to want to spew bullshit and division among Democrats

Perhaps it is just a coincidence that some of the usual suspects who effectively told the Democratic party and its nominee to FO, migrated over to a hate infested anti-Democratic site which is now on its last legs that I find it curious that a lot of DIVISIVE posts seem to be creeping up

It seems there are forces out there who are intentionally trolling. Just a heads up (link included)
https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/gol-eee-i-cans-post-again/

Here is this post from the link, along with the poster who is proud to take credit for it in their worthless existence that they don't have anything better to do


"
iggy (3053 posts)
October 6, 2018 at 3:10 pm


Donor


Gol-eee ah cans post agin

The conformation is a done deal. Back to trolling."

So excuse me if I remain skeptical about the intentions of some as perhaps not being so honorable

[Andy823]

66. I totally agree

This happens every election year. Divide and conquer. Let's make sure it doesn't work this time around.

[still_one]

67. You are right Andy, and I sure won't let it happen. We are too close to the midterms, and the

stakes are too high

[oberliner]

63. Would Trump then have nominated a moderate compromise candidate?

Or would he have nominated a different far-right-winger?

[EffieBlack]

64. Are you serious?

If the Dems hadn't eliminated the filibuster for lower court judges to move some of Obama's judges through, the Republicans would have knocked it out the minute a Republican president started appointing judges - and they would have had even more vacancies to play with.

The "If the Democrats hadn't done it, the Republicans wouldn't have done it either'" argument is just naive.

[brer cat]

70. It's such relief to know that it's President Obama's fault!

And the "base," too.

[EffieBlack]

71. Yup

And then some of these same people attack him for "not doing more" to get Merrick Garland confirmed.

[Casprings]

73. No, that was the right call for the lower courts..

Just shouldn’t have done it for Gorsuch.

[Gothmog]

85. Agreed

[Hortensis]

65. WHY are a bunch of unreliable radicals being called "the base"?!!!!

STOP IT!!!!!!

The patently silly but destructive notion that our radicals are our base is a RIGHT-WING WEAPON. Just as referring to all of us as "radical-liberal-Democrats" was.

WE are the base.

JUST SAY NO TO HELPING OUR ENEMIES DEFINE DEMOCRATS AS IRRESPONSIBLE WINGNUTS.

Noisy people who are all too likely to refuse to vote, or even vote to elect Republicans, when they don't get their way are the very antithesis of "the base." In 2016 many were more like a grenade that exploded under our feet.

Our base is all the usually quiet but committed people who vote reliably Democratic election after election because they believe in liberal ideals and policies and government of, by and for the people and because they know they are the protectors of democracy. Us in other words.

[elleng]

76. What base?

Since when has a base gotten so far into the weeds of process?

[McCamy Taylor]

79. Dude, why are you blaming Democrats for what the GOP did?

[unblock]

80. yeah, because mcturtle and the trump toadies in the senate are all about respecting norms and rules.

[Azathoth]

81. This is outright delusional

I don't know how plainer Mitch McConnell can make it that there is no norm, rule, ethic, or law that is going to stand between him and control of the Supreme Court.

If you think a party that just voted to put a rapist on the bench would not also have voted in a heartbeat to abolish the filibuster, you're smoking some powerful stuff.

[JHB]

82. Bull. They wanted their operative on the court and had the power to just ram him through.

You think they simply wouldn't have bribed and arm-twisted the "moderates" even more?

You really think simply rolling over for handing Gorsuch the stolen seat would have changed that? That the same vague "base" you refer to wouldn't take that as a sign of the -- I guess it's the "non-base"? --'s going belly-up when Republicans push them?

If you're going to blame Democrats, don't give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

[Gothmog]

83. I strongly disagree

The same 50 votes today would also vote for the nuclear option.

[JCanete]

94. We often don't agree Goth, but figured I'd chime in in total agreement with you on this one. nt

[GoCubsGo]

86. No. McConnell did a head count, and knew he couldn't get 60 votes.

So, he changed the rules. He doesn't give a shit what the unwashed masses think, regardless of their political persuasion.

[Polybius]

90. From what I understand, you only needed 60 votes if there was a filibuster

Alito won 58–42 (a filibuster was attempted by John Kerry but failed). Thomas won 52-48, with no filibuster.

Perhaps what the OP is saying is that we shouldn't have filibustered Gor-suck? I hope he/she explains further. Because of what they did to Garland, we had to filibuster Gor-suck.

Now, if Scalia had died a year later in (say, February 2017), then I would agree that the filibuster wasn't really necessary.

[LovingA2andMI]

87. Strategy....Strategy...

Looks at long term impacts of actions before taking them. Much better than knee jerks or reactions of the moment....

How many Knee Jerk Reactions have been taken especially the last three years and what has been the result of them?

Maybe it's time to measure that and if the results are LOSING more than WINNING (as Politics is about POWER and anyone saying otherwise is full of crap) --- Maybe It Is HIGH TIME to rethink the Strategy, end the Knee Jerks and GET THE POWER BACK...By Any Means Necessary.

Doubt if any of the above will actually occur but, it's worth a thought or two.

[JHan]

88. But how was Gorsuch uncontroversial?

Concerns about Roe... and his history where voting rights are concerned? Where Scalia was persuasive, it is embarrassing at times to read a Gorsuch opinion.

The objective of Republicans has been to put hard right ideologues on the Court, no matter how unsuitable or stupid.

[rzemanfl]

102. Don't feed things under bridges.

[JHan]

106. ;)

(thing is I've seen the argument in the OP before, and it still doesn't make sense)

[rzemanfl]

108. You're too young to remember party lines, maybe phones with cords too.

I bet you can read between mine though. My Grandson's theme for his show last Thursday was "1958." It was really good.

[JHan]

109. "phones with cords"- what is this odd sorcery you speak of? :p

[rzemanfl]

110. It's an upgrade from tin cans with string. n/t

[Casprings]

115. No sexual assaults and a higher approval rating NT

[JHan]

117. I don't see the difference it would have made.

McConnell would have lifted it for Kav, and while I take your point about the "base" - Republicans are determined to put Right Wing Ideologues on the court. As for Democrats, it's always a case of damned if they do, damned if they don't - some relish maligning the party either way. I can just imagine the headlines if Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch.

[Casprings]

118. Dems would have been pissed.. which is why it was done

Which is my point.

[JHan]

120. I get that but political calculus includes the sentiment among the base...

Whether it was lifted for Gorsuch or Kav, a right-wing ideologue would be on the court. Democrats are damned when they do, damned when they don't. Maybe that needs to change. Schumer and Pelosi get attacked regardless.

[Casprings]

121. No.. if you used it now there is at least some chance you

Would hold the seat open and win the Senate.

[pnwmom]

92. No, a falsehood. We would have lost the filibuster with Kavanaugh, regardless. n/t

[standingtall]

95. If there were not people who think election dont matter we would've won

There I fixed it for you.

[still_one]

103. I wonder what the purpose of such a thread such as this could be right before the midterms

Gee, I wonder if it is to try to build unity among Democrats...….


or then again, maybe not


The Timing is an interesting thing. That this is suddenly a topic right before the midterms?

Should I believe in coincidences?

[peggysue2]

107. No such thing as . . .

coincidence in politics

That being said take a gander at all the gloom and doom articles over the last 24 hours. Not just here but around the web.

This is going to get real ugly, real fast and Republicans will stop at nothing to depress the vote.

Let's not give them that opportunity. Eyes on the Prize.

Because we dare not fail.

[still_one]

112. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Blue_true]

104. Black people are the base. They did not make that demand.

It was those that loudly call themselves the base.