Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Meh, nothing will get accomplished between 2014 and 2016 anyway, let's be real here. Biden has the tie-breaker vote if any nominations are allowed to proceed (which they won't be). The only issue is SCOTUS. Ginsburg needs to retire NOW.

2016 will be a bloodbath in the other direction if Hillary runs.

And if she doesn't?

Seems to me that the party could be in shambles after Obama leaves office. He filled his cabinet with people who could have still been in the senate now, holding seats. And 8 years of a stagnant economy, barely anything getting accomplished for his final years, and high unemployment aren't going to help Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley excite voters. It seems to me that it's Hillary or bust for democrats, unless republicans nominate Rand Paul.

On the flip side, if the economy improves to a decent level of unemployment we could see the election benefits as early as 2014. A lot hinges on primary voters nominating crazy senate candidates, but it's more than possible for democrats to hold the senate; 2010 was supposed to be a lock for republicans, and they had potential pick ups in 2012 that they fucked up.

 

[eBay Huckster]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nate-silver-predicts-gop-holding-50-51-senate

Be afraid!

i've got the dems hanging onto all their tossups (w/ NC and LA actually not being the closest), losing WV, SD and MT (the former two by >10%), and not picking anything up

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate Silver agreeing with me on NC. Shocker

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...e-a-tossup/?smid=tw-fivethirtyeight&seid=auto

Lists it as a toss-up

lol have you actually read the article? He actually considers Hagan a slight favorite. Completely not what you've been saying.

i've got the dems hanging onto all their tossups (w/ NC and LA actually not being the closest), losing WV, SD and MT (the former two by >10%), and not picking anything up

This is about where I'm at. Montana is still winnable but no candidate matches Schweitzer's pedigree. If Maine opens up it'll be an easy Dem pickup. Georgia and Kentucky could become competitive but we'll see how those play out.

 

[KingK]

So is Harry Reid actually going to get rid of the filibuster tomorrow or is he just talking shit again only to reach some new "gentlemen's agreement" with McConnell at the last minute (which McConnell will start completely ignoring immediately)?

 

[gcubed]

So is Harry Reid actually going to get rid of the filibuster tomorrow or is he just talking shit again only to reach some new "gentlemen's agreement" with McConnell at the last minute (which McConnell will start completely ignoring immediately)?

it was very very limited in what they said they are going to do. Remove the filibuster for cabinet appointments only, all judicial appointments will still fall under the old rules

 

[Link]

it was very very limited in what they said they are going to do. Remove the filibuster for cabinet appointments only, all judicial appointments will still fall under the old rules

So pretty much worthless.

 

[The Librarian]

So pretty much worthless.

Baby steps. It's a step in the right direction and will make the Senate a little more functional. Plus, once it's done it should be easier politically to go nuclear on other things.

 

[AndyD]

Baby steps. It's a step in the right direction and will make the Senate a little more dysfunctional. Plus, once it's done it should be easier politically to go nuclear on other things.

Pretty much. Plus getting the vacancies in the executive filled up should get policy moving in terms of implementation. A long time complaints about the executive, that they are doing too little.

 

[Incognito]

So Nate Silver is predicting 51 seats for the GOP in 2014 while House Democrats won't have a majority until at least 2020 at the earliest and Hillary Clinton looking unfavorably towards a second WH run, what incentive do Republicans have to work with Obama? They should let Reid change the filibusters rule on executive nominations so that when they win the presidency they'll be able to do whatever the hell they want in terms of modifying existing filibuster rules in regards to judicial nominations and legislation. Looks like a long 6 years ahead of us.

 

[KingK]

it was very very limited in what they said they are going to do. Remove the filibuster for cabinet appointments only, all judicial appointments will still fall under the old rules

Well that's lame. Better than nothing, I suppose, but Harry Reid is still a really shitty majority leader.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Baby steps. It's a step in the right direction and will make the Senate a little more functional. Plus, once it's done it should be easier politically to go nuclear on other things.

Yup. And to elaborate, this is a pretty big baby step. The reasoning here is, the filibuster is being used to deny Obama a functioning administration. Therefore, it should go away. The filibuster is also being used to deny judicial appointments, and another showdown is looming on that front (Obama nominated three DC circuit judges at the same time, IIRC).

Thing is, the GOP is using the filibuster to weaken all branches of government. Reid is threatening (and I do hope he goes through with) preventing the GOP from throttling the administrative branch by moving to up or down votes on appointments. I bet the judicial branch is up next (removing filibuster from court appointments other than the SCOTUS). The last one - removing the filibuster on legislation and thus enabling Congress to do its job - will come once either party controls both houses again. No point going there now since the House won't cooperate with anything Reid passes.

 

[I am Michael Bolton]

So is the consensus that Reid is going through with it?

 

[T'Zariah]

So is the consensus that Reid is going through with it?

Until he does it, I ALWAYS assumes he's bluffing.

 

[GhaleonEB]

So is the consensus that Reid is going through with it?

I can think of a few outcomes, but I still think the least likely one is Reid going through with it. Just based on his bluster of the past five years. It's clear he's had enough, but then I thought that was clear leading up to the swearing in of the new Congress.

Another handshake agreement still seems more likely to me at this point. But I hope to be proven incorrect.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If Reid does go through with getting rid of the filibuster, even on appointments, Obama had better fight like hell to keep the Senate in 2014. His efforts in 2010, when the House and Senate were on the line were pitiful.

So Nate Silver is predicting 51 seats for the GOP in 2014 while House Democrats won't have a majority until at least 2020 at the earliest and Hillary Clinton looking unfavorably towards a second WH run, what incentive do Republicans have to work with Obama? They should let Reid change the filibusters rule on executive nominations so that when they win the presidency they'll be able to do whatever the hell they want in terms of modifying existing filibuster rules in regards to judicial nominations and legislation. Looks like a long 6 years ahead of us

Reads like a troll, but I'll point out that even if the GOP wins a slim majority in the Senate next year, Democrats have enough pickups in 2016 to undo that and more.

 

[Oblivion]

Y'all should put more faith in ma man, Dirty Harry.

 

[Oblivion]

Just overheard one of my co-workers asking another how anyone can trust NBC when they edited a video of Zimmerman appearing racist when he wasn't! Then he started talking about how Occupy protestors supported rape and shat on police cars and such.

I wanted to step in, but considering that doesn't work out 99% of the time (no pun intended), I decided to keep to myself. Alas.

 

[bananas]

Wasn't it the same in 2011 and early 2010? Republicans looking likely to retake the Senate in both those elections and then proceeds to shove their foot so far down their own throat, that they stop themselves. And in the case of 2012, actually lose seats. I know 2014 will be more in their favor, but I just don't really see this crop of Republicans overcoming themselves.

 

[B-Dubs]

]I can think of a few outcomes, but I still think the least likely one is Reid going through with it.[/B] Just based on his bluster of the past five years. It's clear he's had enough, but then I thought that was clear leading up to the swearing in of the new Congress.

Another handshake agreement still seems more likely to me at this point. But I hope to be proven incorrect.

Agreed, I feel like Charlie Brown and the football at this point. No point on getting your hopes up.

Just overheard one of my co-workers asking another how anyone can trust NBC when they edited a video of Zimmerman appearing racist when he wasn't! Then he started talking about how Occupy protestors supported rape and shat on police cars and such.

I wanted to step in, but considering that doesn't work out 99% of the time (no pun intended), I decided to keep to myself. Alas.

Christ. I actually like NBC better than CBS or ABC at the moment. Well I like the Nightly News better anyway.

Wasn't it the same in 2011 and early 2010? Republicans looking likely to retake the Senate in both those elections and then proceeds to shove their foot so far down their own throat, that they stop themselves. And in the case of 2012, actually lose seats. I know 2014 will be more in their favor, but I just don't really see this crop of Republicans overcoming themselves.

Someone is going to start talking about rape. They can't help themselves, someone is going to do it.

 

[Oblivion]

Wasn't it the same in 2011 and early 2010? Republicans looking likely to retake the Senate in both those elections and then proceeds to shove their foot so far down their own throat, that they stop themselves. And in the case of 2012, actually lose seats. I know 2014 will be more in their favor, but I just don't really see this crop of Republicans overcoming themselves.

As I said before, the simplest solution is to have ever Democratic nominee ask their Republican opponent their opinion on rape.

The only downside to that is that it may normalize the GOP position on rape.

edit: lol somewhat beaten by b-dubs.

 

[T'Zariah]

You know my mom told me a long time ago that ignorance is the greatest sin humanity will ever commit.

I didn't understand back then, but now, following politics and national news and the Zimmerman trial....it's hard to counter that.

 

[Jooney]

Glad you stopped by!

"... I'll be back"

 

[Averon]

Wasn't it the same in 2011 and early 2010? Republicans looking likely to retake the Senate in both those elections and then proceeds to shove their foot so far down their own throat, that they stop themselves. And in the case of 2012, actually lose seats. I know 2014 will be more in their favor, but I just don't really see this crop of Republicans overcoming themselves.

The GOP blew two election cycles in recapturing the Senate due to their batshit crazy base nominating whack jobs who can't help themselves taking about rape and other stupid shit. There's no reason to suspect why it won't happen again because the GOP has learnt nothing from the 2012 elections other than "we gotta nominate 'true' conservatives".

 

[PhoenixDark]

Meh, nothing will get accomplished between 2014 and 2016 anyway, let's be real here. Biden has the tie-breaker vote if any nominations are allowed to proceed (which they won't be). The only issue is SCOTUS. Ginsburg needs to retire NOW.

2016 will be a bloodbath in the other direction if Hillary runs.

So is Harry Reid actually going to get rid of the filibuster tomorrow or is he just talking shit again only to reach some new "gentlemen's agreement" with McConnell at the last minute (which McConnell will start completely ignoring immediately)?

No. And it's worth remembering this isn't about the complete filibuster, it's about the 60 vote threshold for presidential appointments/nominees. Bills would still require 60 votes. The media has covered this poorly.

Reid won't do shit, just watch.

 

[The Librarian]

Weiner leads in NYC Democrat primary: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...e/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=1922

 

[789shadow]

Weiner leads in NYC Democrat primary: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes...ReleaseID=1922

"Black Voters Lift Weiner, Spitzer In NYC Dem Primary, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Say 3-1 Corruption Is Worse Than Sex Misconduct "
How is it that apparently one out of every 3 voters is a new species of imbecile?

 

[Oblivion]

UGH. Looks like there's going to be another "gang" to discuss the filibuster. And old man McCain says one solution is to have Republicans suggest nominees. LOL.

 

[B-Dubs]

Weiner leads in NYC Democrat primary: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institute...e/new-york-city/release-detail?ReleaseID=1922

I'm not surprised, Quinn has been getting ravaged in ad buys for a while now.

 

[The Librarian]

How is it that apparently one out of every 3 voters is a new species of imbecile?

What's so idiotic about that statement? What Weiner did was, in the grand scheme of things, harmless. If he does good work and fights for my values then what do I care if he sent a picture of his dick to some girl over the Internet?

 

[Oblivion]

"Black Voters Lift Weiner, Spitzer In NYC Dem Primary, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Voters Say 3-1 Corruption Is Worse Than Sex Misconduct "
How is it that apparently one out of every 3 voters is a new species of imbecile?

Spoiler

Actually, it's 1 out of 4.

 

[789shadow]

What's so idiotic about that statement? What Weiner did was, in the grand scheme of things, harmless. If he does good work and fights for my values then what do I care if he sent a picture of his dick to some girl over the Internet?

Um, I'm talking about the opposite. About how apparently 1 out of 3 voters thinks corruption isn't as bad as sexual misconduct.

 

[The Librarian]

Um, I'm talking about the opposite. About how apparently 1 out of 3 voters thinks corruption isn't as bad as sexual misconduct.

I think I'm a bit confused here. What you quoted says that voters think corruption is worse than sexual misconduct.

 

[Oblivion]

I think I'm a bit confused here. What you quoted says that voters think corruption is worse than sexual misconduct.

Yeah, he's referring to the minority of people who say that sexual misconduct is worse than corruption.

 

[789shadow]

I think I'm a bit confused here. What you quoted says that voters think corruption is worse than sexual misconduct.

It says that voters consider corruption worse than sexual misconduct by a ratio of 3-1. Which means that some people think corruption isn't as bad as sexual misconduct since that isn't 100%.

 

[The Librarian]

Yeah, he's referring to the minority of people who say that sexual misconduct is worse than corruption.

Oh I see. Silly me! I guess it depends on the type of sexual misconduct. Misconduct can be corruption!

 

[platypotamus]

Oh I see. Silly me! I guess it depends on the type of sexual misconduct. Misconduct can be corruption!

One could argue this was the case with Spitzer, even

 

[RustyNails]

And if she doesn't?

Seems to me that the party could be in shambles after Obama leaves office. He filled his cabinet with people who could have still been in the senate now, holding seats. And 8 years of a stagnant economy, barely anything getting accomplished for his final years, and high unemployment aren't going to help Andrew Cuomo or Martin O'Malley excite voters. It seems to me that it's Hillary or bust for democrats, unless republicans nominate Rand Paul.

On the flip side, if the economy improves to a decent level of unemployment we could see the election benefits as early as 2014. A lot hinges on primary voters nominating crazy senate candidates, but it's more than possible for democrats to hold the senate; 2010 was supposed to be a lock for republicans, and they had potential pick ups in 2012 that they fucked up.

Yep democrats are doomed without Hilldawg which is what Ive been saying for a while. They didnt groom any candidates whatsoever since obamas first election. Mark Warner completely disappeared off everyones radar. Kirsten Gillibrand has no national profile. Lol at Cuomo. That dog dont hunt.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

They didnt groom any candidates whatsoever since obamas first election.

 

[T'Zariah]

Yep democrats are doomed without Hilldawg which is what Ive been saying for a while. They didnt groom any candidates whatsoever since obamas first election. Mark Warner completely disappeared off everyones radar. Kirsten Gillibrand has no national profile. Lol at Cuomo. That dog dont hunt.

That being said, if Hillary doesn't run, I can guarantee that she's going to feel personal regret till the day she dies.

 

[Black Mamba]

is there a deadline for the nuclear option sent by Reid?

I mean, how long is he going to give the GOP to comply before he initiates it? This is taking way too long.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Stuck in Texas, no state-wide viability. And not that great of a politician, to be honest. I like his brother more.

 

[Oblivion]

Ed Kilgore has a nice post pushing back against pro-Wal Mart libbies:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._07/our_old_friend_walmart_has045813.php#more

 

[Tamanon]

Oh boy, last minute bipartisan Senate talks!

War Games!

 

[B-Dubs]

Ed Kilgore has a nice post pushing back against pro-Wal Mart libbies:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._07/our_old_friend_walmart_has045813.php#more

You mean Kathleen Geier. That said I couldn't have done a better job, it summed up a lot of my problems with Walmart perfectly. I'm going to bookmark it so I can link it to anyone who tries to argue Walmart is a good thing.

 

[Oblivion]

You mean Kathleen Geier.

Whoops, you're right! Kilgore must have taken the day off...

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Ed Kilgore has a nice post pushing back against pro-Wal Mart libbies:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/po..._07/our_old_friend_walmart_has045813.php#more

I can actually see the first one being a valid criticism (sort of) on a principle of fairness, not on some free-market approach. I still disagree, though. And I agree with all her other points.

 

[Wilsongt]

John McCain's Proposal for Presidential Nominees: Let Republicans Pick Them

Senator John McCain has figured out a loophole to that whole not-being-elected-president thing: Get the guy who did win to appoint the cabinet you wanted in the first place.


That's not precisely what he said, mind you, but what he proposed has basically that effect. McCain, not exactly known for his conciliatory ways, was offering a friendly suggestion meant to avoid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's threatened rules reform which would end filibusters of presidential nominees. Reid leveled the threat out of frustration that a number of nominees had been stalled in the Senate. The body will vote on seven of them tomorrow. Unless the president and Reid accept McCain's modest proposal!

Part One of McCain's suggestion is to create a working group to debate the issue, similar to that which so famously came together to craft immigration reform. And then, as Politico reports, he offered Part Two.

McCain said he and Republicans are trying to strike a deal with Reid would either allow up-or-down votes on seven contentious nominees or at least find “replacements” for those nominees.

So, Senator Reid, the options are:

Allow an up-or-down vote on the nominees, or
Offer new nominees for the positions that the Republicans like.



Tough choice! Granted, the "up-or-down vote" idea presumably means "allow filibusters if desired," which is basically the option the Senate has now. If it didn't mean that, it's kind of a no-brainer for Reid: "Yeah, I'll take the option in which I get the vote I wanted without the contentious rules change everyone is mad about." But accepting that option with filibusters isn't a great choice either, if the alternative is Shadow McCain Cabinet 2013. Could the president come up with nominees for the judiciary and the cabinet that Republicans like? Sure. But one of the perks of winning the election last year is that he gets to pick who he wants.


We'll see which option Reid chooses. For amusement sake, we're hoping for option two — let McCain and the Republicans sign off on nominees. Because then the Democrats could filibuster them.

 

[rocketknight]

UGH. Looks like there's going to be another "gang" to discuss the filibuster. And old man McCain says one solution is to have Republicans suggest nominees. LOL.

The Democrats have already tried that by nominating Republicans themselves and things don't go much better.

 

[The Librarian]

This ---> https://twitter.com/CitizenCohn/status/356929445099094016

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Democrats have already tried that by nominating Republicans themselves and things don't go much better.

Pretty much. Reid is a creature of the senate, he'll almost always rule on the side of precedent and the way "things always have been." You could tell he was bullshitting based on the constant threats and goal post moving he has done. If you're going to pull the trigger, pull it. We've been having this problem for for some time, it's nothing new. And there is no downside to it: in fact it makes a minority leader's job easier by ensuring he never has to figure out which members of his caucus will vote on a nominee, which members are too vulnerable to vote yes, etc.

They'll come to some deal...and Rand Paul or Ted Cruz will filibuster someone next month.