Support NeoGAF

[Bonen no Max'd]

I really don't see who cares about this. Certainly not the way the Democrats have been arguing it, where they don't say why this is a problem except for hypothetical hypocrisy. Again, nobody thinks Gorsuch is a Russian stooge. He's the kind of person Pence or Ryan would nominate - he got nominated because Trump outsourced the job to accredited conservatives. Like, say Trump gets impeached and removed from office and Pence is president. He'd probably renominate Gorsuch. So if he's going to get confirmed even in the worst-case scenario, why the hold up?

If Democrats can't even put up the bare minimum of letting the GOP steal a SCOTUS justice and let a white nationalist put one of the court, why should I bother voting for them?

 

[BlastProcessing]

I really don't see who cares about this. Certainly not the way the Democrats have been arguing it, where they don't say why this is a problem except for hypothetical hypocrisy. Again, nobody thinks Gorsuch is a Russian stooge. He's the kind of person Pence or Ryan would nominate - he got nominated because Trump outsourced the job to accredited conservatives. Like, say Trump gets impeached and removed from office and Pence is president. He'd probably renominate Gorsuch. So if he's going to get confirmed even in the worst-case scenario, why the hold up?

Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment? I really thought that that was self evident. I'm honestly throwing up my hands at this point. I still believe there are times in politics when one should stand up for what's right.

Rolling over because you will probably lose anyway is the Paul Ryan path. No thanks.

 

[Gotchaye]

If Democrats can't even put up the bare minimum of letting the GOP steal a SCOTUS justice and let a white nationalist put one of the court, why should I bother voting for them?

I mean, I was arguing earlier that if they're going to fight about this they should be making it about the actually-compelling reason Democrats have to be really mad about Gorsuch - it's a stolen seat.

 

[Beer Monkey]

I'll bet the FBI has checked the logs to see what White House staff was looking at what surveillance reports in the days before Nunes' night at the WH.

 

[jtb]

I mean, I was arguing earlier that if they're going to fight about this they should be making it about the actually-compelling reason Democrats have to be really mad about Gorsuch - it's a stolen seat.

I don't think they're necessarily two different arguments. It all boils down to this is an illegitimate nomination.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I mean, I was arguing earlier that if they're going to fight about this they should be making it about the actually-compelling reason Democrats have to be really mad about Gorsuch - it's a stolen seat.

He's also a far-right corporate stooge. There's basically no justifiable reason to not oppose him!

 

[Plinko]

I'll bet the FBI has checked the logs to see what White House staff was looking at what surveillance reports in the days before Nunes' night at the WH.

I'll bet there's a lot the IC has that the White House staff doesn't know about. The idea that just last week they may have been telling staff to purge their phones is just bizarre to me. Most likely they've been under surveillance for months now.

 

[Tom Penny]

Went to a Portuguese place to rest for the first time. Holy shit. Best fries ever and they feed you drinks. Bartender handed me a quarter bottle of booze when we left 😂

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Went to a Portuguese place to rest for the first time. Holy shit. Best fries ever and they feed you drinks. Bartender handed me a quarter bottle of booze when we left 😂

Was Sanjuro there Tom?

 

[BlastProcessing]

What. The. Fuck.

@mviser
Some career diplomats have been instructed not to speak to Rex Tillerson directly — or even make eye contact.

The full article is wild WaPo: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spends his first weeks isolated from an anxious bureaucracy

 

[royalan]

I mean, I was arguing earlier that if they're going to fight about this they should be making it about the actually-compelling reason Democrats have to be really mad about Gorsuch - it's a stolen seat.

In response to this post and an earlier post you made, I absolute 100% agree that Democrats aren't communicating their opposition to Gorsuch in an effective way. But I think that's one of the Democrats core problems, not specific to the fight over SCOTUS.

Democrats suck at messaging, period. And having someone like Chuck "Can't make a statement without staring down at my podium" Schumer lead the opposition in the Senate is certainly not helping with that

 

[Tarydax]

What. The. Fuck.

@mviser
Some career diplomats have been instructed not to speak to Rex Tillerson directly — or even make eye contact.

The full article is wild WaPo: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spends his first weeks isolated from an anxious bureaucracy

Yeah . . . wow.

And here I thought he was trying to appear competent.

 

[pigeon]

It would be helpful to drag out the confirmation fight for this swing vote as long as possible, and to have this additional claim that Republicans violated procedural norms in close proximity to an election. You can't do that if there's no more filibuster.

This literally just happened last year and it didn't work. When I say people don't care about SCOTUS I have extremely strong evidence that it's true. If you think they would care if Dems just presented the case better, well, I have extremely strong evidence that they can't or won't present the case well enough for people to care.

The second reason is simpler. If the Democrats are resigned to Gorsuch getting seated anyway, getting this out of the way as quickly as possible is probably best for them as long as their own base isn't too mad about them not fighting.

Sure. I think this is true. The Democratic senators would probably prefer not to filibuster. However, I am the Democratic base, and I am extremely mad, so this argument doesn't move me much.

Can someone tell me what the Dems have to block Gorsuch? I would assume they would have to manage to make the case to "undecided voters", because right now I don't think that anyone but active Democrats care about him at all, so if they make a big deal about him and block him that would disfavor them. I'm assuming they got some arguments to put in doubt his impartiality, or some of his views?

They just need three Republican senators to balk at nuking the filibuster because of Senate comity.

Yes, this sounds stupid, but the best explanation for the way the Senate works is that Senators actually care to a weird degree about the arcane rules of the Senate. Most specifically, the filibuster adds to the importance of individual Senators, so they like keeping it around.

 

[smokeymicpot]

What. The. Fuck.

@mviser
Some career diplomats have been instructed not to speak to Rex Tillerson directly — or even make eye contact.

The full article is wild WaPo: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spends his first weeks isolated from an anxious bureaucracy

Sounds like a man who didn't want the job.

 

[Gotchaye]

I don't think they're necessarily two different arguments. It all boils down to this is an illegitimate nomination.

Yes, but one is a thing that people actually care about and another is something that people are saying because I guess they feel like it shows that Republicans are hypothetical hypocrites?

Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment? I really thought that that was self evident. I'm honestly throwing up my hands at this point. I still believe there are times in politics when one should stand up for what's right.

Rolling over because you will probably lose anyway is the Paul Ryan path. No thanks.

So, talk to me like I'm stupid. Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment? I mean, I agree that we shouldn't just let such a person make appointments willy-nilly, but if it's a job that needs doing and we look at the person they want to appoint and there's nothing at all out of the ordinary there, what's the problem? Again, in the worst-case scenario we find out that Trump was personally conspiring with Putin and he gets removed from office. Maybe Pence goes down too, simultaneously. Paul Ryan's behind Gorsuch too. Absolutely nobody thinks that Gorsuch is somehow tainted by the Russia stuff, and so this objection just seems silly, and the Democrats know that it is. That's why Schumer's reduced to saying "yeah but if Clinton had won the election and was still under FBI investigation I'm pretty sure that the Republicans would have filibustered her nominee for that reason". This is not compelling stuff.

 

[Coriolanus]

Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment?

Because your recently reenergized base wants you to.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

They just need three Republican senators to balk at nuking the filibuster because of Senate comity.

Yes, this sounds stupid, but the best explanation for the way the Senate works is that Senators actually care to a weird degree about the arcane rules of the Senate. Most specifically, the filibuster adds to the importance of individual Senators, so they like keeping it around.

It's sounding less and less likely that this would happen

But may as well try - Democrats don't have much to lose at this point.

Can't wait for people in OT to complain about "spineless Democrats" either way, though.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Yes, but one is a thing that people actually care about and another is something that people are saying because I guess they feel like it shows that Republicans are hypothetical hypocrites?



So, talk to me like I'm stupid. Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment? I mean, I agree that we shouldn't just let such a person make appointments willy-nilly, but if it's a job that needs doing and we look at the person they want to appoint and there's nothing at all out of the ordinary there, what's the problem? Again, in the worst-case scenario we find out that Trump was personally conspiring with Putin and he gets removed from office. Maybe Pence goes down too, simultaneously. Paul Ryan's behind Gorsuch too. Absolutely nobody thinks that Gorsuch is somehow tainted by the Russia stuff, and so this objection just seems silly, and the Democrats know that it is. That's why Schumer's reduced to saying "yeah but if Clinton had won the election and was still under FBI investigation I'm pretty sure that the Republicans would have filibustered her nominee for that reason". This is not compelling stuff.

If you don't think it's compelling, theres really nothing I can say. I will point out that Gorsuch said nothing of substance in his hearings. He avoided almost every single question so we know less about him than we have about any Supreme Court nominee. He is an enigma. Gorsuch is absolutely tainted. He is tainted by Trump. He is tainted by the Garland ordeal. That might not be fair to him, but it will forever be true. He chose to own that when he agreed to take the nomination.

 

[Crocodile]

FWIW, if I have to hear for the next 30-40 years "That justice who was put on the SC directly or indirectly by a traitor voted against good law X" I'm going to be kind of annoyed. Even if Gorsuch himself wasn't involved with the Russians, the only reason he would be on the court is due to Russian interference. If anyone on the Trump campaign helped the Russians achieved their goal? FUCK EVERYTHING.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Thats the one thing too. I don't want anything about Trumps legacy to last for that long. He will always be Trumps pick. He does not deserve one.

 

[Gotchaye]

Because your recently reenergized base wants you to.

Right, so if it's entirely irrational partisan animus I guess maybe you construct this sort of bullshit justification so that you're not just out there shouting "fuck Trump". But it seems to me that there are actual reasons that people both inside and outside of the base might care about that you could use to justify strong opposition to Gorsuch. As I've said, I'd prefer that "it's a stolen seat" be put front and center with a side of "he's going to make terrible decisions". You can put the terrible decisions first but I feel like people are mostly going to write that off as normal partisan bickering, whereas the illegitimacy of the nomination is how you actually start getting Democrats to care about the Court.

If you don't think it's compelling, theres really nothing I can say. I will point out that Gorsuch said nothing of substance in his hearings. He avoided almost every single question so we know less about him than we have about any Supreme Court nominee. He is an enigma. Gorsuch is absolutely tainted. He is tainted by Trump. He is tainted by the Garland ordeal. That might not be fair to him, but it will forever be true. He chose to own that when he agreed to take the nomination.

So, nothing? Maybe it is not a good idea to make central to one's political case an argument that one finds literally indefensible.

 

[pigeon]

So, talk to me like I'm stupid. Why should we do anything we can to keep someone who is under FBI investigation for attacking our democratic process from making a lifetime appointment? I mean, I agree that we shouldn't just let such a person make appointments willy-nilly, but if it's a job that needs doing and we look at the person they want to appoint and there's nothing at all out of the ordinary there, what's the problem?

In the absence of good faith, it's valuable to ensure that the consequences for an antisocial action are at least as negative as the positive benefits for that action. This means that people who aren't bound by comity will at least be deterred from negative actions by a pessimistic cost-benefit analysis.

The GOP's suborning and normalizing of Trump's behavior, which is both illegal and detrimental to American safety and norms, is just such an antisocial action, being carried out in the hope of future returns that justify the cost. A Supreme Court seat is one of the most valuable commodities in American politics, since they are lifetime appointments. That's why we got that anonymous quote in Buzzfeed today -- "if we can just get Gorsuch confirmed and avoid nuclear war, it'll be a win."

Allowing the GOP to keep the Supreme Court seat even if Trump is eventually neutralized provides a strong incentive to engage in such destructive behavior in the future. The more polarized our country becomes, and the more politicized the Supreme Court becomes, the more dangerous things are. A return to norms would be a civic good. One step towards that would be ensuring that the GOP don't end up with significant long-term benefits from their choice to legitimize Trump.

 

[Grexeno]

In the hypothetical situation that the scandal literally goes all the way to the top, and Trump himself is found to have known about or participated in collusion with Russia, could a post-wave Dem government pressure Gorsuch to resign?

 

[smokeymicpot]

In the hypothetical situation that the scandal literally goes all the way to the top, and Trump himself is found to have known about or participated in collusion with Russia, could a post-wave Dem government pressure Gorsuch to resign?

Won't happen. Gorsuch will always be there and the GOP will fight it.

 

[Grexeno]

Won't happen. Gorsuch will always be there and the GOP will fight it.

The point would be that the GOP wouldn't have the political power to fight it.

 

[Coriolanus]

Right, so if it's entirely irrational partisan animus I guess maybe you construct this sort of bullshit justification so that you're not just out there shouting "fuck Trump". But it seems to me that there are actual reasons that people both inside and outside of the base might care about that you could use to justify strong opposition to Gorsuch. As I've said, I'd prefer that "it's a stolen seat" be put front and center with a side of "he's going to make terrible decisions". You can put the terrible decisions first but I feel like people are mostly going to write that off as normal partisan bickering, whereas the illegitimacy of the nomination is how you actually start getting Democrats to care about the Court.

Are there? Sure. Which is why you'll have different people from the party giving different reasons for their opposition. Thus you've all the flavours and bases covered. Whatever flavour you particularly dislike will be deemed bullshit by you, and whatever flavor you don't dislike, obviously, won't. End result is the same: your guys oppose because that's wot their base wants them to do.

I'd say that, ideally, hire a dude as competent at propaganda as that gop stocky bro whose name escapes me and off you go. Distribute slogans to senators according to importance and probability of their base eating that shit up and yadayadayada.

Fwiw, i'd say that the odds of the Scalia seat being/remaining a hot issue come 2018 are slim to none, so might as well use the thing as kindling for now. Ain't good for much else.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Right, so if it's entirely irrational partisan animus I guess maybe you construct this sort of bullshit justification so that you're not just out there shouting "fuck Trump". But it seems to me that there are actual reasons that people both inside and outside of the base might care about that you could use to justify strong opposition to Gorsuch. As I've said, I'd prefer that "it's a stolen seat" be put front and center with a side of "he's going to make terrible decisions". You can put the terrible decisions first but I feel like people are mostly going to write that off as normal partisan bickering, whereas the illegitimacy of the nomination is how you actually start getting Democrats to care about the Court.



So, nothing? Maybe it is not a good idea to make central to one's political case an argument that one finds literally indefensible.

If you've read what I've written as nothing, well that's a failure on my part and I guess we are done here.

 

[royalan]

In the absence of good faith, it's valuable to ensure that the consequences for an antisocial action are at least as negative as the positive benefits for that action. This means that people who aren't bound by comity will at least be deterred from negative actions by a pessimistic cost-benefit analysis.

The GOP's suborning and normalizing of Trump's behavior, which is both illegal and detrimental to American safety and norms, is just such an antisocial action, being carried out in the hope of future returns that justify the cost. A Supreme Court seat is one of the most valuable commodities in American politics, since they are lifetime appointments. That's why we got that anonymous quote in Buzzfeed today -- "if we can just get Gorsuch confirmed and avoid nuclear war, it'll be a win."

Allowing the GOP to keep the Supreme Court seat even if Trump is eventually neutralized provides a strong incentive to engage in such destructive behavior in the future. The more polarized our country becomes, and the more politicized the Supreme Court becomes, the more dangerous things are. A return to norms would be a civic good. One step towards that would be ensuring that the GOP don't end up with significant long-term benefits from their choice to legitimize Trump.

Exactly.

Democrats need to fight tooth and nail over this. Not only is there no negative repercussions from the left for doing so; not only will it contribute to keeping the base energized, but to just roll over and let Republicans have this nomination sends the message that what the Republicans did last year is not only ok, but a winning strategy to achieve one's political goals.

In the end, Gorsuch may just end up getting confirmed. But Democrats need to make this as messy as possible.

 

[sc0la]

Sounds like a man who didn't want the job.

God damn Mitt would have been such an upgrade over Rex.
Donald just wanted to troll him and gloat though.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Gorsuch is a young, far-right nominee who will sit on a spot stolen by the party who destroyed existing norms of governance. If allowed to sit on the Supreme Court, he will for forty years try to destroy the civil liberties and rights of Americans while giving immense power to wealthy individuals and corporations. If the Democratic party cannot muster even the most basic opposition to his appointment such that they force the GOP to use all available power to put him in the court, I struggle to see the benefit in trying to elect them as an opposition to the Republican agenda. If less than 41 senators cannot stand against that, then the party is rotten and should be replaced.

 

[Gotchaye]

In the absence of good faith, it's valuable to ensure that the consequences for an antisocial action are at least as negative as the positive benefits for that action. This means that people who aren't bound by comity will at least be deterred from negative actions by a pessimistic cost-benefit analysis.

The GOP's suborning and normalizing of Trump's behavior, which is both illegal and detrimental to American safety and norms, is just such an antisocial action, being carried out in the hope of future returns that justify the cost. A Supreme Court seat is one of the most valuable commodities in American politics, since they are lifetime appointments. That's why we got that anonymous quote in Buzzfeed today -- "if we can just get Gorsuch confirmed and avoid nuclear war, it'll be a win."

Allowing the GOP to keep the Supreme Court seat even if Trump is eventually neutralized provides a strong incentive to engage in such destructive behavior in the future. The more polarized our country becomes, and the more politicized the Supreme Court becomes, the more dangerous things are. A return to norms would be a civic good. One step towards that would be ensuring that the GOP don't end up with significant long-term benefits from their choice to legitimize Trump.

To be clear, though, this is an argument that Gorsuch or a Gorsuch-equivalent should not be confirmed even after Trump's impeachment, when nominated by Pence or Ryan or whoever. Sure, I see the merit in this. I think this is not really what people are thinking when they throw out this line about not wanting to confirm Gorsuch because of the Russia investigation and I think this is a basically-impossible case to actually make to the public. That the Russians' interference in the election took the form of talking to people makes it very hard to cast as actually stealing the election. Again, I think there's a much easier angle here which is that the seat itself is stolen, where you can point to the specific thing the Republicans did to prevent Garland from getting it.

The point would be that the GOP wouldn't have the political power to fight it.

But they don't need to. There's no way to "pressure" a Supreme Court justice other than by threatening to impeach them. There's maybe a West Wing-y never-going-to-happen ending here where the Democrats say "look, seating Gorsuch was a gross violation of norms and we're going to correct the balance by packing the Court, or Gorsuch can resign, we can confirm Garland, and then we can go back to normal". But of course that's not happening.

 

[Coriolanus]

I mean, i just see it in terms of cost.
Namely
"wot could playing oppo rite now cost?"
the filibuster
"wot can you gain?"
base support
"wot could not playing oppo rite now cost?"
the reenergized base
"wot could not playing oppo gain?"
sweet fuckall. But you get to keep the filibuster...until you legit try to use it.

And then, of course
"wot matters most come 2018, base support or having the filibuster?"
---

this, of course, is a simplistic argument, especially when one factors that trump will continue to trump, thus giving the base plenty of reasons to stay livid.

 

[Ogodei]

Remember: this filibuster is only for supreme court nominees. The GOP's costs here are much lower than a hypothetical world where they were facing a Democrat filibuster of AHCA or some other electoral monstrosity.

 

[Diablos]

We are living in a nightmare.

If this nation faces a major crisis be it a pandemic, terrorism, war, whatever -- we are done. I really think we're done.

 

[Coriolanus]

We are living in a nightmare.

If this nation faces a major crisis be it a pandemic, terrorism, war, whatever -- we are done. I really think we're done.

dont be silly. you wont be done.

The human cost, however, will be that much higher. Especially when you factor that your president will try to profit like a bandit from the reconstruction efforts.

Nothing that third world countries haven't faced many times before, tho, and we're still here!

 

[Oblivion]

I was initially angry at Manchin, but honestly, there's not really much of an issue with him voting for Gorsuch.

Look, Gorsuch is going to get nominated no matter how Manchin or any other Dem votes. At least by allowing him to do this, he can make some case to WV voters that he's a bi-partisan guy and that he's fine with supporting conservative people.

If this even remotely helps him get re-elected, well why the fuck not go through with it?

 

[Wilsongt]

We are living in a nightmare.

If this nation faces a major crisis be it a pandemic, terrorism, war, whatever -- we are done. I really think we're done.

Stop youing.

 

[pigeon]

To be clear, though, this is an argument that Gorsuch or a Gorsuch-equivalent should not be confirmed even after Trump's impeachment, when nominated by Pence or Ryan or whoever. Sure, I see the merit in this. I think this is not really what people are thinking when they throw out this line about not wanting to confirm Gorsuch because of the Russia investigation and I think this is a basically-impossible case to actually make to the public. That the Russians' interference in the election took the form of talking to people makes it very hard to cast as actually stealing the election.

No, I genuinely think this is all wrong. People absolutely mean that it would be bullshit if the GOP got to confirm their justice because they cheated in the election. They may not put it in exactly those terms, but that desire for fairness is at the heart of the complaint.

I also think it's, like, extremely obviously false to say that you can't easily make the argument that the election was stolen. Everybody I know thinks that the election was stolen! The lack of physical proof that the election was stolen is no barrier to this! I think you can make a very strong argument that the election was stolen by manipulating the news and releasing stolen documents without needing to resort to hacking voting machines, but I also think it's pretty clear that you don't need to make that argument to convince a large percentage of Americans because they already get it without thinking that hard about it.

I was initially angry at Manchin, but honestly, there's not really much of an issue with him voting for Gorsuch.

Look, Gorsuch is going to get nominated no matter how Manchin or any other Dem votes. At least by allowing him to do this, he can make some case to WV voters that he's a bi-partisan guy and that he's fine with supporting conservative people.

If this even remotely helps him get re-elected, well why the fuck not go through with it?

And that's why the Democrats are terrible at opposing evil.

 

[B-Dubs]

I was initially angry at Manchin, but honestly, there's not really much of an issue with him voting for Gorsuch.

Look, Gorsuch is going to get nominated no matter how Manchin or any other Dem votes. At least by allowing him to do this, he can make some case to WV voters that he's a bi-partisan guy and that he's fine with supporting conservative people.

If this even remotely helps him get re-elected, well why the fuck not go through with it?

Exactly. So long as he isn't needed to maintain the filibuster he should be allowed to do what's needed to get reelected.

And that's why the Democrats are terrible at opposing evil.

So long as he doesn't put Gorsuch over it's nothing more than optics. Dude's going to have a tight race and I'd rather have him than whoever challenges him.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If allowed implies that this is actually up to the Democrats.

 

[pigeon]

So long as he doesn't put Gorsuch over it's nothing more than optics. Dude's going to have a tight race and I'd rather have him than whoever challenges him.

One good way to get good optics is for your party to actually stand for something other than power.

 

[Oblivion]

And that's why the Democrats are terrible at opposing evil.

You oppose evil by winning goddamned elections.

 

[pigeon]

You oppose evil by winning goddamned elections.

I mean, not if the way you do it is by inviting evil people into your party.

 

[B-Dubs]

One good way to get good optics is for your party to actually stand for something other than power.

And if he loses as a result it does us no good. Optics need to be balanced against need. We don't need him to maintain the filibuster, it'd be nice if he did since it would look good though.

I mean, not if the way you do it is by inviting evil people into your party.

Fair enough, but it is West Virginia. We're not getting anyone good out of that state, he's essentially the least evil option.

 

[Oblivion]

I mean, not if the way you do it is by inviting evil people into your party.

Did you enjoy us having majorities in congress from 2007-2011?

If so, then you'd understand that inviting somewhat evil people is the only way for that to happen.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Former chairman of RNC Steele told WWR at lunch that Trump will not finish his term; advises clients to bolster ties w/VP Pence

https://twitter.com/westwingreport/status/847635937995612160

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

If allowed implies that this is actually up to the Democrats.

Filibustering at least mounts opposition and forces the GOP into action. Not filibustering (or not whipping enough votes to sustain a filibuster) is the equivalent of just rolling over and dying. Obviously the Democrats can't stop the GOP if Republicans are fully committed, but that doesn't mean they should just not do anything for the next 2 years.

And if he loses as a result it does us no good. Optics need to be balanced against need. We don't need him to maintain the filibuster, it'd be nice if he did since it would look good though.



Fair enough, but it is West Virginia. We're not getting anyone good out of that state, he's essentially the least evil option.

We had two pretty not-evil people out of West Virginia before Manchin. Well, one started out super evil but made a turn towards being decent.

 

[royalan]

I was initially angry at Manchin, but honestly, there's not really much of an issue with him voting for Gorsuch.

Look, Gorsuch is going to get nominated no matter how Manchin or any other Dem votes. At least by allowing him to do this, he can make some case to WV voters that he's a bi-partisan guy and that he's fine with supporting conservative people.

If this even remotely helps him get re-elected, well why the fuck not go through with it?

Because the Democrats as a party are facing an existential moment right now.

We are at a lower point in terms of tangible political power than we have been in decades. Our own base has serious doubts that we can even stand up to fight for the causes we claim to believe in. We have folded and argued for bargaining with Republicans who don't give a rat's ass time and time again, and have gotten spit on in return time and time again. As Bonen said, if we can't even muster up the conviction to fight over a seat that was literally stolen from us, if we have given up on even doing the symbolic thing when we will suffer no political consequence for doing so, how can we as a party claim any sort of righteousness here? And lets not forget, OUR voters actually care about that!

Manchin may support Gorsuch. But Democrats cannot afford to roll over and project the idea that we let that happen.

 

[Coriolanus]

So long as he doesn't put Gorsuch over it's nothing more than optics. Dude's going to have a tight race and I'd rather have him than whoever challenges him.

Ehh.... i dunno. He absolutely trounced the oppo back in 2012, and, as this PPP report from 2016 puts it, remains firmly popular, partially because WV seems a bit unique wrt issues.

One particular bit from the PPP report, however, is this

The key to Manchin's continued strength is that he wins over more Republican voters (23%) than he loses Democrats (20%). That's a pretty impressive feat in a state where many registered Democrats rarely actually vote for the party in national elections.

so i dunno if making moves that could further aggravate dem turnout would b a wise move, especially since Manch wont have a presidential election to boost attendance.

 

[shinra-bansho]

But it doesn't mount any opposition.
It will get nuked.
It might give some people nice feelings while not practically having any impact.