Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

I am incredibly disappointed in Warren and the others over all of this. Opposition costs them nothing, and cooperation earns them nothing. That they seem to believe otherwise is shockingly, stunningly naive

I mean if you want to argue that Carson's passage hinges on them and he's better than what might come maybe but they literally don't control enough seats to pass or fail any candidate without some GOP cooperation. A vote in either direction is purely symbolic

 

[EdibleKnife]

Because they want to kill the Sessions nom and it's going to take a miracle to do so.

They have a hit list. The others aren't on it.

It better be true is all I'll say. If it's not a home run, they'd better put all their weight behind it because I've seen too many people, particularly among the liberal base treat this whole era with kid gloves which is why people are losing faith in the idea that there's fight in party in the first place

 

[Ether_Snake]

 

[aeolist]

They can't block the seat for four years.
You're being completely irrational if you think this viable.
Trump will get a Supreme Court pick.

i don't see why it wouldn't work so long as they could wrangle the votes.

it's a flaw in the constitution but it's totally legal and any trump appointee would be a nightmare. i absolutely want them to do this.

it'll never happen though.

 

[royalan]

See, Guys! If we just OK some of his moves, Trump will gladly work with us!

 

[thepotatoman]

I don't see any situation where Carson is blocked without Republican defection. I don't know why people like Warren gave them a pass but all I can realistically point to is picking your battles. We will see what occurs with Tillerson and how that fight is going to go. So far having tuned in to most of the hearings that I could, Dems have not rolled over in finding different ways to put statements on record to hold over someone like say Carson. Will it be effective we'll have to see, but I can't imagine they are not being strategic. The the DeVos, Tillerson, Price, and Mnuchin hearings will be the most telling, not the Carson one. I'm missing another awful pick but can't remember his name.

It's a long shot for anyone to not make it through confirmation even with 100% democrats no votes. I'm just saying Garland is a great example of saying no simply because he's from the other side, which isn't what I'm asking democrats to do here.

Their yea votes maybe strategic, but it's a freaking terrible strategy.

 

[Elaugaufein]

i don't see why it wouldn't work so long as they could wrangle the votes.

it's a flaw in the constitution but it's totally legal and any trump appointee would be a nightmare. i absolutely want them to do this.

it'll never happen though.

It's not a flaw in the Constitution, it's a flaw in the Supreme Court deciding that pro forma sittings block recess appointments. The idea that you can count as sitting without quorum is manifestly idiotic.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If it became clear that the Democrats would be opposing any SC nominee rather than using the threat of filibuster to moderate the choice, then regardless of reluctance to do so McConnell will just remove that threat from consideration.

 

[rjinaz]

So he really is doing it for the liberal tears.

So presidential!

 

[kirblar]

If it became clear that the Democrats would be opposing any SC nominee rather than using the threat of filibuster to moderate the choice, then regardless of reluctance to do so McConnell will just remove that threat from consideration.

In the long run this is a good thing.

Too many liberals have fallen for what is very much a center-right party. Dems didn't feel safe to be openly pro-gay marriage as recently as 2008. It took an insanely safe shift in public opinion to make that change.

They feel safer leaning right on most issues. I have no reason to believe that this version of the party will be a credible thread to Trump without massive changes.

Yeah, fuck them for wanting to win elections and actually obtain power over making symbolic gestures that would instantly lose them elections!

The internet changed goddamn everything. The social change was incredibly rapid. Being behind the curve on changing social issues and having your pols adapt with the times is absolutely fine. I say this as a gay person who lived in a state where it was literally illegal for me to have sex until Lawrence v Texas.

This is not being "center right", this is about this being about power and having to win popular elections to get it.

 

[Branduil]

If it became clear that the Democrats would be opposing any SC nominee rather than using the threat of filibuster to moderate the choice, then regardless of reluctance to do so McConnell will just remove that threat from consideration.

Good. Then the same thing will apply if Democrats take power.

 

[Gotchaye]

But if the goal is to bring down the president's party at the cost of your own, isn't it still worthwhile to have the symbolic vote showing this to be the most controversial cabinet ever. That still hurts the party in power, even if it's not as much as the absolute stoppage that republicans were able to create.

Especially with people like Ben Carson, where it should be clear to everyone that he is not qualified for the position. These yea votes are instead giving the party in power more legitimacy by giving the power to say people like Carson has bipartisan support.

Treating trump's cabinet with the same voting strategy used for any other cabinet is exactly how Trump becomes normalized.

It's hard to say whether it works this way. Yes, you could signal that this is a really, really bad cabinet. But then you lose the ability to signal that some later thing is particularly objectionable. You especially lose the ability to signal that any specific cabinet pick is particularly objectionable. I have a very hard time believing that if Ben Carson is a disaster that it will be better for Democrats if they were on record as having opposed his nomination.

But, again, all we're talking about is optics. Reasonable people can disagree about how this stuff plays out. What reasonable people can't do is get suckered into thinking that optics is substance and that this is a substantive failure on the part of Democrats in Congress to oppose Trump's agenda.

In the long run this is a good thing.

In the long run the filibuster is dead regardless. Nobody trusts that the other side will keep it if it becomes inconvenient. Nobody thinks the public really cares. The Democrats already set a precedent when they got rid of it for lower judicial appointments. No one should be thinking about the filibuster in terms of whether what one party is doing now will benefit the other party down the road.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

See, Guys! If we just OK some of his moves, Trump will gladly work with us!

Uhh wouldn't going insane with partisan rage be giving him what he wants according to that tweet?

 

[shinra-bansho]

Removing a minority check on majority power that forces a modicum of cooperation and moderation...

Is why the Democrats hold no sway in the current Cabinet nominations.

And is a dangerous game, when the small state bias of the Senate favours the GOP.

 

[kirblar]

In the long run the filibuster is dead regardless. Nobody trusts that the other side will keep it if it becomes inconvenient. Nobody thinks the public really cares. The Democrats already set a precedent when they got rid of it for lower judicial appointments. No one should be thinking about the filibuster in terms of whether what one party is doing now will benefit the other party down the road.

Yup. This is why keeping it in '08 was ridiculously short-sighted. The thing relies on being able to trust the other party to adhere to norms. The GOP no longer does.

 

[royalan]

If it became clear that the Democrats would be opposing any SC nominee rather than using the threat of filibuster to moderate the choice, then regardless of reluctance to do so McConnell will just remove that threat from consideration.

This is not at all a realistic strategy with Mitch McConnell. Why would he care about threats from Democrats? If he did, he'd nuke the filibuster anyway.

"Hey fellow Dems, let's capitulate on some of Trump's cabinet picks, that way when we oppose his SC picks, they'll be really surprised! Because this isnt, like, the strategy they just used to win total control or anything. They really won't see this coming!"

 

[faisal233]

It's hard to say whether it works this way. Yes, you could signal that this is a really, really bad cabinet. But then you lose the ability to signal that some later thing is particularly objectionable. You especially lose the ability to signal that any specific cabinet pick is particularly objectionable. I have a very hard time believing that if Ben Carson is a disaster that it will be better for Democrats if they were on record as having opposed his nomination.

But, again, all we're talking about is optics. Reasonable people can disagree about how this stuff plays out. What reasonable people can't do is get suckered into thinking that optics is substance and that this is a substantive failure on the part of Democrats in Congress to oppose Trump's agenda.

GOP was successful in 09-10 by allowing Obama's cabinet through, falsely promising some support to the president signature initiative and kept watering it down, then pull the support completely. Once they gained congressional power, they left all pretenses of working across the aisle.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

They can't block the seat for four years.
You're being completely irrational if you think this viable.
Trump will get a Supreme Court pick.

But would it send a strong message if they were to block it for the exact same time they denied Obama's?

 

[aeolist]

If it became clear that the Democrats would be opposing any SC nominee rather than using the threat of filibuster to moderate the choice, then regardless of reluctance to do so McConnell will just remove that threat from consideration.

the removal of the filibuster and subsequent weakening of the senate's importance would be a good thing anyway

 

[Elaugaufein]

GOP was successful in 09-10 by allowing Obama's cabinet through, falsely promising some support to the president signature initiative and kept watering it down, then pull the support completely. Once they gained congressional power, they left all pretenses of working across the aisle.

They didn't have a choice did they ? IIRC The Democrats had a majority in the both houses at the time Obama's Cabinet was picked. The GOP haven't been in a situation where they could obstruct a Democratic President's cabinet picks meaningfully since before Carter (Clinton and Carter both had D majorities in both houses at their inaugurations)

 

[tanooki27]

feeling the left won't get traction until another watershed voice comes along a la Obama '04.

 

[FStubbs]

Democrats have one big problem keeping them from ever pulling what the Republicans did and that's the fact that while the Republicans are a monolithic group with a shared core ideology built around hate, the Democrats are bunch of smaller groups who are only together because the Republicans hate them and want to destroy them. This includes ideologically opposed groups such as the Black church and gays. It is much more difficult to pull such a group together into a scorched earth screw 'em type movement like the Tea Party.

 

[aeolist]

Removing a minority check on majority power that forces a modicum of cooperation and moderation...

Is why the Democrats hold no sway in the current Cabinet nominations.

And is a dangerous game, when the small state bias of the Senate favours the GOP.

in practice it does not force any level of cooperation or moderation. it has in fact exacerbated division and intensified congressional polarization.

the senate needs to be abolished anyway.

 

[kirblar]

And how's that been working out?

Not well when the American electorate are in love with divided government and have brain-damaged short-term memory even worse than Dory's that leads them to re-elect the people that caused the problem 2 years after sweeping them out.

They're not going to be "pure socialists" because they actually (in general) know how economics works. This "swing right" is a correction- they've never had power long enough (or with enough safety valves unlocked) to un-fuck the '80s tax cuts. Income Inequality is the way it is almost completely because of those policy changes, not because liberals embraced good economics.

 

[Elaugaufein]

in practice it does not force any level of cooperation or moderation. it has in fact exacerbated division and intensified congressional polarization.

the senate needs to be abolished anyway.

Speaking as someone from a state where our Labor government did exactly that in the early 1900s, you do not want that. Single House Majoritarian FPTP systems result in parties taking terms ramming through everything they want and repealing whatever the other guy did. Admittedly your system already seems to have collapsed to that.

(Of course our Labor party compounded that by trying to apply a gerrymander to favour of them that gave the other party 19 years in power because they were too dim to see a change of demographics happening. )

 

[thepotatoman]

It's hard to say whether it works this way. Yes, you could signal that this is a really, really bad cabinet. But then you lose the ability to signal that some later thing is particularly objectionable. You especially lose the ability to signal that any specific cabinet pick is particularly objectionable. I have a very hard time believing that if Ben Carson is a disaster that it will be better for Democrats if they were on record as having opposed his nomination.

But, again, all we're talking about is optics. Reasonable people can disagree about how this stuff plays out. What reasonable people can't do is get suckered into thinking that optics is substance and that this is a substantive failure on the part of Democrats in Congress to oppose Trump's agenda.

Democrats don't have anything but optics right now. Eventually there'll probably be something they can actually filibuster, which will be the major standard bearer for Democrat's effectiveness, but for now, I'm tired of democrats ignoring/misreading the optics.

And I don't see where democrats are gaining any more ability to signal something wrong with Trump or the GOP. It's not like they'll ever get to the point where people will turn their heads just because Democrats have a problem with Republicans. But they will turn heads by agreeing with republicans, empowering republicans with centrists and depowering their own standing with their base by doing so.

 

[elrechazado]

in practice it does not force any level of cooperation or moderation. it has in fact exacerbated division and intensified congressional polarization.

the senate needs to be abolished anyway.

Well it's good that we are discussing totally viable strategies based in reality, like abolishing half of one of the branches of government.

 

[kirblar]

The idea that Democrats "don't know" what went wrong in '09/'10 in terms of strategy is crazy. Clinton was even warning Obama not to trust them at the time, but he was naive (as a lot of us were) about just how far gone the GOP party was.

It won't be repeated the next time we get a D/D/D setup because the pressure on the party after this catastrophic mess is going to be monumental.

Look at who's base is energized in the wake of Trump winning though- this is the stupid tidal American politics at work- it's not the GOP.

 

[zaccheus]

https://justicedemocrats.com/

Don't know if you guys saw this, but it's a movement started by Bernie and some of the TYT guys. I'm not a big fan of TYT but their platform is pretty good. Their strategy is to remove all the corporate democrats and replace them with people of integrity.

 

[aeolist]

Well it's good that we are discussing totally viable strategies based in reality, like abolishing half of one of the branches of government.

literally the best we can hope for is being able to build something better from the ashes the republicans leave us. might as well aim high when it comes to restructuring our political system.

accelerationism has been forced on us.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

In the long run this is a good thing.


Yeah, fuck them for wanting to win elections and actually obtain power over making symbolic gestures that would instantly lose them elections!

The internet changed goddamn everything. The social change was incredibly rapid. Being behind the curve on changing social issues and having your pols adapt with the times is absolutely fine. I say this as a gay person who lived in a state where it was literally illegal for me to have sex until Lawrence v Texas.

This is not being "center right", this is about this being about power and having to win popular elections to get it.

Yes actually yes fuck them for not standing up to bullshit cultural wedge issues and making the case for the most minimal possible support of queer people. I can't believe this is a debate.

And BTW it wasn't 2008. Clinton didnt support equal marriage until 2013. The radical communist Obama found it in is heart to support equal marriage I'm 2012. Such brave leaders...

 

[sugarhigh4242]

They can't block the seat for four years.
You're being completely irrational if you think this viable.
Trump will get a Supreme Court pick.

Like Merrick Garland?

 

[sphagnum]

Has this person posted anything yet that would give us reason to believe they're credible?

 

[thepotatoman]

The idea that Democrats "don't know" what went wrong in '09/'10 in terms of strategy is crazy. Clinton was even warning Obama not to trust them at the time, but he was naive (as a lot of us were) about just how far gone the GOP party was.

It won't be repeated the next time we get a D/D/D setup because the pressure on the party after this catastrophic mess is going to be monumental.

Look at who's base is energized in the wake of Trump winning though- this is the stupid tidal American politics at work- it's not the GOP.

If it is all a metronome, then I hope that means Democrats get a very comparable result that republicans got in 2010. That'd be enough to take back the house gerrymander or not, though maybe not the senate.

Problem with metronome theory is that it doesn't historically happen at the same intensity as it has 2006 onward, though it has always been something that happens to some extent.

 

[kirblar]

The swing right was necessary post-Reagan. Now that's almost all the party is, long after it was necessary. Appealing to even moderate Republicans no longer works and gains little support; these people believed Obama, ACA over single payer Obama, was basically Che Guevara.

These suburban whites who saw that Bill Clinton was kind of reasonable don't really exist today. Hillary Clinton's loss should definitively put this version of the party to bed. It does not swing votes in the right places.

The fact that union voters found common ground with Trump should be alarming on its own. Workers have nowhere to turn, when they should be a solid Dem voting bloc.

Clinton's strategy w/ weak GOPers did work. She won college-educated white women. She flipped light GOP lean suburbs. That part of the campaign was not the issue.

The problem was elsewhere- systemic turnout issues w/ the Dems both institutionally and with the campaign, Independents breaking for Trump (Comey) and Trump turning out the rural racist vote in droves.

It's not the "working class" that Dems have a problem with, it's the "White Working Class". And there's a very,very simple answer to why they're having issues- it's race. And they can't do a goddamn thing about that. There's no hope of Euro-style class unity when the white guy won't stand with the others.

Yes actually yes fuck them for not standing up to bullshit cultural wedge issues and making the case for the most minimal possible support of queer people. I can't believe this is a debate.

And BTW it wasn't 2008. Clinton didnt support equal marriage until 2013. The radical communist Obama found it in is heart to support equal marriage I'm 2012. Such brave leaders...

If you want to go join a protest party uninterested in actually governing while masturbating in its self-righteousness, Corbyn is right fucking there.

You can get power. Or you can be "pure." You don't get both. And only one of those things actually lets you help make a difference in people's lives.

If it is all a metronome, then I hope that means Democrats get a very comparable result that republicans got in 2010. That'd be enough to take back the house gerrymander or not, though maybe not the senate.

Problem with metronome theory is that it doesn't historically happen at the same intensity as it has 2006 onward, though it has always been something that happens to some extent.

Senate will be rough in '18 but that Gerrymander backfire will happen to the House if the Dems get a wave. And if '20 continues that way, they should have an eclipse at that point.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Merrick Garland was blocked by a GOP majority. Not a minority. Newsflash. Not in majority.

 

[elrechazado]

Has this person posted anything yet that would give us reason to believe they're credible?

Feels fake but accurate

Merrick Garland was blocked by a GOP majority. Not a minority.

It's amazing how few posters in this thread seem to not understand the situation.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Merrick Garland was blocked by a GOP majority. Not a minority. Newsflash. Not in majority.

Blocking Merrick is only notable for 2) reasons 1) Obama put forth an (R) as a peace offering and got rejected and 2) the GOP outright stated they'd refuse to consider other potential nominations. But those are pretty notable in their own right, generally a (D) president would put up a fairly moderate (D) as a peace offering and stalling any consideration of any nominations out for almost a year would have been unthinkable.

 

[royalan]

Merrick Garland was blocked by a GOP majority. Not a minority. Newsflash. Not in majority.

Who in this thread has given the impression that they don't understand this?

The phrase "symbolic vote" has been used more than once in this thread.

These things matter.

EDIT: I mean, you guys are acting like there aren't hundreds of Democrats protesting outside of D Senator offices these days for this very reason. Over a hundred people just protested in front of the building where Schumer's office is located.

Keep thinking optics don't matter, and keep getting burned.

 

[kirblar]

Blocking Merrick is only notable for 2) reasons 1) Obama put forth an (R) as a peace offering and got rejected and 2) the GOP outright stated they'd refuse to consider other potential nominations. But those are pretty notable in their own right, generally a (D) president would put up a fairly moderate (D) as a peace offering and stalling any consideration of any nominations out for almost a year would have been unthinkable.

Merrick Garland is not an R. He was put on his current position by Clinton.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Feels fake but accurate

Those read like literally every dumb reddit/4chan operation post (particularly the "gets an emotional response" bit), and "woah donald is actively spreading fake rumors to own dumb liberals!!" doesn't carry much weight when his actual press secretary is the one saying a lot of this dumb shit in actual press conferences in front of god and everyone.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Merrick Garland is not an R. He was put on his current position by Clinton.

Interesting, the article I read at the time, said he was a Republican (though a moderate one), guess it was wrong.

 

[thepotatoman]

SCOTUS is indeed a very different situation. With the filibuster so fragile I'm not sure how much Democrats can lean on it to get any of that moderating force it provides.

I hope they can find the right balance.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Who in this thread has given the impression that they don't understand this?

The person who thought it was clever, when it wasn't, to bring up Garland as a false equivalent in response to the reality that the Democrats cannot block the SC seat for 4 years.

Also, to the other person Garland was slightly to the right of Breyer, but well to the left of the Kennedy/Roberts based on ideology scoring.

SCOTUS is indeed a very different situation. With the filibuster so fragile I'm not sure how much Democrats can lean on it to get any of that moderating force it provides.

I hope they can find the right balance.

It's not overly complicated if the floated three are the likely nominees.

Pryor should absolutely be filibustered.
Or threat thereof.

So as to get the less abhorrent Gorsuch.

 

[elrechazado]

Those read like literally every dumb reddit/4chan operation post (particularly the "gets an emotional response" bit), and "woah donald is actively spreading fake rumors to own dumb liberals!!" doesn't carry much weight when his actual press secretary is the one saying a lot of this dumb shit in actual press conferences in front of god and everyone.

Did you see the dozens of other tweets? They were disparaging Trump over his tantrums, insecurity, etc. If it's fake, which I think it is, it's not a fake designed to show how awesomely Trump is owning liberals.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Did you see the dozens of other tweets? They were disparaging Trump over his tantrums, insecurity, etc. If it's fake, which I think it is, it's not a fake designed to show how awesomely Trump is owning liberals.

You're right, the two ones posted here have a very different tone than the rest of the feed. In the context of the feed, the first one reads more as "they are desperately trying to soothe his ego and convince him that a global mass protest against him is actually good and cool" rather than "if you speak out and protest you're just playing into their hands, so sit down and shut up."

The second one ... it's still, like, if you're gonna have someone spread outrageously unbelievable rumors, that person shouldn't be the press secretary.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Merrick Garland was blocked by a GOP majority. Not a minority. Newsflash. Not in majority.

An insane number of appointments were blocked throughout the period when Republicans where in the minority. Of course the majority makes the difference, but Republican obstructionism is constant. The point is that there's no appeasing them, even with shitty moderates like Garland. Obama could've appointed Mumia Abu Jamal and the outcome would've been the same. Except if he appointed Mumia, he might've gotten some popular activist support putting pressure on the GOP.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

An insane number of appointments were blocked throughout the period when Republicans where in the minority. Of course the majority makes the difference, but Republican obstructionism is constant. The point is that there's no appeasing them, even with shitty moderates like Garland. Obama could've appointed Mumia Abu Jamal and the outcome would've been the same. Except if he appointed Mumia, he might've gotten some popular activist support putting pressure on the GOP.

I'm sure all those people in red states and R+20 districts would have been awfully scared by a bunch of people in NYC lighting up their phone lines.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I'm sure all those people in red states and R+20 districts would have been awfully scared by a bunch of people in NYC lighting up their phone lines.

Not the sort of pressure I mean.

Anyway, the horrible traitor Chelsea Manning put this logic pretty well in an op-ed yesterday. So you can take it or leave it:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...esnt-work-political-opponents-chelsea-manning

 

[elrechazado]

An insane number of appointments were blocked throughout the period when Republicans where in the minority. Of course the majority makes the difference, but Republican obstructionism is constant. The point is that there's no appeasing them, even with shitty moderates like Garland. Obama could've appointed Mumia Abu Jamal and the outcome would've been the same. Except if he appointed Mumia, he might've gotten some popular activist support putting pressure on the GOP.

What's the insane number blocked?