Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Sure Bernie earned most of the delegates in NH, but I just think he needs to realize someone who earned so much needs to give it to someone else who needs more.

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

Suck it.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am crossing my fingers to see Bernie win the popular vote and Hillary pull it out at the convention on Superdelegates. After NH, combined with what appears to be some voter fraud in Iowa (but I thought that never happens!), it appears the Democrats are having difficulty with the actual democracy aspect of the primaries.

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

It's like you're Antonin Nino to her Ruth Bader. What a lovely Valentine pair you are!

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's like you're Antonin Nino to her Ruth Bader. What a lovely Valentine pair you are!

What can I say? SEC_Chick is one of my favorite Imaginary Friends.

Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated. I understand why the presidential candidates say that; they're all playing to the base to get nominated. But McConnell et al should know better. I think it plays into the Democratic Party's hands for the general election - there's quite a few senate seats in play, and this issue might hurt the GOP in swing states.

I've got no problem with the idea that the GOP-lead Senate can reject a nominee on any grounds they see fit. I just think it plays better when you say something like "we'll wait to see who is nominated and will perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent," and then pick the gal/guy apart during the hearings to show the country why the guy/gal is not fit to serve. (Credit this idea to @dick_nixon on Twitter. Dude is brilliant.)

I've also got no objection to a filibuster of a nominee, although as Slave and I agreed (I think) several years ago, the senate should require a *real* filibuster a la Strom Thurmond and Harry Byrd trying to stop the the Voting Rights Act, not the modern "oh dear, we didn't get 63 votes on this - too bad" version.

Go hard or go home.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

What can I say? SEC_Chick is one of my favorite Imaginary Friends.

Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated. I understand why the presidential candidates say that; they're all playing to the base to get nominated. But McConnell et al should know better. I think it plays into the Democratic Party's hands for the general election - there's quite a few senate seats in play, and this issue might hurt the GOP in swing states.

I've got no problem with the idea that the GOP-lead Senate can reject a nominee on any grounds they see fit. I just think it plays better when you say something like "we'll wait to see who is nominated and will perform our constitutional duty to advise and consent," and then pick the gal/guy apart during the hearings to show the country why the guy/gal is not fit to serve. (Credit this idea to @dick_nixon on Twitter. Dude is brilliant.)

I've also got no objection to a filibuster of a nominee, although as Slave and I agreed (I think) several years ago, the senate should require a *real* filibuster a la Strom Thurmond and Harry Byrd trying to stop the the Voting Rights Act, not the modern "oh dear, we didn't get 63 votes on this - too bad" version.

Go hard or go home.

But this results in the delightful prospect of several months of talking about President Tyler, Henry Clay, and the last time a major American Party committed political suicide, in part by holding up the Supreme Court nominations of the guy it made President. Anything that results in a discussion of obscure antebellum history can't be all bad. Or in which the Republicans take as their hero a sectionalist faction of a doomed political party.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But this results in the delightful prospect of several months of talking about President Tyler, Henry Clay, and the last time a major American Party committed political suicide, in part by holding up the Supreme Court nominations of the guy it made President. Anything that results in a discussion of obscure antebellum history can't be all bad. Or in which the Republicans take as their hero a sectionalist faction of a doomed political party.

Apro ... uh, speaking of the antebellum era, I just read (finally) The Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson upon the recommendation of Ta-Nehisi Coates in one of his articles or Tweets or something. Good read on the lead-up to the war and the war itself.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Speaking of Justice Scalia, I think that the GOP has made a mistake in making a categorical statement that they will not let a nomination go through before a name is even floated.

It seems like a massive tactical mistake. McConnell has to know that Hillary is still the most likely next president. Heck, there's an argument that Bernie is second most likely. Betting on the chance that one of Rubio/Trump/Cruz occupies the White House a year from now over taking the substantial leverage he has right now to get a moderate nominee.

But maybe he will cave and to let the GOP nominee try to make it a big issue for them?

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You know I love you like a niece who made the inexplicable decision to go to Podunville State instead of Podunkville University - I'm always glad to see you, even if your RW politics just make me shake my head.

Anyhoo, I could be wrong, but I don't think Bernie wins the "popular vote" (in quotes because the caucus rules are just so fucked up) in the run up to the convention. And if he does, he will get the nomination.

Why? The Democratic Party's delegate selection rules were seriously reformed after the 1968 disaster of a convention (by the McGovern Commission, interestingly, and which new rules enabled George to get the nomination despite the opposition of the Democratic Establishment) (back when there was such a thing - George Meany of the AFL-CIO, the UAW, the remaining New Deal machers like Tommy "the Cork" Corcoran, the bosses like Daley and the O'Connells et al.) and it's hard (though I suppose Not Impossible) to win the "vote" and not get the delegates under those rules. No more winner take all primaries (which I think the GOP kept for a while), for example.

And I think that the idea that the pledged super delegates she currently has will stay with her if Gospoden Sanders rolls up the numbers on the regular delegates is questionable. By the end in 2008, the super delegates didn't stick to Hilary.

Anyway, I also think that the Hilary/Bernie contest is ultimately a good thing for the party. I don't agree with either one of them on everything, but they are engaged in a substantive discussion about what happens next for the party, and how it wants to try to implement those goals. One may not like the policies that the two are kicking around, but I think that they way they are treating each other is (for the most part) on the merits and with honesty and respectful disagreement. Reagan Bush in 1980 was somewhat similar, as was Bush Dole in 1988. Maybe even (until South Carolina) W vs. McCain in 2000 had that. I don't think the GOP has had that since.

Carry on.

ETA: Jesus, I overuse parentheticals. Hope you can read this.

I am aware of the events surrounding the McGovern nomination (and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter) and how those events figured into the calculus of adding Superdelegates. I also know that a Sanders winning the popular vote/Hillary on SDs is not the most likely, or even a reasonably likely outcome (hence my mention of 'crossing my fingers' to indicate my wishful thinking).

It is possible, but I agree it in large measure would depend on the unlikely scenario of committed SDs sticking with Hillary if she looks like a loser. The thing is that the entire concept of Superdelegates is pretty elitist and undemocratic in itself, such that getting SDs onboard is a viable strategy for an otherwise mediocre candidate.


As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

I am aware of the events surrounding the McGovern nomination (and to a lesser extent Jimmy Carter) and how those events figured into the calculus of adding Superdelegates. I also know that a Sanders winning the popular vote/Hillary on SDs is not the most likely, or even a reasonably likely outcome (hence my mention of 'crossing my fingers' to indicate my wishful thinking).

I hate that I have a tendency towards mansplaining. I apologize.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

It is possible, but I agree it in large measure would depend on the unlikely scenario of committed SDs sticking with Hillary if she looks like a loser. The thing is that the entire concept of Superdelegates is pretty elitist and undemocratic in itself, such that getting SDs onboard is a viable strategy for an otherwise mediocre candidate.

Agreed on the concept of super delegates being a bit anti-democratic.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.

No arguments - let them filibuster away. I just think the idea that Obama is somehow required to refrain from nominating someone because he only has 330 days left in his presidency is a transparent piece of disingenuous bullshit. Elections have consequences - in 2012, he won a second term. And in 2014 the GOP gained (or maintained - I forget) majority control of the Senate.

They each have a role to play under the Constitution. They should each play their roles as they see fit. I think if the GOP stands on the preemptive "no" it will hurt them in November, but what do I know?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

As to Scalia, I think Chuck Schumer would agree that any Obama nominee should be opposed. And it's not like Obama himself would ever vote against an SC nominee with whom he disagreed, or filibuster, or anything like that.

I love the new GOP line of pointing to what Schemer said -- as opposed to what Dems in the Senate actually DID -- when Alito was nominated.

Today's GOP: "We can't be as reasonable and measured and bi-partisan as Harry Reid. We're only shooting to be as good as Chuck Schumer."

Schumer was an idiot to propose that the Senate prevent ANY nominee from going thru. Fortunately -- much as I don't like Alito - the Dems were not filled with idiot extremists. But it appears that the GOP is -- indeed, based on your post and many others like it, it appears that is what the GOP aspires to, and has achieved.


As for Obama -- he "voted against" a nominee. The horror. The GOP is too cowardly to actually have a vote.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I love the new GOP line of pointing to what Schemer said -- as opposed to what Dems in the Senate actually DID -- when Alito was nominated.

Today's GOP: "We can't be as reasonable and measured and bi-partisan as Harry Reid. We're only shooting to be as good as Chuck Schumer."

Schumer was an idiot to propose that the Senate prevent ANY nominee from going thru. Fortunately -- much as I don't like Alito - the Dems were not filled with idiot extremists. But it appears that the GOP is -- indeed, based on your post and many others like it, it appears that is what the GOP aspires to, and has achieved.


As for Obama -- he "voted against" a nominee. The horror. The GOP is too cowardly to actually have a vote.

BUT BUT BUT you are ignoring the GREAT PRECEDENT when this was done during TYLER'S TERM - you know, the last time a major political party committed seppuku in the United States. Ah, those crazy Whigs!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

BUT BUT BUT you are ignoring the GREAT PRECEDENT when this was done during TYLER'S TERM - you know, the last time a major political party committed seppuku in the United States. Ah, those crazy Whigs!

don't be discouraged that this isn't seeming to gain traction. Seinfeld was a bust until season 2.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I love the new GOP line of pointing to what Schemer said -- as opposed to what Dems in the Senate actually DID -- when Alito was nominated.

Today's GOP: "We can't be as reasonable and measured and bi-partisan as Harry Reid. We're only shooting to be as good as Chuck Schumer."

Schumer was an idiot to propose that the Senate prevent ANY nominee from going thru. Fortunately -- much as I don't like Alito - the Dems were not filled with idiot extremists. But it appears that the GOP is -- indeed, based on your post and many others like it, it appears that is what the GOP aspires to, and has achieved.


As for Obama -- he "voted against" a nominee. The horror. The GOP is too cowardly to actually have a vote.

While I generally believe that the GOP should vote down the sort of person that Obama would be likely to nominate, and I wish Obama would not nominate, I understand why he would want to. I do think there should be an up or down vote, as putting the job of the Senate off to protect individual Senators from going on the record in a difficult vote is detestable. And I loathe it as much when McConnell does it as I did when Reid so frequently availed himself of that tactic (pretty much all of 2014).

As to what the Dems actually did with the Alito nomination? You mean the failed filibuster initiated by Kerry and joined by Obama? I guess you are correct in that all of the Dems were not idiot extremists at that time, but there was certainly a concerted effort to obstruct a SC nominee for political reasons. That was not an attempt where the majority voted to block a nominee; it was an attempt by a minority to obstruct.

And as for being as reasonable as Harry Reid, you do recall that Reid personally led the effort to prevent many judicial nominees from getting a hearing at all in 2005. Just ask Bill Frist.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

While I generally believe that the GOP should vote down the sort of person that Obama would be likely to nominate, and I wish Obama would not nominate, I understand why he would want to. I do think there should be an up or down vote, as putting the job of the Senate off to protect individual Senators from going on the record in a difficult vote is detestable. And I loathe it as much when McConnell does it as I did when Reid so frequently availed himself of that tactic (pretty much all of 2014).

As to what the Dems actually did with the Alito nomination? You mean the failed filibuster initiated by Kerry and joined by Obama? I guess you are correct in that all of the Dems were not idiot extremists at that time, but there was certainly a concerted effort to obstruct a SC nominee for political reasons. That was not an attempt where the majority voted to block a nominee; it was an attempt by a minority to obstruct.

And as for being as reasonable as Harry Reid, you do recall that Reid personally led the effort to prevent many judicial nominees from getting a hearing at all in 2005. Just ask Bill Frist.

Harry Reid didn't support the idea of preventing any Bush nominees. The Dems had enough votes to sustain a filibuster, but Reid and other refused to support that tactic.

But hey, the GOP can't be as reasonable as Harry Reid. How pathetic.