Re: You (all) lie!
 

but since I'm the only one on the board who understands the internal thoguht processes that go to how a vote changes, might my opinion matter a bit more than yours? I mean, I can tell who you'll vote for for President in 2040, right now.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Hank was the one arguing that the nominee will make a difference with voters like him. I, like you, disagree.

No, I think Ty thinks that those who see the ads and hear "dirty lesbian hippy liberal" are already voting R. Especially this time around. And especially those who think their vote for congressman will have some influence on the makeup of the court.

Ty also seems to think that many on the left will get excited about hte dirty lesbian hippy liberal and make sure they vote, a proposition about which I have already expressed my skepticism.

ETA: Btw... I think the difference here is that you are arguing that the Republican party and the outraged voters can be mollified with a sufficiently moderate nominee. I do not.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I might ask you to explain the thought process that gets you from "he appointed judge X" to "I definitely have to vote for the R congressional candidate" but as you have already declined once, it seems a bit futile.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

No, I think that whatever the number of outraged voters, that number can be increased by the "wrong" nominee or decreased by one that mildly allays their concerns about health care reform (or at least doesn't remind them).

As to cletus's question: That's the threat used to push for a more moderate nominee. they'll poll the hell out of it, but someone like Kagan (or at least the rep. she has) might lead them to threaten to hold out. Of course the only reason that's a good strategy is that they think they will pick up seats, and will still do so while holding out.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

What attributes would a nominee have to mildly allays concerns about health care reform or not remind people? Personally, I think he could appoint Posner and still have those issues.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

let's take Michigan as an example- although we have no senate race this year.

Michigan is won or lost in Macomb county. It's where I grew up. It was the home of Reagan Democrats. the rest of the state is pretty static and predictable. Rs win Michigan when they turn Macomb county.

A few years back we voted to outlaw affirmative action. macomb county voted in very large numbers for the ban. that seems like something that can't be reconciled with the fact that it also voted for Obama in large percents, but it did happen.

Still, an ad that focused on how Senator Stabenow put someone on the bench that has said something that can be highlighted (e.g. the wise latina meme) could go a long way is moving those people to the R candidate.

I can't tell you any clearer because you have never thought through who to vote for so you won't ever get it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I don't think either candidate in close Senate races will be running ads about the vote on a Supreme Court nominee. It's just not an issue that moves moderates. But the whole fight will motivate the conservative base, who are pretty motivated already, and it might motivate lefties, too.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

So, the repubs really do think BOs a pussy? Because I think he decides on a nominee (who's fully prepared to be Borked) and lets the repubs hang themselves with stupid irrelevancies. That's been his basic strategy (whether it's effective--or even effectively implemented--is a separate question).

He just needs someone that the last 6 (or 10) dems aren't afraid of campaigning having voted for. Which does likely knock out Kagan, but also makes it nearly certain to be a woman.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Care to answer the question that was actually asked?

Re: You (all) lie!
 

didn't you ask "I might ask you to explain the thought process that gets you from "he appointed judge X" to "I definitely have to vote for the R congressional candidate""?

Condensed version of my response:

there are lots of voters that move pretty far from election to election. if they are on the fence a Judge that can be quoted could be enough to move them. they don't have to moved to "definitely am voting for the R because of the Judge". they just need to be biased a bit by it.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Yes. That is what I asked. You answered (1) as to a senate, not a congressional, race, and (2) not how "you" would conclude that you should vote for an R, but how the nominee might influence a senate race.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

oh, you mean limited to a house race. did my "not so much the house but the senate could" not respond?

but the new super lib judge could be mentioned in a laundry list of "evils" that have happened since the Dems control both houses, and could help create an aura of things being out of control

Re: You (all) lie!
 

I agree with this.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

Well, it shores up SCOTUS' liberal wing with relative youngsters now, so that the Palin Administration's options will then be limited.

Re: You (all) lie!
 

It's right in theory. It's just undermined by two facts (1) there is unlikely to be much marginal outrage (of course, I'm assuming he isn't going to nominate someone like Pamela Karlan) because we are close to max outrage anyway, and the court isn't a major motivator, and (2) any and every Dems will be portrayed as to the left of (and gayer than) Marx anyway.

To put it differently, things will not look much difference if the nominee is Garland, Wood or Koh. All will be cast as pro-baby killing and pro-terrorist.