• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for them

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for them

Some Democrats think that this is a fight they can’t lose.

“We have forced them into a telescoping series of untenable positions, where even agreeing to meet with the guy is a cave in the view of their base,” said a senior Democratic congressional aide.

“It’s a win-win situation. Either we get the confirmation and change the balance of the court for a generation, or they have to fight to November defending the most extreme, untenable position of no-votes, and we’ll annihilate them on that,” the aide said. “And then President Clinton nominates” Scalia’s successor.

So, the aide said, “I don’t care if McConnell caves or not.”
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe declaring an unwillingness to even vote on any candidate proposed by Obama, regardless of who that person might be, was not a good strategy.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for them

Some Democrats think that this is a fight they can’t lose.



Maybe, just maybe declaring an unwillingness to even vote on any candidate proposed by Obama, regardless of who that person might be, was not a good strategy.
Click to expand...

It's a stressful time for republicans. Worrying over a potential Trump presidency and it's consequences for the party, trying to find ways to influence the primaries.....

There was a collective sigh of relief that they could go back to the good old days of resolving issues by just saying no to Obama, things were so much simpler then.....
 
calamity said:
It spells losing the Senate for sure. And, there may even be a chance for the D to win back the House, especially if the GOP fractures because of the Donald.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, the Donald. The best thing to happen to the Democratic party in years.
 
shagg said:
It's a stressful time for republicans. Worrying over a potential Trump presidency and it's consequences for the party, trying to find ways to influence the primaries.....

There was a collective sigh of relief that they could go back to the good old days of resolving issues by just saying no to Obama, things were so much simpler then.....
Click to expand...

May not agree with you but dangit, I like your signature!
 
Centrehalf said:
Would putting an Obama nominee on the Court be a better strategy? I don't see this as the wedge issue the Democrats want to believe it is.
Click to expand...

It would seem to make more sense to have hearings and find a reason to reject him than just saying, "No. Hell, No!"

Doncha think?
 
Centrehalf said:
Oh for sure, I would.
Click to expand...

That's why I do not understand the total lack of political play here. It's almost like the R plan is to simply piss off half the country in order to look tough to its base, which is less than a third of it. Are they that bad at math?
 
calamity said:
That's why I do not understand the total lack of political play here. It's almost like the R plan is to simply piss off half the country in order to look tough to its base, which is less than a third of it. Are they that bad at math?
Click to expand...

I don't think they're pissing off half the country. It's just not that big a deal.
 
Centrehalf said:
Would putting an Obama nominee on the Court be a better strategy? I don't see this as the wedge issue the Democrats want to believe it is.
Click to expand...

The issue is, NORMAL republicans, dems and independents don't see it as an "Obama" nominee its just a nominee. And by those same normal people its seen as fighting the natural course of government. :shrug:

at least thats my take on it and thats the feed back I get from republicans in real life especially with the current pick. They just view it as a pick that should absolutely be put through the process.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for them
Maybe, just maybe declaring an unwillingness to even vote on any candidate proposed by Obama, regardless of who that person might be, was not a good strategy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I'm a little concerned about the nominee he put forward. He's actually the best candidate that Republicans could have possibly hoped for. I really really like Democrats chances of winning the White House and taking back the Senate this year, and in that event we could nominate a younger more reliable justice and there's nothing Republicans could do about it. By nominating Garland President Obama has given republicans an out. As we get closer to November or even after election day when Republicans see that they've lost they will be able to confirm Garland in a lame duck session robbing Hillary or Bernie of the chance to nominate someone better.
 
AGENT J said:
The issue is, NORMAL republicans, dems and independents don't see it as an "Obama" nominee its just a nominee. And by those same normal people its seen as fighting the natural course of government. :shrug:

at least thats my take on it and thats the feed back I get from republicans in real life especially with the current pick. They just view it as a pick that should absolutely be put through the process.
Click to expand...

In a perfect world they'd just be judges. We don't live in a perfect world and these nominations have always been political.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Filling Scalia’s seat: Democrats think it’s a win-win for them

Some Democrats think that this is a fight they can’t lose.



Maybe, just maybe declaring an unwillingness to even vote on any candidate proposed by Obama, regardless of who that person might be, was not a good strategy.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with your analysis. In my view, and perhaps it's wishful thinking, the fact that Obama would pick this fight in his last year and the fact that he would nominate a weak moderate/liberal who supports executive prerogatives, is just the type of fight that might get a lot of strong conservatives off their asses and to the polling booths to ensure that a Republican President and a Republican Senate make the choice in 2017.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, that's why I'm a little concerned about the nominee he put forward. He's actually the best candidate that Republicans could have possibly hoped for. I really really like Democrats chances of winning the White House and taking back the Senate this year, and in that event we could nominate a younger more reliable justice and there's nothing Republicans could do about it. By nominating Garland President Obama has given republicans an out. As we get closer to November or even after election day when Republicans see that they've lost they will be able to confirm Garland in a lame duck session robbing Hillary or Bernie of the chance to nominate someone better.
Click to expand...

Unless Obama withdrew his nomination after the election...to let Hillary make the pick.

It's in his purview to do so.
 
Centrehalf said:
In a perfect world they'd just be judges. We don't live in a perfect world and these nominations have always been political.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree but not to the extent people "make" them to be currently and certainly not to the extent of stopping government and how it is supposed to run. Again most normal people no matter their party just dont see it as an "obama" nominee. Its the extremist who are part of the problem that want to make this an issue. They make it worse,
 
Dittohead not! said:
Maybe, just maybe declaring an unwillingness to even vote on any candidate proposed by Obama, regardless of who that person might be, was not a good strategy.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I dunno.

On one hand, it's obvious sacrificing a long-term goal to a short-term partisan victory. For all the screeching about the "Biden Rule," no SCOTUS nominee has ever been categorically refused a hearing, and no President has declined to perform his duty in nominating. The Republicans are legitimizing a potential Clinton nomination, and guaranteeing that any future Republican President will be unable to nominate a candidate in the final year of their presidency. I'd also think this issue will galvanize Democratic support in the upcoming election. And of course, Garland is not a Scalia clone, but is fairly moderate on most issues.

Last but not least, Obama may be deeply unpopular in the Right-Wing Echo Chamber, but seems to be doing moderately well with the general electorate. His approval ratings are hovering in the high 40s, pretty typical for him, and are on the upswing (though that may not be a trend, hard to say).

On the other hand, McConnell is very good at pulling the levers, and may be more interested in very different purposes, such as keeping the Senate in line, or trying to prove to Republican constituents that they can block the Liberal Agenda.

Or, maybe he just miscalculated, and indulged in the knee-jerk reaction to oppose Obama on anything.
 
AGENT J said:
I dont disagree but not to the extent people "make" them to be currently and certainly not to the extent of stopping government and how it is supposed to run. Again most normal people no matter their party just dont see it as an "obama" nominee. Its the extremist who are part of the problem that want to make this an issue. They make it worse,
Click to expand...

If you're right then yes, it was a very bad move.
 
Centrehalf said:
If you're right then yes, it was a very bad move.
Click to expand...

I dont know if Im right but in real life I dont see any evidence that Im wrong.
 
Centrehalf said:
I guess it depends on who you roll with. I don't hear people talking about it.
Click to expand...

I guess that would be true, its a mix of people that is for sure. In fact there are two people that I thought for sure would buy into the stupidity of rejecting any and all picks but they didnt. AGain this is just people Im around but I trust reality more than media and message boards where the nutters like to hang.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, that's why I'm a little concerned about the nominee he put forward. He's actually the best candidate that Republicans could have possibly hoped for. I really really like Democrats chances of winning the White House and taking back the Senate this year, and in that event we could nominate a younger more reliable justice and there's nothing Republicans could do about it. By nominating Garland President Obama has given republicans an out. As we get closer to November or even after election day when Republicans see that they've lost they will be able to confirm Garland in a lame duck session robbing Hillary or Bernie of the chance to nominate someone better.
Click to expand...

Or, president Clinton could nominate someone that the Republicans find even less palatable. They could head off the Democrats at the pass by simply ratifying Garland, but then there's the political downside of having declared an unwillingness to ratify any Obama nominee regardless of who it might be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom