Isn’t the logical result an empty SC?
McCain said that it was unacceptable for any president to nominate a liberal. By that logic the other party should, must, as their duty to their supporters, prevent conservatives from nomination, and we can just stop paying for an expensive supreme court.
At which point President Sean Penn might finally get the Democratic Senate he’s been working for, hoping that Majority Leader Sarah Silverman can push through his slate of justices to reinvent the Constitution (and occasionally undertake disaster relief efforts in rented boats).
Michael Gerson really nailed it here.
And of course, they say it wouldn’t be cricket to replace Scalia, in particular, with a liberal. But it was fine to replace Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.
Just to pick a nit-
“When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil”
I’ve never heard it used to mean killing someone, but to indicate that someone has succeeded in getting to the next stage. The analogy is to the conductor on a train punching one’s ticket, confirming the trip.
For instance: “With last week’s win over BC, the Saskatchewan Roughriders have punched their ticket to the playoffs.”
(Above sentence given for illustrative purposes. Bears no relationship to current CFL playoff standings, alas.)
There’s an important value for her to run up the score, and that is to rebut any allegation that the election is rigged. Barely crossing 270, being carried by one or two states might feed that argument.
Winning 350 votes and many states more than needed will make the talking of “rigging” impossible for all but the most committed/delusion Trumpeters to buy.
Especially if Mike Pence, Paul Ryan and other GOP bigshots are contradicting Trump even more openly by then.
She absolutely needs to run up the score. Anything close will be contested, and I don’t mean with just a midnight tweet. Voters already have it in their heads that the election is going to be stolen from them.
I think the race will get tighter one final time. I don’t think Hillary will win with the landslide numbers being tossed around in the latest projections, but if she can win 4 or 5 out of 7 battleground states that would probably convince Trump surrogates to let Trump contest the election on his own. The danger is, if it’s close, it won’t be just Trump and his deplorables shouting “It’s rigged! It’s rigged!” There could be an effort by some office holders to keep fighting the good fight.
騎虎難下 “When one rides a tiger, it becomes hard to dismount.”
Yep, don’t want to have any of the “well, she lost the popular vote” crappola. Run up the score, hopefully it will pull the Senate and bring the House closer.
And discourage the next populist whackadoo from running.
I wish you were right, but I think there’s more than a few of them that would take a big win for Clinton as more evidence it was rigged, not less. They’d say “But Trump had more people at his rallies than Clinton, so she must have cheated!”
I didn’t know you were one of the people who think that it is illegal to own guns outside the USA. You may want to check your own local laws.
Excellent read, thank you.
Sent from my old-as-dirt barn computer using a browser supplied by AOL …
(Just kidding, iPhoners)
“Quid pro quo”
This story seems to be bubbling up the last 24 hours. Looks like Trump’s negative news cycle might be coming to an end for a few days and Clinton might again be on the defensive. Ironically, it was an FBI FOIA dump, not Wikileaks, that did it.
Quartz is (AFAIK) in the UK so, with very few exceptions, it is illegal to own guns where he lives.
Yeah, I’m trying to figure out how bad this one is going to be. There ended up being neither quid nor quo, which makes this like so many other Clinton “scandals.” Also, if I understand correctly, the request was made before the scandal had really unrolled.
The request shouldn’t have been made. But I’m unconvinced there’s fire there.
That’s how I read it – a nothing burger story in reality. For one thing the FBI itself released the documents without any apparent controversy to the media, so I’m guessing they probably thought it was relatively innocuous stuff. Moreover, this is probably how a lot of inter-agency classification is done anyway.
But in our current climate of “news” media reality, various outlets are competing to sensationalize anything that even remotely passes the “This might be a scandal” sniff test.
If there’s a negative Clinton story in the news, I predict another Trump-related bombshell will be dropped shortly to, er, trump it. You know the Clinton campaign has binders full of [del]women[/del] scandals ready to go.