Obama won’t be getting any Supreme Court nomination passed in the next two years if the Republicans control the Senate. That’s a bit of an issue.
I see a major drive to defund Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare under a united Republican Congress, because the business interests want that as a way of lowering government expenses rather than curtailing wars or, heaven forfend, raising taxes and cutting out loopholes for the rich, and the Republican voter base is just dumb enough to go for it. And I’m not at all sure Obama would veto such legislation … he was hot to throw Social Security on the table to make his “Grand Bargain.”
Obama will get his Supreme Court nominee. Just blocking all SCOTUS nominees would be unprecedented. His last two passed easily enough. If the GOP want to be hardasses they’ll reject his first choice if they can find a good enough reason, but they will not hold up a nomination for 1-2 years.
It actually depends on which seat opens up. If it’s one of the liberal seats like Ginsburg’s, sure the pubs will let his nominee through. They probably won’t sit still if the nominee is as liberal as Ginsburg but they’ll let a slightly less liberal one pass. However, if it’s any of the conservative seats that open up, the pubs will ABSOLUTELY hold up that nomination for as long as it takes. Guaranteed.
Again, that would be unprecedented. They can play hardball like Dems did with Reagan’s picks before he finally settled on Scalia. Force Obama to nominate someone who isn’t as liberal as he’d like. But holding up a nominee is just too dangerous. It’s bad politics now and it gives Democrats an excuse to respond in kind. And there are quite a few long in the tooth justices. If the GOP wins in 2016, they might get to replace up to five. Giving Obama one so that they can do the other four is a small price to pay.
If the GOP wins the Senate in 2014 their chances of winning the Presidency in 2016 goes way down. The independents are not pleased with the GOP generally, and probably find the prospect of the GOP holding all three branches of government almost as frightening as the Democrats do. Have you forgotten how fucking ass crazy a lot of Republican members of Congress are? If they hold both houses of Congress it will be two years of freaking insanity in government, guaranteed.
I can’t disagree that this is the most likely result, and yes, it would make it harder to win in 2016. However, the Republicans could also use the opportunity to play it smart. Control of all of Congress can be a great tool to force the agenda to items the Republicans want to campaign on.
The GOP’s behavior during late 2014 has convinced me that for at least awhile, they can avoid stepping on their own toes. The Democrats were practically pleading for impeachment but couldn’t get them to take the bait, and you know a lot of them wanted to. They’ve also been unusually cooperative in keeping the government running. Maybe all that goes out the window if they win the Senate, but I have to think the smarter members of the party see a real chance to win it all in 2016.
Meeting on Inauguration Night 2009 to decide to suffocate the new presidency in its crib was unprecedented, too. So was their extensive use of the filibuster.
There is no chance whatsoever of a GOP winning the presidency in 2016. The only one mentioned to date who isn’t batshit crazy is Romney, and if you think he lost badly in 2012 wait till you take race out of the equation in 2016.
I think the stats are a bit misleading as they’re being measured, and Adaher’s larger point is correct.
The problem here is that SAHMs are probably more Republican than working women, and retirees are also more Republican. Both of these groups are not working full time, and skew the numbers.
The reason these are a skew, IMHO, is that for purposes of mindset and way of life, these groups would, by and large, identify more with the concept of being self-supporting versus living off the dole. SAHMs are part of a working family with their husbands, and retirees have done their share. The hypothesis is that those who think they’re entitled to a free ride - or at least who as a practical matter are freeloading - tend to vote Democratic, and that’s certainly true.
How could housewives and retirees skew the numbers about voters who work? adaher’s claim was about working voters, not people who value work or something like that.
This opinion is, IMHO, Republican fantasy-land stuff – the right-wing view of Democratic voters that is not borne out by reality.
Possibly you’ve misunderstood the point, as it’s hard to imagine that even you would disagree with it.
No one is saying that all or even most Democratic voters are on welfare or whatever. But if all or most welfare people vote Democratic, and the parties are roughly evenly balanced, then the majority of non-welfare people support the Republicans.
Based on our previous interactions, your imagination about me seems to be pretty wild.
Are you just talking about welfare, or all programs that provide various benefits (SS, disability, unemployment, health care programs, aid to farmers, etc.)?
Further, if it’s “all or most”, I still disagree, at least without a supporting cite. If you’re only saying that a slight majority of government aid recipients may support Democrats, then this might be more reasonable, but I’d still like to see a cite.
But they did vote in high enough numbers to confirm two of Obama’s SCOTUS appointees. Like I said, there is peril in just blocking SCOTUS nominees because you want to wait until he’s gone. So far that’s a line you don’t cross. And I don’t want Democrats to retaliate by blocking our nominees.
The craziness of the GOP field is vastly overrated. If you think someone like Jindal will end up being disqualified because of whatever weird religious ritual he’s into that I forget about, then remember that Nancy Reagan was influencing her husband’s Presidency using astrology. The public tolerates a little religious weirdness.
If you’re referring to their position on the issues, then again, you’ve got radicals like Ted Cruz, but Jindal, Christie, and a few others are quite mainstream conservative. And frankly, no one optimistic about Liz Warren’s chances of being President should really throw stones at how radical the Republican field is.
I sure hope you’re right, because if most welfare recipients do vote Democrat, then that means that welfare is a threat to democracy. It means that votes can be bought directly, and entirely legally. More importantly, it means that people who receive government assistance can’t vote their principles. They would be compelled to vote for their patrons. That’s not freedom.
No, correlation does not equal causation. Even if a cite shows that most welfare recipients vote Democrat, that doesn’t mean that they vote Democrat because of welfare.
Who do you think is going to be doing the nominating?
Exorcism. And that will be pretty far down the list of things that disqualify him, too.
You’re forgetting, or perhaps didn’t know, that that came late in his lame duckness, when Alzheimer’s had taken serious hold, and it in no way affected any elections.
Which says more about conservatism today than anything else.
Being a Democrat who actually gives a shit about people is not radical. Or perhaps you were thinking of something else?
You have failed to show that it correlates. If you want to make a factual claim (like “it correlates”), cite. None of your cite-free factual claims can be trusted.
She is about as unapologetic a liberal as we’ve seen in some time. Refreshing, actually, I like politicians that don’t feel the need to run from their own principles. But she is way too liberal to get elected. She’d be George McGovern all over again.
There’s a reason we haven’t had an unapologetically liberal Presidential campaign since Mondale. You guys will at least nominate someone who can pretend to be moderate.
