My post included both the fact that ‘wrong track’ is around 70 and Obama’s approval around 50 (RCP avg 49.6 today) so obviously I’m aware of the latter fact. But that doesn’t mean all the people answering ‘approve’ for Obama but ‘wrong track’ think the whole problem is the Republicans. That’s the way very partisan people think (on either side, one way or the other). But a lot of people don’t think that way. A lot of them are thinking Obama is a reasonable guy* doing his best but the broader system (‘special interests’ etc) is at fault or broken. Clinton’s problem is how much she represents the system (going back to the Clinton years, which is a negative for some left leaning people also). It’s questionable IMO how much you can convert approval for Obama personally to Clinton’s favor, which is the idea, with a 70% wrong track number.
*especially when viewed alongside Trump, or Clinton.
And why do you believe the statistics? Unfortunately, governments and agencies do fiddle with statistics. Just look at how various UK governments have massaged the unemployment figures over the past 40 years. Crimes are not recorded, or not recorded as crimes or police simply don’t bother. Remember, the perception is the reality.
I don’t think anyone is arguing at all that it’s illegal for the Senate to not hold hearings. Everyone is arguing that they are being obstructionist assholes that are not doing their job as the framers imagined it. It is perfectly possible to do things legally that one should not do because they are outside of the entire spirit of the process. The Constitution does not specify that they must hold hearings, because there was no presumption that such a thing was necessary. You can declare all you want how what they are doing is legal, but I think it is extremely difficult to say with any conviction that what they are doing is the morally correct thing to do. It is only because it is technically legal that it is actually what is happening.
Comparing this to the hairsplitting that lawyers do to allow the Senate to initiate revenue bills contrary to the Constitution is ridiculous, as the framers did not have in mind the system that we have now where it clearly does not matter where the bill originates from because both houses have to work together in a conference committee to get any bill of substance passed in both houses, leaving the question of where the bill originates completely moot with respect to the reason that revenue bills are supposed to originate in the House. I don’t even know what the framers were thinking with that particular clause. Perhaps part of it was the cost of preparing documents and the framers failed to anticipate that once duplicating documents of long length became trivial the clause would be trivial to get around. That is, when bills were more identified with the pieces of paper that they originated on than with just what the text of the law was, the origination clause makes sense and is fairly clear how it’s supposed to work. In this day and age though, it’s trivial to make minor edits and reissue documents such that there is no connection between the document originally submitted and the law that it passed.
I thought the article was a start, but where was it going - it needed a couple thousand words not a very few hundred:
The system is broken. People aren’t represented. People know, or strongly suspect, the game is rigged in favour of Wall Street, corporations and the 1%.
It literally doesn’t even matter what Trump says or campaigns on, he is not part of the political elite and, right now, that’s enough. So many people are that desperate.
It also helps that he directs his fire in many directions. There’s no one group or one policy responsible for people’s anger. Unlike Sanders, Trump has many targets. Democrats would like you to blame their donors(well, not their donors, Republican donors actually), and pretty much no one else.
Interesting that you chose to pick on that particular one, since, as a matter of fact, I am in favor of the ACA. I’m hot on personal privacy, and I think the Patriot Act is an abortion (introduced and strongly advocated, btw, by a Republican administration).
But, once again, so what? There was one bad law, so we should abolish all change?
Oversimplification and gross exaggeration are not effective debating tools.
Do you mean like the posters on this message board, and certain Senators themselves, stamp their little feet and insist that there’s an implied duty to hold hearings on Judge Merrick?