Are your paraphrases always longer than the original phrases, and always edited to echo some earlier point you made and make it seem like the person you are paraphrasing supports the same idea? Or just this one?
I think McCaskill has good intentions but her fears are misplaced. I don’t think people are going to be turned off by critics of Coney Barrett, as a much greater concern is that the Court is becoming ideologically unbalanced. And the GOP-controlled Senate is pretty transparently trying to ram through justices without giving people a chance to offer their input on a judicial nomination that will have consequences for at least a decade if not longer.
The bigger danger, as I see it, is that Democrats get so consumed with the identity thing that they miss the more important issues of the day that can unite voters across demographic lines: the kitchen table issues and the general perceptions that there’s a fundamental lack of balance of power between the super wealthy and everyone else. There’s a chance to make a strong sales pitch and sell America on a mandate for things like universal healthcare, a strong stimulus program, and rolling back tax cuts for the rich. They don’t want to blow it all on “But, but they’re racist, and they’ll take away abortion.”
They’re always better than the original quote in French . . . or so we’ve been told.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Nonsense. What I have clearly demonstrated is that her kind of political strategy can win even in a tough state, but if a state is too red (double digits red) it is unlikely to work. Do you have an example of a left wing candidate winning a Senate race in a deeply red state? Like, a single one? (As in, 21st century: not back when the parties were not clearly divided by ideology.)
You’re right. I think the stat I originally read must have said “the first since Eisenhower to get more than 51% of the vote” (which is true: Reagan got 50.7% in 1980), and I misremembered it as more than 50%. Anyway, we agree that Axelrod did something with Obama that no other modern Democratic strategist can claim credit for. And you’re right that it’s “the price of having activists in your coalition”. But we can still struggle to tamp them down a bit. (So far it seems to be working fairly well at least at the Democratic senator level, as Republicans are just begging Democrats to attack on religion and they are being disciplined, keeping it focused on Obamacare/ACA.)
This is similar to people saying it doesn’t matter if you vote, because your single vote is insignificant. But it is significant as part of a collective effort. And I’m joining McCaskill’s side on this, just like individual people join other efforts I might oppose (like attacking ACB in “Handmaid” terms). Heck, you spend your fair share of time on advocacy around American electoral politics even though you can’t vote here! So this just seems to boil down to your being dismissive of the efficacy of activism/advocacy for things you don’t so much support, but you’re all for it if you do support it. That’s not much of a standard.
She literally said “I’ve won some debates that I lost”. It was a perfectly good paraphrase.
This is politics, not civil service or a debating society. So I’m just empirical about these things: if that’s what voters want, we’d better give it to them, even if it’s dumb. Same as the fact that I’m personally an atheist, but if an avowed atheist ran in the Democratic primary, I’d campaign hard against them even if they were perfect in every way, because I know that’s just too hard a sell.
However, if I were to try to come up with a more high-minded rationale, I might say that having those “homespun” attributes helps people feel you are on their side and will represent them, their interests, and their culture in DC.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee considers Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, new Morning Consult/Politico polling shows support for her confirmation remains sturdy.
Forty-eight percent of registered voters in the Oct. 9-11 survey said the Senate should vote to confirm Barrett as a Supreme Court justice, up 2 percentage points from 46 percent in a poll one week ago, though inside the surveys’ 2-point margins of error. Thirty-one percent of voters said the Senate should vote down Barrett’s nomination, unchanged from the previous polling.
FWIW Morning Consult is not a conservative-skewing polling outfit like Rasmussen. I was disappointed to see these polling results (confirmed by other outfits) but they are what they are, so it’s not the best fight to have right now. We need to keep our eyes on the ball.
This part was supposed to be part of the blockquote. But apparently this new board software (which, on the whole, to be clear, I greatly prefer over the old system) gets confused if you try to blockquote two paragraphs.
IOW you are straw manning.
Nope you demonstrated the straw man again. I said that you missed the middle, as in that is not going to work all the time, and I was not restricting myself to just deeply red states, you said it, not me. The point stands, yours is a very underwhelming OP.
What wouldn’t you roll over for just to … well, can we really call it winning?
I have been pressed on this point by many progressive friends. And as of this year, I have a concrete response:
That was a bridge too far, even in a very tough congressional district (it went for Trump by double digits IIRC).
I could make an argument for her nomination and still be opposed to having a 6-3 court that’s hostile to landmark progressive laws and modern court doctrine. I don’t think these two things are mutually exclusive.
Just a few weeks ago people were saying it was improper to push through her nomination so close to the election. I don’t understand why that opposition evaporated (just because she seems like a nice lady/mom?), but I do know that it’s not a good idea to push squarely against public opinion right before an election.
I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here.
The same people who said it was improper to push through her nomination are still saying that it is improper to push through her nomination.
The opposition did not evaporate.
What public opinion do you think is being pushed against?
I just posted about it upthread: Smart advice from Claire McCaskill the activist left won’t like - #44 by SlackerInc
The most recent polling finds clear public support for her confirmation. A couple weeks earlier, the public was clearly against Trump getting to appoint any replacement for RBG (unless of course the unthinkable happens and he gets reelected). What is that if not an evaporation of support for opposition to the appointment?
There’s nothing that we can do to stop ACB from being confirmed. I think even if there were nationwide protests with tens of millions of people, like with George Floyd, she would STILL get confirmed.
The Democrats are just going to have to let the GOP ram this nominee through, and wait for SCOTUS to issue some horrendous decisions (like striking down Obamacare and Roe vs Wade). At that point, there will certainly be a huge public backlash, which they can use as justification to expand the courts.
I agree that it would be unwise for Democrats to approach Coney Barrett in the same manner they approached Brett Kavanaugh, but Coney Barrett isn’t accused of sexual assault, so I doubt they will. I agree that they don’t want to come across as sneering and condescending toward the archetypal suburban white mom type nominee - no doubt that was a factor in her selection as a nominee. I think Dems will avoid taking that bait and keep the questions limited to concerns about whether she can apply law fairly.
As stunning as it might sound coming from me, I personally can’t find a reason not to go forward with her nomination. She’s qualified and the seat is available, whether we like it or not. For those who protest about the slant of the court, I go back to all of the elections over the past 20-30 years: anyone who’s complaining about the composition of the court and who skipped a midterm election or two or who voted for Nader or Stein can shut the eff up. Elections have consequences. Deal.
You mean the polling that went up by 2%, on a poll with a margin of error of 2%?
I wouldn’t call that evaporation. That’s barely a dent.
And it is still a minority at 48%. That is certainly not anything like “clear public support”.
Okay, so I have voted every chance I have had for the last 2 decades. I have never voted third party for a national office. (There have been a couple local offices that I have, but that’s a whole different story.)
I’m not going to shut the eff up.
It is when only 31 percent say her nomination should be voted down. That’s a 17 point gap!
And no, I am not talking about the two point swing. I’ll dig up the earlier polls I am referring to.
That’s not how polls work.
If 48% of people want her confirmed, then that is 48% support.
That’s not clear public support.
Then there is the fact that Democrats are not necessarily looking for “public support”, but rather, support of democrats, where your cited poll show almost the exact opposite numbers when it comes to Democratic men, and even worse 59% to 19% for Democratic women.
Now, Republicans certainly support the confirmation, but Democrats shouldn’t be trying to appeal to Republicans.
So do you not believe there was clear public support for reelecting Bill Clinton in 1996? Or is beating Dole 49-41 somehow clearer than being down 31-48?
Here’s where things stood as of September 25:
We’ve identified 12 polls so far that have asked some version of the question, “Should Ginsburg’s seat be filled this year by Trump, or next year by the winner of the 2020 presidential election?” And on average, 52 percent of respondents have said to wait, while only 39 percent have said Trump should fill the seat now.
Question wording does matter:
Americans felt differently about whether Trump should appoint a replacement and whether the Senate should confirm her if he does. For example, registered voters told YouGov by a 51 percent to 42 percent margin that Trump should not appoint a new justice, but they were more divided when asked, “If President Donald Trump appoints a new Supreme Court Justice before the presidential inauguration in January 2021, do you think the U.S. Senate should confirm the nominee?”: 45 percent said yes, 48 percent said no. Similarly, Global Strategy Group/GBAO/Navigator found that registered voters thought 56 percent to 36 percent that the winner of the election should be responsible for nominating Ginsburg’s replacement — but when asked what they thought what should happen if Trump nominates someone anyway, 42 percent thought it would be right for the Senate to vote on the nominee, while 47 percent thought it would be wrong.
But after a couple weeks passed, and a sympathetic-looking mom was nominated, we now see 31 percent opposition to her being confirmed, and 48 percent support. No matter how much you spin, you can’t deny that the “opposition” position has deteriorated in terms of public opinion. It sucks–I was hoping for it to be a clear loser in the polls, and thus for a couple more vulnerable incumbents to defect–but it’s just the reality.