Could we have won the Senate without the Kavanaugh effect?
Who the hell knows? Treating sexual assault allegations with seriousness is far more important than any single election or any single SCOTUS seat. And the Democrats should be reminding voters, again and again, that one party treats sexual assault allegations seriously, and no longer tolerates assaulters and abusers in their own ranks, while the other party does not, and welcomes (and even celebrates) admitted abusers and violators of consent.
Cough Keith EllisonCough
I doubt it. The Senate staying Republican has been the consensus view from before Kavanaugh burst onto the scene. The Senate election map was very heavily slanted towards a Republican win this time. If the whole Senate had been up for re-election, things might have turned out differently, but the Senate election process itself is slanted towards Republicans since each state is equal and there are more conservative than liberal states.
And don’t you think you’re being rather presumptuous by using “we” in your question? There isn’t supposed to be a hive mind here at this MB.
You have a rabbit in your pocket?
No, he’s just happy to see you.
You mean Ellison, the guy who was accused, and who pretty much every single MN Democrat in office (included Ellison himself) advocated for a full and complete investigation of the accusations? That guy? As compared to Trump, or Kavanaugh, both of whom resisted any and every attempt at a full and complete investigation into the allegations against them, and who have majority support of Republicans in office, who have celebrated them despite the uninvestigated allegations (and even the admissions by Trump) of sexual assault and violating consent?
Is that who you’re talking about?
It’s funny . . . I don’t always track well which posters lean which way politically, and I interpreted the question in the OP as meaning “Could we [Republicans] have won the Senate without the Kavanaugh effect?”
This author did some analysis (warning: heavily right-slanted website) and he notes that four of the Democrats who opposed Kavanaugh (McCaskill, Donnelly, Nelson and Heitkamp) strongly ***underperformed ***in the vote total than one would expect, while Democrats who weren’t associated with the Kavanaugh issue (such as Beto in Texas or Bredesen in Tennessee) strongly ***overperformed ***in the vote total than one would expect. And the lone Democratic Senator to vote for Kavanaugh (Joe Manchin) held on to his seat in a state Trump won by more than 30 points.
Correlation isn’t always causation, but in this instance, the author’s analysis seems correct - that deep-red-state Democratic Senators who opposed Kavanaugh paid the penalty for doing so.
How about Presidents?
Are we still talking about Kavanaugh or are we Trump bashing now?
It’s possible, but at the same time many progressive women may have felt betrayed had those Senators not expressed (by vote) support for Christine Blasey Ford and the philosophy that accusations must be treated seriously, and been less likely to come out and vote, had they voted for Kavanaugh.
In the long run, society should and will evolve to the point that it would be political suicide to advocate that sexual assault allegations shouldn’t be considered seriously – some short and medium term losses (and I’m unconvinced that fighting sexual assault and advocating for treating it seriously is bad politics even in the short term) are worth being on the right side in the long run.
I thought Kavanaugh also advocated for an investigation.
You mean that the Democratic party used be terrible on sexual assault? I’ve said this many, many times. They used to be as bad as Republicans. In the last year or two they’ve improved on the issue greatly, while the Republicans appear to have gotten even worse.
In the present, one party actually treats sexual assault allegations with seriousness, and the other party does not. In the present, one party is trying to purge abusers and assaulters, while the other welcomes and even celebrates them.
I thought we were talking about national politics, and how they relate to the Kavanaugh allegations. Isn’t that what your OP was about?
I am speaking as a Democrat. So please read the OP to say “Could the Democrats have won the senate without the kavanaugh effect”
He did not. He had the opportunity to say “I want this fully investigated by the FBI before there is any vote”, but he chose another route. He refused to call for a full FBI investigation, even when directly asked. At best, he advocated for the bullshit token fake “investigation” that Senate Republican leaders did, but nothing more.
I think here lies the difference of perception. It’s a good guess that most of the people in deep-red states such as Indiana, North Dakota and Missouri didn’t vote on the Kavanaugh issue because “I think Kavanaugh ought to be able to rape with impunity - let’s vote against anti-rape Democrats!” They were spurred to vote against the Democrats because they felt, “Kavanaugh is an innocent man being smeared by false accusations.”
How likely do you think it is that a progressive woman would NOT come out and vote?
You can’t flip between sexual assault and sexual assault allegations as if there is no significant distinction. I think it hurts us to try and grind everything to a halt when an uncorroborated allegation of sexual assault from 30 years ago surfaces on the eve of an important vote.
This is a strawman arguement. Ford’s accusations were taken seriously. She testified at the hearing and every possible corroborating witness was interviewed. There was just no evidence beyond her word that it ever happened
I doubt anyone changed their mind to vote over this.
Maybe not changed their vote from D to R, but it’s very possible it motivated Republican voters who might have otherwise stayed home. McConnell credits the Kavanaugh issue with having jolted a previously listless Republican base, and Republican turnout ended up being unusually high for an incumbent party.