# The Kavanaugh Effect. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 8, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189 "2018-11-08T14:43:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/161 "2018-12-06T19:56:36Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is entirely false. You couldn’t possibly know whether or not that party happened with any certainty at all. > > You couldn’t possibly know whether her recollection of the attack is accurate or not with any certainty at all. I know both of those things to a fairly high standard of certainty, as everyone, including Ford’s best friend at the time, states that they didn’t happen - despite Ford saying they would confirm it. So, I either have to believe that all of them are mistaken or lying, or that Ford is mistaken, as seems to often happen in these cases. We are helped as well by Kavanaugh’s unusually thorough diaries, which show nothing resembling such a party at that time. Why do you wish to ignore all this evidence, and instead believe one person who has provided no supporting evidence whatsoever? > [@](#): > > I think Kavanaugh is unfit for SCOTUS (my standards are pretty high for such a high office) based on nothing more than his own words and actions (things he’s either written or said that were signed by him or on video/audio recording). I fully agree with this, and find it sad that people are focussing on the false accusation against him rather than the actual problems with him. But then, I strongly doubt Trump will nominate anyone who’s actually fit for the position. > [@](#): > > I also think the allegations against him should have been fully and thoroughly investigated prior to any vote for such a high office. I suppose the FBI could have carried out an 8th background check on him, I’m sure they missed some important details in the previous seven… But it’s not their job to investigate second or third hand reports of crime outside their jurisdiction, and I’d hope that everyone would want to keep it that way. I’m sure Ford will be reporting the matter to the police in Maryland any day now, though, so the investigation you want can be carried out. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/162 "2018-12-06T20:18:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I know both of those things to a fairly high standard of certainty, as everyone, including Ford’s best friend at the time, states that they didn’t happen - despite Ford saying they would confirm it. This is false – at most, they do not recall those events, but that is entirely different from stating that they didn’t happen. So your argument is based on false information. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/163 "2018-12-07T05:13:16Z")
[Latest House results confirm 2018 wasn’t a blue wave. It was a blue tsunami.](https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/latest-house-vote-blue-wave/index.html) This is from CNN’s Harry Enten, formerly of 538. > [@](#): > > As has oft been repeated, this is the largest Democratic House gain since 1974. It’s a larger gain than Democrats had in the wave elections of both 1982 and 2006. > [@](#): > > If you go back all the way to first election of the post-World War II era (1946), there have only been three elections in which Democrats net gained more seats than they did in 2018. Put another way, this was the fourth best performance for Democrats in the 37 general House elections since President Donald Trump was born. > [@](#): > > Democrats’ position in the national House popular vote is now reaching historical proportions. > [@](#): > > This year’s 8.6 point House popular vote win for the Democrats is the greatest on record for a minority party heading into an election. > [@](#): > > The Democrats won by a wider margin this year than Democrats did in 2006 or Republicans did in 1994 or 2010. > [@](#): > > This wasn’t just a blue wave in the House. It was a tsunami. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/164 "2018-12-07T06:20:25Z")
[House Dems just had their best election since Watergate](https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/06/politics/2018-house-democratic-gains/index.html) > [@](#): > > As the Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman notes, the 9.7 million raw vote edge Democrats enjoyed over Republicans nationally is the largest in the history of midterm elections. > [@](#): > > The 40-seat loss is the largest defeat for Republicans in a midterm election since 1974. > [@](#): > > This was a wave election. It swept out a slew of GOP members in its wake who, in anything close to a neutral national environment, would almost certainly have been re-elected. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/165 "2018-12-07T06:29:07Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is false – at most, they do not recall those events, but that is entirely different from stating that they didn’t happen. So your argument is based on false information. I’m starting to realise why you think there wasn’t a proper investigation carried out - you somehow missed it, and the findings of it. The events Ford described did not happen. No-one recalls them, the claimed group of people were never together in the timeframe she claims (or probably ever), and Kavanaugh’s otherwise thorough records do not show it. And there is zero evidence for the events happening other than her claim. The supposed witnesses haven’t, despite your characterisation, simply said “I don’t recall” to the question of whether there was a party, they’ve made it quite clear that such a party did not happen. And yet, for some reason, you still believe it did. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/166 "2018-12-07T10:24:56Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m starting to realise why you think there wasn’t a proper investigation carried out - you somehow missed it, and the findings of it. > > The events Ford described did not happen. No-one recalls them, the claimed group of people were never together in the timeframe she claims (or probably ever), and Kavanaugh’s otherwise thorough records do not show it. And there is zero evidence for the events happening other than her claim. > > The supposed witnesses haven’t, despite your characterisation, simply said “I don’t recall” to the question of whether there was a party, they’ve made it quite clear that such a party did not happen. > > And yet, for some reason, you still believe it did. Why is that? Most of what you say here is factually inaccurate (and uncited). ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/167 "2018-12-07T13:00:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I’m starting to realise why you think there wasn’t a proper investigation carried out - you somehow missed it, and the findings of it. When Democrats say that this wasn’t thoroughly investigated, they mean “we weren’t able to stall this until after the mid-terms”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/168 "2018-12-07T16:08:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > When Democrats say that this wasn’t thoroughly investigated, they mean “we weren’t able to stall this until after the mid-terms”. > > Regards, > Shodan I actually don’t even think it’s that, at least not in the case of posters here - I think they genuinely believe that if they only investigated a bit more they’d find some magical hidden truth. Exactly the same behaviour that they were so critical about from Birthers or about Benghazi. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/169 "2018-12-07T16:46:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I actually don’t even think it’s that, at least not in the case of posters here - I think they genuinely believe that if they only investigated a bit more they’d find some magical hidden truth. Exactly the same behaviour that they were so critical about from Birthers or about Benghazi. Not surprisingly, your mind-reading fails again – I think the investigation was pathetic and an obvious attempt to do the absolutely minimum politically required. I think the GOP was very scared about what an investigation might find (though they didn’t know for sure, most likely), and only ordered one (a pathetic and greatly limited one) because without it they wouldn’t have had enough votes to confirm. There was no urgency aside from raw politics, and it’s very possible a full and thorough investigation wouldn’t have reached any other conclusion… or maybe a full and thorough investigation would have determined that Kavanaugh probably lied in his own testimony about his drinking or other tangential activities, or even found that it’s likely he did commit sexual assault. We don’t know what it would have found, because there was no investigation that thoroughly questioned every possible witness, delved into employment records, and much more, which could have confirmed or refuted many aspects of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony. It’s factually false to say the investigation found that the party couldn’t have happened – not only is proving such a negative virtually impossible, the strongest statements from the supposed attendees were “I don’t recall such a party”. Even if any of them stated with certainty they didn’t attend such a party ever, that would simply be witness accounts that conflict with Ford’s account, not findings that proved the party never occurred. None of us know whether such a party occurred, with the information currently available, but a thorough investigation might have shed more light on this. My standards for SCOTUS are very high, and thus I think any such allegation deserves an incredibly thorough look – far more so than in most other circumstances. He made questionable assertions in his testimony – those must be very closely examined and investigated. There are multiple serious allegations against him – all of those must also be very closely examined and investigated. This isn’t a receptionist position – it’s the highest court in the land. For our government to retain public legitimacy (which is required for a government to exist – governments without public legitimacy generally tend to evaporate in time), the highest court must also retain legitimacy, and for that to happen, IMO we need full and thorough investigations into SCOTUS nominees, especially if and when there are serious allegations against them, or they make questionable statements in testimony. Especially in this time in which our society is finally – _finally_ – just barely starting to address rampant sexual abuse, assault, and harssment, and its widespread tolerance. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/170 "2018-12-07T16:47:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > When Democrats say that this wasn’t thoroughly investigated, they mean “we weren’t able to stall this until after the mid-terms”. > > Regards, > Shodan You see, this sort of thing is why I can’t take you seriously when you claim to know liberals better than liberals know conservatives. You insist upon a motivation that had no evidence, and that we have explained is not our motivation, and yet, you persist in insisting upon this, over and over again. Why do you do this, when you must know that it only makes your claims of understanding liberals to be false? No, when democrats say this wasn’t thoroughly investigated, we have a pretty specific list of things that we think were left out or skipped over, and you know this, because we have talked about this before. But, then you come back, once again to what you insist other liberals think. Now, there has been moderation to the effect that we are not allowed to compliment your psychic powers, so I won’t do that, but if you could do something to actually demonstrate these powers that you use to insist upon the same thing, over and over again, that contradicts facts, evidence, and our explanations, then you may gain some slight amount of credibility that you have any idea what you are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/171 "2018-12-07T16:51:39Z")
Getting back to the whole point of the thread, the question in the OP has been answered by the data in the pre-election polling aggregations and the actual election results – there was no significant electoral benefit, and possibly an electoral detriment, for the Republicans in 2018, due to the Kavanaugh hearings. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/172 "2018-12-07T17:16:29Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You insist upon a motivation that had no evidence, and that we have explained is not our motivation, and yet, you persist in insisting upon this, over and over again. This is, of course, a false statement. There is evidence that the Dems wanted to stall - the fact that Feinstein sat on the allegation for six weeks, and then sprang it after the hearings were done, the fact that Senate Dems declined to participate in the Senate investigation, preferring to grandstand and call for FBI investigations, when those happened they called for more, etc. It doesn’t take psychic powers. > [@](#): > > …you may gain some slight amount of credibility that you have any idea what you are talking about. I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression at any point - your good opinions as to my credibility are not something that’s important to me. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/173 "2018-12-07T17:21:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is, of course, a false statement. There is evidence that the Dems wanted to stall - the fact that Feinstein sat on the allegation for six weeks, and then sprang it after the hearings were done, the fact that Senate Dems declined to participate in the Senate investigation, preferring to grandstand and call for FBI investigations, when those happened they called for more, etc. Are you asserting that we in this thread are Democratic Senators? If not, then I can’t figure out what in the hell you’re responding to in **k9b** ’s post. I’m certainly happy to admit that many, most, or all of the Democratic Senators had some political motivations in their actions during the Kavanaugh hearings. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/174 "2018-12-07T17:32:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Are you asserting that we in this thread are Democratic Senators? More specifically, I think \*\*Shodan \*\*thinks \*\*k9bfriender \*\*is Sen. Feinstein. > [@](#): > > . I’m certainly happy to admit that many, most, or all of the Democratic Senators had some political motivations in their actions during the Kavanaugh hearings. By way of comparison, Republican senators (and **Shodan** , who I think may be Sen. Cotton) had no political motivations for their actions at all. Pure as the driven snow, the lot of them. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/175 "2018-12-07T18:40:39Z")
The faces he pulled at that hearing, just by themselves in photo form, are damaging to democracy. Most nominees when pushed to the point of such japery would realize it was over, and he surely did. But we are in tempo incognito now, and Lindsey saved his ass. Make America Great Again! He serves Vlad Putins wishes more than any american. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/176 "2018-12-08T00:02:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > We don’t know what it would have found, because there was no investigation that thoroughly questioned every possible witness, delved into employment records, and much more, which could have confirmed or refuted many aspects of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s testimony. There were multiple such background checks, none of which found anything. But I’m sure just one more would have found something different… It’s amusing how you begain your post by saying I’m wrong, then proceed to demonstrate that I’m exactly right, you somehow think that one more investigation will discover something that the previous 7 didn’t. I’m assuming you’re talking about Kavanaugh’s employment records here, of course. If it’s anyone else’s, then absent a police investigation it would be grossly inappropriate and an invasion of privacy to look at them, beyond what’s publically available. As would interviews with any witnessess about things other than Kavanaugh’s character. The FBI should not be conducting a criminal investigation into a state level matter, and to do so would be a far worse problem for justice than having Kavanaugh on the supreme court. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/177 "2018-12-08T00:05:42Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > You insist upon a motivation that had no evidence, and that we have explained is not our motivation, and yet, you persist in insisting upon this, over and over again. So, what _is_ your motivation for wanting an 8th FBI background check into Kavanaugh, and why do you think it will uncover things the previous 7 did? If you want a _criminal_ investigation into these claims, then that’s the business of Maryland police, not the FBI or the Senate. Had the Senate confirmed him with an ongoing police investigation, that would be a different matter, but there’s been no criminal complaint about the issue. Odd, that. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/178 "2018-12-08T00:06:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There were multiple such background checks, none of which found anything. But I’m sure just one more would have found something different… It’s amusing how you begain your post by saying I’m wrong, then proceed to demonstrate that I’m exactly right, you somehow think that one more investigation will discover something that the previous 7 didn’t. Not sure what you’re replying to, since I never said “one more investigation” would necessarily find anything new. It might. You appear to be certain (I could be wrong – please correct me if so) that more investigations necessarily would not. You’re the one expressing certainty, as far as I can tell, not me. > [@](#): > > I’m assuming you’re talking about Kavanaugh’s employment records here, of course. If it’s anyone else’s, then absent a police investigation it would be grossly inappropriate and an invasion of privacy to look at them, beyond what’s publically available. As would interviews with any witnessess about things other than Kavanaugh’s character. The FBI should not be conducting a criminal investigation into a state level matter, and to do so would be a far worse problem for justice than having Kavanaugh on the supreme court. They did not look into all the publicly available (and requestable) records that might have helped confirm or refute significant parts of Ford’s story, and they did not fully question various witnesses that might have also done so. The scope of their investigation was extremely limited, quite clearly because the Senate leadership was not interested in a full and thorough investigation into claims of sexual assault and whether or not Kavanaugh lied to Congress, but rather just meeting the political bare minimum to get him confirmed. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the only two types of investigation that could have been conducted are background checks or criminal investigations. This is false – the FBI has done many investigations in the past that were purely meant to resolve questions that the White House and/or Senate had about a particular nominee, and did not fall into either category. There’s no reason, except for political calculation, that further such investigations could have been performed both to investigate Ford’s story and the truth of Kavanaugh’s testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/179 "2018-12-08T00:13:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not sure what you’re replying to, since I never said “one more investigation” would necessarily find anything new. It might. You appear to be certain (I could be wrong – please correct me if so) that more investigations necessarily would not. You’re the one expressing certainty, as far as I can tell, not me. Let’s continue investigating Obama’s birth certificate while we’re at it. A new investigation _might_ find something new after all. > [@](#): > > They did not look into all the publicly available (and requestable) records that might have helped confirm or refute significant parts of Ford’s story, and they did not fully question various witnesses that might have also done so. The scope of their investigation was extremely limited, quite clearly because the Senate leadership was not interested in a full and thorough investigation into claims of sexual assault and whether or not Kavanaugh lied to Congress, but rather just meeting the political bare minimum to get him confirmed. Ford’s statement has been thoroughly refuted, both by the FBI investigation and by public statements from the various witnessess. I suppose they could investigate further to strengthen the refutation, but that’s really unnecessary. The people that matter - that is, the Senate - were convinced by it, and people like you never will be, no matter how many investigations there are. You are heading into conspiracy theory territory here, if you consider 8 background checks to be inadequate. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189/180 "2018-12-08T00:17:37Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Let’s continue investigating Obama’s birth certificate while we’re at it. A new investigation _might_ find something new after all. People can investigate anything they like. Who cares if some assholes want to investigate the birth certificate of an ex-president on their own dime? This has nothing to do with the paltry (a few days, vice years and years for the birth certificate) Senate investigation into Ford and Kavanaugh’s statements. > [@](#): > > Ford’s statement has been thoroughly refuted, both by the FBI investigation and by public statements from the various witnessess. This is factually false. At least we have the point of disagreement. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-kavanaugh-effect/824189.md?page=10)