But sure, the media is a large anti-liberal conspiracy to downplay Republican failures.
Over 75% (!) of house seats were won by men and people are saying this is a win for women.
And I think differently. That’s okay.
We really ought to spend more time on the Hillary emails, Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults. The allegations that Hillary ordered assassinations of all sorts of people. I mean how will we ever know without FBI investigation? In fact we ought to investigate every incoming Democratic senator and congressman to rule out the possibility that they have sex with animals.
An allegation about a 35 year old event is meaningless without corroboration. Significant corroboration.
Well, that’s interesting because Nate Silver thinks the Democratic behavior during the last Kavanaugh hearing probably helped Republicans (although its not cut and dried).
We’re not arguing about whether there was a blue wave of some sort. We are arguing about whether the Democratic efforts to derail Kavanaugh with uncorroborated allegations of attempted rape helped or hurt the Democrats.
I think Trump already pinned the needle on the Democratic turnout. I don’t think that 80% of Republicans were all that excited voting until the Democratic attempts to derail the Kavanaugh confirmation.
The Hillary stuff was very heavily investigated. Allegations of assault against Bill Clinton should have been much more seriously investigated, especially by the Democrats.
I’ll ignore the silly games stuff.
It’s reasonable to want to fully investigate serious allegations against a nominee prior to voting on that nominee.
I’ll ignore the cite free claim about Silver. I showed the graphs of his data that showed that the eventual result was well in line, or even better, than his site’s predictions were prior to the Kavanaugh hearing. That shows with his data, as far as such things can be demonstrated, that the Kavanaugh hearing did not cause a better result for Republicans.
Data indicates that you are wrong.
Nitpick: she was running for an open seat, not for reelection.
There is no shortage of uncorroborated allegations against Hillary.
But it wasn’t. Not by Democrats. Not by feminists.
And that’s what the senate should have done with the uncorroborated allegations of Ford.
They’re not serious if all they are is uncorroborated accusations.
No, they don’t. You just cherry pick data (or let it get spoon fed to you by people who cherry pick data).
“I don’t think my vote [against Kavanaugh] hurt me as much as the spectacle that occurred.”
I get it – you’re not interested in thoroughly investigating serious and credible allegations of sexual assault (or you don’t think Ford’s allegations were serious and credible). We don’t need to go on and on about this. I think your assertions on this are of great assistance to harassers and abusers, but you certainly have the right to your opinion.
LOL. I cited the results after the election, and compared them to the predictions over the months prior. And you’re citing an article from before the election? That’s laughable now that we actually have the results of the election to look at.
The question “how did the Kavanaugh hearings affect the election” has been answered by comparing the 538 day-by-day predictions before the elections to the actual results of the elections. Actual data. There may have been a temporary polling bump (that subsequently evaporated, per the data), but the actual results of the election were as good for the Democrats, or better, than the 538 polling aggregates showed from before the Kavanaugh hearings. Thus there is no actual election-results data to suggest that the Kavanaugh hearings harmed the Democratic performance. The question – a reasonable one – was asked, and has now been answered by the election data.
Ford’s allegation was serious, but was thoroughly investigated and found not to be credible.
Then don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
This is false; there are many lines of inquiry related to Ford’s allegations that the Republican leaders explicitly prevented from being investigated.
Just for anyone reading – I know your mind is made up.
How did the Republican leaders prevent Ford from going to the Maryland police and reporting the allegation, so it could be investigated by the proper authorities?
This has nothing to do with the wholly inadequate Senate investigation.
Apart from your classification of the Senate investigation as inadequate, that’s basically the point - investigating an alleged State level crime is nothing to do with them. Kavanaugh was investigated at least as thoroughly as any other candidate for the Supreme Court, and there is nothing in his background that disqualifies him.
I don’t know why you continue to believe an allegation that’s been shown to be false rather than the people who actually investigated it.
I strongly disagree with both sentences in this paragraph. They’re both a matter of opinion, and considering how far apart we are in some our underlying philosophical assumptions, there’s not much point to further back-and-forth on it.
What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say anything about whether I believe these allegations? I’ve asked you many, many, oh-so-many times before, but could you please respond only to the words I actually post, and not your wild random assumptions about what you think I believe?
And it’s utter bullshit that any allegations has been “shown to be false”. But go ahead and accuse Ford of committing the crime of perjury, when she hasn’t even been charged, much less convicted, if you’re all about making evidence-free allegations of crimes against individuals.
Speaking of responding only to the words I posted… I’ve not claimed that Ford lied or perjured, I’ve claimed that her allegation was false. Which we know because we know from the evidence that the party she described did not happen.
I don’t believe she’s lying. It’s possible she is, but there’s no evidence for it, so I don’t believe it. She is clearly mistaken about many of the details of the attack, but saying something you falsely believe to be true is not a lie, nor is it perjury.
I will admit, I was assuming that you believed the accusation because you’ve repeatedly said that think that it means Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court. Surely you don’t think that an accusation that you don’t even believe should be disqualifying? That’s ludicrous, it would be an absurd position to hold, and for all that we disagree I don’t expect you to think that.
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 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 also think the allegations against him should have been fully and thoroughly investigated prior to any vote for such a high office.