You're presuming that the GOP is a rational actor like you . . . the leadership has not made rational choices recently because their membership does not make rational choices, hence...your GOP Frontrunner
I'm starting to think that this is Obama's secret strategy to get Sandoval primary'd in 2018. Start mentioning Sandoval's name (without actually nominating him) so the Nevada GOP electorate can tar and feather Sandoval in the next primary for being associated with Obama. That's the only way the Democrats will ever win the governorship there in 2018. Also dont forget that Sandoval became governor because he rode the tea party wave in 2010. He actually beat an incumbent governor in a primary that year. Brilliant strategy if you ask me. All we need is a picture of him hugging Obama and game over.
Depends - if your goal is good governing, you're right. But if your goal is amassing power, they certainly have made rational choices. They have managed to grab total control of the House, the Senate, and most State governorships and legislatures, which has given them the ability to control the redistricting and solidify their House gains. They have a problem at the Presidential level, but it's hard to argue against their strategy at every other level from the lens of simply acquiring power.
They have a problem anytime people actually vote. No one votes at the level of the state, hence the distribution of power. It's like the Simpsons episode where the curfew for anyone under the age of 65 gets ratified. The voter registration system in America is broken, and we'll need some really awful law to get passed before we can correct it.
This is what has our system in such danger. We have a large portion of the electorate grossly misinformed and jacked up on mongered fear. Trump comes right out of the Fox News machine and is, in some ways, betraying his enablers by co-opting their well groomed audience. These are truly voters who live in a different world from the rest of us and anyone Obama nominates, no matter how conservative they are, will be seen as a liberal power grab. And for that reason alone, Obama should pre-concede again.
Yes, Bobby continually lies about which party (Obama or Congress) has been less willing to work with the other side, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Interesting leak on Sandoval. I think the purpose is to bait a reaction out of the GOP: Are they really going to stand on the "not considering any nominee no matter who" position or are they going to say "maybe there could be some acceptable names." If they stick with the former, then Obama gets to make a stronger case about GOP intransigence, and perhaps rile up some Latino voter over Sandoval. If the latter, Obama then gets to make a stronger argument that whenever the GOP does reject a (non-Sandoval) nominee, they did so on the merits rather than on the "election year" principle-- and maybe rile up some additional voters, particularly if the nominee comes from a minority group. I think the GOP's move for now is just stay silent and not react to this Sandoval report at all.
Yeah, now that they've gone stupid and intransigent, the only possible strategy is to stick with it. They've handed Obama all the game's power now. Sandoval, undiscussed, unvoted, would be an awesome Obama move. Wish they would just do their job. (And no, wingers, doing their job is not equal to deciding a democratically elected president shouldn't be doing his job.)
Brilliant tactical move by the Admin.. This was exactly what I was talking about that the Senate is failing there advise and consent duty and obstructed a purely speculative nominee. McConnell is in a bind now because he can't walk back the hard line he's taken. The only hope he has now is that the GOP base stays riled enough to put a Republican, not Trump, into the Presidency and hold onto the Senate.
I disagree completely. If Obama nominates Sandoval, the Senate confirms him and gets to claim victory, arguing that they manuevered to force a liberal President to nominate a conservative to the Supreme Court. That would be a huge coup for the GOP, and provide justification for their initial stance.
Eh. A pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-tax conservative. The Republicans know that if they drag their feet here, they're risking a Democratic White House naming a VERY liberal justice next year. They don't care. They just don't want to risk losing a bunch of seats to crazies in 2018 because they confirmed an Obama nominee. Going back on their word with Sandoval would infuriate the base, IMO. Especially with how much they already hate McConnell.
The thing is, the White House doesn't have to nominate Sandoval. Just throwing his name out there as a potential nominee is enough to accomplish some tactical goals.
I agree too it would be a victory for the GOP if they called Obama's bluff and he actually nominated Sandoval. That would be easier if McConnell hadn't taken such a hard line. McConnell can't just say "My bad, didn't mean what I said there." it makes him look very weak to a party that just recently forced out a Speaker of the House. McConnell probably doesn't want to follow Boehner and if he caves on this it is a clear message he doesn't control the agenda.
This. I don't actually think Sandoval is a serious nominee. It is a feint by the Admin.. A smart move still.
This all goes back to why I think McConnell's stance is a very bad move. He could've not painted himself by continuing to state his objection to Obama nominating someone in the last year of office and let hearings happen. He even could've done the Constitutional copout and just said that Article II gives the President the right to appoint even though he thinks it's a bad idea. He could've even let the nominee come to the floor and allowed Cruz to filibuster and / or defeat that nominee in a floor vote. Instead he has put his, the GOP, and the Senate's reputation on the line in a situation where the President holds the upper hand strategically.
This would be perceived of as a victory by some in maybe the Republican party of the 80's or early 90's, or maybe by few of the remaining Beltway centrist types (David Brooks) who comprise the entire cast of, and most likely viewing audience of, Sunday morning political shows - not in the one of 2016. Rather than being perceived as a victory it would be regarded as the Munich Agreement, and described probably exactly in those terms.
