Reg our Texas Senate race: Am I the only one who finds these John Cornyn ads bizarre and seem to be directly courting QAnon crazies? The ad I’ve seen the most is a short 15 second ad with a lady saying she was a victim of sexual abuse and at some point in Cornyns career in DC he voted for a sexual abuse bill that passed. The way it’s presented though is definitely going for the visualization of some blonde white woman being a victim of sex trafficking and Cornyn as the savior. It’s just weird in its presentation and seems to definitely be courting the Q conspiracy nuts.
Not being in TX I haven't seen them. In MN Jason Lewis the Republican challenger has been running ads showing the destruction back in late May and tying Tina Smith to Ilhan Omar.
You keep saying that but its your opinion,that's why I am asking for numbers. I don't agree that its a chicken or egg thing and i don't see how you could, Republicans where taking obstruction to unprecedented levels, Obama was anything but partisan. Are you really asking if changing the filibuster started partisanship.
I was not asking if changing the filibuster started partisanship. It was "led to more partisanship". Here are some numbers for you. Over two terms of 8 years Obama confirmed 2 USSC Judges, 55 Circuit Court Judges and 272 District Court Judges Obama though appointed over 400 people. In less than four years Trump has confirmed 2 USSC Justices and likely a third, 53 Circuit Court Judges and 163 District Court Judges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_judicial_appointments
I still can't believe you are asking that question looking at all the Republicans did then and since and the numbers seem to say it was worth it especially getting those seats filled in the DC court. I am sure he could have filled more seats if he did not have conscious and was seating judges willy nilly like Trump. Thanks for the research. Do you think Obama was to deferential or happy that he tried to reach consensus?
I don't get your point with Judoka.... It seems like he agrees with you but just not taking the same inflammatory tone. GOP deserves more blame but Dems messed up playing their hand.
I don't agree that they messed up their hand especially looking at the numbers and the fact that they got to fill seats in the DC court. I also don't agree that doing away with the filibuster led to more partisanship. Those are things we disagree on. Does anybody actually think once turtle got control he would not have done away with the FB?
I read that gerrymandering is the cause to partisanship. When the general election is not going to be competitive due to gerrymandering, the election is decided with the core base in the primaries, which favors the more extreme leaning candidate.
This makes a lot of sense and I have read something like that as well. Don't know how many state legislatures are up for grabs this year but that is really worth a watch. I think I could takeTrump winning if the Senate flips and a lot of state houses. He would be neutered.
Even a Dem controlled Senate wouldn't stop Trump. He would still do a ton of damage with foreign relations, immigration, the military, and policy. He would also still control all of the Departments including the DOJ. He's already started figuring out how to weaponize the DOJ and it's only going to get worse as he continues to install sycophants instead of non-partisan folks. Meanwhile, the Dems in the Senate still couldn't impeach him...yes, they can stop the appointment of judges, but Trump's just about filled them all (and it isn't as if the Dems are stopping them now...there was one that was confirmed today 93-2). Even the Supreme Court...do they pull a Republican move and try and block Trump until he leaves office...doesn't really matter if he's able to confirm another one before the next Senate is sworn in...deficit would be 6-3 so they'd need 3 Conservative justices to fall out before they'd be able to get it back to 50-50. Now, maybe Trump relaxes a little with some legislation that the Dems want...he has always mentioned an infrastructure bill and the Dems have been pushing for that. Maybe he's able to push through a more Dem-centric stimulus package after the election. Otherwise, he'll probably just let everything burn and continue destroying democratic norms for 4 more years while the Republicans in Senate continue to let him do so.
I'm not quite sure I follow you. The numbers show that at the circuit and USSC level Trump has filled almost as many seats in less than a full term as Obama did in two full terms. That is an indication that McConnell was able to stall a lot of Obama appointments while shove through many Trump appointments without the Democrats being able to do anything. I'm not sure that's worth it when the power that McConnell had to get through Trump appointments was with doing away with the filibuster on appointments. if you argument is that it was worth it just to get the DC court appointments through I'm not so sure about that given the overall disparity. The DC court is very important obviously more important that it makes up for the disparity I don't know and maybe that's another debate. Obama certainly tried to reach consensus and obviously didn't get very far from the Republicans and was criticized by many on the Left for it. By the second term he relied heavily on EO. That still didn't get around the death of confirmations. Whether he's happy about it he certainly seems regretful he couldn't do more. As stated earlier there is a good argument that even without Reid ending the filibusters things might've ended up differently. Certainly McConnell had no interest in cooperating with Obama and Boehnor couldn't get consensus in the House to do anything that would help Obama. What I do know is that the numbers show overall the Democrats in terms of confirmations have not done as well since he nuclear option was invoked.
I really don't see him doing anymore damage to foreign relations than he already has, they will continue to look at laugh at him. Congress would have the power to stop the DOJ and impeach Barr, I don't agree that Democrats could not impeach him I don't think would have nearly the power he has without Mcconell in charge and districts being redrawn under democratic state legislators. I really don't see Republicans marching in lock step once they realize how things are changing in the states and their districts. Like I said in another post at some self preservation starts to kick in and everybody goes for theres, Trump be dam. The reason he has so much power is that Republicans control the Senate and most of the investigative committees.
You have not addressed the fact the reason they got any appointees through was because they got rid of the Filibuster, do you think Mcconnell would have not done away with the filibuster to get his judges through? What is the disparity, the numbers are pretty even and the Senate can change in a few months. We would be way behind in appointments and the Filibuster would still be done away with and probably for more things. Simple question would the Democrats be in a better position if they kept the Filibuster? How would those numbers look? Would they be close? What good argument is there that things might have ended differently? Who is making this argument?
Again as I said that is certainly valid argument but the fact is that McConnell was able to get through many appointments in less than 4 years with the Democrats being unable to stop or even slow them down. In less than one term versus two full terms. Factoring in the time difference that's almost a 2:1. All of the answers depend on speculation on an alternate reality where they didn't end the filibuster so I can't really give you answers. The facts are that McConnell was greatly empowered as majority and in less than half the time got in almost as many confirmations during the Trump Presidency. In previous Senates the filibuster and other rules did slow down appointments and force for more consideration regarding the qualifications of the appointments. The situation we have now isn't just that these confirmations that are going through quickly is that many aren't qualified and there is little the minority can do to slow that down. If you're asking for an appeal to authority there have been several opinions out there saying who are saying this wasn't a good idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...go-nuclear-will-it-be-senate-democrats-fault/ https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/senate-filibuster-rules-change-could-backfire-on-dems https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-trump-cabinet-senate/513782/
RJ come on this is a cop out, you just gave a hypothetical about terms claiming it was 2 to 1 when the actual raw numbers say differently, so in your alternate reality republicans have 4 more years. It seems that you are saying that even if the numbers were 300 to one as long as the filibuster was in place it would be ok. There is no reason you cannot take everything that has happened since Mitch took over and extrapolate what would have happened if Ried let the Filibuster stand. No I am not asking for an appeal to authority I argument I am asking for this argument that Democrats would have been better letting the Filibuster stand None of those articles give a postmortem they are from before it happened or right around the time of it happening, so not really relevant
