Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That will destroy the Republicans. Obama has the party's future in a vice. Now, I'm sure there's a core that will always say "No justices from liberals!" but most people will at least demand a hearing.
Remember: the Democratic Senate of the 80's gave Robert Bork, the judicial supervillain of the era, a fair hearing and managed to scotch his nomination. Imagine the carnage for the Democrats if they refused even a hearing.
Or, we could simply wait until all of the Supreme Court justices die of old age, never nominate replacements, and watch as the judicial branch loses its preeminence in American political life.
edited 15th May '16 10:59:32 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Crimson Zephyr: It may be difficult for Republicans to get any more "destroyed" than they already are. The true believers won't jump ship; the test is whether the Republican base will be able to hold the Senate after everyone but the base jumps ship (remembering that most people like their representatives even if they hate Congress in general).
The Republicans look unlikely to hold the Senate as is, it's not a favourable map for them and that's before the Trump factor (increased Dem turnout and reduced Republican turnout) is considered.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranUm, do you know how many "toss up" Senate races the Democrats need to win? Also, I am somewhat concerned about Illinois - there is a criminal investigation going on against the Democratic candidate and the trial is set shortly before the election.
Never mind that in order to win a solid majority they need to expand the map beyond mere toss up states to somewhat steeper climbs such as Iowa.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanUnless you're referring to something I haven't seen, there isn't a criminal investigation into Duckworth. She's being sued by some people over the way she fired them. And I'm not even sure why it's going ahead now, as it's apparently been dismissed twice in the past.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |They need 4 plus the white house for ties, 5 to make a majority. The big 4 pickups are Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois and New Hampshire, all blue states where a GOP senator is on the defensive. Possibility for number five include Arizona where McCain faces his toughest challenge since he got elected, Iowa where Grassley will get directly tied to the do-nothing congress, Florida in a high-Hispanic-turnout election year since Rubio is vacating his seat, and Ohio where an ex-governor is running.
Tammy Duckworth is the Democratic candidate in Illinois and I thought she was suing her old employer for retaliation, not the other way around.
Edit: Oh, she's being sued. Still, not as big a deal unless some massive wrongdoing is uncovered.
edited 16th May '16 5:58:02 AM by Ogodei
Take note that in 2018 the whole Senator class elected in 2012 and 2006 is up for re-election - and that is mostly Democratic. To prevent a repeat of 2014, the Democrats will need a thick cushion of seats gained in 2016. Seeing as a Clinton presidency is far more likely than a Trump one.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman2008 presidential primaries on the Democratic side
. I notice that there are similarities with the 2016 primaries (Obama carried many of the "mountain states", the extra-CONUS states and Vermont like Sanders is doing now, Hillary carried the "expanded south" such as Texas, Arizona and Arkansas and the Great Lakes states) but also the differences (Sanders is performing much worse in the "Deep South" states and adjacent states such as Virginia and Maryland, as well as Illinois).
If memory serves, in 2008 Obama was playing a bit of a similar role as Sanders did this year, but at first John Edwards also took that "insurgent" role.
The conclusion I am taking from that is that someone like Sanders needs a strong support of some other Democratic faction in order to win the presidential primary - such as the African-American one as was the case with Obama.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanMaybe we'll get Black, Woman, and Hispanic in a row.
Please don't let the Hispanic POTUS be Cuban-American...
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The conclusion I'm drawing is that you need systemic outrage to get a party's base to turn out in massive support of its agenda. Each party mainly generates that outrage from the perceived failings of and crises caused by the opposition party when it is in office.
The reason Republicans are so successful at keeping their people voting is that they have a propaganda machine fine-tuned to generate that outrage whether any reason for it exists or not.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You can create turnout also by touting accomplishments. The Republicans are appealing to outrage because they don't have any accomplishments, for the most part (some senators who are running for re-election in 2016 are promoting their own efforts) and the Democrats are too timid for one reason or another to campaign on their accomplishments.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThis past April smashed heat records as 2016 is poised to be the hottest year ever.
Specifically, the past seven months have each been more than 1C over the 1951-1980 average used as a baseline.
Also, I'm seeing news feeds saying that SCOTUS has upheld more employer-based religious objections to mandatory contraception coverage in Obamacare. Can't find an actual link, though.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"You've heard incorrectly; they've bounced it back to the lower courts.
edited 16th May '16 7:52:00 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Ah, apparently the Breaking News feeds got it wrong. I'm seeing corrections coming through, now. Whew.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"They got bounced back specifically because it's a four to four tie. This is why we're supposed to have nine justices, folks, so this sort of thing doesn't happen. Even if it does give us something unfavorable.
I mean, seriously, the Republicans could have won this one if they'd let Garland go through before this. They're shooting themselves in the foot regarding the things they supposedly hold dear.

In addition, Kennedy is the most Centrist of the judges so he used to be the swing vote in 4-4 decisions.
edited 15th May '16 9:00:57 PM by Demonic_Braeburn
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.