No One Could Have Predicted, Garland Edition

garland

Barack Obama, Jedi Knight.

barack-obama-jedi

145 replies
  1. 1
    pat says:

    Wow, that was fast.

  2. 2
    C. Isaac says:

    It was always going to end this way.

    They just refused to accept the reality that Obama started with the best offer they were going to get, and reality is now setting in that it could be so much worse.

    What could have been an easy “win” for them by claiming that Garland was their guy, their suggestion, turned into a humiliating public relations defeat. Now they have to sit there, eat their crow, and mutter about how savory it is.

  3. 3
    Germy says:

    In addition to being a Jedi, he’s starring in a Rom Com:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PENHLqucJVQ

    The perfect first date movie: The Courtship of Michelle and Obama

  4. 4
    LAO says:

    I blame Obama…oh wait.

  5. 5
    bystander says:

    Bbbutttt Hillary will probably nominate a corporate shill from a white shoe law firm who will work to stop regulations on banking and industry. Just ask any berniebro.

  6. 6
    rikyrah says:

    BWA HA HA HA HA HA

    at that picture.

  7. 7
    rikyrah says:

    I do not take anything for granted.
    I do not understate the possible stupidity of the American public.

    But, for me, it’s all about GOTV.

    I will say it again:

    Willard Romney ran a Southern Strategy campaign,

    AND IT WORKED.

    He won 60% of the White vote.

    60%

    and, it didn’t even matter.

    Willard Romney got 27% of the Latino vote.

    Donald Trump polls in the SINGLE DIGITS in terms of Latino approval.

    SHOW ME where he can make up that loss with additional White voters.

    Just explain it to me.

  8. 8
    J. says:

    Not. Gonna. Happen.

  9. 9
    Robin G. says:

    Ginger, get the popcorn!

  10. 10
    hovercraft says:

    “Please proceed” GOP
    Eleventh dimensional chess.

  11. 11
    jheartney says:

    The logic of the Garland nomination is inescapable, but bear in mind that the Base would not forgive any Republican senator who voted to confirm him come November. They’ll wait for the election, then confirm.

  12. 12
    Rommie says:

    Flaw in the machine: “Republicans must know”

    If the rats start fleeing from the SS Trump – the idea of the “party line” is blown up, and you’ll have a gaggle of R’s trying to convince their voters that they are quasi-independents.

    We’ll get to see if the people will vote for the Real Conservative over the fake one as much as they do when Blue Dog Democrats try to be the pretend R.

  13. 13
    Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter says:

    OMG, I’ve been reading Red State obsessively since last night savoring each and every bittersweet tear. Who do I see about my prolonged schadenfreude?

  14. 14
    dmsilev says:

    @Germy: In Hyde Park, there’s a plaque commemorating the location of Barack and Michelle’s first kiss (at the shopping plaza at 53rd and Dorchester, though the Baskin Robbins that they went to has since relocated). Always found that kind of creepy in a stalkerish way.

  15. 15

    Meep, meep….

    You know, we got lucky that Barack Obama decided that he wanted to spend his time and skills in public service instead of as a grifter on Wall Street as he could probably run one hell of a long con (and yes, I was watching Leverage last night on re-runs at the gym)

  16. 16
    Betty Cracker says:

    Anyone seriously think they’ll confirm Garland now? The Senatortoise & crew will probably at least wait to see if Hillary thrashes the shit out of Trump (please FSM) before doing their jobs. The RedState morons are in sackcloth and ashes, but the actual political operators are sniffing around for the new power-brokers (RedState will get around to that eventually too).

  17. 17
    JPL says:

    It hasn’t happened yet. My Senator, Johnny Isakson wants another Scalia, so he’ll probably hold out in case Trump wins. The odds are pretty good that a Trump victory insures another bigot on the court.

  18. 18
  19. 19
    Gelfling545 says:

    @C. Isaac: They just refused to accept the reality that Obama started with the best offer they were going to get,
    And yet he’s been doing that since day 1. “Here is my offer, my whole offer & nothing but the offer” and yet they invariably do worse trying to scramble for more. You’d think by bow they’d get it.

  20. 20
    Tom Levenson says:

    Reality bites. Hard.

  21. 21
    WarMunchkin says:

    Yeah, I don’t get their freakout though. Do they think Trump wouldn’t nominate whichever social conservative they asked for?

  22. 22
    Brachiator says:

    @rikyrah:

    SHOW ME where he can make up that loss with additional White voters.

    Bill and Hillary’s painful rejection by West Virginia voters should be a warning sign. If Clinton cannot regain young voters and alienates a key percentage of white women voters, she may lose states in the middle of the country that Obama won.

    The Latino vote is not evenly spread throughout the country. The Latino vote in California does not matter. That state will go for Hillary anyway.

    Clinton is not showing herself to be a deft campaigner, and Bill may end up being sidelined.

    The advantage is still Clinton’s, but it is not an insurmountable advantage.

    ETA: The Garland thing is just too damn funny. What ever will the GOP do?

    What if Trump puts his foot down and still wants the GOP to wait? Are they going to embarrass their man even before the coronation has taken place?

  23. 23
    MattF says:

    I don’t expect anything to happen in the Senate before Election Day. There’s a penetrating odor of eau de sewage rising from the Well, and all the plumbers are busy.

  24. 24
    hamletta says:

    @Brachiator:

    and alienates a key percentage of white women voters

    Against Trump?! Are you mad?

  25. 25
    singfoom says:

    This makes logical sense, so the Senate Republicans COULD do it, but that doesn’t mean they WILL do it. They’re just as susceptible for pony wishing as any group of people. If the R Senate leadership makes the call that they’ll keep the Senate but lose the WH, they might see this as a opportunity for fundraising.

    I won’t believe a damn thing until Garland is in front of the Senate being grilled.

    ETA: If they wait and Clinton wins, I think she should nominate Obama. That’ll make their goddamn heads explode.

  26. 26
    Joel says:

    @Germy: holy shit, they look *nothing* like Barack and Michelle.

  27. 27
    MazeDancer says:

    Spent a great deal of time at RedState this AM. What a surreal experience. Most of the commenters seemed sane, well-spoken, decent writers, and actual patriots. I felt like I was reading a bunch of Americans with whom I probably disagree about many things, but they were just regular people, and we could discuss the best path for a country.

    Sure, they still have insane, oppressive views about every social issue. But their love of country and willingness to put patriotism first and keep a crazy monster out of the White House did not feel so far from how most of the Democratic Party feel.

    It was a kind of hazy, illusionary moment of feeling what it would be like in a nation where people all cared about important things. Without putting hate first.

    On a more realistic level, if “true conservatives” can keep even 5% of the vote from Trump, this is a very good thing. Because venality, misogyny, and racism are the core of the GOP base. And they get to wave their freak flag high, now, and will turn out in droves to vote Trump.

  28. 28
    Kay says:

    The Senate race in Ohio remains very tight, with Rob Portman and Ted Strickland each at 38%, and 23% of voters undecided. Rob Portman has just a 32/40 approval spread. That puts him well behind Sherrod Brown’s 42/33 spread for honors as Ohio’s more popular Senator.
    One issue percolating right now that really has the potential to hurt Portman is the Supreme Court seat. 53% of voters want to see the seat filled this year to only 39% who don’t, including a 60/31 spread with independents in favor of filling it this year. But where voters are really mad with Senate Republicans is the issue of holding hearings and at least giving Merrick Garland a fair shot. 65% of voters think the Senate should have hearings on Garland’s nomination to only 21% of voters opposed to doing so. That includes 75/10 support from Democrats, 75/11 from independents, and 47/38 even from Republicans for holding hearings

  29. 29

    Approving Garland now would be a tactical error, since it would give the new liberal majority on the Court a chance to do something about Republican voter suppression efforts before the election. Much better to stall and approve him in late October.

  30. 30

    @Germy: OMG, OMG, OMG. Thank you for sharing that.

  31. 31
    aimai says:

    @bystander: You should see what they say about Merrick Garland! He’s the next coming of Scalia, as far as they see it. At least over at dKos where the rumor mill grinds exceedingly small.

  32. 32
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @rikyrah:

    SHOW ME where he can make up that loss with additional White voters.

    Voter ID. Doesn’t need additional white voters, just requires effective voter suppression, and that’s now playing in states like Wisconsin and Ohio.

    @Brachiator:

    Bill and Hillary’s painful rejection by West Virginia voters should be a warning sign.

    WV is just the last of the ‘legacy Democrat’ regions to identify as what it had already become (our host excluded, of course) thanks to its Stockholm Syndrome attachment to King Coal.

    Anyway, on topic: the Senate GOP will want to hedge their SCOTUS bets until after November (assuming that Obama doesn’t ask Judge Garland to withdraw then) but the Senate election campaigns have only just begun, and that’s a good few months of ‘do your job’ before everybody goes home to fight their elections.

  33. 33
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Brachiator: West Virginia? Seriously? It hasn’t been in play for Democrats in 20 years.

  34. 34
    chopper says:

    shrug. still don’t believe garland will make his way to the court this year. the GOP is petulant if anything, and really really bad at reading the handwriting on the wall.

  35. 35
    aimai says:

    @rikyrah: Well. I’ll explain it to you. Because it makes my shaden even freudier every time I contemplate just how much Trump can bluster and bloviate and bribe his way into the hearts and minds of the remaining mouthbreathing white male populace and still lose. I’ll begin my story with “Once Upon A Time there lived a very, very, very, bad President named Barack Obama…”

  36. 36
    Germy says:

    @TaMara (HFG): What really hit home for me was how modest their early circumstances were.

    And the look on Michelle’s face when she sees the car he picks her up in…

  37. 37
    NonyNony says:

    @Brachiator:

    Bill and Hillary’s painful rejection by West Virginia voters should be a warning sign. If Clinton cannot regain young voters and alienates a key percentage of white women voters, she may lose states in the middle of the country that Obama won.

    Obama didn’t win West Virginia. Obama didn’t win it in the primary nor did he win it in the general election. It didn’t matter.

    What matters is whether Clinton can hang onto the states that Obama won in 2008. She can even lose a few of them and still win it, but holding onto all of them is the strategy. And while I agree that complacency is bad, I don’t see a single one of them that Trump is going to flip. Especially if she has learned the lessons of 1999 and has Barack Obama out there aggressively stumping on her behalf the way Gore refused to have Clinton stump for him.

    The only thing I worry about is that the misogyny in this country might just be worse than the racism and that there might be more men unwilling to vote for a woman than they were to vote for a black guy. Beyond that I don’t see the need to freak out – Clinton actually does much better with young people than the media narrative would have you believe. The Democratic Party is not as divided as the online wars between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters would make you suspect. It’s mostly the media leading people by the nose because horse race reporting and angry divisions in the party generate clicks.

  38. 38
    Keith P. says:

    And the filibuster will also go bye-bye. There are too many quotes from GOP Senators and pundits advocating it when they had a better hand to not do it.
    They could have been smart or bold, and the chose the latter.

  39. 39
    Betty Cracker says:

    @chopper: Especially when it would require them to put party above their personal interests, which would be the case for deep red staters.

  40. 40
    Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter says:

    @Betty Cracker: Why would they confirm Garland when there’s no pressure to confirm him? At least now, conservatives might get a split SC decision, with a chance of upholding something one of the two dbag lower courts decided.

  41. 41
    MuckJagger says:

    @Brachiator:

    In the 2012 Indiana primary, Willard got a bit over 400,000 votes out of about 635,000 cast.

    In the 2016 Indiana primary, The Donald got about 587,000 votes out of about 1,000,000 cast.

    That’s a pretty freaking big jump in Republican voters.

    While I don’t expect Hillary to win Indiana, if there’s that sort of increased participation across the country, she could lose some of the states Obama won.

  42. 42
    Emma says:

    I wish I had a good emoticon for ROFLMAO.

  43. 43
    starscream says:

    @MazeDancer: 538 raised a terrifying prospect: a “true Republican” runs 3rd party, nobody gets to 270, and Paul Ryan picks the president.

  44. 44
    dedc79 says:

    @Roger Moore: highly unlikely. The spring term will be over and the court would have to move very quickly in the fall to get in argument and a decision in advance of the election.

  45. 45
    Denali says:

    @rikyrah,
    New voter restriction wil keep Blacks and Latinos away from the polls. Its not the numbers of people, its the numbers of people who vote. Case in point in my county, in the last election the Democratic candidate would have won if the people in the inner city had voted.

  46. 46
    dedc79 says:

    Leon Wolf isn’t a senator, let alone chair of the judiciary committee. Unless/until mitch or chuck announces a change in their approach, I’m not getting my hopes up.

  47. 47
    Starfish says:

    @Brachiator: Latino voters are not just big in California. The demographics throughout the southwest have changed so you have a larger Latino population in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and west Texas.

    @rikyrah: Romney did not run a Southern strategy and could not because the people of the northeast cannot help but be condescending when they talk to Southerners. They act as if they are talking to children or stupid people, and even children and stupid people know when you are treating them like children or stupid people. The Southern strategy ran itself because the white voters would prefer someone who talks down to them over someone black.

  48. 48
    aimai says:

    @Joel: I think this Michelle is too prettied up and smoothed down for the real Michelle. And this Barack, I don’t know, he looks ok but he lacks the real barack’s real grace. His voice is too high, too. Its hard to judge when the real couple are so present. But it looks super cute and I look forward to seeing it.

  49. 49
    hovercraft says:

    @NonyNony:
    Not only did he not win WV I believe that is the state where he lost like 40% of the primary vote to some white dude in prison.

  50. 50
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter:

    Why would they confirm Garland when there’s no pressure to confirm him?

    The question for Yertle is whether he thinks he can salvage control of the Senate by doing so, or whether that’s going bye-bye no matter what. And the additional question is whether the most vulnerable GOP senators believe that — if Kirk and Ayotte and Portman and Johnson (and even Mavericky McCain) think it’s a way to save their own skins, then party discipline goes out of the window.

  51. 51
    Brachiator says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    Anyone seriously think they’ll confirm Garland now? The Senatortoise & crew will probably at least wait to see if Hillary thrashes the shit out of Trump (please FSM) before doing their jobs.

    Yep. Good point. The GOP may also want to see if their Trumpenator still insists on “delay, delay, delay!”

  52. 52
    dww44 says:

    @rikyrah: I agree with your entire comment but want to emphasize the need we have to have a real GOTV grass roots operation. It should be modeled after Obama’s 2008 efforts here

    I think my red state could be flipped and I would absolutely love it if my GOP Senator, as mild mannered as they come these days but still votes in lockstep with his party, somehow lost to the veritable Democrat unknown who looks to be replacing him. I’d love to see a Democratic blow-out in my lifetime, but given the commitment of relatives and friends to always vote GOP, I just pray for a victory in November at the top of the ticket.

  53. 53
    dmsilev says:

    @starscream: That’s pretty unlikely. First off, if the GOP couldn’t get their act together to beat Trump in the primary, why does anyone think a plausible third-party candidate will suddenly emerge from the woodwork? Secondly, a “true conservative” 3rd party would mostly just split the conservative vote, meaning that Hillary would have a few swing states swing in her favor (remember: states are won by plurality, not majority). For the “to the House” scenario to make sense, you’d need a 3rd party candidate who drew votes from both D and R, and do so in sufficient amounts to win several states.

  54. 54
    rikyrah says:

    @Brachiator:

    The Latino vote is not evenly spread throughout the country. The Latino vote in California does not matter. That state will go for Hillary anyway.

    But, it’s spread out in enough states to make a difference.

  55. 55
    Brachiator says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    West Virginia? Seriously? It hasn’t been in play for Democrats in 20 years.

    It’s not about whether or not West Virginia is in play. Clinton’s response to the West Virginia coal miner was excruciatingly lame.

    And the open disrespect shown to both her and Bill should be worrisome.

    And this was Hillary in West Virginia in 2008:

    Mrs. Clinton defeated Senator Obama Tuesday in a primary where racial considerations emerged as an unusually salient factor. She drew strong support from white, working-class voters who have spurned Mr. Obama in recent contests.

    Her 2016 appearance is a significant reversal.

  56. 56
    Joel says:

    @Brachiator: It’s pointless to extrapolate from primary voting. Clinton beat Obama by a large margin in Indiana in ’08 and we know how that turned out on election day.

    The best available data right now is the national polling, which currently has Clinton sitting around +7 (median value). And that’s including obvious outlier/house effect pollsters like Rasmussen.

  57. 57
    hovercraft says:

    @MuckJagger:
    According to the forecasters increased primary participation does not necessarily mean higher general election turnout. It simply indicates that one primary is more compelling than the other. e.g. In 2000 the GOP had much higher primary turnout but in the general the democrats had higher turnout. Not that it ended up mattering thanks to the supreme court.

  58. 58
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @starscream: The filing deadline for a third-party candidate in Texas is this coming Monday. You need 80k signatures. Nobody is running third party in 2016.

  59. 59

    @dmsilev: Wasn’t there someone in here yesterday who claimed such a candidate was going to emerge and have UNLIMITED CASH? Or something.

  60. 60
    WarMunchkin says:

    @starscream: That only happens if someone undermines Clinton as well (Stein or Johnson). But I don’t get that argument – members of the electoral college can make their own decision, can they not? I thought it only goes to the House if the electoral college is unable to decide.

  61. 61

    I’m tepid about Clinton, but nothing has inspired me to GOTV this year than the prospect of Trump (or really any of the other choices) getting within 10 miles of the Oval Office. Now is not the time to think this is a slam dunk.

  62. 62
    NorthLeft12 says:

    @jheartney:

    but bear in mind that the Base would not forgive any Republican senator who voted to confirm him come November. They’ll wait for the election, then confirm.

    This ^^^ exactly. The cowards will con their base one more time, then cave and say the situation has changed and Garland is going to be the best they can get.
    Perhaps Pres. Obama can start hinting that maybe he should just leave it for Hilary and the new senate to nominate and confirm a new supreme justice. Just to watch the RWNJs whine and cry.

  63. 63
    different-church-lady says:

    I’m not quite sure when “doing things that make sense” became a Jedi-quality, but if that’s the case, then yeah, build a four dozen Death Stars and he’ll blow up every one of them.

  64. 64
    jeff says:

    They’ll wait and see.

  65. 65
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Brachiator:
    This time around,Hillary is the “black” candidate, in that she’s the one with most of the support from black voters. I guess she’s being treated as black by proxy.

  66. 66
    Percysowner says:

    @jheartney: If that happens, I hope that Judge Garland withdraws his name, stating that the party controlling the Senate stated that the “people” should decide on the next Supreme Court Justice and that he has decided to bow to their “superior” judgement. Yes, it would mean 3-4 more months without a full Supreme Court, but we waited that long, then we can wait a little longer for the “people” to get what we were told they really, really wanted.

    Basically, I don’t think Obama would screw Garland by withdrawing his name, but don’t want the Republicans to get anything out of this.

  67. 67
    dmsilev says:

    @Iowa Old Lady: That was just the latest incarnation of R2R, of Brinks! Trucks! Backing! Up! fame.

  68. 68
    rk says:

    I just heard right now (forget where) some establishment republican talking about how Trump was talking to the establishment people about supreme court picks. It made my blood boil. They will not allow the sitting president to nominate a supreme court justice, but a fascist thug who hasn’t won the election is qualified to have this discussion? They prefer a classless, buffoon over a qualified, dignified black man every single time. This is so disgusting on so many levels and they have no idea how racist and obnoxious they sound. It’s so much a part of their DNA that they don’t even have a clue.

  69. 69
    starscream says:

    Good things about the CNN poll that has Hill up 13 points: only 5% undecided, and her favorability is a net -1.

  70. 70
    🚸 Martin says:

    @dmsilev:

    Secondly, a “true conservative” 3rd party would mostly just split the conservative vote, meaning that Hillary would have a few swing states swing in her favor (remember: states are won by plurality, not majority). For the “to the House” scenario to make sense, you’d need a 3rd party candidate who drew votes from both D and R, and do so in sufficient amounts to win several states.

    Well, at this stage they only need to pull from D to deny Obama’s 2012 map from playing out. I think ‘true conservative’ is a euphemism for a social moderate, fiscal conservative (but not an anti-tax fundamentalist), foreign policy dove. The problem with such an individual is how do they build their brand, where do they fundraise, etc. You can’t win a 3rd party on the strength of Code Pink.

  71. 71
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @starscream:

    538 raised a terrifying prospect: a “true Republican” runs 3rd party, nobody gets to 270, and Paul Ryan picks the president.

    Which state or states is True Republican actually going to win to do that? The last time a third-party candidate won any electoral votes was 1968, which turned a heavy Nixon win into an even heavier Nixon win.

    There aren’t many states big enough to make the no-270 scenario likely. There also aren’t many states where you can still get on the November ballot as an independent: if ZodiaCruz wanted to run for President of Texas, he’d need 80,000 signatures on a petition by next week.

    And that’s before even considering the popular reaction to an election going to the House. There would be riots.

    This is like the ‘contested convention’ fantasy.

  72. 72
    dmsilev says:

    TPM just now:

    As reporters gathered at a Dulles, Virginia airport hanger awaiting the arrival of Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), his campaign announced that he would not be leaving his home state after all.

    Instead, the Ohio governor told the networks that he will make a statement in his hometown of Columbus at 5 p.m. ET.

    I think we’re done. Looks like Kasich will be staying in Ohio. Sorry, Kay.

  73. 73
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Brachiator: That was an excruciatingly tone-deaf and lame-ass response, which Clinton has rightly apologized for, but the only reason the folks in Appalachia liked Clinton in 2008 was because she was running against a black dude. I don’t usually think like that, but in this case, it’s true.

  74. 74
    Just One More Canuck says:

    What kind of campaigns are going on to ensure that people have the “right” kind of ID to be able to register and vote?

  75. 75
    rikyrah says:

    @Germy:

    What really hit home for me was how modest their early circumstances were.

    And the look on Michelle’s face when she sees the car he picks her up in…

    I always loved the story of the car with the hole in the floor.

    Add into it that the President of the United States used to live above a Harold’s Chicken Shack (you gotta be from Chicago to get that).

    makes me chuckle everytime.

  76. 76
    JPL says:

    @starscream: I wonder if Cruz dropped out to lead the way for another person to jump in?

  77. 77
    JPL says:

    Kasich is dropping out..

  78. 78
    different-church-lady says:

    @dmsilev: At a mid-level hotel in Oak Park, there’s a plaque commemorating the location of Barack and Michelle’s first… uh… never mind.

  79. 79
    Mike J says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    This time around,Hillary is the “black” candidate, in that she’s the one with most of the support from black voters. I guess she’s being treated as black by proxy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtY5bv-oxLE

  80. 80
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Brachiator:

    the open disrespect shown to both her and Bill should be worrisome.

    You could almost say that they’re clinging to their guns and their religion, where their religion is the Church of the Holy Coalmine.

    If the WVers who think they’re entitled to destroy the planet in exchange for scraps from the mine-owners’ table want some fucking disrespect, then put them in touch with me.

  81. 81
    shomi says:

    Pick the dumbest most short sighted thing they can do and that is what they will probably do. They will be too busy trying to make some sort of dog and pony show out of Clintons emails or Bullghazi or whatever during the general election campaign to spend time on this. It also will seem contradictory to even the most idiotic in the Republican base.

    This is why I never really worried about the supreme court nominee. They can deny a less than ideal candidate now which only gives us a more ideal candidate later. In their short sightedness they probably thought they could get some political mileage out of denying any nominee.

  82. 82
    The Other Chuck says:

    @pseudonymous in nc:

    thanks to its Stockholm Syndrome attachment to King Coal.

    This is Appalachia. When coal stops, people there go hungry. Of course, the shredded social safety net is due to … yeah.

  83. 83
    singfoom says:

    @Just One More Canuck: Well, there’s some campaigns like that going on, but it’s more “make sure only the right (read, not poor or minority) people vote”.

    According to: http://www.ncsl.org/research/e.....er-id.aspx

    The following states have STRICT ID voter laws for this upcoming election.

    Georgia
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Mississippi
    North Dakota
    Tennessee
    Virginia
    Texas [5]
    Wisconsin

    But yes, that’s a great question. The Democratic party, the Clinton campaign and voting rights organizations should be swarming all those states to assist people who might need help.

  84. 84
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @pseudonymous in nc: i could see that happing, maybe in a very small state with a lot of Republicans…. New Hampshire, maybe? Utah? I think even in that scenario HRC takes Obama’s states and maybe MO? AZ, if the Dem Senate candidate catches fire?

  85. 85

    @Germy: I decided to front page this later this afternoon (there seems to be flurry of posts in waiting right now.

  86. 86
    LAO says:

    @pseudonymous in nc: That was the dream of crazy #TakeItToTheHouse guy yesterday.

  87. 87
    cokane says:

    @starscream: i dont see how that would happen, where would a “true republican” pull votes off of Clinton? An effective 3rd challenge from the right would just make for a blue landslide

  88. 88
    Brachiator says:

    @NonyNony: RE: Bill and Hillary’s painful rejection by West Virginia voters should be a warning sign. If Clinton cannot regain young voters and alienates a key percentage of white women voters, she may lose states in the middle of the country that Obama won.

    Obama didn’t win West Virginia. Obama didn’t win it in the primary nor did he win it in the general election. It didn’t matter.

    How did Hillary Clinton do in West Virginia in 2008? She trounced Obama.

    What matters is whether Clinton can hang onto the states that Obama won in 2008. She can even lose a few of them and still win it, but holding onto all of them is the strategy. And while I agree that complacency is bad, I don’t see a single one of them that Trump is going to flip. Especially if she has learned the lessons of 1999 and has Barack Obama out there aggressively stumping on her behalf the way Gore refused to have Clinton stump for him.

    It’s early. I note that Clinton has an advantage, for now. But let’s see what happens as we get to both of the party’s conventions.

    The only thing I worry about is that the misogyny in this country might just be worse than the racism and that there might be more men unwilling to vote for a woman than they were to vote for a black guy. Beyond that I don’t see the need to freak out – Clinton actually does much better with young people than the media narrative would have you believe.

    I don’t just consider the media. I look at the polls.

    I don’t know whether the misogyny might be worse than the racism. But there is an ideological chasm that is part of the gender gap. Clinton must do well with white women, to offset the votes that she will not be getting from white men. This has always been the case for Democrats, and will still be the case with Clinton. And right now, significant numbers of women do not like her. Fortunately, they absolutely detest Trump. But the question is, will women who don’t like her still vote for her, or will they simply skip the presidential vote.

    The Democratic Party is not as divided as the online wars between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters would make you suspect. It’s mostly the media leading people by the nose because horse race reporting and angry divisions in the party generate clicks.

    I am looking at Trump v Clinton. I don’t give a rat’s ass about Clinton supporters v Sanders supporters. The question is whether Clinton will be able to bring the vote once the primary dust settles.

  89. 89
    dmsilev says:

    @rikyrah:

    Add into it that the President of the United States used to live above a Harold’s Chicken Shack (you gotta be from Chicago to get that).

    I lived for a few years in the condo complex where they lived once they were married (by the time I moved in, they had obtained their 8 year lease on a well-known property in downtown DC…). We used to get tour groups wandering by, with guides pointing up to a unit on the third floor “and that’s the apartment President Obama lived in until 2006 (or thereabouts). Also, was chatting once with a neighbor, who shared Barack’s habit of going out onto the back porch in the evening for an after-dinner cigarette. They’d be on their respective porches at the same time, and would look across the alley at each other and just say hello.

  90. 90
    VOR says:

    @rikyrah: Yes, the Latino population is spread out across the country. Heck, even Minnesota now is 5% Hispanic by population. I doubt Trump will get many votes from other non-Caucasian ethnic groups either.

  91. 91
    different-church-lady says:

    @cokane: Also, might it be too late for a third party to get on the ballot in many states?

  92. 92
    SuzieC says:

    @dmsilev: I’m quite sure that the statement will be that he’s staying in. That’s what his campaign told the Columbus Dispatch this morning.

  93. 93
    trollhattan says:

    @The Other Chuck:
    Not that different from the Western state timber regions where they cut everything they could and what mills remain are highly automated, employing a tiny fraction of the former workforce. Every extraction industry eventually busts.

  94. 94
    Chip Daniels says:

    While we can’t be complacent and assume away the stupidity and hatred of too-many of our fellow countrymen, lets not make them into superhuman monsters either.

    A lot has been written about how angry thers are, but really it is just at the margins where the real anger lies.
    IMO, and based on rigorous anecdata and Noonan-esque lawn sign reading, most of the country is not angry, at least not to seething revolutionary levels.

    For us inside the political nerd world, it seems that way, but the vast majority of Americans don’t read RedState or Dkos or (gasp) even Balloon Juice. Most people just want to get up and go to work each day and for them, politics is the background buzz while they wait for the dentist.
    Again, IMO, most people want the Status Quo With Slight Improvements- more job openings, easier health care access, time off for holidays a more level balance of power between them and their boss.

    In other words- they want the basic posture that Clinton is selling. Status Quo With Slight Improvements. They don’t want to burn it all down, they don’t want to mount the head of bankers on pikes (alas). The stuff Trump is selling appeals the rageaholics, the people who wore tricorner hats with teabags, but that’s about the extent of it.

    We can lose this, but we can definitely win, and win big.

  95. 95
    different-church-lady says:

    @dmsilev: There’s got to be some sort of variation on the “Good Luck Mr. Gorsky” joke in that somewhere…

  96. 96
    different-church-lady says:

    @Chip Daniels:

    most of the country is not angry, at least not to seething revolutionary levels.

    A whole lot of people don’t appreciate the distinction between anger and frustration.

  97. 97
    Chris says:

    @rikyrah:

    SHOW ME where he can make up that loss with additional White voters.

    He won’t. He’ll try to make up for it by diminishing Latino voters, or at least blunting their increased numbers, by suppressing their votes. Expect the biggest vote suppression campaign from state and local Republicans we’ve ever seen.

  98. 98
    catclub says:

    @NonyNony:

    What matters is whether Clinton can hang onto the states that Obama won in 2008. She can even lose a few of them and still win it, but holding onto all of them is the strategy. And while I agree that complacency is bad, I don’t see a single one of them that Trump is going to flip.

    1. Indiana – it was a total surprise when Obama won it in 2008.

  99. 99
    Brachiator says:

    @Starfish:

    Latino voters are not just big in California. The demographics throughout the southwest have changed so you have a larger Latino population in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and west Texas.

    Not enough Latinos in Texas to matter. And California will go big for Hillary. Arizona, maybe Ohio and Illinois, maybe Florida are states where the Latino vote might flip the contest from the GOP to the Democrats.

    @rikyrah:

    But, it’s spread out in enough states to make a difference.

    Unfortunately, this is not really the case. There are some key states where the Latino vote can make a difference, other states where it may not matter as much. Also, I want to see how much Latino voter registration increases.

  100. 100
    catclub says:

    @jheartney:

    They’ll wait for the election, then confirm.

    No way. Obama is pulling the nom on election day.

  101. 101
    different-church-lady says:

    @Chris: I dunno if the enthusiasm is going to be there for that. In fact, I don’t think we’re more than a few days away from seeing a spate of “burn it down and we’ll be better off after four years of failed Hillary” articles. Perhaps hours.

  102. 102
    Chris says:

    @different-church-lady:

    I expect them, or at least 95% of them, to line up behind Trump when push comes to shove. Whether that translates to “enthusiasm” is another matter, I suppose. But I don’t expect them to be OK with four years of Hillary under any circumstances. “Heighten the contradictions” doesn’t tend to be their delusion.

  103. 103
    catclub says:

    @dmsilev:

    told the networks that he will make a statement

    Maybe Kasich will name a VP!

  104. 104
    🚸 Martin says:

    @Brachiator:

    How did Hillary Clinton do in West Virginia in 2008? She trounced Obama.

    There were 10 counties in West Virginia in 2012 where a currently incarcerated felon trounced Obama. Primaries are completely independent elections from the general. There is no relationship between the two in terms of turnout or results. And obviously it had no bearing on Obama’s ability to win in 2012 which was decisive beyond everyones expectation.

  105. 105
    🚸 Martin says:

    @catclub: Carly Fiorina should be free. Maybe she could lose three times in the same election.

  106. 106
    amk says:

    da ohio clown is out. now kay can breathe easy. :O

  107. 107
    Barney says:

    It would help a bit if you name the site you’re showing – ‘RS’ seems to be Red State, judging by comments above, but it’s not as if that’s a nice site for Balloon Juicers to spend time on so that they recognise it at once, or ‘Leon H. Wolf’ is well-known. But the musing of Red State front pagers don’t amount to a hill of beans in this world.

  108. 108
    Jay C says:

    @Percysowner:

    Basically, I don’t think Obama would screw Garland by withdrawing his name, but don’t want the Republicans to get anything out of this.

    Nope: Judge Garland hardly seems like the sort to have accepted the SCOTUS nod from President Obama without a clear picture of the circumstances. I don’t think Obama would yank his nomination without it being Garland’s idea. Whether or nor he would withdraw on his own hook is a good question, but as long as his name is up there, it’s a lose-lose situation for the Senate Republicans, now that the hideous specter of a President Trump is looming up.

    Actually, more like lose-lose-lose:

    1. Vet and vote on Judge Garland: He gets in, Obama “wins”.
    2. Vet and vote on Judge Garland: He loses, Senate GOP still looks bad: plus they have the possibility of a new nomination by either Madam President Clinton or President Trump to motivate voters (badly for them).
    3. Keep stalling: merely puts off scenarios 1 or 2 for a few months.

    “11-dimensional chess” anyone?

  109. 109
    O. Felix Culpa says:

    @singfoom: Are there more than two states on that list (VA and WI) which voted Democratic in recent presidential elections? I’m wondering if there are any other historically Democratic states in jeopardy that these heinous Voter ID laws could affect. And yes, much effort should go into getting the targeted populations the necessary identification so they can vote. I can’t believe we’re going back to the disenfranchisement policies of my (very early) youth.

  110. 110
    Brachiator says:

    @Betty Cracker:

    That was an excruciatingly tone-deaf and lame-ass response, which Clinton has rightly apologized for

    Her apology was weak, and was rejected out of hand. By the way, the miner who spoke with Hillary was respectful, almost humble. Bill Clinton would have felt his pain. Hillary Clinton was defensive, self serving and talked dishonestly about her remarks were taken out of context. She must do better than this.

    but the only reason the folks in Appalachia liked Clinton in 2008 was because she was running against a black dude. I don’t usually think like that, but in this case, it’s true.

    And Clinton courted the hell out of the white vote there back in 2008.

    Obama supporters accused Mrs. Clinton of playing the race card last week when she explicitly said that she had more support among “white Americans” than he did.

    As I have noted before, it’s early, and I don’t think that Sanders is the answer. And I think that Clinton still leads Trump in most polls. So, I am not saying that anyone should panic. But Clinton has to get her campaign shit together, because Trump is going to look for and exploit the hell out of any perceived vulnerability.

  111. 111
    Calouste says:

    @MazeDancer:

    willingness to put patriotism first and keep a crazy monster out of the White House did not feel so far from how most of the Democratic Party feel

    Uhm, those folks at Redstate supporTed Cruz. They do want a crazy monster in the White House, just their crazy monster, not the other crazy monster.

  112. 112
    different-church-lady says:

    @Brachiator:

    Trump is going to look for and exploit the hell out of any perceived vulnerability.

    And Hillary’s going to do what? File her nails?

  113. 113
    What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us? says:

    @Brachiator: Clinton is not showing herself to be a deft campaigner? More people have voted for her in the primaries than have voted for Bernie. More people have voted for her than have voted for Trump. She’s attracted more votes than anyone. What is your definition of a deft campaigner? The person who finished second to the crappy campaigner who won?

  114. 114
    Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter says:

    @pseudonymous in nc: That’s pressure Republicans themselves would choose to put on themselves, or not.

    There’s no pressure from the opposition or the general public so there’s no reason Republicans should abandon their current position.

  115. 115
    randy khan says:

    @singfoom:

    Georgia
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Mississippi
    North Dakota
    Tennessee
    Virginia
    Texas [5]
    Wisconsin

    So the good news from a 2016 perspective is that Obama won just 2 of those states (Virginia and Virginia) in 2012 and 3 of those states in 2008 (Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin). Take them off the map and that’s still about 300 electoral votes.

    And if memory serves, the voter ID law in Virginia was in place in 2012. (I should remember, since I live there, but I’m not 100% sure.) Also, Virginia’s governor just used his pardon power to restore voting rights to all felons who’ve completed their prison sentences and probation terms, which should help.

  116. 116
    randy khan says:

    @different-church-lady:

    And Trump’s idea of a perceived vulnerability may not be an actual vulnerability.

  117. 117
    What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us? says:

    @NorthLeft12: My money is on exactly that happening. I would not be surprised if Obama start hinting that he’ll withdraw Garland’s nomination in the event of a Hillary win and says something along the lines of “you guys in the Senate said the next Prez should make the nomination. Well, have fun with a 35 year old liberal firebrand instead of the older centrist guy I nominated.” They either cave or get hoisted on their own petard.

  118. 118
    Betty Cracker says:

    @What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: For maximum chaos, Hillz should start dropping hints that she’ll nominate Huma Abedin.

  119. 119
    Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony says:

    @Brachiator:

    Hillary’s rejection by WV is about one main thing: coal. Obama’s energy policies are incredibly unpopular. Hillary promising more of the same is not acceptable to a large number of voters who have mined coal for generations.

  120. 120
    Brachiator says:

    @What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?:

    Clinton is not showing herself to be a deft campaigner?

    Short answer, no. And right now, I am supporting and voting for Hillary.

    I’ve given my reasons and noted my concerns. I look forward to seeing Clinton step up her campaign efforts.

  121. 121
    Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter says:

    @What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: I think you have to imagine how ~9 months or more of abdicating their constitutional responsibilities scot-free will empower Republicans. In a new Democratic administration, it is not unthinkable that Republicans will simply reject any Supreme Court nominee that doesn’t comport with their ideology. After all, they completely shut down the last President with close to no opprobrium.

    The only wildcard is does the Senate change hands. If that doesn’t happen, there is literally no reason Senate Republicans have to confirm anyone after the precedent they set with Obama.

  122. 122
    Brachiator says:

    @Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony:

    Hillary’s rejection by WV is about one main thing: coal. Obama’s energy policies are incredibly unpopular. Hillary promising more of the same is not acceptable to a large number of voters who have mined coal for generations.

    Yep.

  123. 123

    @What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?: I disagree, as a matter of constitutional norms, the expectation is the President nominates and the Senate considers and either approves or rejects. Either is part of the normal process. I don’t think Obama wants to entrench a new constitutional norm that the White House with an opposition Senate should not nominate a Justice in the last year (or two) of his/her term.

    It is a different story if Garland withdraws on his own.

    But let’s assume a Dem win for the White House and Senate, the worse case scenario is Garland is the new median voter (a massive improvement over Kennedy) and there is a full line change of the liberal Social Security eligible justices. The best case scenario is that Kagan is the median voter with a full line change and a Kennedy resignation. It is a no lose situation to keep Garland in play unless he does not want the seat.

  124. 124
    Dennis says:

    He’s a Jedi Knight because the best-case outcome is he gets to appoint a judge Orrin Hatch approves of? Ho-kay.

    If Republicans are beginning to say “we’ll get a worse one next year”, shouldn’t he withdraw Garland so they DO get a worse one (from their perspective) next year?

  125. 125
    john b says:

    @O. Felix Culpa: North Carolina just passed more strict Voter ID laws and it went to Obama in 2008.

  126. 126
    chopper says:

    @dmsilev:

    third, it’s a bit late for a third party to gin up and get on the ballot in a lot of states. they’d be starting waaaay behind.

  127. 127
    catclub says:

    @john b: Does anyone know how effective those voter suppression tools are? Can they change margins by 10%? By 5% ? By 1%?
    And I am asking for a presidential year.

    Any research?

    My wild ass guess is order 1% or less. Anybody else?

  128. 128
    john b says:

    @catclub: No way to tell. It’s all new. Early voting has been reduced and an ID requirement has been added. NC had been quite liberal in its voter ID requirements before the fairly recent GOP takeover in the state gov’t. The gerrymandering has been successfully challenged in federal court, but the ID requirement went the GOP’s way in the fed case and will get appealed to a higher court (I think).

  129. 129
    catclub says:

    @Brachiator: I have high hopes Obama will involve himself a LOT in the coming national election.

    Also, Joe Biden. Also, Elizabeth Warren.

  130. 130
    catclub says:

    @john b: So what is your guess? 10%, 5%, 1%?

  131. 131
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @NonyNony:

    What matters is whether Clinton can hang onto the states that Obama won in 2008. She can even lose a few of them and still win it, but holding onto all of them is the strategy.

    She’ll lose at least one: I think she has essentially no chance of winning Indiana in the general election. But Obama didn’t carry it either in 2012.

    She might get North Carolina. I also think she has a chance of winning a few states that Obama never won, particularly Arizona and Georgia, which could make up for any losses in the upper Midwest.

  132. 132
    john b says:

    @catclub: I’d guess in the 1-2% range. But that could be more than enough to swing what will likely be a close contest in NC.

  133. 133
    Ben Cisco says:

    @john b: And between that and the other shenanigans coming from Pee Wee Puppet Pal McCrory, there’s a lot of anger headed his (and the GOP’s) way come November. He’s doubling down on crap now b/c he knows a reckoning is coming.

    ETA: @Matt McIrvin: She has a shot now; the antics mentioned above, along with the business losses as a result of the so-called bathroom bill, have provided an opening.

  134. 134
    AxelFoley says:

    Consider that Obama vs Vader pic stolen.

  135. 135
    What Have the Romans Ever Done For Us? says:

    @Richard Mayhew: I agree that he probably won’t go to the extent of withdrawing the nom, but I expect he may sort of threaten to (I would) and maybe to strongly emphasize to them that this is indeed a better deal than they’re going to get later, to ensure Garland gets a hearing and confirmed. I doubt Garland would withdraw – he was soooo excited by getting the nomination and he really does seem like a decent sort, and Obama is pretty decent so I don’t see him pressuring the guy to drop out of consideration.

  136. 136
    Matt McIrvin says:

    @Brachiator:

    Not enough Latinos in Texas to matter. And California will go big for Hillary. Arizona, maybe Ohio and Illinois, maybe Florida are states where the Latino vote might flip the contest from the GOP to the Democrats.

    No way is Illinois going Republican, in any event.
    Florida alone is enough to make the difference. You saw the map in the other thread: the Gore 2000 or Kerry 2004 map plus Florida is a winning map.
    Arizona would be enough to offset the loss of an upper Midwestern state like Iowa or Wisconsin, not that I think that is going to happen.
    Meanwhile, non-Latino immigrants are probably going to be significant parts of the D coalition in Virginia and Michigan, as they have been in the past.

  137. 137
    Bostonian says:

    @catclub: Oh yeah. He’s gonna be like “Oh, it would be inappropriate for a lame duck like me to be appointing a supreme court justice at this point. The president-elect should be doing that. What? No, don’t be mad now, bro.”

    And then Merrick Garland will laugh all the way to AG.

  138. 138
    Paul in KY says:

    @Betty Cracker: I think they will until after the election, if Hillary wins & not at all, if we get the deluge.

  139. 139
    Brachiator says:

    @Matt McIrvin:

    Florida alone is enough to make the difference. You saw the map in the other thread: the Gore 2000 or Kerry 2004 map plus Florida is a winning map.
    Arizona would be enough to offset the loss of an upper Midwestern state like Iowa or Wisconsin, not that I think that is going to happen.

    You might be right. Once the dust settles and we get further down the election road, I will be interest to see what state polling looks like.

  140. 140
    Jon says:

    @starscream: How would splitting the Republican vote do anything other than improve Democratic results? I can see nothing else coming from that scenario.

  141. 141
    Uncle Cosmo says:

    @rikyrah:

    But, for me, it’s all about GOTV.

    Once the registered voters are there to be GO’d, I’m with you about a brazillion percent.

    The crying need is to do whatever is necessary to register everyone whose right to vote has been abridged by state governments seized by the GOP. And then get them out to vote in November, while reminding them forcefully just who tried to keep them from voting. And keep getting them out to vote in the off-years.

    I have no idea why the Democratic Party has not prioritized helping eligible citizens overcome Thug-designed obstruction to registering to vote. IMHO it’s the only hope we have of yanking the country back from the clutches of the GOP.

  142. 142
    What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us? says:

    @catclub: Warren has already started to go on a tear. My guess is Obama will skewer Trump any chance he gets. Maybe they can have Biden do most of that so Obama doesn’t have to go too negative, but then again, too negative doesn’t really exist in a world where The Donald is a general election candidate.

  143. 143
    Bill Arnold says:

    @Richard Mayhew:

    You know, we got lucky that Barack Obama decided that he wanted to spend his time and skills in public service instead of as a grifter on Wall Street as he could probably run one hell of a long con

    That’s one of the scariest things you’ve ever said. Combined with B. Obama’s well-known superpower whereby his enemies self-destruct [1], he could have dominated Wall Street.
    [1] Causal relationship? Does it matter? :-) (Perhaps the superpower only works for good. :-)

  144. 144
    J R in WV says:

    @hovercraft:

    Regretfully, this is a true fact. I’m aware that West Virginia can’t look for coal to “help” the state forward in any way. WV has been held down over a barrel by Big Coal forwell over a hundred years, and is still squirming on that barrel, even as Big Coal is itself dying of old age (running out of black gold to mine) and government regulation.

    I think that WV could do best with tourism to see the wonderful parts of the state that are relatively undamaged. Combining this tourism with farming to grow truck gardens to supply foods to restaurants catering to the folks coming to visit seems like the best way to support West Virginians who want to stay home.

  145. 145
    LAC says:

    @rikyrah: Girl, go! I know that you are not complacent and I appreciate what you said. We had the same naysayers during the Romney run.

Comments are closed.