2021 Elections

[AZGrizFan]

Five things are conspicuous in their absence in this thread:

Houndy
Analjelly
TripleFail
Brokeback
JohnStWrong (again)

And klammy. Let's not forget klammy.

Oh, and Hornet? You been rippin' the tits off, bro!!

[GannonFan]

The GOP lost in 2020 because the candidate was an incorrigible dick. Had he been a decent human being, he would have won.

The Dems are about to find out how awful policies and bowing to the worst elements works out. A good portion of the GOP already learned half that lesson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see the Dem establishment shifting back to the right and continuing to lose in the mid-terms.

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

[Ibanez]

I see the Dem establishment shifting back to the right and continuing to lose in the mid-terms.

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

Yup. If Breyer wants his seat to stay Blue then he should retire.

Although - we both know the Republicans will come up with some bullshit excuse as to why they can't confirm him if he he retired today and his replacement was announced next week.

[GannonFan]

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

Yup. If Breyer wants his seat to stay Blue then he should retire.

Although - we both know the Republicans will come up with some bullshit excuse as to why they can't confirm him if he he retired today and his replacement was announced next week.

Nah, although they've been obnoxious about it (as the GOP tends to be), they've been in the right on the two controversial SCOTUS picks. They held the majority of the Senate when that weak pick Garland (not having him be a SCOTUS justice turned out to be an incredibly fortunate outcome) was put forward. I know some will say he at least deserved an actual vote, but I think that's semantics, they voted no on him by not considering him. Obama should've pulled him back and nominated someone else. And then keep doing that. He let the GOP off easy, but at least in that case they had the numbers. Same with Amy Coney Barrett - the GOP held the Senate at the time and they went through all the steps. The GOP Senate then could be criticized for many things, but they held the power to confirm judges and they did just that in both cases.

I wouldn't have any problem with the Dems, while they hold the Senate with a tie-breaker in Harris, trying to fill a vacancy created by Breyer resigning. GOP can't do anything about blocking it other than doing what the Dems did with Coney Barrett and just not giving the nominee any votes, no matter how good the pick it. The Dems might face a bigger problem doing that, if they try to emulate the process with Coney Barrett, just due to them having such a slim majority. Even the GOP wasn't unanimous in confirming Coney Barrett, so would the Dems be unanimous with who they pick this time around?

[kalm]

I see the Dem establishment shifting back to the right and continuing to lose in the mid-terms.

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

Good points. I’m looking at it through a rhetoric/PR standpoint.

The progressive caucus is caving on the financial package. The Dems have an image issue. Candidates like McCauliffe don’t help.

[Ibanez]

Yup. If Breyer wants his seat to stay Blue then he should retire.

Although - we both know the Republicans will come up with some bullshit excuse as to why they can't confirm him if he he retired today and his replacement was announced next week.

Nah, although they've been obnoxious about it (as the GOP tends to be), they've been in the right on the two controversial SCOTUS picks. They held the majority of the Senate when that weak pick Garland (not having him be a SCOTUS justice turned out to be an incredibly fortunate outcome) was put forward. I know some will say he at least deserved an actual vote, but I think that's semantics, they voted no on him by not considering him. Obama should've pulled him back and nominated someone else. And then keep doing that. He let the GOP off easy, but at least in that case they had the numbers. Same with Amy Coney Barrett - the GOP held the Senate at the time and they went through all the steps. The GOP Senate then could be criticized for many things, but they held the power to confirm judges and they did just that in both cases.

I wouldn't have any problem with the Dems, while they hold the Senate with a tie-breaker in Harris, trying to fill a vacancy created by Breyer resigning. GOP can't do anything about blocking it other than doing what the Dems did with Coney Barrett and just not giving the nominee any votes, no matter how good the pick it. The Dems might face a bigger problem doing that, if they try to emulate the process with Coney Barrett, just due to them having such a slim majority. Even the GOP wasn't unanimous in confirming Coney Barrett, so would the Dems be unanimous with who they pick this time around?

I'm talking about the BS where they said a nominee wouldn't be considered in the last year of the 1st term of a POTUS...and then did just that. Typical politician BS.

[GannonFan]

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

Good points. I’m looking at it through a rhetoric/PR standpoint.

The progressive caucus is caving on the financial package. The Dems have an image issue. Candidates like McCauliffe don’t help.

McAuliffe was a disaster. They really need to move on (ha, funny pun) from Clinton cronies like McAuliffe. Running a fresh candidate would've been much better.

As for the financial package (funny to just call it that, as if it's just some financing going on), someone has to cave, they don't have the votes. It's a problem when you start off completely eliminating any chance of cooperation from the other party like they did when they told the GOP to wait until the next election since the Dems had all the power. Probably understandable when the Dems had the super majority back during Obama's first term and they decided to mock and deride Paul Ryan, but an entirely different thing when you have the slimmest of margins in the Senate and can't afford a single castoff. I'm not sure they'll get it through at all - just playing budget gimmicks to make up a total cost number while still pushing ahead isn't great legislation.

[andy7171]

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

Yup. If Breyer wants his seat to stay Blue then he should retire.

Although - we both know the Republicans will come up with some bullshit excuse as to why they can't confirm him if he he retired today and his replacement was announced next week.

While blurring the line you stand on, I have to disagree. The Senate really has no choice for the next 2.5 year at least in not confirming an acceptable candidate Obamaeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrr President Poopy Pants nominates.

[andy7171]

I'm talking about the BS where they said a nominee wouldn't be considered in the last year of the 1st term of a POTUS...and then did just that. Typical politician BS.

HHHmmmmmmm
Who was the previous last year of a 1st term President? Bush the First?

[GannonFan]

Nah, although they've been obnoxious about it (as the GOP tends to be), they've been in the right on the two controversial SCOTUS picks. They held the majority of the Senate when that weak pick Garland (not having him be a SCOTUS justice turned out to be an incredibly fortunate outcome) was put forward. I know some will say he at least deserved an actual vote, but I think that's semantics, they voted no on him by not considering him. Obama should've pulled him back and nominated someone else. And then keep doing that. He let the GOP off easy, but at least in that case they had the numbers. Same with Amy Coney Barrett - the GOP held the Senate at the time and they went through all the steps. The GOP Senate then could be criticized for many things, but they held the power to confirm judges and they did just that in both cases.

I wouldn't have any problem with the Dems, while they hold the Senate with a tie-breaker in Harris, trying to fill a vacancy created by Breyer resigning. GOP can't do anything about blocking it other than doing what the Dems did with Coney Barrett and just not giving the nominee any votes, no matter how good the pick it. The Dems might face a bigger problem doing that, if they try to emulate the process with Coney Barrett, just due to them having such a slim majority. Even the GOP wasn't unanimous in confirming Coney Barrett, so would the Dems be unanimous with who they pick this time around?

I'm talking about the BS where they said a nominee wouldn't be considered in the last year of the 1st term of a POTUS...and then did just that. Typical politician BS.

I think you mean the 2nd term of a POTUS (it was Obama's second term where they did that with Scalia's vacancy). And really, while that comes off as petulant, tell me how the majority party in the Senate doesn't have that power under the Constitution? If voters were really pissed off about it, they sure didn't show that when they still left the GOP in control of the Senate in the election that happened right after that. Like I said, I think Obama didn't press it like he should've and his hand wasn't a good one as he was putting Garland forward and as we're finding out now he wasn't that great of a selection.

[Ibanez]

I'm talking about the BS where they said a nominee wouldn't be considered in the last year of the 1st term of a POTUS...and then did just that. Typical politician BS.

I think you mean the 2nd term of a POTUS (it was Obama's second term where they did that with Scalia's vacancy). And really, while that comes off as petulant, tell me how the majority party in the Senate doesn't have that power under the Constitution? If voters were really pissed off about it, they sure didn't show that when they still left the GOP in control of the Senate in the election that happened right after that. Like I said, I think Obama didn't press it like he should've and his hand wasn't a good one as he was putting Garland forward and as we're finding out now he wasn't that great of a selection.

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

[Ibanez]

I'm talking about the BS where they said a nominee wouldn't be considered in the last year of the 1st term of a POTUS...and then did just that. Typical politician BS.

HHHmmmmmmm
Who was the previous last year of a 1st term President? Bush the First?

[DSUrocks07]

I think you mean the 2nd term of a POTUS (it was Obama's second term where they did that with Scalia's vacancy). And really, while that comes off as petulant, tell me how the majority party in the Senate doesn't have that power under the Constitution? If voters were really pissed off about it, they sure didn't show that when they still left the GOP in control of the Senate in the election that happened right after that. Like I said, I think Obama didn't press it like he should've and his hand wasn't a good one as he was putting Garland forward and as we're finding out now he wasn't that great of a selection.

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

But 2022 wouldn't be the last year of a 1st term.

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Exactly.

Wouldn't it be awesome if they convinced Breyer to retire and then disagreements between the Progressive Caucus and Manchin/Sinema kept them from confirming a nomination?

[Pwns]

I guess "NAZI! NAZI! NAZI!" isn't a winning message. If it was they wouldn't be leaking minority votes.

[UNI88]

I see the Dem establishment shifting back to the right and continuing to lose in the mid-terms.

Are they though? You listen to the talking heads today and the message they are sending is that the voters were just upset that they hadn't implemented all the new social infrastructure spending yet (the "Build Back Better" monstrosity) and that all they need to do is hurry up and pass that legislation and all will be fixed. I'm not sure how they made the mental gymnastics to get to that conclusion (why would people overwhelmingly elect GOP candidates in order to get more socialism-like legislation passed?) but that's going to be the takeaway from many on the left and the far left.

Frankly, I think they are expecting to lose in the mid-terms and are probably thinking "let's get done whatever we can squeeze in now while the getting's good before we get voted out next year". If anyone should be worried now it should be Justice Breyer - the pressure on him to vacate his seat while the Dems hold the Senate is going to really ratchet up.

They need to look a little deeper and honestly evaluate the results. How else do you explain what appears to be happening in the race for mayor of Buffalo, NY?

Byron Brown claims victory in Buffalo mayor's race; write-in ballots swamp India Walton

A more moderate candidate that wasn't even on the ballot defeating the progressive candidate with write-in votes!

[andy7171]

HHHmmmmmmm
Who was the previous last year of a 1st term President? Bush the First?

So "They", not Super Casey, is Lindsay Graham. OK.

...BTW, in coining THEY for Horny, I was years ahead of the curve with these transgender dopes. Come on man!

[UNI88]

So "They", not Super Casey, is Lindsay Graham. OK.

...BTW, in coining THEY for Horny, I was years ahead of the curve with these transgender dopes. Come on man!

I don't think Lindsay was the only one that said it. Ganny is right that it's within the Senate's power to confirm or not confirm a SCOTUS nominee but the Republicans were hypocrites when their reason for not confirming a candidate in 2016 was completely ignored in 2020. They fvcked up on the messaging, not in wielding their power.

Calling either side out for their hypocrisy isn't bad or necessarily biased.

[GannonFan]

I think you mean the 2nd term of a POTUS (it was Obama's second term where they did that with Scalia's vacancy). And really, while that comes off as petulant, tell me how the majority party in the Senate doesn't have that power under the Constitution? If voters were really pissed off about it, they sure didn't show that when they still left the GOP in control of the Senate in the election that happened right after that. Like I said, I think Obama didn't press it like he should've and his hand wasn't a good one as he was putting Garland forward and as we're finding out now he wasn't that great of a selection.

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

Eh, that's just Lindsey being Lindsey. No one really takes him seriously.

[Ibanez]

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

Eh, that's just Lindsey being Lindsey. No one really takes him seriously.

Not holding people accountable to their words is part of the problem.

[Ibanez]

So "They", not Super Casey, is Lindsay Graham. OK.

...BTW, in coining THEY for Horny, I was years ahead of the curve with these transgender dopes. Come on man!

You're so woke...you didn't even know it. Gold star for andy!

[GannonFan]

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

Now, that would be something entirely different. Using a lame-duck Congress, after an election that flips control of the Congress, to speed through a nomination that wouldn't get through once the newly elected Congress takes their seats, would be something that would take a lot of hubris, even though it's not entirely without precedence (that's pretty much how John Marshall came to the SCOTUS back in 1801). Jefferson wasn't unable to unseat Marshall so it's certainly something a party could choose to do. Of course, after the Federalists did that they never won the White House again (not really due to this action) so it would be a daring move for a party to do today. Luckily back when it happened with Marshall he ended up being one of the greatest jurists we've ever had. Ramming through a Kavanaugh or a Sotomayor would likely not be similar.

[Ibanez]

No...it was something Lindsey Graham said. i'll look for the video


edit: found it

But 2022 wouldn't be the last year of a 1st term.

Of course I fully expect the DNC behind the scenes to push hard for "Breyer to Bretire" on January 1 and then attempt to rush Biden to choose a replacement, and I fully expect the GOP to try to call foul and run to the media because that's how the game is played now.

Different teams, same tactics.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

2020 was the last year of a first term POTUS.

[GannonFan]

Eh, that's just Lindsey being Lindsey. No one really takes him seriously.

Not holding people accountable to their words is part of the problem.

I have never voted for Lindsey Graham and I never will.

[Ibanez]

Not holding people accountable to their words is part of the problem.

I have never voted for Lindsey Graham and I never will.

Me neither. I did vote for Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley. I'd vote for those 2 again.