Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?

Perotista · May 11, 2021

Chomsky said:
Excellent post! I couldn't agree more with your analysis.

And yes, it seems, from a political strategy perspective, the Dems would be best to leave the filibuster in place. The only advantage politically, might be if they thought their legislation could sway political opinion resulting in changes at the voting box, or if their legislation could assist freindly vote casting at the box.

Yes, I understand that and totally agree. Right now the best thing the Democrats have going for them is one each, Donald Trump. Independents don't like him or what he stands for. Trump is probably the only thing that stands between the GOP regaining the House in 2022 and the Democrats retaining. But in the long term, say a decade from now, if the trend continues and the numbers are correct, you very well could see a Republican lock on the senate.

Crosscheck · May 11, 2021

Perotista said:
Yes, I understand that and totally agree. Right now the best thing the Democrats have going for them is one each, Donald Trump. Independents don't like him or what he stands for. Trump is probably the only thing that stands between the GOP regaining the House in 2022 and the Democrats retaining. But in the long term, say a decade from now, if the trend continues and the numbers are correct, you very well could see a Republican lock on the senate.

Am surprised the Dems don't push to put Trump back on Facebook. Trump's continual whining and false accusations benefit the Dems more than the Reps.

The bigger question is what happens to the Republican Party when Trump dies? There will be a major power grab to lead the party and without a crystal ball I don't think anyone can guess.

Perotista · May 11, 2021

Crosscheck said:
Am surprised the Dems don't push to put Trump back on Facebook. Trump's continual whining and false accusations benefit the Dems more than the Reps.

The bigger question is what happens to the Republican Party when Trump dies? There will be a major power grab to lead the party and without a crystal ball I don't think anyone can guess.

Trump still has a strong hold over the GOP. Abet, a party that's a little smaller than it was last Nov 2020. If Gallup is to be believed the Republican Party has dropped from 30% of the electorate last Nov down to 26% today. That's good news for the democratic party, but the bad news is that drop didn't equate to any gain by the democrats as they're still at the same 31% today as they were last Nov. The movement has been into the independent column. Which I doubt that they will change their voting habits just because they consider themselves to be independents instead of Republicans.

I don't know what will happen to the Republican Party. I still find it hard to fathom folks following Trump who basically has no political ideology as he was their messiah. By this time after the defeat of Romney, McCain, Dole, G.H.W. Bush and Ford, the GOP had moved on looking for a fresh face and new ideas to promote for the next election. Not this time, It's still Trump, Trump and more Trump. Who know what the GOP will do if and when Trump dies? That is their problem. Sticking with Trump is their problem.

I have no crystal ball and I'm no seer. What I see today is a smaller Republican base than last year. Independents still disliking Trump, no effort at all to try to attract independents which the GOP must win to win general elections since they're the smaller of the two major parties. In fact, it does seem Republicans are in the process of trying to make their base even smaller by getting rid of any Republican that isn't a pro-Trumper. I don't know. With me it's all about numbers and winning elections, at least forecasting who is going to win. I've followed elections and election strategy ever since Eisenhower. It almost seems that the republicans think the only strategy they need is to be pro Trump. No ideas, no visions, no possible solutions to our problems, basically no political ideology or philosophy except being pro Trump will win elections for them. It's either that or the Republicans are counting on Biden and the democratic controlled congress to do something, pass something or to have something happened that will really, really peeve independents off at them. Peeve independents off enough they'll disregard their dislike of Trump.

I can only scratch my head.

mrjurrs · May 12, 2021

Perotista said:
For an old timer like me, it's hard to see an advantage, except short term to which ever party is in power in doing away with the filibuster. Now you hit on a good point, a change in leadership. The filibuster wasn't a problem until recently, Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole would work together, they respected each other, they would compromise, play the game of give and take. They knew that each party's goal was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the path to get there was a bit different. There was none of this opposing party being this nation's number one enemy. Go back from 2000, you'll see the straight party line vote was very rare if it existed at all. Not like now.

So why the change, Reid and then Schumer took over from Daschle, McConnell from Lott. Party firsters is what I call them. Party first and foremost, party always. Each has forgot the nation, forgot this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and a bunch of folks who don't give an owl's hoot about politics. They place the R and or the D way above the big A, America. They only worry about their base forgetting the other 70% of America.

the filibuster isn't the problem, it's the mindset of today's political party leaders. It's the mindset that Democrats will automatically oppose and Republican proposal or idea, Republicans automatically oppose any and all thing Democratic. No thought on the merits of the proposal or idea or possible solution, just who proposed it.

Filibuster or no filibuster, that isn't about to change the two major parties mindset. In the long term, the long run, doing away with the filibuster will hurt the Democrats more than it helped them. The trend is to each state having two senators from the same party. with the appointment and confirmation of Kavanaugh and Barrett, that doing away with filibuster would in the long term hurt them. We'd never have those two on the SCOTUS if Reid hadn't utilized the nuclear option for a short term gain. Although, I suppose one can't blame him, all elected officials only look toward the next election and not the future or what may happen after the election.

Not quite, R's removed filibuster for SCOTUS appointments...
"By 2017, roles had reversed — Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office. After Senate Democrats, now in the minority, filibustered the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch — Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court — McConnell engineered his own "nuclear option." The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Perotista · May 12, 2021

mrjurrs said:
Not quite, R's removed filibuster for SCOTUS appointments...
"By 2017, roles had reversed — Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office. After Senate Democrats, now in the minority, filibustered the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch — Trump's first nominee to the Supreme Court — McConnell engineered his own "nuclear option." The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

Yes, but you're not following. Reid first used the nuclear option for all appointments with the exception of the SCOTUS. He set the precedence for its use. Then McConnell escalated it a bit from all appointment with the lone exception of the SCOTUS to include all appointment, period. To include the SCOTUS.

That's the whole truth of this matter. Reid set the precedence for it use, as in all thing political and in war, once something is first used, the other sides does the same with escalation of its use. That's a no brainier. However, McConnell had precedence on his side when he escalated it to include the SCOTUS. The thing is Reid by his first use made 99% of all presidential appointment fall under the nuclear option. McConnell finished that off making it 100%.

Do I blame Reid, no. But I think he was wrong which his actions directly led to the appointment and confirmation of Kavanaugh and Barrett. Now think back, why have or did every other senate leader in our history prior to Reid, Schumer and McConnell have no need of using the nuclear option, they wouldn't even have thought of it, let alone use or be the first to set its precedence for future use.

Think back to Lott and Daschle, to Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, how come they never used it? I'll tell you, it's because of this modern political era we've entered into. The era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship where the good of the party always over rides the good of the nation. Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole the rest respected each other, would work with each other, compromise with each other, play the game of give and take with each other. Think back, were there any straight party line votes in their era or eras. I can't remember any. Both leaders, all past leaders at least in my lifetime knew the goal for each party was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the path to get there was a bit different.

I have no use for either major party in this modern era. In fact I think both major parties are leading this country down the road to destruction. Walking hand in hand down that road as long as our national leaders are party firsters.

mrjurrs · May 12, 2021

Perotista said:
Yes, but you're not following. Reid first used the nuclear option for all appointments with the exception of the SCOTUS. He set the precedence for its use. Then McConnell escalated it a bit from all appointment with the lone exception of the SCOTUS to include all appointment, period. To include the SCOTUS.

That's the whole truth of this matter. Reid set the precedence for it use, as in all thing political and in war, once something is first used, the other sides does the same with escalation of its use. That's a no brainier. However, McConnell had precedence on his side when he escalated it to include the SCOTUS. The thing is Reid by his first use made 99% of all presidential appointment fall under the nuclear option. McConnell finished that off making it 100%.

Do I blame Reid, no. But I think he was wrong which his actions directly led to the appointment and confirmation of Kavanaugh and Barrett. Now think back, why have or did every other senate leader in our history prior to Reid, Schumer and McConnell have no need of using the nuclear option, they wouldn't even have thought of it, let alone use or be the first to set its precedence for future use.

Think back to Lott and Daschle, to Mitchell and Dole, Baker and Byrd, how come they never used it? I'll tell you, it's because of this modern political era we've entered into. The era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship where the good of the party always over rides the good of the nation. Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole the rest respected each other, would work with each other, compromise with each other, play the game of give and take with each other. Think back, were there any straight party line votes in their era or eras. I can't remember any. Both leaders, all past leaders at least in my lifetime knew the goal for each party was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the path to get there was a bit different.

I have no use for either major party in this modern era. In fact I think both major parties are leading this country down the road to destruction. Walking hand in hand down that road as long as our national leaders are party firsters.

I'm completely following. Reid faced a position where the R's (again) vote as a block in opposition to anything D's proposed. If one party chooses not to participate in governing, should Congress just stop working?

Kill the filibuster. Completely.

Perotista · May 12, 2021

mrjurrs said:
I'm completely following. Reid faced a position where the R's (again) vote as a block in opposition to anything D's proposed. If one party chooses not to participate in governing, should Congress just stop working?

Kill the filibuster. Completely.

Maybe that is the only way. But I guarantee in the long it will the the Democrats that gets hurt by it if the present trend continues. Sure, McConnell and the GOP are dead set on stopping anything Biden and the Democratic congress propose. Now we just had four years of the opposite, where Democrats automatically opposed anything Republican and 8 years before that where Republicans were dead set on opposing anything Obama and Democratic.

Perhaps we ought to ask what happened that we now have this, Republicans automatically opposing anything Democratic and Democrats automatically opposing anything Republican. We never had this problem before, not to this degree. Has Partisanship, has the R and the D finally triumphed the big A, America? It seems so in this modern era of our politics. Sure, you can blame McConnell, the Republicans blame Reid and Schumer. Both parties view the other party as this nation's number enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist, etc.

So what's happened to us that lead to this? I have no control over whether or not the filibuster is kept or is trashed. All I can do is point out using numbers and trend who will probably be the loser, I said probably be the loser in the long run, the long term. If one looks at it, fine. If one disregards it, fine, if one thinks it all hog wash, fine. I had my say, that's all I can ask.

But is would wager like the Democrats being the first users setting the precedence for the nuclear option which came back to bite them in the butt big time, long term. Doing completely away with the filibuster will probably do the same. The trend has been for each state to have two senators from the same party, which is continuing. 30 years ago, it was normal to have a senator from each party. Not any more. I can look at a map and see what most likely will happen as time goes by.

For over 200 years the filibuster has been in place, today, all of a sudden it becomes a huge problem The problem in my opinion are the two major party leaders who place their party way above this country.

mrjurrs · May 12, 2021

Perotista said:
Maybe that is the only way. But I guarantee in the long it will the the Democrats that gets hurt by it if the present trend continues. Sure, McConnell and the GOP are dead set on stopping anything Biden and the Democratic congress propose. Now we just had four years of the opposite, where Democrats automatically opposed anything Republican and 8 years before that where Republicans were dead set on opposing anything Obama and Democratic.

Perhaps we ought to ask what happened that we now have this, Republicans automatically opposing anything Democratic and Democrats automatically opposing anything Republican. We never had this problem before, not to this degree. Has Partisanship, has the R and the D finally triumphed the big A, America? It seems so in this modern era of our politics. Sure, you can blame McConnell, the Republicans blame Reid and Schumer. Both parties view the other party as this nation's number enemy. More of an enemy than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist, etc.

So what's happened to us that lead to this? I have no control over whether or not the filibuster is kept or is trashed. All I can do is point out using numbers and trend who will probably be the loser, I said probably be the loser in the long run, the long term. If one looks at it, fine. If one disregards it, fine, if one thinks it all hog wash, fine. I had my say, that's all I can ask.

But is would wager like the Democrats being the first users setting the precedence for the nuclear option which came back to bite them in the butt big time, long term. Doing completely away with the filibuster will probably do the same. The trend has been for each state to have two senators from the same party, which is continuing. 30 years ago, it was normal to have a senator from each party. Not any more. I can look at a map and see what most likely will happen as time goes by.

For over 200 years the filibuster has been in place, today, all of a sudden it becomes a huge problem The problem in my opinion are the two major party leaders who place their party way above this country.

Not exactly. "The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic-Republican President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter a new national bank."

Demographics are undeniable. Killing the filibuster may hurt the D's at some point, but the R Party is shrinking, and they are doing nothing but voter suppression to remain in power.

Perotista · May 12, 2021

mrjurrs said:
Not exactly. "The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837 when a group of Whig senators filibustered to prevent allies of the Democratic-Republican President Andrew Jackson from expunging a resolution of censure against him. In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter a new national bank."

Demographics are undeniable. Killing the filibuster may hurt the D's at some point, but the R Party is shrinking, and they are doing nothing but voter suppression to remain in power.

I didn't research when the first one occurred. So I'm off by 16 years. Now I didn't know that, so it proves one is never too old to learn. Yes, it is true the Republican Party is shrinking, from 30% of the electorate last Nov 2020 down to 26% today. But they have been lower. The GOP has been down to 21% in 1975 and again in 1977 and lastly in 1979. Just a year prior to Reagan's win and the Republicans regaining control of the senate for the first time since 1954.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/party-id-trend/

The GOP has rarely been above 30% if Pew has it right. Not since IKE anyway. It's the Democrats who had the really big fall, 51% was they high, 30% their low. Gallup puts them at 31% today. Interesting though, while the GOP has dropped 4 points since Nov 2020, the democrats stayed the same, 31% in Nov 2020, 31% today. The Republican's loss isn't going to the Democrats, but becoming independents which I doubt their voting habits change much. But then again, who knows?

I'm not sure the demographic argument is really relevant when 41% of the electorate consider themselves independents. There is a trend where the Democratic Party is becoming more and more minority and less and less white. Of course the Republican Party continues to be mostly white. The problem is Pew doesn't breakdown independents, just Republicans and democrats. So we have no idea of the demographic makeup of independents. I'd say as of today, Republicans are in a position where they must win independents or lose general elections. Now they've been in that position since FDR, so that's nothing new. Democrats just have to keep it close, they can afford to lose independents if they keep it close and still win. But that's nothing new.

HangLow · May 12, 2021

mrjurrs said:
I'm completely following. Reid faced a position where the R's (again) vote as a block in opposition to anything D's proposed. If one party chooses not to participate in governing, should Congress just stop working?

Kill the filibuster. Completely.

MamboDervish · May 12, 2021

Chomsky said:
I did earlier privately dwell upon the Senate "Geographical Effect". I see you picked-up on it, too. It's a natural advntage for a more rural party. The Dems disadvantage is they're largely packed in cities, with all the really large cities, save for Chi-town & Houston, on the coasts.

In the interests of leaving no nit un-picked, both Chi-town and Houston are on coasts.

post · May 13, 2021

The Trump party, as the republican caucus under Boehner and Ryan of the House and McConnell during the Obama era,
did and do not act in good faith. Why would you assume they won't drop the filibuster if the Dems don't, now? If the Dems can
persuade at least three blue dogs, senators of AZ, NY, and WV to vote for that rules change. they need to do it and then expand the SCOTUS, pass the two related voting rights bills, and any other legislation President Biden indicates he is willing to sign.

The current SCOTUS composition dashes all expectation anything passed in the current session of congress will endure Trump party
court challenges and all legislation signed into law, along with everything else Biden signs, is being contested in courts.

Trump and the party's legislative caucus could not have made it more obvious they represent only the top few percent of the U.S, pop. who own 84 percent of all stock shares, and some sponsored evangelical pastors and their close ally, Netanyahu, instead of the interests of the Israelis.

Doing anything else is political suicide with a SCOTUS majority that went against its own claimed judicial philosophy in the 2013 Shelby County decision gutting the Voting Rights act that had just been renewed six years before with near unanimous votes to do so in both houses. In 2013, this was lead by Chief Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Justice Ginsberg was on that court and issued her famous, "you don't throw out your umbrella because its been keeping you dry," dissent in Shelby.

There are three current illegitimate justices on the current SCOTUS, two by "muscled" nominations, Gorsuch and Barrett, Kavanaugh liking beer and committing perjury in successive nomination hearings.... and a fourth if you count the unethical, perverted, "I'm a radical" hypocrite, Clarence Thomas.

Gloves off! Actually accomplish some things on behalf of the voting majority and give them a reason to come out and vote in 2022 and in 2024!

Perotista · May 13, 2021

post said:
The Trump party, as the republican caucus under Boehner and Ryan of the House and McConnell during the Obama era,
did and do not act in good faith. Why would you assume they won't drop the filibuster if the Dems don't, now? If the Dems can
persuade at least three blue dogs, senators of AZ, NY, and WV to vote for that rules change. they need to do it and then expand the SCOTUS, pass the two related voting rights bills, and any other legislation President Biden indicates he is willing to sign.

The current SCOTUS composition dashes all expectation anything passed in the current session of congress will endure Trump party
court challenges and all legislation signed into law, along with everything else Biden signs, is being contested in courts.

Trump and the party's legislative caucus could not have made it more obvious they represent only the top few percent of the U.S, pop. who own 84 percent of all stock shares, and some sponsored evangelical pastors and their close ally, Netanyahu, instead of the interests of the Israelis.

Doing anything else is political suicide with a SCOTUS majority that went against its own claimed judicial philosophy in the 2013 Shelby County decision gutting the Voting Rights act that had just been renewed six years before with near unanimous votes to do so in both houses. In 2013, this was lead by Chief Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Justice Ginsberg was on that court and issued her famous, "you don't throw out your umbrella because its been keeping you dry," dissent in Shelby.

There are three current illegitimate justices on the current SCOTUS, two by "muscled" nominations, Gorsuch and Barrett, Kavanaugh liking beer and committing perjury in successive nomination hearings.... and a fourth if you count the unethical, perverted, "I'm a radical" hypocrite, Clarence Thomas.

Gloves off! Actually accomplish some things on behalf of the voting majority and give them a reason to come out and vote in 2022 and in 2024!

The voting majority changes it seems with almost every election. It's very dynamic. But what do the voters from 2020 actually want. They went for Biden, no doubt, they wanted Trump gone, mission accomplished. But they also voted for Republican House members to a point the GOP gained a net of 14 seats in 2020, they voted the GOP a net gain of two state legislatures and a net gain of one governorship. That's a totally mixed bag of results.

I think what the final results, the whole results and not just the presidential results say is the voters wanted Trump gone, but they were very leery of one party control. That they may have wanted the Republicans to keep or gain one of the chambers in congress to avoid one party rule. It's interesting to note that Biden is the first president to win the popular vote via to gaining the presidency and lost house seat since 1884. Only the second time in our history that has happened. I don't think 2020 was a rejection or an endorsement of either major party or their agenda, the full results not just a single portion of the results.

I suppose the Democrats can say the presidential results was a rejection of the Republican Party, but the GOP can say the congressional results was a rejection of the Democratic Party along with the state legislatures and governorship results also being a rejection of the Democrats.

mrjurrs · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
I didn't research when the first one occurred. So I'm off by 16 years. Now I didn't know that, so it proves one is never too old to learn. Yes, it is true the Republican Party is shrinking, from 30% of the electorate last Nov 2020 down to 26% today. But they have been lower. The GOP has been down to 21% in 1975 and again in 1977 and lastly in 1979. Just a year prior to Reagan's win and the Republicans regaining control of the senate for the first time since 1954.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/party-id-trend/

The GOP has rarely been above 30% if Pew has it right. Not since IKE anyway. It's the Democrats who had the really big fall, 51% was they high, 30% their low. Gallup puts them at 31% today. Interesting though, while the GOP has dropped 4 points since Nov 2020, the democrats stayed the same, 31% in Nov 2020, 31% today. The Republican's loss isn't going to the Democrats, but becoming independents which I doubt their voting habits change much. But then again, who knows?

I'm not sure the demographic argument is really relevant when 41% of the electorate consider themselves independents. There is a trend where the Democratic Party is becoming more and more minority and less and less white. Of course the Republican Party continues to be mostly white. The problem is Pew doesn't breakdown independents, just Republicans and democrats. So we have no idea of the demographic makeup of independents. I'd say as of today, Republicans are in a position where they must win independents or lose general elections. Now they've been in that position since FDR, so that's nothing new. Democrats just have to keep it close, they can afford to lose independents if they keep it close and still win. But that's nothing new.

One demographic that you didn't address may be the most important one...age. Thanks for the data.

Perotista · May 13, 2021

mrjurrs said:
One demographic that you didn't address may be the most important one...age. Thanks for the data.

I noticed from at least 1972, those in the 18-29 age bracket seems to vote Democratic and have done so in every election with the exception 72, 84 and 88. Those in the 30-44 voted Republican except in 1992, 96, 08, 16 and 20. 45-59 Republican except in 1992, 96 and 60 above vote Republican except in 1992, 96 and 2000.

Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times

Exit Polls

www.nytimes.com

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Latest on the 2012 National Elections from the CNN.com Politics team. Headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, States to Watch news and analysis, and a unique side-by-side visual comparison of the Republican and Democratic candidates.

www.cnn.com

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

National Results 2020 President exit polls.

See National Results 2020 President exit polls.

www.cnn.com

The age groups in these exit polls don't match exactly, so I tried to place them in the 1972-08 context. Now it seems as one gets older that their voting habits change. Those young or 18-44 were voting mostly Democratic, but when they turned 45 and older switched to voting Republican. A lot of these elections were pretty close and a couple tied. If you threw out Bill Clinton you could say 45 and older have steadily voted Republican with the 60 and above in 2000 being an exception. This is just glancing over the stats and not sitting down to study them.

So yet to be answered is the young who voted Democratic in 08, 12, 16 and 20 switch like the other generations did or will they remain loyal to the Democrats? It seem when one is young, one is idealistic. But that could change to more of a self preservation mode as one gets older. Also one tends to make more money as one ages, becomes better off. Also candidates do matter, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama were very charismatic. They went up against some uncharismatic opponents in Jimmy Carter, Mondale, G.H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, McCain and Romney. That Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama would come close to sweeping all age groups shouldn't be a surprise. This would bring me back to my describing presidential elections as beauty contest, especially for independents, but that is another subject for another thread, for another day.

post · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
-snip- First an example of short-term Democratic thinking. The Democrats led by ex-senate Majority Leader Harry Reid precedence setting use of the nuclear option. Yes, it gave the Democrats a big short-term political advantage until they lost the senate. ..
...

Perotista said:
-snip-

I think what the final results, the whole results and not just the presidential results say is the voters wanted Trump gone, but they were very leery of one party control. That they may have wanted the Republicans to keep or gain one of the chambers in congress to avoid one party rule. -snip-

It's as if you do not understand why Harry Reid did what he did because, if you do understand, how could you possibly describe ENDING the blocking of all of the first non-caucasian POTUS's judicial appointments from the time the blocking was instituted until Sen. Reid decided, "no mas!" was about, "short term political advantage"?

You now have ignored the core points of my argument. The SCOTUS majority was stolen, the court is rogue, as is the party.
No principles, no one to negotiate any compromise with. If the SCOTUS is not expanded in the next 18 months, nothing Biden signs will likely stand, no E.O., no legislation.

Consider this.:

"Oversight:" Mike Flynn Lied to Protect Barbara Ledeen, Who Then Fed Disinformation to Sara Carter - emptywheel

Emails between Mike Flynn and Barbara Ledeen raise real questions about whether her disinformation campaign was an effort to protect him, or a bid to hide her own complicity.

www.emptywheel.net

Flynn, in league with the criminal Ledeen couple, pardoned by a criminal POTUS after Barr put the fix in on the Mueller Investigation and on the multiple Flynn guilty pleas! Barr got his nomination to be Atty. Gen. by submitting a 19 page attack memo against the Mueller Investigation while admitting he only knew what he learned from media reporting, presumably from media supporting Trump.

Background in support of the research report I posted at the (emptywheel) link above.:

Peter W. Smith - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"..He was national chairman of the College Young Republicans...In May 2017 Smith told the WSJ that he had been actively involved, during the 2016 presidential election campaign, trying to obtain emails he believed had been deleted from Hillary Clinton's computer server. According to the Mueller Report, Trump campaign advisor Mike Flynn contacted Smith shortly after July 27, 2016, when Trump had publicly invited "Russia" to find the missing emails, and asked Smith to look for them. In that quest Smith contacted several known hacker groups, including some Russian groups. He was shown some information but was not convinced it was genuine, and suggested the hackers give it to WikiLeaks instead. As part of this effort, Smith donated $150,000 to "the Washington Scholarship Fund for the Russian students", including $100,000 of solicited money and $50,000 from his personal funds..."

You are not adjusting to the realities on the ground. The Mueller investigation was obstructed by Barr who was nominated for that express purpose.

May 4 :

Judge Says Barr Misled on How His Justice Dept. Viewed Trump’s Actions (Published 2021)

Judge Amy Berman Jackson said in a ruling that the misleading statements were similar to others that William P. Barr, the former attorney general, had made about the Mueller investigation.

www.nytimes.com

The 2020 voters did not know that, or for certain that Trump would reward the obstruction of Manafort and F,ynn or that Trump would concoct "the big lie", incite an insurrection, then "absorb" nearly the entire party congressional caucus! You're sidetracked by stats you've observed and accumulated over the years. Simply considering Trump's latest should prompt you not to have authored this blog post.

GOP leader claims no one 'is questioning the legitimacy of the presidential election' just hours after ousting Liz Cheney for refusing to support Trump's election lies

"..."Twelve days into May and Trump has referred to the 2020 election as "our fake Presidential Election," "the Fraudulent Presidential Election of 2020," "the greatest Election Fraud in the history of our Country," and "the most tainted and corrupt Election in American history.".."

bongsaway · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
Trump still has a strong hold over the GOP. Abet, a party that's a little smaller than it was last Nov 2020. If Gallup is to be believed the Republican Party has dropped from 30% of the electorate last Nov down to 26% today. That's good news for the democratic party, but the bad news is that drop didn't equate to any gain by the democrats as they're still at the same 31% today as they were last Nov. The movement has been into the independent column. Which I doubt that they will change their voting habits just because they consider themselves to be independents instead of Republicans.

I don't know what will happen to the Republican Party. I still find it hard to fathom folks following Trump who basically has no political ideology as he was their messiah. By this time after the defeat of Romney, McCain, Dole, G.H.W. Bush and Ford, the GOP had moved on looking for a fresh face and new ideas to promote for the next election. Not this time, It's still Trump, Trump and more Trump. Who know what the GOP will do if and when Trump dies? That is their problem. Sticking with Trump is their problem.

I have no crystal ball and I'm no seer. What I see today is a smaller Republican base than last year. Independents still disliking Trump, no effort at all to try to attract independents which the GOP must win to win general elections since they're the smaller of the two major parties. In fact, it does seem Republicans are in the process of trying to make their base even smaller by getting rid of any Republican that isn't a pro-Trumper. I don't know. With me it's all about numbers and winning elections, at least forecasting who is going to win. I've followed elections and election strategy ever since Eisenhower. It almost seems that the republicans think the only strategy they need is to be pro Trump. No ideas, no visions, no possible solutions to our problems, basically no political ideology or philosophy except being pro Trump will win elections for them. It's either that or the Republicans are counting on Biden and the democratic controlled congress to do something, pass something or to have something happened that will really, really peeve independents off at them. Peeve independents off enough they'll disregard their dislike of Trump.

I can only scratch my head.

On the other hand america is changing, social issues are becoming more and more important especially to the kids who lived through a school shooting. Soon most of them will be eligible to vote. If the dems don't lose the house and gain more seats in the senate during the midterm there may be no looking back for the dems for years. Actions, jobs, infrastructure will speak much louder than lies and it will only be the beginning of building back better. The gop is offering lies and more trump-like actions. I do not believe the antics of the gop will work. We removed trump for this same kind of thing. Why the gop thinks America wants more is beyond my reasoning.

Perotista · May 13, 2021

post said:
It's as if you do not understand why Harry Reid did what he did because, if you do understand, how could you possibly describe ENDING the blocking of all of the first non-caucasian POTUS's judicial appointments from the time the blocking was instituted until Sen. Reid decided, "no mas!" was about, "short term political advantage"?

Y

The SCOTUS wasn't stolen. McConnell had 54 senators when Garland was nominated, more than enough to defeat him if McConnell allowed a floor vote. Why he didn't was plain stupid as far as I'm concerned. From what I can tell not allowing a vote on Garland which was sure to go down in defeat was payback for Schumer stating in 2007, a full year and a one half that no Bush nominee to the SCOTUS would be taken up by the Democratic controlled senate if an opening occurred there.

I think not having a vote on Garland was payback, revenge, what ever you want to call it. Regardless, the defeat of Garland was guaranteed either way. It was a political move by McConnell that was totally absurd and uncalled for. But in our modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship, totally expected by McConnell. We need to get away from this auotmatically opposing by one party any and everything of the other party totally based only on who proposed the idea, legislation, etc instead of looking at the merits.

Perotista · May 13, 2021

bongsaway said:
On the other hand america is changing, social issues are becoming more and more important especially to the kids who lived through a school shooting. Soon most of them will be eligible to vote. If the dems don't lose the house and gain more seats in the senate during the midterm there may be no looking back for the dems for years. Actions, jobs, infrastructure will speak much louder than lies and it will only be the beginning of building back better. The gop is offering lies and more trump-like actions. I do not believe the antics of the gop will work. We removed trump for this same kind of thing. Why the gop thinks America wants more is beyond my reasoning.

what the GOP is doing now is beyond both of our reasoning. Now there are cracks occurring that Biden and the Democrats better be aware of looking towards 2022. Inflation is one It's rising.

Growing inflation is Biden’s hidden tax on working Americans

The government seems to be less than concerned about the possibility of stark inflation, promising it will be temporary.

thehill.com

The huge influx of illegals over our southern border is another. Sticking with the slogan of defund the police is something the Democrats need to change, the slogan I mean. Defund the police slogan is probably the main reason the Republicans picked up 13 house seats last year. Words have meaning and most Americans equate defund of taking money away, doing away and not reform.

These latter two are minor, at least right now. Inflation could become the main issue for 2022 if it continues to rise. So, 2022 is just a guessing game at this point. The districts need redrawn for the House before one can take a good guess at what will happen there. The senate, As of today, a 1-2 seat gain for the Democrats I would say very possible is not likely. Retirements in Pennsylvania, Toomey and North Carolina, Burr opens those states up for a Democratic takeover, throw in Wisconsin where Johnson is mighty unpopular. Those 3 states are heavily at risk for the GOP. On the Democratic side, New Hampshire and Georgia. All the rest look pretty safe for the party that now holds them.

mrjurrs · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
I noticed from at least 1972, those in the 18-29 age bracket seems to vote Democratic and have done so in every election with the exception 72, 84 and 88. Those in the 30-44 voted Republican except in 1992, 96, 08, 16 and 20. 45-59 Republican except in 1992, 96 and 60 above vote Republican except in 1992, 96 and 2000.

Exit Polls - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times

Exit Polls

www.nytimes.com

Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Latest on the 2012 National Elections from the CNN.com Politics team. Headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, States to Watch news and analysis, and a unique side-by-side visual comparison of the Republican and Democratic candidates.

www.cnn.com

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

National Results 2020 President exit polls.

See National Results 2020 President exit polls.

www.cnn.com

The age groups in these exit polls don't match exactly, so I tried to place them in the 1972-08 context. Now it seems as one gets older that their voting habits change. Those young or 18-44 were voting mostly Democratic, but when they turned 45 and older switched to voting Republican. A lot of these elections were pretty close and a couple tied. If you threw out Bill Clinton you could say 45 and older have steadily voted Republican with the 60 and above in 2000 being an exception. This is just glancing over the stats and not sitting down to study them.

So yet to be answered is the young who voted Democratic in 08, 12, 16 and 20 switch like the other generations did or will they remain loyal to the Democrats? It seem when one is young, one is idealistic. But that could change to more of a self preservation mode as one gets older. Also one tends to make more money as one ages, becomes better off. Also candidates do matter, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama were very charismatic. They went up against some uncharismatic opponents in Jimmy Carter, Mondale, G.H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, McCain and Romney. That Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama would come close to sweeping all age groups shouldn't be a surprise. This would bring me back to my describing presidential elections as beauty contest, especially for independents, but that is another subject for another thread, for another day.

The other side of the youth vote is the greater number of older R's. Father Time is undefeated.

Phys251 · May 13, 2021

Mr Person said:
After seeing Republican behavior since the mid/ate-90s, but especially since it started looking like Obama might win his first term, I fail to see how "you can't do that or else the Republicans are going to take revenge" can have any weight. They will use anything the Democrats do or talk about as a stated excuse, but they would do those things anyway.

Sorta like Garland-Barrett. They cited something Biden (I think?) said 40 years ago - 40 years! - about how ruling on SCOTUS nominations should work as justification for refusing to vote for nearly 11 months, just so they could steal the seat. Can't do it in an election year, they said. Them's the rules. Dems' fault because Biden. (And earlier, the business about citing Reid as an excuse when Reid was actually responding to their own refusal to move on nominations, so they could stack the judiciary).

Then they see an opening just before the end of Trump's term and what do they do? Make up more bullshit about how they don't have to follow their own rule, and they put Barrett on.

Every time the Democrats go high, the Republicans kick them in the nads.
Every time the Republicans can take something by force, they take it.
It's been obstruct obstruct obstruct ever since that black guy won, and it's going to be obstruct obstruct obstruct again.

This is what happens when a party appeals to the rich part of the base with tax cuts and everyone else with "**** the liberals". If the Democrats are to have any chance they need to fight as hard as they can and take the case to the people.

Otherwise the results of obstruction will be painted as evidence that Democrats are "do nothing", and then the Republicans will just do whatever they can do anyway. Hell, at this point, they're probably going to expand the court if the Democrats do not, and then cite Democrats' talk about the possibility of doing it as justification. Just like the slimey approach to nabbing Garland's seat.

Gloves off. How much worse can it get? The base already stormed the Capitol to try to flip an election and install the loser. I'm supposed to accept that they care about norms and, because they do, so to do the people they put in congress?

Perotista · May 13, 2021

mrjurrs said:
The other side of the youth vote is the greater number of older R's. Father Time is undefeated.
View attachment 67333088

I don't know what going to happen, history seems to show the youth vote changing some as they get older. Now we have 41% who identify with being independents not even included. also the Don't know and refused to respond. You also have the youth vote who vote in lower percentages than older voters. Now the baby boom generation is dying off, so perhaps the younger ones will have an even higher percentage.

We can take a SWAG, but I think history shows voters change their outlooks and party affiliation as they get older. I think I'll stick with my five groups which includes every demographic and age when doing my forecasts. Republicans and Democrats who have averaged voting for their candidates 92% of the time That's two groups. Independents I divide into three. Independents who lean republican, independents who lean Democratic, who vote for the candidates of the party they lean toward 73% of the time. The last group is what I call pure or true independents with no leans. They usually make up 10-15% of the electorate. There's no telling how this last group will vote, they swing wildly from party to party from election to the next.

I'm not a partisan, I'm one who's been disgusted with both major parties for around 25 years. Which by the way corresponds to the beginning of our modern political era we're in today of polarization, divisiveness and mega, ultra high partisanship. In other words, for me, it's a pox on both major parties until they come to their senses and realize the R and the D aren't all that important, it's the big A, America they should be looking after, not just their base. America is made up of republicans, democrats, independents and a bunch who don't give an owl's hoot about politics at all.

noonereal · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
Doing away with the filibuster

is a must.

Both parties are needlessly thawed now.

Besides, the GQP WILL do it when they have power.

We saw what they did with the Supreme court so it's a get what you can while you can government now, no holds barred. It was the GQP that chose this road.

bongsaway · May 13, 2021

Perotista said:
what the GOP is doing now is beyond both of our reasoning. Now there are cracks occurring that Biden and the Democrats better be aware of looking towards 2022. Inflation is one It's rising.

Growing inflation is Biden’s hidden tax on working Americans

The government seems to be less than concerned about the possibility of stark inflation, promising it will be temporary.

thehill.com

The huge influx of illegals over our southern border is another. Sticking with the slogan of defund the police is something the Democrats need to change, the slogan I mean. Defund the police slogan is probably the main reason the Republicans picked up 13 house seats last year. Words have meaning and most Americans equate defund of taking money away, doing away and not reform.

These latter two are minor, at least right now. Inflation could become the main issue for 2022 if it continues to rise. So, 2022 is just a guessing game at this point. The districts need redrawn for the House before one can take a good guess at what will happen there. The senate, As of today, a 1-2 seat gain for the Democrats I would say very possible is not likely. Retirements in Pennsylvania, Toomey and North Carolina, Burr opens those states up for a Democratic takeover, throw in Wisconsin where Johnson is mighty unpopular. Those 3 states are heavily at risk for the GOP. On the Democratic side, New Hampshire and Georgia. All the rest look pretty safe for the party that now holds them.

Let's see where things stand after labor day. If the inflation is just a spike and vaccinations continue, i only see things improving. Also by that time legal problems could be overwhelming for certain folks.

Perotista · May 13, 2021

noonereal said:
is a must.

Both parties are needlessly thawed now.

Besides, the GQP WILL do it when they have power.

We saw what they did with the Supreme court so it's a get what you can while you can government now, no holds barred. It was the GQP that chose this road.

We seen what the Republicans did with the SCOTUS because Reid led the way with the precedence setting first use of the nuclear option. Would McConnell have used if Reid hadn't. Probably. Would McConnell end the filibuster if the Democrats don't, McConnell remains the GOP leader in the senate while the Republicans regain control of the senate and win the presidency, probably so.

This is the political era we live in today where party triumphs everything else to include this country. What happens, happens. I just pointed out with the present trend of having 2 senators from the same party that at sometime in the near future, the GOP will control the senate with little the Democrats can do about it with the filibuster gone. But you have a point. Reid, McConnell and now Schumer all put the good of their party above the good of the nation.

This isn't what the people want, this is why I think independents have grown from 30% of the electorate to 41% today. They want America first, not party. That is except each party's base, both want to place their party above country. But your point is well taken.

Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?

BUFF 52 Nav

Looking Forward

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop

Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop

Purge evil with Justice