Octopus Overlords

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 1:17 pmI mean, if you look around the country, the Democrats are winning. We've been winning for the last 30 years. The country is farther to the left than it has ever been. Weed is legal in lots of states - and Biden may well repeal the Federal ban. Gay marriage is the law of the land. Trans rights are more widely respected than ever. The ACA is far from perfect, but it's the closest to a national health care plan we've ever managed. Online providers are finally deplatforming right wing groups. Republican power games have destroyed their party and gotten them virtually nothing in the way of substantial policy gains. Republicans have to go back to Reagan to find an example of a successful Republican president, while Obama and Clinton are both looked at fondly by much of the country.

If I was to characterize your points - it'd be constantly missing the big picture and oversimplifying the outcomes. Instead of your feelings based analysis. Let's get to at least tearing up one of your arguments with hard facts.

For example, seeing ACA as a victory. That "victory" came at massive political cost and has been whittled down to its core. Ten or so years later it has been under constant attack even though it was hardly sufficient to solve the healthcare crisis of uninsured Americans. Uninsured Americans peaked in 2008 at about 18% (makes sense!). ACA was instituted in about 2012-2013 when about 16% of the population was uninsured. It dipped to a low of 9% in 2015. Then Trump came into power, and since 2016 the number of uninsured in America has risen in a steady line back up to near 1999 levels. (reference the left side of the chart).

So to put it in focus, 20 years later and the American system essentially hasn't improved much at all covering Americans. In fact, we're near the levels before the century began. And this year isn't recorded yet but is going to be worse on top - probably at or worse than 1999 levels. I won't even dig into the costs and health outcomes because there is no better story there. That isn't winning. That is a broken system.

And its ridiculous to think that Republicans haven't gotten substantial policy gains. They have broken the regulatory environment. They've undermined political institutions. They've delivered the wealthy the biggest tax cuts in history and delivered obscene wealth and income inequality. You are living in a parallel universe if you think that some social gains -- long overdue one at that -- balance out the equation. This is a deeply sick country. Again that is not the winning that Democrats or the majority of Americans who vote for them want.

Edit: Fixed a link to the 2016+ data

Paingod wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:20 pmIf we're winning so handily, how the hemorrhaging hell did someone like Trump end up as President and why is the Senate a majority Republican despite being the social minority?

Because whenever you rely on voters, things sometimes get messy. It sucks, but it beats every alternative I've ever seen.

If we're winning, why is the SCOTUS heavily partisan and about to become 6-3 against the "winning" agendas?

As I've tried to explain before, it really isn't all that partisan. People are looking at it that way because we insist on looking at everything through a partisan lens these days (seriously...we somehow turned a virus into a partisan issue!) but if you actually dive into the details on SC rulings, they don't generally break down on party lines....if only because the issues that generally come before the SC aren't particularly partisan...they're usually questions of how to balance various rights against each other, and both parties are thoroughly inconsistent in how they do that.

If we're winning, why wasn't Trump impeached and convicted?

Again, voters. Take heart, though. Trump was lucky for a long, long time....but nobody's luck lasts forever, and I think Trump's is just about out.

If we're winning why have we been enjoying race riots?

I don't think we are. Malchior will be only too happy to tell you all about how BLM does not riot, (they protest!) and I think there's a very compelling case that what riots we have seen have not been racially motivated.

It sure as fuck doesn't feel like winning just because weed might get legalized in some more places and social justice is creeping in everywhere the GOP can't stamp it out.

It doesn't feel like winning because the country is undergoing some severe strains. Neither party has an answer to how automation is changing our workforce. Neither party has an answer to climate change, which is beginning to bite. Neither party has an answer to how globalization has allowed capital to move around freely while keeping people localized, making arbitrage ever more powerful.

But that isn't the GOP winning. It's quite possible for both sides to lose.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:36 pmI don't think we are. Malchior will be only too happy to tell you all about how BLM does not riot, (they protest!) and I think there's a very compelling case that what riots we have seen have not been racially motivated.

If you can't "win" on the facts, make up some strawmen. Pathetic.

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:27 pmIf I was to characterize your points - it'd be constantly missing the big picture and oversimplifying the outcomes.

Yes, but you consistently mischaracterize things.

As I said, the ACA is not perfect. But before the ACA, we literally had nothing. NADA. No successful movement on a national health care plan at all. Clinton tried and was shot down HARD. The ACA is clearly insufficient and will need fixing/expansion/replacement, but the fact that it exists at all is a sign that the country is moving to the left on this issue. Medicare for all did not end up winning this cycle, but it was openly discussed by leading figures within the Democratic party. That represents significant movement towards the left - we haven't seen that kind of discussion in the last 30 years at least.

And its ridiculous to think that Republicans haven't gotten substantial policy gains. They have broken the regulatory environment. They've undermined political institutions.

Those aren't policy gains. That's just destroying the system. They know that they're losing and they're trying to poop on the floor as they're getting pushed out the door. But if you ask Republican voters what they want and then compare that with what Republican politicians have been providing, you're going to find a huge disconnect...which is probably why it looks like they're about to get a spanking of historic proportions.

I'll hold off on the champagne until after the election.

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:43 pmIf you can't "win" on the facts, make up some strawmen. Pathetic.

Did I misinterpret this post?

If so, I genuinely apologize. (I agree with that post, though.)

First, I sincerely appreciate the pushback from ND and LR that we've seen above...we DESPERATELY need that on this board. Sometimes I feel like creating a devil's advocate position just because I think we get too echo chambery around here.

Having said that , someone upthread suggested we wait and see if the new, conservative SC is a disaster or not.

1. I see the value and reason in that approach in some cases. It's why our military (still?) uses a "don't fire unless fired upon" approach. But we've ALREADY been fired upon. See: Mitch McConnell's behavior and outright admissions wrt appointing judges for the past...X years. See: Elite Sensei Hypocrite, and toady, wormy, LYING bastard Lindsey Fucking Graham. See: all the Freedom Caucus dickbags that spoke at Kavanaugh's hearing, and made me realize what truly DESPICABLE people they really must be to behave like that.

2. At least for me, it's less about the very likely conservative rulings that might emerge from the SC, and more about the way we got here. If we ended up with the current SC makeup via legitimate means, instead of bald-faced lies and hypocrisy, and contorting all kinds of norms (and making up new ones), I would be totally fine. OK, not totally fine, I would be pissed, but in a very different way. This is not about the fact that I am a pretty far left liberal and I'm pouting because the SC has been turned super conservative and will likely rule super conservatively for decades to come. I am pissed because of the 3rd world government way the R's went about getting them there.

Yeah, I guess my question for ND and LR would be - do you have any objections to how McConnell handled Garland vs. Barrett? If so, do you think it's ok to just let McConnell and the GOP keep their ill gotten gains?

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:48 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:27 pmIf I was to characterize your points - it'd be constantly missing the big picture and oversimplifying the outcomes.

Yes, but you consistently mischaracterize things.

How so?

As I said, the ACA is not perfect. But before the ACA, we literally had nothing. NADA.

How so? I guess it depends on what you define as nothing. There has been many national healthcare strategies. Reagan and a Democratic Congress for instance provided an unfunded universal access mandate to emergency care. That sounds like a national healthcare law. Still even if they weren't an on the book law there were many efforts over the years. But it's more important to note that ACA isn't a national healthcare plan like our peers have. It is a law designed to increase and support access -- I'll dig in more detail below. And through Republican action it has been badly undermined in that goal to the effect that we've made no progress for decades. Totally winning.

Clinton tried and was shot down HARD. The ACA is clearly insufficient and will need fixing/expansion/replacement, but the fact that it exists at all is a sign that the country is moving to the left on this issue.

How so? It was essentially the Republican's health care plan with a lime twist. It is a center-right health care plan far to the right of all our peer nations. It essentially codified the existing employer-centric health care structure, with some structured minimums, removed some exclusion criteria, and added provisos to improve employer like access with subsidies to the self-employed and unemployed. If you mean it moved from a laissez faire model nudged slight to the left. Sure I guess that is something. Evidence of significant movement to left it is not. In fact, the GOP opposition to it wasn't even on the traditional left/right sphere. It was purely irrational fearmongering and bluster.

Medicare for all did not end up winning this cycle, but it was openly discussed by leading figures within the Democratic party. That represents significant movement towards the left - we haven't seen that kind of discussion in the last 30 years at least.

How so? The party leadership was steadfastly against it at all levels. Talk is cheap.

Those aren't policy gains. That's just destroying the system. They know that they're losing and they're trying to poop on the floor as they're getting pushed out the door.

Wow. That doesn't even rate a How So? This statement is unmoored from any objective reality at all. It indicates a skin deep understanding of the issues. Tax and economic policy are literally at the heart of *EVERYTHING THEY DO*. The judges. The social issues. It is to cobble together enough control of this system exploiting its counter-majoritarian features to get tax breaks and economic control for the wealthy. That is the game. The 40 year game. And you think that is the poop on the floor. You have *no idea* what is going on.

But if you ask Republican voters what they want and then compare that with what Republican politicians have been providing, you're going to find a huge disconnect...which is probably why it looks like they're about to get a historic spanking.

Again that you think the spanking is about a disconnect between the Republicans and their base is astonishing. In any case, we don't know how bad the spanking will be. They could very well retain the Senate. Trump can still win. We will see but the results will be 100% divorced from Republican leadership not providing for their base. It is laughable.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:56 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:43 pmIf you can't "win" on the facts, make up some strawmen. Pathetic.

Did I misinterpret this post?

If so, I genuinely apologize. (I agree with that post, though.)

Does posting a fact that at the time 93% were peaceful mean that I think that there were no riots? Good lord.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:14 pm Yeah, I guess my question for ND and LR would be - do you have any objections to how McConnell handled Garland vs. Barrett? If so, do you think it's ok to just let McConnell and the GOP keep their ill gotten gains?

Of course I do. That, in fact, was the last straw for me. The Republican party could no longer pretend to be the party of the constitution. It made it very easy to find and believe all the other forms of hypocrisy they are a part of.

If you mean all the judicial seats they have planted, then yes. That's how our government works. You don't just change the way a government functions because you don't like the outcome. Now if you want to codify some rules that the senate has to act within some time frame or you get an automatic appointment.. I'm good with that. if you want to limit terms? I'm good with that too.

I'm pretty sure we all agree that a big problem in the current area is power is being ceded to the executive. Giving even more power to the president in the form of the judiciary sounds like a terrible solution.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 2:14 pm Is this where I say that I'm so tired of winning? Because if this is what winning feels like, it sucks.

A reminder that the GOP is currently trying to ram a justice through because they believe the 2020 Presidential election is going to be so close that it will need to go to the Supreme Court.

Agree with your first statement, but I have to push back on the second. As despicably as the Senate Trumpkins (let's face it, no longer the GOP, I seriously think we should drop that moniker) have behaved wrt SC justices and the nominating process, they were on the path to ramming through someone before Trump's numbers were so bad that they were seriously concerned that he might lose. I really think if Trump's current numbers were reversed with Biden's we would see the same level of...ramming.

We have no way to know for sure, but I strongly believe the current rush to have Amy Covid Barrett seated ASAP is because they know they're (GOP) in big trouble and are at significant risk of losing the Presidency and possibly critical seats in Congress. Guessing that 2021 looks bad, McConnell is putting everything into seating *another* justice (and as many lower court judges as possible) as a final firewall against what he imagines will be severe (D) reprisal in 2021 and beyond. If they can't control the budget and policies the can certainly potentially influence the decisions made when challenges are made.

I mean, *hours* after they announced Barrett was out of committee review, the State of Mississippi kicked a case up to the SCotUS regarding their 15 week abortion ban. They're teeing up another attack on Roe v. Wade.

But yeah, we're "winning".

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:21 pm Of course I do. That, in fact, was the last straw for me. The Republican party could no longer pretend to be the party of the constitution. It made it very easy to find and believe all the other forms of hypocrisy they are a part of.

If you mean all the judicial seats they have planted, then yes. That's how our government works. You don't just change the way a government functions because you don't like the outcome.

Sure you do. When it isn't functioning in the way it was designed. This system is incredibly dysfunctional beyond the bounds of not liking outcomes. A decent chunk of the quarter million COIVID-19 dead are probably deceased because of this dysfunction. What does it take to get people to see the reality of the situation?

I'm pretty sure we all agree that a big problem in the current area is power is being ceded to the executive. Giving even more power to the president in the form of the judiciary sounds like a terrible solution.

It's a problem. It's not *the* problem. This is a complex failure scenario. People are going to debate the cause of this era for a long, long time.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:21 pmYou don't just change the way a government functions because you don't like the outcome.

Isn't that exactly what the GOP did to get us here?

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:27 pm We have no way to know for sure, but I strongly believe the current rush to have Amy Covid Barrett seated ASAP is because they know they're (GOP) in big trouble and are at significant risk of losing the Presidency and possibly critical seats in Congress. Guessing that 2021 looks bad, McConnell is putting everything into seating *another* justice (and as many lower court judges as possible) as a final firewall against what he imagines will be severe (D) reprisal in 2021 and beyond. If they can't control the budget and policies the can certainly potentially influence the decisions made when challenges are made.

It also fits into his bullshit justification of the week mold. What's different between Garland and Barrett? They have the Senate and the Presidency. That falls apart quickly when Trump and/or the Senate go away. Not that he wouldn't have still rammed her through lame duck. It's all posturing in the middle of applying maximal political power in unprincipled ways. As they say, whatever helps him sleep in his coffin at night.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:14 pm Yeah, I guess my question for ND and LR would be - do you have any objections to how McConnell handled Garland vs. Barrett?

Absolutely. It's one of a hundred reasons why I just voted almost straight ticket Democrat. (I made one exception in a local election for a guy I know personally.) Granted, I've always voted Democrat, so it's not exactly a shift for me, but it certainly made it easier.

The Republicans have been playing dangerous and petty power games. They're treating our system like it's a sports game, and it is not. They deserve everything coming their way in the next few weeks.

If so, do you think it's ok to just let McConnell and the GOP keep their ill gotten gains?

Absolutely. One SC appointment is hardly worth blowing the country up over. With Biden in office, we'll be able to replace Breyer and quite possibly Thomas. Maybe even Alito - especially if Biden can launch Harris for 4 or 8 years.

Remember, we're on the right side of history. All we have to do is endure. That's WHY the Republicans are trying desperately to derail everything - they can sense that with every decade, they lose ground.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:49 pm Absolutely. One SC appointment is hardly worth blowing the country up over. With Biden in office, we'll be able to replace Breyer and quite possibly Thomas. Maybe even Alito - especially if Biden can launch Harris for 4 or 8 years.

Right, just like Obama was able to replace Scalia. Have you not seen McConnell bragging about what he did? If they maintain the Senate, a justice could retire or die on January 24th and I have no doubt McConnell wouldn't lift a finger to advance a Biden nomination.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:21 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:14 pm Yeah, I guess my question for ND and LR would be - do you have any objections to how McConnell handled Garland vs. Barrett? If so, do you think it's ok to just let McConnell and the GOP keep their ill gotten gains?

Of course I do. That, in fact, was the last straw for me. The Republican party could no longer pretend to be the party of the constitution. It made it very easy to find and believe all the other forms of hypocrisy they are a part of.

If you mean all the judicial seats they have planted, then yes. That's how our government works. You don't just change the way a government functions because you don't like the outcome. Now if you want to codify some rules that the senate has to act within some time frame or you get an automatic appointment.. I'm good with that. if you want to limit terms? I'm good with that too.

I'm confused. Congress controlling how many justices are on the Supreme Court is also "how our government works", and changing the number of justices would not be "changing the way our government functions". So why would it not be ok to change the number of justices in response to McConnell's SCOTUS shenanigans? You could even argue for just adding two justices to make up for Garland, which would still leave conservatives with a narrow majority.

Like I've said I would prefer for any measure to include broader reform instead of just narrow court packing, but I think narrow court packing would at least be legitimate under these circumstances, and I worry a bit because I have some doubts about the constitutionality of broader reforms (like I would *love* to add term limits, but it's hard to square that with the constitutional provisions giving federal judges lifetime terms in good behavior).

Paingod wrote:

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:21 pmYou don't just change the way a government functions because you don't like the outcome.

Isn't that exactly what the GOP did to get us here?

"But they did it first" is how children argue.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 pmHave you not seen McConnell bragging about what he did?

I have. And just look what rewards it has brought his fellow party-members.

McSally - probably toast
Tillis - probably toast
Collins - probably toast
Daines - holding on for dear life - in Montana
Ernst - probably toast
Gardner - probably toast
Perdue - holding on for dear life - in Georgia
Graham - probably toast
Loeffler - probably toast

McConnell's games have brought his party to ruin. And all for what? One SC justice? When Justices are notoriously bad at staying bought? Mitch is one hell of a rules-lawyer but I seriously question his ability to judge long term ROI.

I think you might be a little overconfident there, LR. And it's not like 40% of the country is going to stop voting R or anything. 'Ruin' is a very strong term. They'll have a bad 2020 election, sure. They're not necessarily toast in 2022 or 2024. Or even functionally in Jan, 2020.

And don't forget the 20 more at risk in 2020. And that is assuming mcsally and (babe escapes me) win.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:03 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 pmHave you not seen McConnell bragging about what he did?

I have. And just look what rewards it has brought his fellow party-members.

McSally - probably toast
Tillis - probably toast
Collins - probably toast
Daines - holding on for dear life - in Montana
Ernst - probably toast
Gardner - probably toast
Perdue - holding on for dear life - in Georgia
Graham - probably toast
Loeffler - probably toast

McConnell's games have brought his party to ruin. And all for what? One SC justice? When Justices are notoriously bad at staying bought? Mitch is one hell of a rules-lawyer but I seriously question his ability to judge long term ROI.

First, your list of "probably toast" is extremely generous. I would limit that list to McSally, Gardner, and *probably* Tillis and Collins (but even those last two are far from sure things). Graham is still a strong favorite to win, probably Perdue, and Daines as well (all strong favorites in 538 forecast). Looks like Ernst is probably going to lose but is far, far from a lock (54% chance to lose per 538).

I will say I am shocked that 538 now has a 54% chance for the Democrat to beat Loeffler, which surprises me.

Anyway, we'll see in November.

Zaxxon wrote:I think you might be a little overconfident there, LR. And it's not like 40% of the country is going to stop voting R or anything. 'Ruin' is a very strong term. They'll have a bad 2020 election, sure. They're not necessarily toast in 2022 or 2024. Or even functionally in Jan, 2020.

Like any cult, once the blinders are off, you don't put them back on.

People are not going to forget covid anytime soon.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:06 pm I think you might be a little overconfident there, LR. And it's not like 40% of the country is going to stop voting R or anything. 'Ruin' is a very strong term. They'll have a bad 2020 election, sure. They're not necessarily toast in 2022 or 2024. Or even functionally in Jan, 2020.

McConnell can be confident because he knows that the deck is stacked in his favor in the long run. In exchange for running a far right policy McConnell knows that the GOP will lose a few years where they would otherwise win, but they only need one chamber to shut down progressive legislation, and they can use periods of full control to stack the courts, so that a lot of what gets done in brief periods of Democratic control will get struck down in the end.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:09 pmFirst, your list of "probably toast" is extremely generous. I would limit that list to McSally, Gardner, and *probably* Tillis and Collins (but even those last two are far from sure things). Graham is still a strong favorite to win, probably Perdue, and Daines as well (all strong favorites in 538 forecast).

Am I looking at the wrong data? (that's a genuine question - not snark)

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:10 pm

Zaxxon wrote:I think you might be a little overconfident there, LR. And it's not like 40% of the country is going to stop voting R or anything. 'Ruin' is a very strong term. They'll have a bad 2020 election, sure. They're not necessarily toast in 2022 or 2024. Or even functionally in Jan, 2020.

Like any cult, once the blinders are off, you don't put them back on.

People are not going to forget covid anytime soon.

Also overconfident. A huge percentage views McConnell and Trump as successes (~40%). They're not going anywhere. A bunch of those that are contributing to 2020's possible landslide are also bound to be fickle. Again, we're in the middle of a grossly mismanaged pandemic with hundreds of thousands dead. And the election outcome isn't certain. That's absurd.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:11 pm McConnell can be confident because he knows that the deck is stacked in his favor in the long run. In exchange for running a far right policy McConnell knows that the GOP will lose a few years where they would otherwise win, but they only need one chamber to shut down progressive legislation, and they can use periods of full control to stack the courts, so that a lot of what gets done in brief periods of Democratic control will get struck down in the end.

This.

The Ds have a shot (possibly) to make structural changes to resolve this. They need to take that shot.

noxiousdog wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:10 pm

Zaxxon wrote:I think you might be a little overconfident there, LR. And it's not like 40% of the country is going to stop voting R or anything. 'Ruin' is a very strong term. They'll have a bad 2020 election, sure. They're not necessarily toast in 2022 or 2024. Or even functionally in Jan, 2020.

Like any cult, once the blinders are off, you don't put them back on.

We have no idea what is going to happen with them yet. That is a huge unknown.

People are not going to forget covid anytime soon.

If you are talking about the cult, where is there any indication the cult cares about COVID-19? And if you are talking about in general. Sure but this system does a damn good job of ignoring the majority's policy opinion.

Zaxxon wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:14 pmThe Ds have a shot (possibly) to make structural changes to resolve this. They need to take that shot.

It's absolutely essential. We are about to learn how far in the hole we are and how close we came to actually hitting the ground.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:14 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:09 pmFirst, your list of "probably toast" is extremely generous. I would limit that list to McSally, Gardner, and *probably* Tillis and Collins (but even those last two are far from sure things). Graham is still a strong favorite to win, probably Perdue, and Daines as well (all strong favorites in 538 forecast).

Am I looking at the wrong data? (that's a genuine question - not snark)

This is what I'm referring to.

The forecast factors in poll quality (the recent NYT / Siena poll has Graham +6, so that matters a lot), plus overall partisan lean (places like SC Democrats consistently come close, but it's really hard to get to 50%+).

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:14 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:09 pmFirst, your list of "probably toast" is extremely generous. I would limit that list to McSally, Gardner, and *probably* Tillis and Collins (but even those last two are far from sure things). Graham is still a strong favorite to win, probably Perdue, and Daines as well (all strong favorites in 538 forecast).

Am I looking at the wrong data? (that's a genuine question - not snark)

Yes. I WISH that were the overall poll forecast for Graham/Harrison, though!

Here's where you want to look:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -carolina/

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:55 pmThis is what I'm referring to.

Ah. Much appreciated.

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:55 pm

Little Raven wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:14 pm

El Guapo wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 4:09 pmFirst, your list of "probably toast" is extremely generous. I would limit that list to McSally, Gardner, and *probably* Tillis and Collins (but even those last two are far from sure things). Graham is still a strong favorite to win, probably Perdue, and Daines as well (all strong favorites in 538 forecast).

Am I looking at the wrong data? (that's a genuine question - not snark)

This is what I'm referring to.

The forecast factors in poll quality (the recent NYT / Siena poll has Graham +6, so that matters a lot), plus overall partisan lean (places like SC Democrats consistently come close, but it's really hard to get to 50%+).

The margin of error is 4.5 points.

[quote="Little Raven”]If you constantly let your opponent wield power ruthlessly, while you wield yours timidly, what is the point?[/quote]Winning?

I mean, if you look around the country, the Democrats are winning. We've been winning for the last 30 years.[/quote]
Are you serious? For the last 30 years, you’ve been losing. Hard.

You’ve been winning some elections, but even when that happens, you’ve been unable to do anything with the power handed to you. The GOP has enshrined their power for a generation where it won’t even matter if they win elections. Make all the laws you want, they’ll see you in court (and win).

Winning elections is meaningless if you aren’t willing to wield the power given to you. Especially if your opponent is, every time they win.

McConnell has won. I have no idea what country you are watching.

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:30 pmAre you serious? For the last 30 years, you’ve been losing. Hard.

How? In what ways is the Republican Party stronger now than they were in 1990?

ACB just now confirmed in the middle of the election.

13 justices. Maybe more.

Holman wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:12 pm ACB just now confirmed in the middle of the election.

Little Raven wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:30 pmAre you serious? For the last 30 years, you’ve been losing. Hard.

How? In what ways is the Republican Party stronger now than they were in 1990?

It’s not about the “Republican Party” being stronger. Do you think McConnell cares anything about the Republican Party. This has been a multi decade operating to remake the federal judiciary, and they just finished the job. You lost. As noted, today completed a four year exercise where Trump (TRUMP) has installed more than 30% of the federal judiciary.

That’s what this has been about. Good luck with your legislative attempts to do anything.

Anyone want to take bets that Thomas retires after election day and Trump gets to nominate #4 during his lame duck session?

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 9:01 pm Anyone want to take bets that Thomas retires after election day and Trump gets to nominate #4 during his lame duck session?

It's a possibility. McConnell would of course have to invent some new rationale for it but they'd do it. My guess though is Thomas sits as long as he is breathing. Though there seems to be some Thomas is retiring noise every year for some reason.