I caught the sound bite while driving of the president crowing about how he was able to get a Justice on the bench inside of a hundred days. Will the self-aggrandizing never stop, I know that's a rhetorical question.

this is my resting Garland face

yea it's a fucking great fucking day for democracy fuck off

GOD BLESS AMERICA

So Dem James Thompson will probably lose his race for Kansas 4th district Congress seat. Vote takes place tomorrow. drumpf won that district by around 30 percentage point margin, much like the margin for Rs in previous House races. Will it mean anything much if Thompson loses by less than that margin?

these races usually aren't much of a bellweather of anything to come, imo

picking up seats on the margins would be cool, tho.

Alabama Gov booked into jail. Haha.

Weeeeeeee

pacino wrote:these races usually aren't much of a bellweather of anything to come, imo

picking up seats on the margins would be cool, tho.

I'd be more inclined to agree were this not a candy-apple-red district where any sign of purpling would seem noteworthy

swishnicholson wrote:

td11 wrote:If you support the Republican party right now, how are you not a Trump supporter?

td, I love you man, but these broad generalizations are a little much. I mean, yes, if you are a Republican, you have to own the fact that he's your President. As long as you don't extend it to any support of a Republican position means you are a supporter of Trump. Or any support of a Trump action (I won't call it a position, I don't think he ever thinks things through enough to have those), automatically qualifies you as a Republican.

yeh it's a cheap shot. some times i am just venting in here

td11 wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

td11 wrote:If you support the Republican party right now, how are you not a Trump supporter?

td, I love you man, but these broad generalizations are a little much. I mean, yes, if you are a Republican, you have to own the fact that he's your President. As long as you don't extend it to any support of a Republican position means you are a supporter of Trump. Or any support of a Trump action (I won't call it a position, I don't think he ever thinks things through enough to have those), automatically qualifies you as a Republican.

yeh it's a cheap shot. some times i am just venting in here

F you, accepting blame like that. How the hell am I supposed to respond to that?

I'm going back to my giraffe thread.

One Democratic senator insists that once his party regains the Senate majority — whenever that may be — Democrats will restore the 60-vote threshold needed to advance Supreme Court nominees, which was demolished by Republicans last week.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) made the vow during a Monday interview with MSNBC.

“We will ensure that for the Supreme Court, there is that special margin that any candidate has to reach because that is essential to ensuring that our country has a confidence in those people who are nominated,” Markey said. “Rather than just someone who passes a litmus test.”

lmao OK right Ed

drsmooth wrote:So Dem James Thompson will probably lose his race for Kansas 4th district Congress seat. Vote takes place tomorrow. drumpf won that district by around 30 percentage point margin, much like the margin for Rs in previous House races. Will it mean anything much if Thompson loses by less than that margin?

If the Dem lost by single digits I think that'd be interesting. There's reportedly an NRCC poll that only has the Republican up 1. Dems winning the seat would obviously be a huge shock and would probably mean something.

Trying to poll a special election is like trying to hit a dartboard while blindfolded. Low turnout, impossible to predict the make up of the electorate. It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems haven't polled the race at all, or at least didn't poll it till late last week/this weekend after the GOP started spending a bit of money. I'll guess the Republican wins by low double digits, and both sides claim that to be a victory.

Hard to read much into individual races, though think it's even harder to read into ones which weren't even thought to be races. I do think GA-06 with the spotlight and spending might be a somewhat better barometer.

oh cool, the one we might win

pacino wrote:oh cool, the one we might win

It's a live possibility. Any time you raise $8 mil for a fucking House race you should at least have a chance to win.

People seem to be getting overexcited IMO about the early voting stuff, which I think is a mistake because a) it's tougher to interpret in GA which doesn't have party ID and b) Dems don't need to wait till election day to vote cause they have one option, while Republicans have to pick through a number of viable candidates.

I wish we were polling this. It seems like a fascinating race.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:oh cool, the one we might win

It's a live possibility. Any time you raise $8 mil for a fucking House race you should at least have a chance to win.

People seem to be getting overexcited IMO about the early voting stuff, which I think is a mistake because a) it's tougher to interpret in GA which doesn't have party ID and b) Dems don't need to wait till election day to vote cause they have one option, while Republicans have to pick through a number of viable candidates.

I wish we were polling this. It seems like a fascinating race.

You're just torn between nerd Hoya and GOP seat.

jerseyhoya wrote:

One Democratic senator insists that once his party regains the Senate majority — whenever that may be — Democrats will restore the 60-vote threshold needed to advance Supreme Court nominees, which was demolished by Republicans last week.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) made the vow during a Monday interview with MSNBC.

“We will ensure that for the Supreme Court, there is that special margin that any candidate has to reach because that is essential to ensuring that our country has a confidence in those people who are nominated,” Markey said. “Rather than just someone who passes a litmus test.”

lmao OK right Ed

guess you didn't believe the turtle either

Two years ago, when a Democrat was in the White House, McConnell said he would only abolish filibusters of Supreme Court justices if there were 67 votes for such a change. This week, he employed a maneuver to do it with 51 votes. It suited his momentary needs, but the damage will remain long after McConnell’s tombstone is engraved.

Bucky wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

One Democratic senator insists that once his party regains the Senate majority — whenever that may be — Democrats will restore the 60-vote threshold needed to advance Supreme Court nominees, which was demolished by Republicans last week.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) made the vow during a Monday interview with MSNBC.

“We will ensure that for the Supreme Court, there is that special margin that any candidate has to reach because that is essential to ensuring that our country has a confidence in those people who are nominated,” Markey said. “Rather than just someone who passes a litmus test.”

lmao OK right Ed

guess you didn't believe the turtle either

Two years ago, when a Democrat was in the White House, McConnell said he would only abolish filibusters of Supreme Court justices if there were 67 votes for such a change. This week, he employed a maneuver to do it with 51 votes. It suited his momentary needs, but the damage will remain long after McConnell’s tombstone is engraved.

Of course Mitch wasn't going to play by rules the Democrats wouldn't play by in return. He's the best.

jerseyhoya wrote:Of course Mitch wasn't going to play by rules the Democrats wouldn't play by in return. He's the best.

.
He's a slack sack of shit. He changed the Senate's rules on confirmation of SC nominations. He did it. It wasn't done to him. He is testudines poop