jerseyhoya wrote:

Squire wrote:Kavanaugh is just such bad politics from the R side that I don't get it.

Outside of those retiring (and even Flake isn't immune if he wants to run for President) and maybe Murkowski it is better politics for each individual senator to vote yes.

It's a weird situation where everyone would be better off if he went away and was replaced by a different nomination, but no one has the incentive to be the one to actually get blood on their hands from killing it.

Collins is facing a 50-33 in favor of no in a Maine poll

Grotewold wrote:Not enough being made of his ridiculous lies about the yearbook

or his previous lies under oath before he was nominated for SCOTUS. He should really be disbarred and that's not an exaggeration.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Squire wrote:Kavanaugh is just such bad politics from the R side that I don't get it.

Outside of those retiring (and even Flake isn't immune if he wants to run for President) and maybe Murkowski it is better politics for each individual senator to vote yes.

It's a weird situation where everyone would be better off if he went away and was replaced by a different nomination, but no one has the incentive to be the one to actually get blood on their hands from killing it.

Collins is facing a 50-33 in favor of no in a Maine poll

I don't really think she's making her decision based on this either way, but she's got a lot more vulnerability in a GOP primary from voting no than in a general from voting yes.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Squire wrote:Kavanaugh is just such bad politics from the R side that I don't get it.

Outside of those retiring (and even Flake isn't immune if he wants to run for President) and maybe Murkowski it is better politics for each individual senator to vote yes.

It's a weird situation where everyone would be better off if he went away and was replaced by a different nomination, but no one has the incentive to be the one to actually get blood on their hands from killing it.

Actually, it's not really that weird--it's a basic collective action problem. It's how Trump got the R nomination in the first place--while it would have been better for all the candidates if Trump went away, no one had an incentive to directly attack Trump.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Squire wrote:Kavanaugh is just such bad politics from the R side that I don't get it.

Outside of those retiring (and even Flake isn't immune if he wants to run for President) and maybe Murkowski it is better politics for each individual senator to vote yes.

It's a weird situation where everyone would be better off if he went away and was replaced by a different nomination, but no one has the incentive to be the one to actually get blood on their hands from killing it.

Actually, it's not really that weird--it's a basic collective action problem. It's how Trump got the R nomination in the first place--while it would have been better for all the candidates if Trump went away, no one had an incentive to directly attack Trump.

You are correct, but I'd argue this is a bit different from Trump because I think a lot of the people closest to this process have convinced themselves that confirming Kavanaugh - beyond the benefits to getting him on the court and the costs in public perception for the court and all the rest - will be a boost for GOP prospects in November. Saw someone saying yesterday that GOP Senate higher ups are convinced they'll be severely punished in November if he doesn't get through. It's insane. I think they're all too close to it to see what's happening or have convinced themselves it is true in order to convince themselves to keep this rolling.

I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

JUburton wrote:I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

There's something approaching a zero percent chance he would have had the votes to do so even if he was so inclined. They might not even have the votes for confirmation.

Scott Wagner believes that marijuana use leads to opiods and would worsen the opiod issue.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

There's something approaching a zero percent chance he would have had the votes to do so even if he was so inclined. They might not even have the votes for confirmation.

If they had votes for confirmation they'd have votes for filibuster imo. But it might make some on the fence senators more inclined to sink him based on process.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

There's something approaching a zero percent chance he would have had the votes to do so even if he was so inclined. They might not even have the votes for confirmation.

I always assumed he had the votes, just needed to get this little mess out of the way. Since Grassley & Co went with the expected 'no there there' on the skinny investigation, its vote time. I never really doubted the outcome, so I can be surprised if it goes off the rails. Maybe it gets narrowed to allow Mike Pence the glory, which would actually be the worst outcome.

Collins called it a thorough investigation. With all indications that it was not, or at least some stuff unvetted it leads me to believe she’s a yes.

It’s honesty probably better for the Dems if he’s confirmed; energize voters and this “motivating” issue for Republicans goes away

slugsrbad wrote:Collins called it a thorough investigation. With all indications that it was not, or at least some stuff unvetted it leads me to believe she’s a yes.

Quite simply, if, at a minimum and for whatever reason, the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, to call this a "thorough investigation" is utterly absurd.

traderdave wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Collins called it a thorough investigation. With all indications that it was not, or at least some stuff unvetted it leads me to believe she’s a yes.

Quite simply, if, at a minimum and for whatever reason, the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, to call this a "thorough investigation" is utterly absurd.

This to me has been one of the weirdest Dem talking points on the FBI investigation. Ford gave her statement & testified before the committee for hours. Kavanaugh did the same, plus has participated in multiple meetings and calls with committee members, other senators, and committee staff. It's a supplemental background check by the FBI to present Senators with information as they make their decision on confirmation. They've already gotten extensive information from both Ford and Kavanaugh. One piece hangs out there from Ford, her therapist notes, but if she doesn't want to turn them over that's her prerogative.

Yes, but enhanced interrogation techniques.

The FBI would want to interview the primaries because they are a law enforcement agency that may have different questions that elicit different answers than Senators would.

I think we can all agree that reading a transcript is not the same thing as actually sitting down and talking to the subject.

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

There's something approaching a zero percent chance he would have had the votes to do so even if he was so inclined. They might not even have the votes for confirmation.

So Ross Baker got it right.

https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2017/04/ ... 100074452/
(column about why the Democrats should not use the nuclear option regarding Merrick Garland.)

jerseyhoya wrote:

traderdave wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:Collins called it a thorough investigation. With all indications that it was not, or at least some stuff unvetted it leads me to believe she’s a yes.

Quite simply, if, at a minimum and for whatever reason, the FBI did not interview Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh, to call this a "thorough investigation" is utterly absurd.

This to me has been one of the weirdest Dem talking points on the FBI investigation. Ford gave her statement & testified before the committee for hours. Kavanaugh did the same, plus has participated in multiple meetings and calls with committee members, other senators, and committee staff. It's a supplemental background check by the FBI to present Senators with information as they make their decision on confirmation. They've already gotten extensive information from both Ford and Kavanaugh. One piece hangs out there from Ford, her therapist notes, but if she doesn't want to turn them over that's her prerogative.

Eh, I don't know. The confirmation hearing was a political circus, not necessarily structured to determine objective truth. "Your 5 minutes starts now."

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

JUburton wrote:I wonder if McConnell would have gone nuclear over this guy. I want to say yes as it would completely own the libs but I'm curious.

There's something approaching a zero percent chance he would have had the votes to do so even if he was so inclined. They might not even have the votes for confirmation.

So Ross Baker got it right.

https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2017/04/ ... 100074452/
(column about why the Democrats should not use the nuclear option regarding Merrick Garland.)

Just don't think you're grounded in reality if you think there's a zero percent chance that the Republicans wouldn't just nuke the filibuster here if they had the votes for confirmation. Like it's absolutely laughable to think that Republicans would have a power and think there's a zero percent chance that they'd use it.