The Crimson Cyclone wrote:GOP nervous ahead of Kavanaugh vote: “We don’t have 50 right now”

Don't believe it, they have the votes, just a strategy at this point to say they don't.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:This is the Kavanaugh article that hits pretty close to many of my thoughts. Obviously, I don't have the same personal experience as the author, who knows Kavanaugh, but it's written from the perspective of a conservative who opposes Kavanaugh's confirmation based on the information from the last few weeks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... gh/571936/

It's the perspective of a Democrat who's a fellow at Brookings and shoots a cannon off on Twitter whenever something bad happens to Trump but knows Kavanaugh personally

Ben Wittes is fairly conservative, regardless of whether he's a Democrat or not

heyeaglefn wrote:

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:GOP nervous ahead of Kavanaugh vote: “We don’t have 50 right now”

Don't believe it, they have the votes, just a strategy at this point to say they don't.

Nah, Bart is toast.

The center will hold.

And let's be real...the GOP views denying Bart a two-fer
...keeps a completely unqualified individual off the SC AND drives MAGA turnout four weeks from Tuesday.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:This is the Kavanaugh article that hits pretty close to many of my thoughts. Obviously, I don't have the same personal experience as the author, who knows Kavanaugh, but it's written from the perspective of a conservative who opposes Kavanaugh's confirmation based on the information from the last few weeks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... gh/571936/

It's the perspective of a Democrat who's a fellow at Brookings and shoots a cannon off on Twitter whenever something bad happens to Trump but knows Kavanaugh personally

Ben Wittes is fairly conservative, regardless of whether he's a Democrat or not

He’s a Democrat so his views should be summarily dismissed no matter how well-reasoned, thoroughly-researched and well-written.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:This is the Kavanaugh article that hits pretty close to many of my thoughts. Obviously, I don't have the same personal experience as the author, who knows Kavanaugh, but it's written from the perspective of a conservative who opposes Kavanaugh's confirmation based on the information from the last few weeks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... gh/571936/

It's the perspective of a Democrat who's a fellow at Brookings and shoots a cannon off on Twitter whenever something bad happens to Trump but knows Kavanaugh personally

Ben Wittes is fairly conservative, regardless of whether he's a Democrat or not

he's someone who believes partisanship should be left out of the judicial approval process

Ironically the administration believes politics should be left out of the courts when it is an international court enforcing a treaty, but applauds and participates in partisanship politics with the countries highest court.

Republicans are playing chess. And I mean that. They are in a win-win spot here.

The Savior wrote:Republicans are playing chess. And I mean that. They are in a win-win spot here.

Democrats have zero leverage.

and lost their queen. basically all that's left is pawns.

yeah not quite sure what the GOP has ot gain by bluffing or "playing chess"

The Dude wrote:yeah not quite sure what the GOP has ot gain by bluffing or "playing chess"

Greater turnout from MAGAs on 11/6.

but the vote is happening ahead of that

The Dude wrote:but the vote is happening ahead of that

Yes, but if only Flake, Murkowski, and Collins vote "no" the GOP can frame this as the "obstrustionist Dems blocking a great man, who Trump loves, from his rightful spot on the SC."

MAGAs thrive on resentment and they would eat that message up.

There is no question that Bart getting denied will lead to greater MAGA turnout on 11/6 then if he is confirmed.

This is why the nomination will be dead by Monday.

thats not playing chess or bluffing. that's reacting to how the vote plays out

The Dude wrote:thats not playing chess or bluffing. that's reacting to how the vote plays out

The chess playing is determining which move (no or yes vote) gives them a better chance at checkmate (retaining House and Senate) on 11/6.

Caveat: I don't play chess.

Sorry that's bunk. There's no gurantee of anything on election day, so they just need to get him through now in case they do lose the house and senate

The Dude wrote:Sorry that's bunk. There's no gurantee of anything on election day, so they just need to get him through now in case they do lose the house and senate

Well house doesn't matter. But also they could just push through Barrett/Kethledge/whomever in the lame duck session and there's nothing democrats could do.

The Dude wrote:Sorry that's bunk. There's no gurantee of anything on election day, so they just need to get him through now in case they do lose the house and senate

I completely disagree.

MAGA behavior is highly predictable.

Collins to speak on the floor at 3pm to state her vote intentions.