ashton wrote:

Warszawa wrote:For Obama to even have a chance of getting a nominee through the senate it will probably have to be someone considered a moderate

I'd go in a different direction. Nominate Srinivasan. When the Republicans reject him it will piss off Indian Americans. Then nominate a Japanese guy. When he's rejected, Japanese Americans will be pissed at the Republicans. Then a Greek, or a Cuban etc. Get as many minorities as possible pissed at Republicans.

i honestly love this strategy and i think the dems should really be playing to the "Reps have no interest on actually governing, just obstructing government" narrative. adding to the "republicans are xenophobic" narrative won't hurt, either. this would be easy because it's exactly what they've been doing the last 8 years and would kind of brush over a lot of the unsavory aspects of the Obama presidency that liberals aren't thrilled about(Obamacare not going far enough, drone strikes, slow to leave the Middle East/close GitMo, etc...).

Titlehungry wrote:So who is gonna be the Republican nominee... I think they all have pretty killed each other to the point than none can beat Hillary. Kasich has pretty much stayed out of the mudslinging but doesn't seem to have the support or funds to win out... I think the prevailing RNC thought becomes Trump is their best bet to maybe insult and tout his way to an upset... then what? Who would he pick as a running mate?

gosh golly gee, ya think they would have someone, ya know, some kind of not-quack-the-ducks establishment folk who would, ya know, not feed the pigs until the diapers are off.

"We discovered the judge in bed, a pillow over his head. His bed clothes were unwrinkled," said Poindexter.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/ ... 830372.php

let the conspiracy theories begin!

The Triumph election special was pretty funny if you're one of the 12 people with Hulu.

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama won 26 and 28 states in his 2 presidential elections. It's hard to see how the deck is stacked against Democrats in the Senate.

Well those 26 states have 200 million of the 320 million people that live in the country.

What does that have to do with Democratic control of the Senate?

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama won 26 and 28 states in his 2 presidential elections. It's hard to see how the deck is stacked against Democrats in the Senate.

Well those 26 states have 200 million of the 320 million people that live in the country.

What does that have to do with Democratic control of the Senate?

You only get 2 senate seats whether you are New York or Wyoming.

If the presidential election was straight popular vote and the senate seats were divied up proportionally, the democrats would funnel all of the money they currently use in Ohio Florida ect into busing people in New York, la, Chicago etc to polling booths and they would never lose an election.

Instead we live in this weird system where people have outsized power because they happen to live in less densely populated areas.

This chart's crummy - typical lazy NYTimes half-assing - but from a glance at the typical arcs, you might conclude justices get smarter with age....

pacino wrote:Reagan nominated Kennedy in Reagan's last year in office.

Yes. However, that was a culmination of a process begun in mid-1987. Reagan first picked Robert Bork, who was nixed by Dems for his ultraconservative views and (probably more importantly) his firing of Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox under orders from Nixon. He was the #3 person in the DOJ at the time; #s 1 and 2 resigned rather than comply with Nixon's order. Then he picked Douglas Ginsburg, who was nixed because word got out that he had smoked pot in the past. Kennedy was the #3 choice.

Not defending the Cruz/McConnell position, but the 1988 case was slightly different from what we have now.

Swiggers wrote:Not defending the Cruz/McConnell position, but the 1988 case was slightly different from what we have now.

Precedent is light in any direction. Only two Soops have died while serving in the last what, 60 years? And final Presidential year appointments are more rare than deaths while serving - though there too precedent isn't worth a lot.

So I'd go with a straight originalist interpretation of Article II Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, about which Scalia would tell you there can be only one correct interpretation - of course he tortured his own interpretation (but how can there be more than one view of what our omnicient, super-human framers had in mind? We must have absolute certainty!) into kinda-sorta wishing the whole advice portion PRECEDED actual POTUS nominations, sheesh what a character that guy was, have they buried him yet already

I don't think the republicans are saying that nominating someone would be unconstitutional? Just in poor form.

Loretta Lynch would be such a chess move. Please happen.

I guess the Rs who are saying Obama shouldn't even nominate someone are worried that they will be perceived as obstructionist.

JUburton wrote:Loretta Lynch would be such a chess move. Please happen.

Super centrist move that they can't legitimately obstruct. Would be clever. Also annoying.

MoBettle wrote:I don't think the republicans are saying that nominating someone would be unconstitutional? Just in poor form.

POTUS would be abiding by the Constitution in selecting and bringing forward a nominee. Rs would be forsaking their oaths of office not to perform their Constitutionally-directed advice/consent function

TenuredVulture wrote:I guess the Rs who are saying Obama shouldn't even nominate someone are worried that they will be perceived as obstructionist.

So they're hoping he'll ignore his oath of office so they won't be faced with doing so? Yeah, sounds like a plan

Toomey chiming in that Obama shouldn't nominate someone. I guess he understands that he's running for re-election in Pennsylvania not Alabama

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama won 26 and 28 states in his 2 presidential elections. It's hard to see how the deck is stacked against Democrats in the Senate.

Well those 26 states have 200 million of the 320 million people that live in the country.

What does that have to do with Democratic control of the Senate?

You only get 2 senate seats whether you are New York or Wyoming.

If the presidential election was straight popular vote and the senate seats were divied up proportionally, the democrats would funnel all of the money they currently use in Ohio Florida ect into busing people in New York, la, Chicago etc to polling booths and they would never lose an election.

Instead we live in this weird system where people have outsized power because they happen to live in less densely populated areas.

That's why we have a bicameral system though. The Senate's supposed to represent the states and the House is supposed to represent the people in those states. If your representation relies solely on population, you could have a situation where representatives from a few densely populated states are making laws that don't affect their states at all but adversely affect less densely populated ones.

I do think at this point it's dumb to not have a popular vote for president though. But a lot of the shit we do to elect our leaders is dumb. First past the post is a terrible system.

Gimpy wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:

MoBettle wrote:

Werthless wrote:Obama won 26 and 28 states in his 2 presidential elections. It's hard to see how the deck is stacked against Democrats in the Senate.

Well those 26 states have 200 million of the 320 million people that live in the country.

What does that have to do with Democratic control of the Senate?

You only get 2 senate seats whether you are New York or Wyoming.

If the presidential election was straight popular vote and the senate seats were divied up proportionally, the democrats would funnel all of the money they currently use in Ohio Florida ect into busing people in New York, la, Chicago etc to polling booths and they would never lose an election.

Instead we live in this weird system where people have outsized power because they happen to live in less densely populated areas.

That's why we have a bicameral system though. The Senate's supposed to represent the states and the House is supposed to represent the people in those states. If your representation relies solely on population, you could have a situation where representatives from a few densely populated states are making laws that don't affect their states at all but adversely affect less densely populated ones.

I do think at this point it's dumb to not have a popular vote for president though. But a lot of the shit we do to elect our leaders is dumb. First past the post is a terrible system.

Well the house still has these problems though, if to a slightly lesser extent. Representation is still based on where you live in those states, and all of the election money goes towards those districts that happen to be relatively even.

As it stands right now, people from really rural states and people from those highly contested districts (Which themselves are more likely to be rural/suburban) have an outsized impact on the political process.

And IDK if that's a better or worse system than the alternative, but it certainly seems like it's a disadvantage to Democrats generally, and Democrats in urban areas in particular.

Somewhere between School House Rock's "I'm Just a Bill" and "Three Branches of Government" is where you answer is. We are spinning a pretty basic argument about how the country is set up, and the checks and balances to assure that big population centers are not just completely in charge. Imagine the world where your government was managed completely by California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. Those states account for about 1/3 the population, leaving the other 2/3 for the remaining 45 states. PA is in @ #6 on the list. Would representation by population represent the interests of the nation, or just the interests of the cities (and retirees apparently)? If you stretch to top ten you are at about 167M of roughly 300M.

My only complaint about the way the bi-camber system is installed is that the founding fathers could not have imagined the type of hell that a large country would endure when you have the whole of the house in a state of constant re-election campaigning with the 2 year term. At any given time at least 1/3 of the house is actively engaged in a reelection campaign, but the truth is that with such a short term they are continuously engaged in their reelection effort.