Russia is a weird, weird place.

On other fronts--another thing this election shows is that the money in politics thing may not matter as much as people think. It certainly doesn't matter in the ways people think. (It very well may matter in races where traditionally little money was spent--state legislature races and judges and stuff--but not too many people are paying attention to those. And it's also the case that in those races relatively small amounts of money make a big difference and I'm not sure CFR would really be a workable solution.)

Agreed, and I've said it before but there's a level of irony to the fact that the better Bernie does the less important the citizens United decision seems at the presidential level.

That being said I think on the republican side I think it has a lot to do with trump being almost uniquely good at manipulating the press to do what he wants them to (and get them to pay for it!). Without trump involved I think bush does a lot better.

THEY SHOULD LET THE NEXT PRESIDENT DECIDE IF GUANTANAMO SHOULD BE CLOSED

they won't even hold a vote

"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," the Majority Leader said in a speech on the Senate floor. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

"During my time on the committee, we have never refused to send a Supreme Court nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, even when the majority of the committee opposed the nomination," Leahy said. "And once reported to the full Senate, every Supreme Court nominee has received an up or down confirmation vote during my more than four decades in the Senate."

McConnell used the Simpsons did it defense, citing a statement Biden once said in 1992.

The Constitution says "by and with" it is an affirmative duty to give advice and consent, not to decide if they should or not.

Pretty settled that he has to get their consent, and they don't have to give it if they don't want to. "Affirmative duty to consent" doesn't have legs.

they have the affirmative duty to give advice, not consent.. I guess I could have worded that better. I do not read the Constitution as giving the Senate the ability to ignore the advice part.

MoBettle wrote:Agreed, and I've said it before but there's a level of irony to the fact that the better Bernie does the less important the citizens United decision seems at the presidential level.

That being said I think on the republican side I think it has a lot to do with trump being almost uniquely good at manipulating the press to do what he wants them to (and get them to pay for it!). Without trump involved I think bush does a lot better.

Trump's success has nothing to do with Citizen's United. He's spending hardly any money, and all the money is his own anyway, and candidates have always been allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want. (Remember how Corzine spent the then astronomical sum of 75 million to become a Senator? That was long before Citizen's United). The point is that at the national level, money can't buy you even a Republican nomination.

Bush didn't lose because of Trump, Bush lost because no one likes him. I would still like to have Bush's donor list--probably a lot of people who think a 2/20 hedge fund that under performs the S&P is a good deal.

TenuredVulture wrote:

MoBettle wrote:Agreed, and I've said it before but there's a level of irony to the fact that the better Bernie does the less important the citizens United decision seems at the presidential level.

That being said I think on the republican side I think it has a lot to do with trump being almost uniquely good at manipulating the press to do what he wants them to (and get them to pay for it!). Without trump involved I think bush does a lot better.

Trump's success has nothing to do with Citizen's United. He's spending hardly any money, and all the money is his own anyway, and candidates have always been allowed to spend as much of their own money as they want. (Remember how Corzine spent the then astronomical sum of 75 million to become a Senator? That was long before Citizen's United). The point is that at the national level, money can't buy you even a Republican nomination.

Bush didn't lose because of Trump, Bush lost because no one likes him. I would still like to have Bush's donor list--probably a lot of people who think a 2/20 hedge fund that under performs the S&P is a good deal.

Right I'm saying trump didn't need citizens United because of how effective he is at getting the media to give him free advertisement (and yes the fact that he's a billionaire and has his companies that are willing to give him loans essentially) I'm not sure if other candidates can really hope to follow that model.

I think Jeb would have been a lot more well liked if trump hadn't constantly made fun of him for months. The other candidates just aren't as good at that.

Money isn't mattering on the R side because the frontrunner is a 30 year celebrity who is a freak show every time he opens his mouth. You don't need ad buys for that. You get all the free media and a 30 year runway.

I'm an R and the Senate R's are just flat out wrong on the Supreme Court issue. The D's don't get to be high minded about things since its obvious both President and Vice President took similar stances when they were on the other side. But still Obama should nominate some and the R's should hold hearings and then either accept the candidate or Bork the nominee if he's not centrist enough and bear the political consequences for that. We can't keep moving the line earlier and earlier.

Anyway, at this point I'm basically resigned that Trump will be the nominee and I'll be voting for Hillary.

Trump gets contributions and spends the dough.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/d ... ing-214838

I still think it's a dumb risk for the GOP if Obama nominates a more centrist justice, the chances of winning the presidency aren't very good for them, especially if Trump gets the nomination and Hilary will nominate someone even more liberal most likely

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:I still think it's a dumb risk for the GOP if Obama nominates a more centrist justice, the chances of winning the presidency aren't very good for them, especially if Trump gets the nomination and Hilary will nominate someone even more liberal most likely

I agree with this too. Especially if you believe that Trump as nominee could really mess up down ticket elections.

The dumbest thing about the Republican strategy is that they showed their hand when they didn't have to. Just say "we'll follow the Constitution and we hope Obama nominates someone we find acceptable". Then, let Obama make the next move and shoot down whatever he does. They've got a majority and they can always block the nomination regardless. Now, however, they've basically said their strategy is to obstruct. If Obama nominates a moderate, and they refuse to hold hearings, they create a problem for blue and maybe even purple state R Senators. If they let it go forward, they should be able to count on their majority to defeat anyone Obama nominates, and they have some wiggle room to allow a blue state R Senator or two a vote to confirm if that helps that Senator hold the seat. And, assuming Hillary wins, they will then be faced with someone probably even more liberal than Obama's choice.

Ben Carson says Obama was 'raised white':

“He’s an ‘African’ American. He was, you know, raised white,” said the world-renowned neurosurgeon, whose single mother worked three jobs – and occasionally relied on government aid – to elevate Carson and his older brother from the grinding poverty of ghetto life.
“I mean, like most Americans, I was proud that we broke the color barrier when he was elected, but … he didn’t grow up like I grew up … Many of his formative years were spent in Indonesia. So, for him to, you know, claim that, you know, he identifies with the experience of black Americans, I think, is a bit of a stretch.”
Carson also suggested that what passes for racism now – in the age of Ferguson and Freddie Gray – isn’t comparable to the overt discrimination he encountered a half-century ago as a young man.
“Remember now, I’ve been around for 64 years, you know,” he added. “I’ve had a chance to see what real racism is.”

i remember the good ol' days in 2008 when Obama was too black to elect. Now he's too white.

TenuredVulture wrote:The dumbest thing about the Republican strategy is that they showed their hand when they didn't have to. Just say "we'll follow the Constitution and we hope Obama nominates someone we find acceptable". Then, let Obama make the next move and shoot down whatever he does. They've got a majority and they can always block the nomination regardless. Now, however, they've basically said their strategy is to obstruct. If Obama nominates a moderate, and they refuse to hold hearings, they create a problem for blue and maybe even purple state R Senators. If they let it go forward, they should be able to count on their majority to defeat anyone Obama nominates, and they have some wiggle room to allow a blue state R Senator or two a vote to confirm if that helps that Senator hold the seat. And, assuming Hillary wins, they will then be faced with someone probably even more liberal than Obama's choice.

Yup. I mean they are just flat out stupid. Apparently pandering to the base requires you to be an awful tactician. As a Delawarean, I always go back to the 2010 Senate race. Would have been an easy seat pick up in the mid-terms by nominating a Centrist Mike Castle but instead nominated a nutjob Christine ODonnell because she was a tea party outsider. Of course she got her broom handed to her by Chris Coons in the general election.

the Libyan National Army is pushing on ISIL and reclaiming lost ground. So that's good.

pacino wrote:i remember the good ol' days in 2008 when Obama was too black to elect. Now he's too white.

He's the new McNabb