np
again…the shock of having to go through those ‘stacks’ led to the discovery that Reagan’s original choice was Bork, a literal legal ‘FU’.
2 Likes
And those number show that the GOP nominee would beat Bernie like a rented mule.
There’s a story on the front page of TPM about it.
2 Likes
I don’t think they can win with Trump or Cruz. Their respective bases will split on whether they can stomach the other candidate as the nominee. Between Democrats and Independents, and even allowing for voter suppression, Republicans won’t have enough votes to win the Presidency. And what I’m really hoping for in this climate is that the down-ballot voting brings back the Senate and possibly some House seats…
3 Likes
I remember reading an article prior to 2012 where Anonymous claimed they figured out how Rove & Co funneled 2004 Ohio votes over to TN (I think) to cleanse the Kerry votes to be for Dub. In the article, as I recall, Anonymous let Rove know they had his number and would block it from happening in Ohio for 2012.
I took it as interesting and “eh … perhaps”. But it had a bit more credence when watching Rove lose his mind when Fox called Ohio for Obama.
Edited to add a link … not the story I recall prior to the 2012 election.
4 Likes
1 Like
And Bork was shot down because the asshole was such an extremist that he stated that the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional. That disaster was on Reagan, not the senate.
Obama will choose an absolute stud nominee. Watch. And slowly, but almost certainly, the talk from even this sordid, lazy media will move on from whether to have hearings (they will) to by what rationale such a qualified, superb candidate can be rejected.
The GOP is in a world of shit, what with declaring war on the constitution. Most of them just don’t know it yet. They will know it soon enough.
8 Likes
Actually it’s kinda true, you know. Except two of those balls aren’t where they’re supposed to be: between the senator’s legs.
1 Like
every once in a while, I miss Bruce Braley.
He took heat for calling Grassley out, but here we are…
2 Likes
Discussion: Befogged by Senility, Grassley Can’t Clarify His Position on SCOTUS Nominees
(TPM Header Edited for Enhanced Accuracy)
Yep.
His being a conscientious objector wanting to be commander and chief alone will put a sizable portion of voters that would otherwise be amenable to supporting Sanders out of reach. To say nothing of toxic effect the label “socialist” has on a more than meaningful portion of the electorate (never mind what Sanders brand of socialism really is).
I have been and still do lean towards Sanders because elf the issues he is a pit bull on, but these are some of the reasons I have not gotten fully onboard his campaign and still am weighing my vote in the primary.
http://corporispublica.org/images/e/e5/D-FTW-300.png
[Standard Disclaimer: This commenter wishes it to be known that in November he or she plans to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be, and will encourage their fellow primary candidate supporters to do likewise.]
4 Likes
They already have. Reagan nominated Kennedy Nov. 11, 1987. The election was Nov. 8, 1988.
Every time the GOP says not nominated and confirmed the year of an election, just say Reagan nominated Kennedy within a year of the election and a Democratic Senate approved him with a unanimous vote.
I like Bernie as a Senator.
He’s a lousy presidential candidate and would be a failed one-term president.
1 Like
As I recall, many decades ago a Washington publication confidentially polled Senate staffers on who was the dumbest Senator. Again, as I recall, Grassley won in a bi-partisan landslide. Now, it is true that between then and now there is a lot more competition for the honor, but I suspect that Grassley would still make the finals.
4 Likes
I know, and do. But the idiot I was arguing with keep reverting to the childish “what presidential election took place in 1987”…?
The narrow peg they are hanging their hat on is what number year the election occurred in, not was it less than a year. And of course anything prior to St. Reagan doesn’t count. And “those were different times”.
1 Like
Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment to the court 3 weeks before the 1956 Presidential election, naming William Brennan to replace Sherman Minton, who retired.
2 Likes
Even if he is a “failed” one-term POTUS I can live with that.
I just have concerns that he would not get that chance to “fail” as President if he gets the nomination. And I say that as someone who has/is leaning his direction.
Well aware. But as I said, anything prior to St. Reagan doesn’t count and “those were different times”. 
What do we know about her on Roe v Wade, the Affordable Care Act, immigration and Citizens United-- not to mention “originalism”!. And how tough is she; can she stand up to Roberts et al? We had better have a thorough vetting before she is nominated. Assuming she passes the vetting, it sounds like a terrific choice.
You will never get a clear-shot answer on the ACA question as that is an issue that is still before the court. You also would likely not get any clear paper trail on Roe v. Wade, but I would bet my last penny that Obama has never nominated a jurist to any Circuit Court that would not vigerliously uphold Roe v. Wade.
2 Likes
Are you referring to this:
Your reader MJ is right to be worried. I’ve seen results of a poll (and heard about another) done by a group here in DC that tested Sanders’s support before and after likely lines of attack against him. The results are bad, real bad.
Show me the poll questions. I’m pretty sure I could write a push-poll loaded with attacks and no defense, no counter-attack and no positive message for the targeted candidate and the results are going to be “bad, real bad” for the candidate. All that proves is that push-polls do what we already know they do.
So yeah, show me the questions, and show me the equivalent poll for Hillary, and then we’ve got something meaningful to talk about.