Harry Reid is the guy who gutted the power of the minority and put Schumer in the position he’s in today.
And why did he do that?
1 Like
This.
This is proof positive that the Democratic party, as a progressive party, is dead. Let it die. At this point, it is vital to cultivating a new paradigm of social populism and community.
2 Likes
I agree the dems eventually might meed a loudmouth, but probably not of the Elizabeth Warren variety. The entire process was taken over by marketing and image years ago (thanks Obama, Clinton, Reagan, ect.) and unfortunately anybody ignoring populist sentiments in their “branded image” do so at their peril, no matter how absurd the necessity for such actions are.
Presidential wise I expect a loudmouth left/center Democrat to steal the show next round ala Mark Cuban or somebody like that. I think a good bit of Democrats (not base) will reason the best way to take down the “asshole businessman” persona is by having your own version of it. All the more reason to organize because if charisma is what steals the show lets get grass roots infrastructure to force things along a certain path.
2 Likes
This whole tea-party movement is the fiery end of conservatism that has only found a place because the government kept this conservative boomer base alive long enough to vote with their paranoid dementia.
2 Likes
Nailed it.
5 Likes
Obviously, he intended to be able to approve appointments without any minority support whatsoever… That is what I meant, sorry if I was insufficiently clear.
A good strategy, as long as it approaches certainty that your party will never, ever, ever lose control of both the presidency and Congress.
1 Like
He did it because McConnell was obstructing everything. How are you supposed to get minority support if the minority is just voting no to everything?
And here we are. I don’t see how we get back to a working system until both parties are interested in co-operation, and I have no idea when that will be. I don’t see that happening until McConnell is gone, at the very least. 2020, maybe? 2026?
5 Likes
Perhaps there’s a quicker way, given the second amendment…
Fucking hell.
3 Likes
Voting against Ben Carson isn’t “obstructionist”. It’s “sane”.
4 Likes
I sure hope not. Despite all the sophistry about dems and repubs being two sides of the same coin they are not mirror images of each other. Liberals as a group are more fact based and less emotion-based.
If they try to beat the republicans at their own game, they are going to lose. It kinda worked for the first clinton, but that eventually fell apart. Play to your strengths, not the other guy’s strengths.
2 Likes
If Trump holds out and is the 2020 opponent some Dems will be cautious of anything short of a hard ass to take him on. Just go back through every Democrat’s loss since Nixon. Every winner, with the possible exception of George H.W. Bush, played the “better” television character. Every liberal looser played the role of a sophisticated problem solver in chief and fumbled the “common man” approach.
The typical winner has a character that works. Obama was interesting because his character was a bit more “cool” as opposed to folksy, but he still tried that too. Regardless, it’s a big shit show without much substance and in the age of Trump it’s probably beyond any of us to change that.
We may hate the show, but to deny it exists is the kind of delusion I feel many have to get over. Maybe let us focus more hope in brains at the state, local and congressional level where lots of stuff happens too. It’s not a completely zero sum President only game. Not yet anyway.
Also, for all the talk about how liberals love data, Democrat strategists in particular have been almost criminally negligent in actually putting data to good use and liberals in general have been terrible about holding their leaders accountable for it.
Across the country dems are winning intellectual battles in their own minds while conceding much of the political territory to the republicans vicious and relentless ground game.
Courtesy @daneel and FiveThirtyEight:
There is only one Democrat who has voted to confirm more Trump appointments than Schumer, and that’s Diane Feinstein.
Admittedly, it looks like there have only been six nominees voted upon (and a few Senators have only voted on five of them), but Schumer has voted to confirm five of the six.
5 Likes
And everyone’s terribly surprised by that shock result.
I fully expect them to confirm Steve Bannon to the SCOTUS in short order.
3 Likes
I will be following this obsessively and nervously.
I never had any hope for Schumer and Feinstein, but I think Sanders and Warren will be relatively strong in opposition. Cory Booker too, because he wants to run for President in 2020. Tom Udall might surprise us too, because Mormons and Trump don’t really get along.
3 Likes
Sounds like Schumer is going to half-ass this too.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination.
Should be all.
Merkley’s party leader, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, has said he will fight “tooth and nail” any nominee that isn’t “mainstream.”
Not good enough.
If it isn’t Garland, they should be filibustered.
4 Likes
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
