Why Democrats should pack the courts.

[Maxima1]

A weak candidate wouldn't have won the popular vote.

Why do you think the Democrats were thrilled when Trump was nominated? Why do you think the Republicans got depressed?

A theoretical Clinton administration would have appointed zero justices? Huh?

Assuming the Democrats didn't get the Senate. Look at the close races. I doubt she would have gotten PA and certainly none of the others (next being Missouri). Even if the Democrats did, we wouldn't have gotten Doug Jones, so no 50-50 or better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

States where the margin of victory was under 1%:

1. New Hampshire, 0.14%

States where the margin of victory was between 1% and 5%:

1. Pennsylvania, 1.43%
2. Nevada, 2.43%
3. Missouri, 2.79%
4. Wisconsin, 3.36%

 

[Bitek]

A weak candidate wouldn't have won the popular vote.

Too bad that's not what decides the election.

At the end of the day she lost a bunch of Obama voters and Obama states to the least qualified and least popular candidate in history while riding the coat tails of a history economic recovery.

Obama would have won a 3rd term imo.

In the past to. Lemons into lemonade

 

[Jhhnn]

Why do you think the Democrats were thrilled when Trump was nominated? Why do you think the Republicans got depressed?

Immaterial to the facts at hand. Hillary won the popular vote by 2%, a 3M vote margin. Weak candidates don't do that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Too bad that's not what decides the election.

At the end of the day she lost a bunch of Obama voters and Obama states to the least qualified and least popular candidate in history while riding the coat tails of a history economic recovery.

Obama would have won a 3rd term imo.

In the past to. Lemons into lemonade

I merely object to the notion that she was a weak candidate. The 2016 campaign was extremely anomalous for a lot of reasons, particularly given the hostile takeover of the GOP by Trump. He's the unintended consequence of GOP actions & propaganda from Gingrich forward. Russian meddling & an outrageous slime attack against Clinton set him on his way.

Putin's boys really know how to bend American minds, huh? Of course they do. They have the advantage of objectivity.

 

[brandonbull]

Immaterial to the facts at hand. Hillary won the popular vote by 2%, a 3M vote margin. Weak candidates don't do that.

She also lost the popular vote in the majority of states. Strong candidates don't do that.

 

[Jhhnn]

She also lost the popular vote in the majority of states. Strong candidates don't do that.

Also immaterial. I'm sure several winning candidates have done the same.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

She also lost the popular vote in the majority of states. Strong candidates don't do that.

A strong candidate needs a 100% sweep? Has that ever happened in let’s say the last 100 years?
Maybe Truman but I’m not sure about that.

 

[Maxima1]

Immaterial to the facts at hand. Hillary won the popular vote by 2%, a 3M vote margin. Weak candidates don't do that.

It was weak candidate vs. weak candidate. Trump wasn't even a Condorcet winner in the Republican primaries. 1 vs. 1, he would have easily lost in those primaries, and he certainly wasn't a good fit for a general election. Cruz likely would have been a nail biter against her (slightly better in general than Trump), and I believe Rubio would have won the popular vote against her.

 

[Jaskalas]

Look, it's a terrible thing. The GOP could do it later on, and so on. We could have 40 justices. But they've brought this on themselves, and on all of us.

I don't even care about the conservative backlash anymore. We're already in a cultural/political war for the heart, soul and future of this country, and we need to win it.

Thing is, it's not political backlash that'll be sowed from those seeds.

When both sides agree that Democracy is dead... only thing that remains for our parties is deciding who is left alive to claim the right of might.

There is no winning such a thing.

 

[Jhhnn]

It was weak candidate vs. weak candidate. Trump wasn't even a Condorcet winner in the Republican primaries. 1 vs. 1, he would have easily lost in those primaries, and he certainly wasn't a good fit for a general election. Cruz likely would have been a nail biter against her (slightly better in general than Trump), and I believe Rubio would have won the popular vote against her.

Trump whupped the shit out of Cruz in the primary with a 19.2% spread. He's a political monster born of the Id of a disgruntled America, swept into office by a masterful campaign of lies & deceptions generated both at home & abroad.

That's what really happened. Your fantasy scenarios are mere diversion.

The whole discussion is tangential to the thread topic, anyway. In order to increase the number of justices on the court Dems must win both houses of Congress & the Presidency in 2020 to change the law. They'll have to change the rules to do it w/o a filibuster proof majority. They'll also have to change the voting rights act in a way acceptable to any SCOTUS in order to prevent the abuses we're currently seeing from the GOP.

 

[Maxima1]

Trump whupped the shit out of Cruz in the primary with a 19.2% spread. He's a political monster born of the Id of a disgruntled America, swept into office by a masterful campaign of lies & deceptions generated both at home & abroad.

That's what really happened. Your fantasy scenarios are mere diversion.

The whole discussion is tangential to the thread topic, anyway. In order to increase the number of justices on the court Dems must win both houses of Congress & the Presidency in 2020 to change the law. They'll have to change the rules to do it w/o a filibuster proof majority. They'll also have to change the voting rights act in a way acceptable to any SCOTUS in order to prevent the abuses we're currently seeing from the GOP.

The voting system sucks in the US. While I can't be 100% confident in the comparisons, I think it's probable that he would have been shown to be a Condorcet loser if it was 1 vs. 1. There is also good reason to think he may not be a good fit in a general election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/...ity-rule-might-have-stopped-donald-trump.html

 

[Jhhnn]

The voting system sucks in the US. While I can't be 100% confident in the comparisons, I think it's probable that he would have been shown to be a Condorcet loser if it was 1 vs. 1. There is also good reason to think he may not be a good fit in a general election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/...ity-rule-might-have-stopped-donald-trump.html

So what? He won. What if's don't mean shit. Address reality.

 

[MrSquished]

Hilary was a weak candidate, partly because of things outside her control and partly because of her own actions. She didn't do things like campaign in the Rust Belt, smugly believing they were easily won, well that fucking mistake probably cost that entire election as Trump squeezed some of those states just barely. He made an effort there and it was smart, Hilary didn't even try and it fucked everything up.

Hilary was also a weak candidate because she couldn't get the Bernie Bros to show up at the polls. That's a big part of the Democratic party. The emails they found were not much at all but that's not how they were portrayed. So she had to deal with that reality, and I don't think she really did anything to try to make up with that group of Democrats, and my guess is a lot stayed home in crucial states. Remember Trump only won by a football stadium full of people in three states to swing this win I have read.

 

[Maxima1]

So what? He won. What if's don't mean shit. Address reality.

Really? The argument was about whether he was a weak candidate or not. If he was a Condorcet loser, then he's more likely to be a weak candidate. Many people thought this. It's why Democrats were happy, while the Republicans were sad once he was nominated. I still say it was weak candidate vs. weak candidate.

 

[Zorba]

Immaterial to the facts at hand. Hillary won the popular vote by 2%, a 3M vote margin. Weak candidates don't do that.

I like Hillary, I think she would've been a good president, but she wasn't a great campaigner. She didn't run the right ads and she never figured out a way to get away from email questions.

The media also completely and utterly fucked her over with non-stop email questions and with showing ever Trump campaign rally live.

The problem with democracy is often the person elected isn't who is the best for the job, but who is the best campaigner. And anything she won the popular vote, she lost the election to the worst candidate in US history.

 

[senseamp]

I like Hillary, I think she would've been a good president, but she wasn't a great campaigner. She didn't run the right ads and she never figured out a way to get away from email questions.

The media also completely and utterly fucked her over with non-stop email questions and with showing ever Trump campaign rally live.

The problem with democracy is often the person elected isn't who is the best for the job, but who is the best campaigner. And anything she won the popular vote, she lost the election to the worst candidate in US history.

I guess we checked that off the list...

 

[woolfe9998]

Thing is, it's not political backlash that'll be sowed from those seeds.

When both sides agree that Democracy is dead... only thing that remains for our parties is deciding who is left alive to claim the right of might.

There is no winning such a thing.

Perhaps, but it's already done. The GOP has cheated the system. We either let them get away with it, in which case they just keep doing it, or we do not. If we allow them to keep getting away with it, then we have one party GOP rule, which means the end of democracy anyway.

If you have a better alternative, then provide it.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So if the Chief/Tribal counsel said you live on street 1, you live on street 2, you live on street 3 and so on. You’d be okay with that? How does that make the election more secure?

The claim is being made that the reason some Native Americans can't vote is a lack of designated street numbers or names. I have no idea if the claims are accurate or not, but why not fix the problem? It's similar to claims that a State ID is required for voting and somehow this is a dastardly attempt to steal citizens voting rights, why not just make State ID's free and easy to acquire? Problem solved.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The problem with Democrats is they don't have party loyalty. Many traitors are amongst them who would gladly backstab any effort to pack the courts. Manchin is such a traitor.


These traitors must be dealt with or the Democrats need to retain a 10+ seat majority if they want to get anything done.

Make sure you keep repeating that, we need more Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbells.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The claim is being made that the reason some Native Americans can't vote is a lack of designated street numbers or names. I have no idea if the claims are accurate or not, but why not fix the problem? It's similar to claims that a State ID is required for voting and somehow this is a dastardly attempt to steal citizens voting rights, why not just make State ID's free and easy to acquire? Problem solved.

So the Chief or counsel could go out today and say Street 1, Street 2, Street 3 and so on and you’d be okay with that you wouldn’t be saying they are not USPS assigned addresses so it doesn’t count?
I have a feeling the guys who ordered this change would claim that.
Simply put it was too short notice to the election to be done for whatever reason.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So the Chief or counsel could go out today and say Street 1, Street 2, Street 3 and so on and you’d be okay with that you wouldn’t be saying they are not USPS assigned addresses so it doesn’t count?
I have a feeling the guys who ordered this change would claim that.
Simply put it was too short notice to the election to be done for whatever reason.

Are you making the claim that this was never brought to anyone's attention until the last few weeks or months? Or was it a problem that has been put off and put off and not solved by the Reservation powers that be until it mattered?

 

[umbrella39]

Would give zero fucks if this mother fucker gets scalped...

 

[Jhhnn]

The claim is being made that the reason some Native Americans can't vote is a lack of designated street numbers or names. I have no idea if the claims are accurate or not, but why not fix the problem? It's similar to claims that a State ID is required for voting and somehow this is a dastardly attempt to steal citizens voting rights, why not just make State ID's free and easy to acquire? Problem solved.

Yeh, why don't N Dakota Repubs do that, huh? They run the State. Why haven't they done it in the last 15 years that the GOP has been raving about voter fraud? And why is the tribal ID that was good enough 2 years ago not good enough today?

Because the Tribes vote Democratic kinda like black people vote Democratic in Georgia. The GOP is always looking for ways to disenfranchise unfriendly voter groups. They found a new one in N Dakota. It's become their trademark way of doing things.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Are you making the claim that this was never brought to anyone's attention until the last few weeks or months? Or was it a problem that has been put off and put off and not solved by the Reservation powers that be until it mattered?

And someone shouldn’t be able to vote because their tribal counsel is run like a crappy condo association?

 

[umbrella39]

Umm they are stacking the court. What do you think they were doing when they didn't give Obama's nomination a hearing? What do you think they were doing by removing the filibuster for SC nominations? What do you think they were doing when they stalled lower court appointments under Obama by a record amount?

You would probably see all these things if your head wasn't buried in the sand.

This has nothing to do with heads in the sand. By any means necessary then claim derp doesn't cut it anymore. They are overtly trying to take away brown people's right to vote AGAIN.