Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1356721

Comments

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Ignorance of a great magnitude from the Antipodes...

    Do you see any Republicans challenging Trump in 2020? Or is it just not the done thing?

    Reading Romney in the WP triggered the question.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Romney is certainly sounding like a possible candidate today criticizing Trump by saying he falls short of shaping the character of the nation. Srory here.
  • I think there might be other Republicans waiting in the wings too. Bob Woodward reckons that every one of Trump's senior advisers wanted him to quit the presidential election immediately after pussygate. Bannon talked him out of it, with help from Melania and Conway. What if things get very nasty after Mueller parks his Mack truck on the White House lawn. Could he be convinced not to stand for re-election?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I think there might be other Republicans waiting in the wings too. Bob Woodward reckons that every one of Trump's senior advisers wanted him to quit the presidential election immediately after pussygate. Bannon talked him out of it, with help from Melania and Conway. What if things get very nasty after Mueller parks his Mack truck on the White House lawn. Could he be convinced not to stand for re-election?
    Ego says no.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    The DOJ stance on not indicting sitting presidents gives Trump an incentive to run in 2020, in hope of getting re-elected and then outlasting statutes of limitation for any possible indictable offenses he committed during the campaign, the governmental transition (so-called), or the exercise of his office (so-called). Of course, that would also require that Trump stop pulling potentially indictable stunts post-re-election -- a requirement Trump may be temperamentally incapable of managing.

    However, we should recall that Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon after Nixon resigned in the wake of Watergate. This fact should get repeated as often as possible on Fox and Friends until Mr. Mueller completes his assignment or until Trump's current sulk turns martial or, God help us, nuclear. Meanwhile, Mother should whisper this pardon notion regularly into Pence's ear several times daily. If there's anything that could persuade Donnie to resign rather than get impeached or indicted, a behind-the-scenes dangling of pardons might be our only hope.

    All that said, rounding up a clown-carfull of plausible Republican primary challengers could prove problematic. There actually ARE some plausible challengers who haven't ripped the Rs off their sleeves yet; think Kasich of Ohio (http://fortune.com/2018/11/25/john-kasich-presidential-run-2020/). The difficulty lies, I suspect, in how the Repugs have so thoroughly trained their rank-and-file voters in black-and-white thinking over the years (plus the "never-speak-ill-of-Republicans" pledge) and the Joe Blow voter is likely to succumb to a major "does-not-compute" meltdown confronted with a Republican challenger to Dear Orange Leader. Also, unless there's a veritable horde of such challengers, they may need extra security.

    Still another item to bear in mind is the fact that Ms. and Mr. Rank-and-file Republican won't discover until April 15 the appalling extent to which s/he has been fleeced by the tax cut. Someone over at Fox and Friends should start mentioning this, to put Don-Don on notice that the Ides of April may well become his sell-by date.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Climacus wrote: »
    Ignorance of a great magnitude from the Antipodes...

    Do you see any Republicans challenging Trump in 2020? Or is it just not the done thing?

    Reading Romney in the WP triggered the question.

    There have been three significant primary challenges to sitting, non-term-limited presidents in the post-war era. (Before the mid-twentieth century major party candidates were usually selected by party bosses in the proverbial "smoke-filled room", so primary election challenges as we think of them weren't really a thing.) Gerald Ford was primaried by Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter was primaried by Ted Kennedy, and George H. W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchannan. All three presidents survived the primary challenge to secure their party's nomination but went down to electoral defeat in the general election. It could be said that a primary challenge to an incumbent president is an indication of electoral weakness and unpopularity, but that the advantages of incumbency are typically sufficient to win a primary election (but not a general one).

    How this fits in with Trump is unclear. He's unprecedented (unpresidented?) in a lot of ways, and one of them is that the U.S. hasn't had a first term president this consistently unpopular since the advent of scientific polling. Maybe Romney is counting on the wheels falling off sometime in the next year or so.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    The DOJ stance on not indicting sitting presidents gives Trump an incentive to run in 2020, in hope of getting re-elected and then outlasting statutes of limitation for any possible indictable offenses he committed during the campaign, the governmental transition (so-called), or the exercise of his office (so-called).
    Asking because I don’t know and don’t have time (or energy) right now to research it: If the POTUS can’t be indicted while in office because of implications for stability of government, are statutes of limitation tolled while he is in office?

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    The DOJ stance on not indicting sitting presidents gives Trump an incentive to run in 2020, in hope of getting re-elected and then outlasting statutes of limitation for any possible indictable offenses he committed during the campaign, the governmental transition (so-called), or the exercise of his office (so-called).
    Asking because I don’t know and don’t have time (or energy) right now to research it: If the POTUS can’t be indicted while in office because of implications for stability of government, are statutes of limitation tolled while he is in office?

    Hard to say, because there's no written statute and very little legal precedent. As @Ohher points out the Department of Justice officially holds the position that a sitting president cannot be indicted, largely on the grounds that the president is a unique officer of the United States and various functions of government would grind to a halt if he wasn't attending to his duties. This is understandable because attorneys general are usually picked by presidents in part because of their expansive view of presidential power and their minimalist view of presidential accountability. Other branches of the government, like federal courts or state attorneys general, may take a different view but we won't know for sure until someone decides to put it to the test by indicting a sitting president. My own view is that the Constitution explicitly accounts for a situation where the president "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment so arguments premised on the necessity of the president not being impeded seem unconvincing.

    As for whether or not statutes of limitations are tolled while the president is in office, I don't know but I'd suspect not. American laws often specify tolling for situations where someone is a fugitive from justice and thus beyond the reach of the law. The idea that someone is temporarily above the law seems repugnant to American jurisprudence and thus likely would not have been written into statutes of limitations.
  • Elizabeth Warren has announced an exploratory committee, the first to do so, AFAIK. Headlines read, "Warren has catching up to do." I miss the eye-rolling smiley.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    ... My own view is that the Constitution explicitly accounts for a situation where the president "is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment so arguments premised on the necessity of the president not being impeded seem unconvincing .....

    Thank you for that - I'm still wondering why everyone else hasn't figured that out.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Elizabeth Warren has announced an exploratory committee, the first to do so, AFAIK. Headlines read, "Warren has catching up to do." I miss the eye-rolling smiley.

    Julián Castro was there first, but Warren certainly has more name recognition than Obama's former HUD Secretary. I doubt he's the one the headlines think he's the one Warren needs to catch up to.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 2
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Romney is certainly sounding like a possible candidate today criticizing Trump by saying he falls short of shaping the character of the nation. Story here.

    Getting back to the Romney op-ed, the key paragraph seems to be this one:
    It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.

    To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

    In other words Romney positioning himself to take on Jeff Flake's job of furrowing his brow and acting concerned, and then supporting whatever Trump decides to do. This isn't so much positioning for a primary challenge as it is positioning himself as the obvious replacement should Trump be unable to run in 2020. Trump with a more civil façade. More separations of refugee families, but fewer tweets containing profanities.

    It has long been my belief that Mitt Romney has only one constant and unshifting political principle: that Mitt Romney should be president. This op-ed seems wholly consistent with that belief.

    Also notable, for those paying attention:
    I look forward to working on these priorities with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other senators.

    Nothing says "standing up to Donald Trump" like looking forward to working with Trump's greatest enabler in the Senate.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    The DOJ stance on not indicting sitting presidents gives Trump an incentive to run in 2020, in hope of getting re-elected and then outlasting statutes of limitation for any possible indictable offenses he committed during the campaign, the governmental transition (so-called), or the exercise of his office (so-called).
    Asking because I don’t know and don’t have time (or energy) right now to research it: If the POTUS can’t be indicted while in office because of implications for stability of government, are statutes of limitation tolled while he is in office?

    Hard to say, because there's no written statute and very little legal precedent. . . .
    Thank you for the analysis, @Crœsos. It's helpful.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Washington state Governor Jay Inslee has announced he's running for the Democratic presidential nomination. He's running as a single issue candidate (climate change), which is an almost certain signal that the candidate is hoping to push a specific issue, not become president, but I guess we'll see.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Now there are reports that the Republican Rules Committee wants to change the rules so no one from the Republican side can challenge a sitting Republican sitting president Story here. In other words, Mr. The System Is Fix, wants to fix the rules so he can not have any challengers from the Republican side.

    Today, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee has announced his formation of an exploratory committee to run for the Democratic nomination. Inslee is basing his campaign on Environmentalism to hear him, you would think he is a Green candidate. Atlantic Story
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Now there are reports that the Republican Rules Committee wants to change the rules so no one from the Republican side can challenge a sitting Republican sitting president Story here.
    Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see anywhere in that story that it says the Rules Committee “wants to change the rules so no one from the Republican side can challenge a sitting Republican President.” What the story says is that the Trump people are working on delegate slates in light of pretty lax rules about nominations from the floor at the convention.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 3
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Now there are reports that the Republican Rules Committee wants to change the rules so no one from the Republican side can challenge a sitting Republican sitting president Story here.
    Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t see anywhere in that story that it says the Rules Committee “wants to change the rules so no one from the Republican side can challenge a sitting Republican President.” What the story says is that the Trump people are working on delegate slates in light of pretty lax rules about nominations from the floor at the convention.

    Here's a clearer story on the same subject, also from the Washington Examiner. (For those who don't know, the Washington Examiner is a conservative-leaning newspaper in Washington, DC. Unlike the other conservative-leaning newspaper in Washington, DC, the Washington Times, the Examiner will sometimes publish articles critical of Donald Trump and his supporters.)
    “Look, the political history is clear. No Republican president opposed for re-nomination has ever won re-election,” RNC committeeman Jevon O.A. Williams said in a email obtained by the Washington Examiner. “Unfortunately, loopholes in the rules governing the 2020 re-nomination campaign are enabling these so-called Republicans to flirt with the possibility of contested primaries and caucuses.”

    <snip>

    “While President Trump would win re-nomination it wouldn’t come quick and it wouldn’t be inexpensive. Any contested re-nomination campaign — even a forlorn hope — would only help Democrats,” Williams wrote. “Accordingly, I am asking for your support to take the unprecedented step of amending the rules to close loopholes in the re-nomination campaign, including Rule 40.”

    <snip>

    Under current rules, a primary challenger can get a vote on the convention floor if he or she wins a plurality of delegates in five states or territories (Washington, D.C. can also be one of the five).

    Existing rules technically prohibit any changes to these regulations inside of a presidential cycle, which begins after the midterms. But as a private organization, the RNC could in fact make any changes it wants at any time.

    The Examiner did not see fit to publish the e-mail in its entirety, at least not as far as I can tell, nor did it specify exactly how RNC Committeeman Williams want to change the nominating rules, nor if he has the support of anyone else within the RNC. Still, Mr. Williams is quite up front (if the e-mail is quoted accurately) about wanting to game the current Republican nominating process to make it harder to challenge an incumbent Republican president.

    As a separate matter it should be noted that the list of incumbent Republican presidents who have faced the possibility of a contested primary is only six individuals: Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Prior to Nixon the primary election system as we know it today simply didn't exist. At any rate it's a very small sample from which to be drawing hard and fast political truisms. I'd also speculate that Mr. Williams gets the causality backwards. Ford and G.H.W. Bush weren't electorally weakened because they faced primary challenges, they faced primary challenges because they were electorally weak.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    In other news, 2016 Democratic primary contender Martin O'Malley says he's not running for president in 2020. He did suggest Beto O'Rourke should enter the race, though I'm not sure how much weight Mr. O'Malley's suggestion carries with Mr. O'Rourke.
  • Once more, thanks @Crœsos.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure that using a toxic war of words to energize his base is Trump's strategy regardless of who his ultimate opponent is. He's been staging more of his toxic rallies at any Republican stronghold that will have him since before the inauguration. Positing that there is some plausible Democratic candidate who Trump won't use as a scare figure requires a more thorough explanation than the one provided.
    The point I was trying to make (which has already been born out, in my opinion) is that whilst Trump is going to have a similar strategy regardless of who opposes him, Warren is already an easy (and already damaged) target. His "Pocahontas" jibes can continue and will continue to make their mark (no matter how unfair this will be). In any battle, one question you always have to ask is "what would my opponent most like?" I don't think that there is any doubt that Trump would love to go head to head with Warren. I am not sure that he would win the election but I am pretty sure that he would do better than if facing another opponent. She made a disastrous decision to release her DNA results and that will continue to come back and bite her.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I've never had much patience for arguments that boil down to "let's take the politics out of politics!"
    That's not the argument I was making. But the plain fact of the matter is that the US is currently hopelessly and bitterly divided. Trump v Warren would only make the divided camps even more entrenched so that no matter who won, the hatred and infighting would continue. The only hope that I can see for the US is to have someone who can begin to draw people together; someone who can start to heal the wounds. May be this is idealistic, but the alternative is too ghastly to consider - without healing the various factions in the US will just go their own way until the whole is ungovernable. It is clear that Trump cannot heal the nation. In my opinion, Warren cannot either as she has become too much of a hate figure for Trumpians. So it needs someone else.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    With all respect to Mr. Firefly, can you offer us a candidate Trump will not promptly turn into a hate figure (especially if she's female), in precisely the same ways he turned Clinton into one?

    Can you suggest a Democratic candidate for whom Trumpians could possibly be induced to vote?

    I'm betting you can't. That's the Trump MO.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thanks for the informative and helpful replies to my question on challenging the incumbent from within the party.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    With all respect to Mr. Firefly, can you offer us a candidate Trump will not promptly turn into a hate figure (especially if she's female), in precisely the same ways he turned Clinton into one?

    Can you suggest a Democratic candidate for whom Trumpians could possibly be induced to vote?

    I'm betting you can't. That's the Trump MO.
    To be fair, though, Trump had the work of many others who since 1992 had been demonizing Clinton to build on.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    [ Elizabeth Warren ] made a disastrous decision to release her DNA results and that will continue to come back and bite her.

    Because ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth worked out so well for former president John Kerry? Leaving toxic lies unaddressed seems more poisonous to campaigns than addressing them outright. Trump now has the choice of looking ridiculous by pivoting from "she's a fake Indian!" to "she's not enough of an Indian!" or finding some new insult to latch on to. The DNA test will likely make the whole idea of the President referring to a sitting U.S. Senator by a racial slur both unattractive and old news by the time the 2020 general campaign gets underway.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I've never had much patience for arguments that boil down to "let's take the politics out of politics!"
    That's not the argument I was making. But the plain fact of the matter is that the US is currently hopelessly and bitterly divided. Trump v Warren would only make the divided camps even more entrenched so that no matter who won, the hatred and infighting would continue. The only hope that I can see for the US is to have someone who can begin to draw people together; someone who can start to heal the wounds.

    What exactly does that look like in the context of electoral politics? For example, a sizable number of Americans want to make sure that all their fellow Americans have access to affordable health care. Another sizable number of Americans want to make sure that a large number of fellow Americans (about 30 million) do not have this access. What does "drawing people together" look like here? A compromise of only 15 million Americans facing death or bankruptcy in the event of a medical emergency? That doesn't seem like a 'compromise' that will satisfy either.
    Ohher wrote: »
    With all respect to Mr. Firefly, can you offer us a candidate Trump will not promptly turn into a hate figure (especially if she's female), in precisely the same ways he turned Clinton into one?

    Vladimir Putin. [ mic drop ]
  • a healing candidate is more likely to come from the republican side in the event that Trump is kicked to the curb. At that point, surely the electorate wouldn't swallow it.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    a healing candidate is more likely to come from the republican side in the event that Trump is kicked to the curb. At that point, surely the electorate wouldn't swallow it.
    I, um, what?

  • someone like that new senator from Utah with the lovely kind smile and the dog handling issues.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Romney already lost once.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    a healing candidate is more likely to come from the republican side in the event that Trump is kicked to the curb. At that point, surely the electorate wouldn't swallow it.
    I, um, what?

    What lilbuddha said. And Romney is the new Jeff Flake - full of "oh no, how could he?!?" bullshit, because he'll vote for Trump's horrific "policies."
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Romney already lost once.

    Twice, if you count the 2008 Republican primaries. Interestingly enough, no one has suggested that Romney should disappear from public view and take up knitting.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    I remain rather surprised at Trump's approval from Republicans...

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-would-it-take-for-trump-to-get-primaried/
    (see the chart about a quarter down)

    Would anyone want to go against that level of popularity?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Climacus wrote: »
    I remain rather surprised at Trump's approval from Republicans...

    The Pew Research article that Fivethirtyeight links to says people who have left the Republican party since 2015 strongly dislike Trump. So that's going go keep his in-party approval rating up.

    Another interested tidbit there is that young Republicans have recently been more likely than older Republicans and Democrats of any age to switch party affiliation.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    That is very interesting. Thanks, Ruth.

    Off to read the Pew article...
  • Mitt has all the relevant characteristics of former Australian PM John Howard who had the nickname Lazarus because he lost internal leadership votes and elections repeatedly until finally he won an election and managed to stay Prime Minister for a decade. Mitt is taller than Howard, has better skin tone, speaks very prettily and has wholesome American morals.

    Romney is Lazarus material in a world where Trump becomes unelectable in 2020. I know Ruth and Croesus wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't vote for him if I had the vote. But lots of Republicans and Republicans-but-for-Trump would, and he would surely be acceptable to most Americans as President, even if they didn't like his politics. That's why I reckon he's a healing candidate.

    I'd like to argue why a healing candidate is more likely to come from the Republican side, but I'm out of time. Toodles.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    ... and he would surely be acceptable to most Americans as President, even if they didn't like his politics. That's why I reckon he's a healing candidate.

    No, a healing candidate is one who didn't interview with Trump to be Secretary of State. Romney says Trump's character is the problem, but Trump's character was a known quantity two years ago, and Romney didn't have a problem with it then.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Ruth is right. Add to what she said the fact that Romney was caught on tape explaining to potential donors that ". . . 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what . . . believe that they are victims. …These are people who pay no income tax. …and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

    And, in this new era of Power to the Women, Mitt also said: “We took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet (in Massachusetts). I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

    Source: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/47-percent-remark-quote-year/

    In our current political context, either of these remarks is more likely to pour salt on open wounds than they are to heal.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Mitt ...has wholesome American morals.

    Abusing dogs is now "wholesome American morals"?
    :anguished:

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Is this a Mitt Romney thread? Asking for a friend.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Is this a Mitt Romney thread? Asking for a friend.

    Well, it's an election 2020 thread and someone suggested that Mitt Romney would be "a healing candidate" were he to run in 2020. We're currently debating the merits of that proposition.
  • I know other people have other favorite Democratic candidates, but let's hash out the pros and cons of the current most-discussed ones. I know a lot will change over the next almost-two years. I would say these most-discussed candidates (and potential candidates) are (not sure if this order means anything):

    1. Former VP Joe Biden
    2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
    3. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
    4. Sen. Kamala Harris (California)
    5. Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey)
    6. Sen. Sherrod Brown (?) (Ohio)
    7. Rep. Beto O'Rouke (Texas - I am not sure he really belongs here)

    We can debate whether this list should include Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (New York), former Gov. John Hickenlooper (Colorado), Gov. Jay Inslee (Washington), former HUD Secretary Julian Castro (who is from Texas), Sen. Chris Murphy (Connecticut), Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, or former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run as an independent rather than a Democrat, although his party affiliation is now Democrat again). However, I think limiting this pros/cons discussion to the most-discussed candidates at the moment (maybe limiting it to no more than 10?) would be best.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    I am wondering about Al Franken, the Democrat accused of sexual assault who resigned at the insistence of Klobuchar and Gillibrand. It's not clear to me he was actually guilty; at least, there was no due process. I suppose the resignation could be regarded as an admission of wrongdoing, and would likely be spun as such by an opponent.

    Franken, until this accusation (initially based on actions from his show biz career and, while a brand of humor I DO find offensive but is arguably less egregious than Cadet Bone Spurs' taped admission of actual assault), had the respect of Congress Critters of both parties and had served well. I am not sure Klobuchar and/or Gillibrand did the Dems any service by demanding this guy's ousting. I am equally unsure he's redeemable, but if we're going to insist on candidates who have lived spotless, blameless lives from infancy on -- and then install thugs in Congress, the Supreme Court and the Oval Office anyway -- I'm not sure of anything any more.

    Neither side is going to find The Perfect Candidate; there's no such animal.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    It's not clear to me [ Franken ] was actually guilty; at least, there was no due process.

    There really isn't any "due process" in a resignation. Franken had the option of staying in the Senate and submitting to an ethics investigation (due process) but chose to forego that option by resigning. Unless you mean dude process, a concept explained in full at the link.
    Ohher wrote: »
    I am not sure Klobuchar and/or Gillibrand did the Dems any service by demanding this guy's ousting.

    I was a big fan of Franken's Senate career. He put in the time on his committees, being a workhorse rather than a show pony, something that can't honestly be said of a lot of his Senate contemporaries that don't come from show business backgrounds. That being said, I keep thinking back to the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings in the Senate. Ted Kennedy famously destroyed Robert Bork's chance to sit on the Supreme Court through the underhanded political tactic of describing Bork's actions and positions in accurate yet unflattering ways. Shocking but true! :scream:

    Kennedy was largely a non-factor the Clarence Thomas hearings, particularly the portion dealing with Anita Hill's accusations. Most observers, including myself, feel he was restrained because he didn't want to say anything that would invite someone bring up the word "Chappaquiddick". So a scandalous accusation that, in a reasonable world, would have sunk the Thomas nomination was swept under the rug (as much as it could be) because no one on the Judiciary Committee made enough of a stink.

    The memory of those two hearings kept playing through my mind during the Kavanaugh hearings, for obvious reasons. It seems very plausible to me that Franken might likely have reprised Kennedy's inactions during the Thomas hearings if he hadn't resigned and had his committee seat filled by Kamala Harris. Given how important women as a constituency seem to be shaping up for the Democrats, yes, I have to reluctantly conclude that Klobuchar/Gillibrand did the Democrats a favor by forcing the issue of Franken's conduct. (It should be noted that it's unlikely they would have been willing and/or able to do this without the approval of the Democratic Senate leadership.)
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    edited January 9
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ... Franken might likely have reprised Kennedy's inactions during the Thomas hearings if he hadn't resigned and had his committee seat filled by Kamala Harris.

    Who knows what Franken might have done had he not resigned in 2018, leaving a Minnesota Senate seat to be filled by Tina Smith. Kamala Harris was elected to the Senate by California in 2016.

    Edit: And yeah, as unfortunate as it was, Franken had to go. Standards are standards.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited January 9
    Ruth wrote: »
    No, a healing candidate is one who didn't interview with Trump to be Secretary of State. Romney says Trump's character is the problem, but Trump's character was a known quantity two years ago, and Romney didn't have a problem with it then.
    True. I was a little shocked by that, frankly. I'm not a fan, but I thought he had more sense (and too much of a sense of morality) than to stoop to being interviewed by Trump. Besides, I figured the invitation was just so that Trump could humiliate him, and I was right.



  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 10
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Is this a Mitt Romney thread? Asking for a friend.

    Well, it's an election 2020 thread and someone suggested that Mitt Romney would be "a healing candidate" were he to run in 2020. We're currently debating the merits of that proposition.

    When I see the title of this thread is "Breaking Glass," I assume this is referring to women candidates--as in women breaking into the CEO categories. Look stonespring's list of Democratic candidates
    1. Former VP Joe Biden
    2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
    3. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
    4. Sen. Kamala Harris (California)
    5. Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey)
    6. Sen. Sherrod Brown (?) (Ohio)
    7. Rep. Beto O'Rouke (Texas - I am not sure he really belongs here)

    I only see two females.

    On the Republican side hereis a list of possible women candidates.


  • I'm too late for a timely withdrawal on Romney, but I withdraw nonetheless. Obviously I was mesmerised by his winning smile. He looks so kind...
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    On the Republican side hereis a list of possible women candidates.

    Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire served one term as Senator; NH currently has 4 Dems in Congress -- 3 women, one openly gay male.

    Ayotte served as NH's attorney general for 5 years before serving in Congress. She was appointed by Republican governor Craig Benson (1 two-year term, and one of the most incompetent NH governors in modern history). She has a reputation for bipartisanship.

    She's been described both as moderate & conservative, and centrist; she's pro-life, pro-business, and a law-and-order Repub. She falls into that Repub model of young, energetic, attractive-appearing, credible-sounding candidates who get a reputation for great smarts because they look appealing, attractive, and professional and can speak in whole sentences. Think female Paul Ryan -- kinda cute in his/her way, nice blue eyes, hollow core), but who are actually basically party hacks. She has no foreign policy chops. As a president, she'd likely follow party lines, keep the Ship of State afloat but make no waves or course changes.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    ... When I see the title of this thread is "Breaking Glass," I assume this is referring to women candidates--as in women breaking into the CEO categories.
    ...
    I was thinking "In case of emergency, break glass," but thank you for your interpretation!
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Is this a Mitt Romney thread? Asking for a friend.

    Well, it's an election 2020 thread and someone suggested that Mitt Romney would be "a healing candidate" were he to run in 2020. We're currently debating the merits of that proposition.

    When I see the title of this thread is "Breaking Glass," I assume this is referring to women candidates--as in women breaking into the CEO categories. Look stonespring's list of Democratic candidates
    1. Former VP Joe Biden
    2. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont)
    3. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts)
    4. Sen. Kamala Harris (California)
    5. Sen. Cory Booker (New Jersey)
    6. Sen. Sherrod Brown (?) (Ohio)
    7. Rep. Beto O'Rouke (Texas - I am not sure he really belongs here)

    I only see two females.

    Exactly. The Patriarchy is alive and well. I probably should have put Klobuchar and Gillibrand on the short list. I really don't want to vote for a man this election - although I guess I should look at candidates based on their policies and experience too :smile: . (I was only talking about press attention in making my list - if you know more about fundraising, activist, or backdoor political attention where other candidates rank higher than the people I have listed, please say so.)

    All that said, what about the pros and cons of these candidates? Let's add Klobuchar and Gillibrand in, along with whatever 10th candidate any of you prefer?

    I'm not talking about who SHOULD be on the short list - not "my" short list but a realistic one of how things stand, but about the pros and cons of the people who are - knowing full well that at this early a stage the short list is really just a parlor game and is likely to be completely different in a matter of months. We wouldn't be having this thread if we weren't all playing this parlor game in one way or another.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I'm not talking about who SHOULD be on the short list - not "my" short list but a realistic one of how things stand, but about the pros and cons of the people who are - knowing full well that at this early a stage the short list is really just a parlor game and is likely to be completely different in a matter of months.

    I'll have my own thoughts in a little bit, but 538 has compiled a list of ten likely Democratic primary contenders (which mostly means those who are acting interested in running and have enough standing to attract media attention) and has diagrammed out their standing among the five constituencies 538 sees as critical to winning the Democratic presidential primary on handy little pentagonal charts. No assessment of viability in a general election is made, but you have to win the primary to get to the general election. The five somewhat overlapping constituencies are:
    1. Party Loyalists
    2. The Left
    3. Millennials and Friends
    4. Black voters
    5. Hispanic voters (sometimes in combination with Asian voters)

    As I said, there's a lot of overlap since individual Democrats might belong to more than one of those categories.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    This individual Democrat wonders if she belongs to any of them. I would have put myself in "The Left," but I did not support Sanders and I didn't consider Clinton's nomination "a debacle."
Sign In or Register to comment.