Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Paddy’s Pub's picture
Rank: Monkey | banana points 33

Thoughts on RBG possibly stepping down before 2020? How ugly is the confirmation process and what will Democrats use as a smear tactic. This will be particularly interesting if Trump nominates Amy Comey Barrett. The Democrats will look horrible as the "party of women" if they have a Brett Kavanaugh -esque circus attacking Barrett. This would be a massive win for Trump.

Consulting Case Interview Course

  • 2,037 questions across 209 consulting firms. Crowdsourced from over 600,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Exclusive Cases developed by a McKinsey Associate and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring consultants just like you.

Comments (71)

Jan 11, 2019

This is interesting, looking forward for comments

Jan 11, 2019

If it happens near the end of the year its a pretty simple response tbh. No Supreme Court Justice in a president's last year.

    • 7
Jan 11, 2019

I think what you are incorrectly referring to is a nomination during an election year. This is just plain false as there are multiple instances in history where presidents have nominated Supreme Court Nominees in an election year. FDR in 1940, Eisenhower in 1956, LBJ who had 2 failed nominees in the election year in which he decided not to run again, and Reagan who nominated Anthony Kennedy in his final term.

Better get a phresh diploma my man.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 14, 2019

I was being completely facetious. There is no rule in any regard. I'm referencing Mitch McConnell subverting the will of the people in order to not allow the sitting President to nominate a judge. If the Democrats are going to showcase that they can govern and not be ran over, they must put their foot down in the same regard and stop trying to act better than the GOP. It is clear that they are not playing on even ground.

    • 2
Jan 11, 2019

That is assuming Trump does not win 2020. It happened to Obama in the last year of his second term. So I don't think it's that simple...tbh.

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 11, 2019

Trump adds another Scotus pick and win's 2020 despite sabotage from DOJ and other departments.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 11, 2019

Highly doubt she steps down before 2020. If she passes away though, that's obviously a different story.

Jan 11, 2019

A non smoker with the type of cancer she has doesn't originate in the lungs, it travels to the lungs.

She's dying.

Jan 11, 2019

You really don't know her medical situation better than anyone else. Bunch of reports today say no more signs of cancer.

Jan 11, 2019

She's in great health, you're right. This is the third bought of cancer and a life long non smoker had two cancerous growths removed from her lungs. Perfectly natural.

Deep dive you did. Top analysis.

Jan 12, 2019

There's some massive cope going on in this thread about her health and her likely replacement. Doubt they even bothered to look into the specifics of recurrent malignant tumors in the lungs of an otherwise healthy individual.

If anyone thinks there's any incentive to compromise and nominate a moderate judge in the current political climate, let alone Merrick Garland, I think they'll be disappointed. You know they'll do anything to keep these activist rulings coming though...

Jan 12, 2019

Of course Trump won't compromise and nominate Garland. My point was that Trump should--but would never consider--hedging his re-election by incentivizing RBG to step down in exchange for Garland. Garland is way more moderate than Obama's first 2 court appointments, who have turned out to be (to no one's surprise) unreconstructed leftists. This way we could guarantee the court moves to the right, at least on the margins. Otherwise, if the Dems win they will nominate another RBG.

Trump would never offer that deal because Trump doesn't really care about the ideology of the courts and he has no intention of losing re-election. To offer that deal is a loser's mindset, but as a conservative individual, I like hedge moves (which is why I'll never be a billionaire or elected President).

Jan 11, 2019

Trump should hedge and make a deal with RBG: she steps down and Trump nominates Garland. He's much more centrist than she is and the Dems get the moral victory of it not going to a conservative. Win/win.

Jan 11, 2019

In a plot twist, Trump nominates a liberal and gets his wall in return.

    • 1
Jan 12, 2019
CRE:

In a plot twist, Trump nominates a liberal and gets his wall in return.

Oh, that's an interesting idea.

Jan 13, 2019
CRE:

In a plot twist, Trump nominates a liberal and gets his wall in return.

What about DACA?

Jan 11, 2019

Don't think it will happen cus he probably wants as much of a crony as he can get to make sure he doesn't get indicted, but this would probably be the best thing for America since it legitimates the court by giving us the same judges we would've had if they hadn't changed the rules for garland/Obama, and maybe also the best thing for the conservative movement long term since he's relatively moderate and another obvious partisan like Kavanaugh makes it more likely that we go to 12 or 13 the next time the dems have the chance.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

You really think ANYONE believes "his word" at this point? His word is worth less than Jamie Lannister's to anyone who has dealt with him. Also, Mitch McConnell would never allow it anyways.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
justphresh:

His word is worth less than Jamie Lannister's to anyone who has dealt with him.

The Lannisters never filed Chapter 11.

Jan 11, 2019

Unless she is unable to perform the responsibilities of a SCOTUS, I highly doubt she would step down.

Jan 11, 2019

The reason I bring this up is because she is on record in 2016 saying, " I will retire when it's time. And when is it time? When I can't do the job full steam." One could definitely make an argument that missing oral arguments for two weeks in a row for the first time in her career is an example of not being able to perform the job full steam.

Jan 11, 2019
Paddy's Pub:

One could definitely make an argument that missing oral arguments for two weeks in a row for the first time in her career is an example of not being able to perform the job full steam.

One could also make the argument that taking two weeks off of work to recover from surgery is pretty normal

    • 4
Jan 11, 2019

This ^

I think she will only step down in the most dire of circumstances to keep the court from having another non-centrist, right leaning nominee. I think she'll wait until there is a more rational individual making nominations

"If you ain't first, you're last!" - GOAT

Jan 11, 2019

Totally agree that is a more than valid point. I am only referencing that she has never missed work despite surgery and radiation, pancreatic cancer, heart surgery, broken bones etc so naturally people are going to make a big deal of her missing work despite her being 85.

I am not against her by any means, the entire point of this thread is an interesting topic of conversation more stimulating than whether a 22 year old should wear a Rolex and Gucci loafers to a job interview.

Jan 13, 2019
Paddy's Pub:

Totally agree that is a more than valid point. I am only referencing that she has never missed work despite surgery and radiation, pancreatic cancer, heart surgery, broken bones etc so naturally people are going to make a big deal of her missing work despite her being 85.

I am not against her by any means, the entire point of this thread is an interesting topic of conversation more stimulating than whether a 22 year old should wear a Rolex and Gucci loafers to a job interview.

"But what if his late grandpa gave him the Rolex, if that is explained to the interviewer shouldn't it be ok to wear? What about cuff links?...thanks guys!"

Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 11, 2019

One question is does she still have the capacity to read 200 briefs and write opinions per year anymore? I never doubted that RBG can do her job perfectly in good health, but with recent treatments and age in general, she might not be able to fulfill her duty.

Jan 11, 2019

The Supreme court should have term limits, so should congress. 16 years for the court and 12 years for the house and senate. Or something in that range.

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
BobTheBaker:

The Supreme court should have term limits, so should congress.

Disagree. Not sure why expertise is discredited so heavily in favor of "fresh blood."

Some thoughts: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/f...

Jan 14, 2019

That's why when dems have the chance I think they should increase the number of justices so that they have one more and then propose an amendment including a fixed number of justices and term limits in exchange for kicking out the last Justice and having a balanced court (maybe even force a partisan balance like they do for some of the regulatory agencies) since, as the attempts to reform the electoral college have shown, you're not gonna convince anybody on the right to give up their undemocratic governing advantages without making it so that it's immediately in their favor.

    • 1
Jan 11, 2019

Trump has nominated two serious candidates. If he gets a third I hope he has fun with it. Justice Kanye West 2020.

    • 1
    • 2
Jan 14, 2019

The bad thing is, I actually think you're serious. People really still don't understand how serious the government bodies are do they?

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 11, 2019

I can only hope she steps down before the 2020 elections

    • 2
Jan 11, 2019

She's a little old for my tastes but I would still smash. SCJILF amirite bois

    • 1
    • 1
Most Helpful
Jan 12, 2019

Honest thoughts on RBG... Forgetting the fall for a moment, because that's the lesser issue here, RBG is a 4x Cancer survivor. The reports that have come out have said that nothing was found post-surgery. They didn't say that she's cancer-free. I want to make that distinction here because it's important. I wouldn't be shocked if she has metastatic or Stage IV as a result. 4 bouts with cancer is a tough ordeal. If I were to advise her, I would hope she steps down to focus on her health and enjoying the rest of her life.

That said, my feeling is that she either dies or steps down before 2020. I don't see her making it through 2020. While I would argue that what happened to Obama with Garland won't happen to Trump thru the election, it will be interesting if the Dems take both houses in 2020, Trump wins and RBG makes it that long. Will they try and push 2 Years without a full bench until the next election (and that will fuck them). But that's neither here nor there, for the moment. Under the assumption that Trump gets a 3rd SC nomination, the issue comes down to who Trump nominates. If it's a guy, I expect it to go much darker, dirtier, and lower than Kavanaugh did. Even if this guy has a spotless record, the Dems will try to throw everything at him. It doesn't matter how deep they dig, they will either find something or manufacture something to smear him.

Now, Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is an interesting case. First, she's ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic, and female. They can't nail her on religious grounds The majority of Democratic leadership in both houses (Hoyer, Clyburn, and Jefferies in the House, and Stabenow in the Senate are all Non-Catholic Christian, while Pelosi, Lujan while Crowley in the House and Durbin, and Muarry in the Senate are both Catholic. On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Durbin and Leahy are both Catholic, while the majority of the Democrats serving are all Non-Catholic Christian) are Christian. They won't risk alienating that voting block because she's Catholic. And if someone does, I wouldn't be shocked if they hear from Durbin, Muarry, Pelosi Lujan and Crowley behind closed doors. ACB is a woman and no Democrat on the committee would smear her as sexist because that goes against identity politics. The fact that she's white won't be as big of an issue as people might think because if they harp on that, then they will lose support. They can't get her on being unqualified on a majority of issues because of her background - her education is spotless (Magna Cum Laude from Rhodes College, Summa Cum Laude from Notre Dame Law and Executive Editor of the Law Review), Clerked for judges on the US Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, served in private practice, and is currently teaching. The only area that they can knock her on is time on the bench, but we're almost two years into her tenure, so that's diminishing. As a woman, they can't knock her on being anti-abortion because if it's her body and her right to choose, then her opinion should be valid and respected despite being the antithesis of theirs. The only way this gets bad for ACB is if they dig deep and discover something that is so horrendous, it makes her a racist, xenophobic, transphobic, or it has come to light that she has done something so egregious as to challenge her suitability. Forget the gender gap question too because she's a woman; so that's out of the question. For the Dems to smear her, they would need to go extremely low and it will alienate their base. There's no way that her hearings get ugly to the level of Kavanaugh. If they do, then it fractures the Democrats even more.

Simply put, if Trump nominates a qualified woman, it'll be rough but it won't be tough to get her through even with the majority in the Senate. If he nominates a man, let's just say the Dems will do everything to make it nuclear.

Jan 14, 2019

You are aware that Trump has nominated and had confirmed two judges, and only for one of them did the Dems "try to throw everything at him." Which is, of course, because there was an accusation that he was a rapist, in addition to being an alcoholic and a liar without the temperament to be a judge.

This idea that the liberal wing of the Senate is somehow rampantly flouting their duty to the Constitution, their constituents, and the nation as a whole in order to discredit right-wing SCOTUS nominees is inherently absurd. Neil Gorsuch got through with barely a whisper. And the whole fucking point of confirming a SCOTUS nominee is exactly so that people like Brett Kavanaugh don't get through. It's why Harriet Miers didn't either; she (and he, really, though partisanship always wins) wasn't fit to be an Associate Justice. If the Senate GOP had even a shred of dignity or impartiality left, it would have acknowledged all this. Moreover, if Justice Kavanaugh had had even the slightest bit of common sense, his confirmation hearings would never have descended to the point they did. All he had to do was say when those allegations first came to light is something along the lines of "this doesn't sound like me, I wouldn't do something like that, I'm sorry if this person has been the victim of assault but her memory is not accurate," or really anything other than taking it straight to a place of pure partisanship.

    • 3
    • 3
Jan 14, 2019

Now, it's interesting you brought up Gorsuch because I didn't mention him. His hearings went through without a major hitch - until the Dems filibustered him and it forced a nuclear option on the part of the Republicans. I wouldn't call the use of a nuclear option "barely a whisper". I would say that's a pretty loud bang. That's a partisan move. Lest ye forget the pot shots taken by the Dems on the committee during the hearing. By comparison to Kavanaugh's hearing, it was a rather tame affair. It doesn't mean it wasn't contentious. That said, I was quite specific that if the next candidate for SCOTUS was male, the Dems would try and do everything to not let him get through. The reason why I didn't mention Gorsuch was for that very reason - by all accounts, he is a competent, well-respected jurist who is qualified to serve and saw no major issues arise during the hearings. He got through relatively unscathed. But that's not the issue - it's that now the stage is set post-Kavanaugh for a contentious battle if Trump has another nomination.

With Kavanaugh, the issue here isn't that they tried to throw everything at him. Truth is, I expected that. However, the way in which they did it was a new level of low which politicized the court. The issues with Kavanaugh came to light in such a malicious fashion. I'm not going to argue his temperament nor will I argue his jurisprudence, as I don't think that the underlying issue here centers around that. Kavanaugh, for all of his issues, had completed his hearings on September 7th. The allegations did not come forward until 7 days after the hearings were over - Sen. Finestein knew about the allegations since July and waited until after the hearings were finished to refer the investigation to the FBI. If that's not a low blow (Waiting until after the hearing is complete and sitting on that kind of information then dropping it in that fashion) to discredit someone, then I don't know what is. Again, this isn't an argument on Kavanaugh's qualifications nor is it meant to argue his partisan response, it's an argument on the circus that was this hearing. The Dems pulled out a Trump card in the hopes of getting Kavanaugh to recuse himself, which I would have been fine with if this were done during the initial hearings. Instead, they opened a Pandora's box that proved to be a low blow. If it were a non-Trump nominee, I honestly think it would have happened during the hearing and not after it.

Here's the rub, how much of this was because this was a "Trump Nominee" as opposed to a Left-leaning or more moderate nomination? It's 2018, people are looking to bolster their resumes for 2020. Kamala Harris is expected to announce her candidacy in a few days. Cory Booker and Amy Klobacher are both exploring whether to run or not. If you ask me, this makes the theatrics absolutely perfect to help bolster support. I would argue that they aren't flouting their duties, but are they are walking a very thin line. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to listen to testimony, ask questions, and hear the facts that may indicate that the nominee is not fit to serve. This whole Blasey Ford issue should have been addressed during the hearings proper instead of after the fact. Instead, that 11th-hour play was a partisan move that showed the Dems would do anything to stop this nomination. That's a very thin line to walk. It's not about discrediting a nominee. It's their job to raise issues that may prove a nominee is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court Bench. However, it is their job to do it properly and not debase themselves by pulling stunts at the last minute to get their way. That's a blatant move to discredit someone they don't agree with, and that's where the problem lies. The candidate Trump nominates, regardless of gender, will have to prepare to expect this kind of behavior. It further drives the court in a partisan direction and it would not shock me if we see the next Democrat-controlled government try and stuff the courts if he can to obtain a left-leaning majority. Again, that's partisan behavior which walks that thin line.

Now, if you don't think the next male nominee is going to have an extremely difficult time getting through the committee or if ACB gets nominated, she's going to get through relatively unscathed, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Jan 14, 2019
Frieds:

Now, it's interesting you brought up Gorsuch because I didn't mention him. His hearings went through without a major hitch - until the Dems filibustered him and it forced a nuclear option on the part of the Republicans. I wouldn't call the use of a nuclear option "barely a whisper". I would say that's a pretty loud bang. That's a partisan move. Lest ye forget the pot shots taken by the Dems on the committee during the hearing.

Yeah, the Democrats didn't like Gorsuch. That's to be expected. The "nuclear option" was invoked because Senate Democrats were making a point about the shameful way in which Senator McConnell and his caucus treated Merrick Garland - you know, the total abdication of their Constitutional duty? But at no point in that confirmation hearing did anything approach the level of Mr Kavanaugh's hearing, because while the Democrats might have had issue with Mr. Gorsuch's political beliefs, no one was (credibly) accusing him of being a rapist.

And I'm not surprised you didn't mention the Gorsuch hearings - it entirely undermines your point

By comparison to Kavanaugh's hearing, it was a rather tame affair. It doesn't mean it wasn't contentious. That said, I was quite specific that if the next candidate for SCOTUS was male, the Dems would try and do everything to not let him get through.

It doesn't matter who it is, if it's a far right ideologue, Democrats won't want to let them through. Your trying to say that the Senate Democrats are solely interested in identity politics and won't fight a woman, which could not be more insulting or less true. They want as centrist a justice as they can get, and might, you know, have real ethical issues with confirming a rapist. We know that isn't an issue for right wing voters anymore, it's almost encouraged at this point, but here on the liberal side of the aisle, we have some shred of a moral compass.

The reason why I didn't mention Gorsuch was for that very reason - by all accounts, he is a competent, well-respected jurist who is qualified to serve and saw no major issues arise during the hearings. He got through relatively unscathed. But that's not the issue - it's that now the stage is set post-Kavanaugh for a contentious battle if Trump has another nomination.

And as I've been saying, and as the last two years and two nominations show, the only way it will be any more contentious than any regular nomination process is if Trump again nominates a man clearly unfit for the office. Neil Gorsuch was a sober (I mean that both ways) and respected jurist, and so he sailed through as easily as most SCOTUS nominees do; with hard questions about judicial background but no real chance of being denied. Brett Kavanaugh was exposed as an obvious liar with no business judging anyone - the one thing he needed to show was that he was like Mr Gorsuch, impartial and sober, and instead came out telling Democrats they'd "reap the whirlwind" for having the gall to take a rape allegation against a known alcoholic seriously.

With Kavanaugh, the issue here isn't that they tried to throw everything at him. Truth is, I expected that. However, the way in which they did it was a new level of low which politicized the court. The issues with Kavanaugh came to light in such a malicious fashion. I'm not going to argue his temperament nor will I argue his jurisprudence, as I don't think that the underlying issue here centers around that. Kavanaugh, for all of his issues, had completed his hearings on September 7th. The allegations did not come forward until 7 days after the hearings were over - Sen. Finestein knew about the allegations since July and waited until after the hearings were finished to refer the investigation to the FBI. If that's not a low blow (Waiting until after the hearing is complete and sitting on that kind of information then dropping it in that fashion) to discredit someone, then I don't know what is. Again, this isn't an argument on Kavanaugh's qualifications nor is it meant to argue his partisan response, it's an argument on the circus that was this hearing.

Senator Feinstein was asked to keep the allegation secret. She did. She came forward with it after Ms Ford realized that the existence of it was no longer secret and allowed Senator Feinstein to make her letter public. What's so hard to grasp? If you think the Senator's office leaked the existence of the letter in order to force Ms Ford's hand, fine... but that isn't the same question anymore.

The Dems pulled out a Trump card in the hopes of getting Kavanaugh to recuse himself, which I would have been fine with if this were done during the initial hearings. Instead, they opened a Pandora's box that proved to be a low blow. If it were a non-Trump nominee, I honestly think it would have happened during the hearing and not after it.

OK, so here's my issue. At no point have you explained why this is a "low blow".

Here's the rub, how much of this was because this was a "Trump Nominee" as opposed to a Left-leaning or more moderate nomination?

I think if Senate Democrats thought Mr Trump and Mr McConnell were advancing a moderate jurist and not continuing the trend of clearly politicizing the Court, and if that nominee was not a credibly accused rapist, you'd obviously see a different reaction.

It's 2018, people are looking to bolster their resumes for 2020. Kamala Harris is expected to announce her candidacy in a few days. Cory Booker and Amy Klobacher are both exploring whether to run or not. If you ask me, this makes the theatrics absolutely perfect to help bolster support. I would argue that they aren't flouting their duties, but are they are walking a very thin line.The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to listen to testimony, ask questions, and hear the facts that may indicate that the nominee is not fit to serve. This whole Blasey Ford issue should have been addressed during the hearings proper instead of after the fact. Instead, that 11th-hour play was a partisan move that showed the Dems would do anything to stop this nomination.

So again, what's the difference? If it had come up during the hearings, the reaction would have been exactly the same. You're postulating an alternate reality to distance yourself from the uncomfortable truth that it doesn't matter when or where these allegations came to light; the reaction by all involved would have been precisely the same. Does it matter that we learned that Brett Kavanaugh is unfit to be a justice and might be a sexual predator in early September or early August? What's the difference? Every actor in this sordid drama would have had exactly the same position.

That's a very thin line to walk. It's not about discrediting a nominee. It's their job to raise issues that may prove a nominee is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court Bench. However, it is their job to do it properly and not debase themselves by pulling stunts at the last minute to get their way. That's a blatant move to discredit someone they don't agree with, and that's where the problem lies. The candidate Trump nominates, regardless of gender, will have to prepare to expect this kind of behavior. It further drives the court in a partisan direction and it would not shock me if we see the next Democrat-controlled government try and stuff the courts if he can to obtain a left-leaning majority. Again, that's partisan behavior which walks that thin line.

You can stop with the "thin line" talk. Senate Democrats have rightly seen that their GOP counterparts don't care about lines, norms, or regulations. We've seen that already, when the Senate GOP refused to do their job in the hopes of denying a liberal justice. Why should the Democrats be expected to play the game fairly when they know Mr. McConnell and his ilk are cheating, openly and gleefully? As long as the Senate Democratic Caucus does the bare minimum of their job, they can lay claim to the moral high ground, and they know it.

And before anyone brings up the nuclear option that the Democrats instituted under Obama, we should all be aware that the same paradigm applies. The Senate GOP was blocking dozens of judicial nominees (approximately as many as had been filibustered in the tracked history of the Senate combined) for purely political reasons - in other words, refusing to allow the President to fill a large number of judicial seats, and not doing their job, for the sake of partisanship.

Basically, I take umbrage with the entire underlying position of your post. Democrats are no saints, I'll grant you, but the idea that they've taken the judicial confirmation process and turned it into a circus is absurd. Neil Gorsuch got through his confirmation with about as little fuss as any SCOTUS nominee in recent memory. Your only complaint about the Brett Kavanaugh situation is the fact that he wasn't revealed as being unfit 30 days earlier, it seems. And mind you, timing notwithstanding, the Democrats did their job. Exposing that he's a venal liar and a partisan hack is what the process is there for! That the Senate GOP is far more interested in advancing their own agenda instead of one that best serves the country is no surprise. But to act as though the Senate Democrats did anything except what was right and proper is absurd. Your ridiculous notion that the fact that it becomes a "circus" because it was post-hearing, instead of during, and nevermind the reasons for it, is insulting. And it's even more insulting to Senate Republicans in some way. That they don't give a shit about the quality of person they nominate for high office, as long as they cling to power, has been made repeatedly obvious in the last few years (Trump, Roy Moore, et al). That they only confirmed Mr Kavanaugh despite his obvious unfitness for the position because of a ticky-tack adherence to the fact that he should have been exposed a few days earlier makes them sound not only unprincipled, but hidebound and petty. If nothing else, we know they don't care about traditions and norms, so lets not heap that last insult on them

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 12, 2019

Hopefully she'll live to 120

    • 2
    • 6
Jan 13, 2019

There are no moderates on the left. Only communists in sheeps clothing.

    • 4
    • 5
Jan 13, 2019
mbahopeful88:

There are no moderates on the left. Only communists in sheeps clothing.

The moderates in the Left are turning to the Republican Party and moderating the Republicans. In less than a decade, the GOP and old-line Democrats are going to be allied in trying to preserve capitalism and freedom of speech in the United States. I've got a gay liberal co-worker who hates Trump who is genuinely terrified at what's happening in the Democratic party. He hasn't been entirely clear about how he'd vote if Bernie Sanders were nominated, but from what I gather he would not pull the lever for Sanders.

Anyway, we've seen this happen in the UK. New Labour abandoned the Labour Party when the communists (with little hyperbole, they are Maduro-supporting communists) took over the Labour Party. That move has basically left the Tories the default party for center-left and right voters.

Jan 14, 2019

I think that it's going to happen faster than you think. I don't think it's less than a decade. I think it's after the 2020 election we see the real schism happen. We're already seeing that with Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Her policies and agenda are on the far left and it's causing some fracturing within her own party. She has already been scolded by Rep. Cleaver about her actions with a warning to "fall in line" and "not attack her own party". Going it alone would make her agenda much harder to push, and this warning sounds like a back-door pushback against what she is doing. This sentiment has been echoed by 20 or so other Democratic legislators. There are democrats concerned over the push to put her on committees that she hasn't earned the right to serve on yet. Just imagine if she's on the Finance Committee - that would roil the markets.

Not only that, one of the biggest progressive groups she supports (Justice Democrats) is openly targeting Blue-Dog Democrats and has their sights set on unseating Henry Culver of Texas. Culver's seat is one of the few strongly secure democrat seats in the deep south, which makes that an interesting race to watch for 2020. Who knows if they will shoot for more seats, but a move like that would further fracture the party and turn those seats red if voters don't like the message they are hearing from these progressive candidates.

With the far left pushing an identity politics/social justice based agenda, the amount of pressure that the Democrats face to keep things together is growing. The fracturing is growing. For old-line Democrats, 2020 is where they have to stand and begin preaching more conservative values if they want to keep their seats, stand up for free speech and capitalism. It's going to be an ugly race in 2020 for that reason. Personally, I think 2020 is the tipping point with this identity politics bullshit and people finally become 100% fed up with the entire ordeal. I have a feeling that I'm in the minority with that viewpoint, but I firmly believe it will get a lot uglier regardless of who wins the presidency.

Jan 14, 2019

I personally would rather you were right, but as it is at the moment, I just don't see it. The great revolt was in 2016 because Hillary's awful character combined with identity politics made plenty of blue collar workers in the Rust Belt stay at home. That didn't happen during the Midterms. Dems did a lot better in the region by presenting ''moderate'' candidates, while on the Coast they flooded Congress with extremists.

AOC is unstoppable right now, because.... she's young and pretty. So it doesn't matter how many stupid things she says, eg the latest ''I might have gotten the facts wrong, but I'm morally right'' or something like that, for the Democratic base she's inspiring and ticks all the right id. politics checkboxes. Meanwhile Democratic leaning non-profits have teamed up with Silicon Valley giants to deplatform critics, and it might be too late before the majority of people wakes up to this totalitarian nonsense. The university is completely destroyed. Cornell wastes $60 million over a ''diversity agenda''.

Trump isn't doing enough to stop them. The rest of GOP is completely worthless. Romney is a loser who plays by Dem rules (and obviously indeed loses). Even if Trump wins in 2020, by 2024 these people are taking over, thanks to demographics. You'll have to wait Hispanics turn on Democrats and there's no evidence of that for now.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

HRC may not have had a great deal of charisma but I do not think that she has an awful character. She lost in 2016 because a high percentage of males still are not comfortable with intelligent, accomplished and ambitious women. Some older older women feel the same way. For these reasons, Warren will have no chance of becoming president.

I think you are greatly overstating AOC's appeal. She has not accomplished much at this point, other than to unseat an incumbent congressman.

    • 3
Jan 14, 2019
Series7examtutor:

HRC may not have had a great deal of charisma but I do not think that she has an awful character. She lost in 2016 because a high percentage of males still are not comfortable with intelligent, accomplished and ambitious women. Some older older women feel the same way. For these reasons, Warren will have no chance of becoming president.

I think you are greatly overstating AOC's appeal. She has not accomplished much at this point, other than to unseat an incumbent congressman.

HRC doesn't have awful character!?!? My mind is blown.....

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Jan 14, 2019
neink:

AOC is unstoppable right now, because.... she's young and pretty. So it doesn't matter how many stupid things she says, eg the latest ''I might have gotten the facts wrong, but I'm morally right'' or something like that, for the Democratic base she's inspiring and ticks all the right id. politics checkboxes.

AOC is doing well for the same reason the Tea Party, now the House Freedom Caucus, did well 8 years ago - because the far left has realized that compromise is impossible under current partisanship conditions and they've realized their party elite has in large part sold them out in return for steady campaign donations and the job security that comes with it. The difference is that AOC is an individual and not the driving impetus for half the American political landscape, but at the end of the day it's the same concept. Liberals watched nujob right wing politicians hold the entire American government hostage for most of the last decade and learned their lesson; play the same game, because they were losing the game in which they played by the traditional rules and obeyed the traditional norms of Washington politics while their opponents employed a scorched earth policy.

    • 4
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
mbahopeful88:

There are no moderates on the left. Only communists in sheeps clothing.

Very few moderates period these days, left or right

    • 1
Jan 13, 2019

ACB groped me between 1980 and 1982 just want to put it on record. May not have been born yet, but I'm so credible.

    • 2
Jan 13, 2019

What happens if Trump goes full meme and nominates Ivanka?

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn
Jan 13, 2019

I don't think even he would do that, but liberals would jump out of buildings.

Jan 14, 2019
Yankee Doodle:

What happens if Trump goes full meme and nominates Ivanka?

There's a rumour she'll be head of the World Bank, which is terrific. A worthless person in a worthless institution, depriving it of a legitimacy it doesn't deserve.

Jan 13, 2019

Ya'll still on the Trump train?

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
FinancelsWacc:

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

I'm honestly hoping he runs opposed, because the left looks scary.. for the future.

Jan 14, 2019
FinancelsWacc:

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

Give us an alternative to Trump among the Dems whose economic agenda isn't modeled after Italian fascism and maybe we'll consider voting for him or her. Give us a Dem candidate who understands that Nordic social welfare comes with the counterpoint of a broad and relatively regressive tax scheme balanced by an incredibly free, lightly regulated market. Ya know, basic things.

The American Left is under the impression that we can have a gigantic welfare state paid for by only the top 20% of earners under a highly regulated economy. In other words, the vision of the modern Democratic Party is, in fact, closer to Venezuela than it is to Denmark, which is a terrifying and sickening prospect.

Jan 14, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:
FinancelsWacc:

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

Give us an alternative to Trump among the Dems whose economic agenda isn't modeled after Italian fascism and maybe we'll consider voting for him or her. Give us a Dem candidate who understands that Nordic social welfare comes with the counterpoint of a broad and relatively regressive tax scheme balanced by an incredibly free, lightly regulated market. Ya know, basic things.

The American Left is under the impression that we can have a gigantic welfare state paid for by only the top 20% of earners under a highly regulated economy. In other words, the vision of the modern Democratic Party is, in fact, closer to Venezuela than it is to Denmark, which is a terrifying and sickening prospect.

I've got bad news for all the people who consider themselves serious thinkers but are somehow preparing to twist their logic into defending a vote for Trump in 2020, who we learned over the weekend was under FBI investigation for allegedly working as a Russian asset.

Democrats will not nominate a Republican, as much as you want them to.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
Alt-Ctr-Left:
real_Skankhunt42:
FinancelsWacc:

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

Give us an alternative to Trump among the Dems whose economic agenda isn't modeled after Italian fascism and maybe we'll consider voting for him or her. Give us a Dem candidate who understands that Nordic social welfare comes with the counterpoint of a broad and relatively regressive tax scheme balanced by an incredibly free, lightly regulated market. Ya know, basic things.

The American Left is under the impression that we can have a gigantic welfare state paid for by only the top 20% of earners under a highly regulated economy. In other words, the vision of the modern Democratic Party is, in fact, closer to Venezuela than it is to Denmark, which is a terrifying and sickening prospect.

I've got bad news for all the people who consider themselves serious thinkers who are somehow preparing to twist their logic into defending a vote for Trump in 2020.

Democrats will not nominate a Republican, as much as you want them to.

I don't expect them to nominate a Repbulican. My hope is that they don't nominate a guy like Sanders who praised the Chavez regime in Venezuela, or de Blasio, who is a "former" Soviet, or Elizabeth Warren, whose economic agenda is barely distinguishable from Benito Mussolini's. If you gave as a Democrat who actually believed in the Nordic model, then we might have something to discuss, but the Nordic model is nothing like the Left has deluded itself into believing.

Jan 14, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:
Alt-Ctr-Left:
real_Skankhunt42:
FinancelsWacc:

Can't believe that seemingly accomplished and intelligent people would still want the man child around until 2024... Come on how many times can be blatantly lie before people start seeing him for what he is...

Give us an alternative to Trump among the Dems whose economic agenda isn't modeled after Italian fascism and maybe we'll consider voting for him or her. Give us a Dem candidate who understands that Nordic social welfare comes with the counterpoint of a broad and relatively regressive tax scheme balanced by an incredibly free, lightly regulated market. Ya know, basic things.

The American Left is under the impression that we can have a gigantic welfare state paid for by only the top 20% of earners under a highly regulated economy. In other words, the vision of the modern Democratic Party is, in fact, closer to Venezuela than it is to Denmark, which is a terrifying and sickening prospect.

I've got bad news for all the people who consider themselves serious thinkers who are somehow preparing to twist their logic into defending a vote for Trump in 2020.

Democrats will not nominate a Republican, as much as you want them to.

I don't expect them to nominate a Repbulican. My hope is that they don't nominate a guy like Sanders who praised the Chavez regime in Venezuela, or de Blasio, who is a "former" Soviet, or Elizabeth Warren, whose economic agenda is barely distinguishable from Benito Mussolini's. If you gave as a Democrat who actually believed in the Nordic model, then we might have something to discuss, but the Nordic model is nothing like the Left has deluded itself into believing.

I too would love the Nordic model, and expect that all major candidates other than Bernie will advocate a model much closer to Denmark than Italy/Spain. Venezuela is held up by no one other than Fox News who scaremongers its viewers into associating the Democratic platform with that failed state. The only major party candidate I've heard call for the state to take over the means of production in the last few years is Trump.

Unfortunately, I expect much of the GOP voting base will somehow again convince themselves that Trump is the lesser of two evils and vote to extend this national nightmare for another 4 years.

Step 1) "Man I am so tired of the daily clown shown in D.C. and how Trump debases the office."
Step 2) "But, at least he hasn't (lowers bar to the floor) started a nuclear war like the Dems warned"
Step 3) "And I'll never support (tax rates, universal healthcare, police reform) of the Dem candidate"
Step 4) "So I guess I'll reluctantly vote for Trump again. They left me no choice!"

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

First of all, Trump himself does not understand the notion of Italian Fascism or Nordic Social Welfare... ya know.. basic things...

Listen I get it, people are either right or left leaning for a litany of reasons, one of which is that it is far too time consuming to flesh out rhetoric from truth. Some really do take a heavy interest in politics and are overwhelmingly left or right leaning on every topic of concern. But why does everything have to be Trump OR Dems. There is no better, more educated, tactful, and polished Republican candidate than Trump?

And don't give me the BS that "Oh Trump just tells it how it is without all the political jargon and that's what the masses love about him".

He doesn't use political jargon because he himself does not understand it. He's ill suited to be a politician or president. He's running a country, which is not easy. You wouldn't let Apple communicate their earnings via tweets, so I don't know why you hold the Country and it's Leadership to lesser standards.

I don't care if you agree with his ideals / goals. Shit, I agree with a handful of them. But at some point you need to accept the fact that a good idea without a capable leader to execute will fall short. Every. Single. Time.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
FinancelsWacc:

First of all, Trump himself does not understand the notion of Italian Fascism or Nordic Social Welfare... ya know.. basic things...

Trump not understanding public policy is way better than Bernie Sanders understanding public policy and believing that Hugo Chavez was a good guy or that Cuba is an excellent model for health care.

FinancelsWacc:

But why does everything have to be Trump OR Dems. There is no better, more educated, tactful, and polished Republican candidate than Trump?

This is such a dishonest position. Leftists, such as Harry Reid, proposing this are not doing so in the interest of conservatism. What you--they--want is for a Republican to run to split the Republican vote so Elizabeth Warren, et al, has a walk in the park to victory. You can cut the bullshit.

FinancelsWacc:

He doesn't use political jargon because he himself does not understand it. He's ill suited to be a politician or president. He's running a country, which is not easy. You wouldn't let Apple communicate their earnings via tweets, so I don't know why you hold the Country and it's Leadership to lesser standards.

Literally, nothing you're saying makes me want to vote for Nicolas Maduro because I think Trump is a poor leader.

FinancelsWacc:

I don't care if you agree with his ideals / goals. Shit, I agree with a handful of them. But at some point you need to accept the fact that a good idea without a capable leader to execute will fall short. Every. Single. Time.

And who is the capable leader among the Democrats? The supporter of Hugo Chavez or the promoter of Benito Musollini's economic agenda?

Jan 14, 2019
real_Skankhunt42]
[quote=FinancelsWacc:

First of all, Trump himself does not understand the notion of Italian Fascism or Nordic Social Welfare... ya know.. basic things...

Trump not understanding public policy is way better than Bernie Sanders understanding public policy and believing that Hugo Chavez was a good guy or that Cuba is an excellent model for health care.

FinancelsWacc:

But why does everything have to be Trump OR Dems. There is no better, more educated, tactful, and polished Republican candidate than Trump?

This is such a dishonest position. Leftists, such as Harry Reid, proposing this are not doing so in the interest of conservatism. What you--they--want is for a Republican to run to split the Republican vote so Elizabeth Warren, et al, has a walk in the park to victory. You can cut the bullshit.

Not true. I would hope that a suited Republican would find middle ground among the party and be able to unite it. Your assumption that everyone that isn't a republican through and through is just an enemy trying to destroy the party is quite unfortunate.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

Trump not understanding public policy is way better than

Do you guys hear yourselves? Jesus.

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 1
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
real_Skankhunt42:

Trump not understanding public policy is way better than

Come on, man...

Jan 14, 2019

This is an intellectually dishonest position and you must know it. No one is advocating nationalization of industry or anything even remotely so radical. The a"radical" left is a relatively small portion of the party, and it's only been as empowered as it has because Democrats are learning to play the same game as the GOP has been for the last decade - you win no points for governing, only for winning. The idea that the marginal tax rate for the highest income brackets isn't crazy, and that it should be pay for infrastructure spending or increasing healthcare coverage are literally some jobs that government is in existence to provide.

But more than that, most any credible candidate on the left (or the right, if Trump gets primary'd) would be preferable to the current POTUS if only because it's literally not possible to be less qualified than Donald Trump. I would LOVE to have someone who believes that we should nationalize industry, or someone who believes that we should get rid of all income taxes, or any other crazy pie-in-the-sky dream of left or right, than Mr Trump, because the idea of a known fraudster and continual liar who could not be more obviously in the "public service" racket in order to line his own pockets is deeply offensive. The fact that he's likely deeply in debt to Russian interests, and "crafting" "policy" accordingly, only makes it worse.

At the end of the day, there are checks in balances in our government, enough so that radical departures in policy from the historical norm are unlikely except in times of great distress. Having a competent and intelligent person who understands that he or she is representing the country at large, and not explicitly the people who elected him, and is willing to understand the dignity and responsibility of the office, is the most important possible requirement for a potential POTUS. Any and all policy and legislative decisions are, in that case, going to be commented on and participated in by a wide variety of voices representing many backgrounds.

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

Michael Bloomberg. One can hope.

    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

I am not sure why Bloomberg isn't more popular. He is a very intelligent person who has been very successful in business and in his political life. You would think that his attributes would appeal to both dems and repubs.

Jan 14, 2019
Series7examtutor:

I am not sure why Bloomberg isn't more popular. He is a very intelligent person who has been very successful in business and in his political life. You would think that his attributes would appeal to both dems and repubs.

Nowhere near Liberal enough for democrats and nowhere near Alt Right enough for Republicans. In the age of purity tests, it's hard to be in the middle.

Jan 14, 2019
Series7examtutor:

I am not sure why Bloomberg isn't more popular. He is a very intelligent person who has been very successful in business and in his political life. You would think that his attributes would appeal to both dems and repubs.

He's white, male, and rich.

Should be obvious why he's not popular among Democrats...

Jan 14, 2019

when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

    • 3
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019
    • 1
Jan 14, 2019

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Jan 14, 2019