Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

O Canada, if you must.......

Canadians move here (Alex Trebek, the Biebs), not the other way around. We only used to move there to escape the draft. 

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

Canadians move here (Alex Trebek, the Biebs), not the other way around. We only used to move there to escape the draft. 

Jeopardy and Justin Bieber, the Canadians are a clever lot. Are you sure they moved Voluntarily?

[drogulus]

     The Repubs might think twice. Obama will nominate a respected moderate. Srinivasan, the likely nominee, was confirmed 97-0 in 2013 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For Repubs it won't get better. The Queen of Hell will get who she wants when Ginsburg steps down. Hey Mitch, let's play two!

[(poco) Sforzando]

. . . . Justin Bieber, the Canadians are a clever lot. . . .

Stop there.

[EddieRUKiddingVarese]

Stop there.

That's what the Canadians said 

[Brian]

Interesting rumor going around that Justice Scalia recommended Elena Kagan for the court. It makes sense - in terms of writing style, she comes closest to his verve and dashing argumentation.

[Todd]

Interesting rumor going around that Justice Scalia recommended Elena Kagan for the court. It makes sense - in terms of writing style, she comes closest to his verve and dashing argumentation.

I believe this is the source of the "rumor": http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinions/david-axelrod-surprise-request-from-justice-scalia/.

Assuming it's true, and I have no reason to believe it's not, it's not surprising at all.  Scalia repeatedly said in interviews and speeches that he loved to argue.  Can't argue much with people you agree with, and at that level, the smarter the better.

I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death.  It gives me hope for the future.

[Todd]

Apparently a bit dated, originating from mid-last year, but this is getting recycled in the press now.  Did Bill secure the endorsement?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death.  It gives me hope for the future.

What hope do you see in this? I just find it depressing. The country seems polarized to a dangerous extent.

[Daverz]

I have to say, I've been most amused by the bile and hatred I've seen in various online comments sections from lefties regarding Scalia's death.

Comments sections are usually toxic.  Even the vaunted Washington Post has comments that are usually a toxic sludge of racism, xenophobia, and misogyny.  So I don't think one should make any conclusions from comments.

But isn't refraining from saying what we really think of the recently dead that Political Correctness thing we keep hearing is so pernicious.  I've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia.  There are some nice things that can be said about him (he seemed to have a good sense of humor), but at the end of the day, Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole who did real damage to the country.

[Todd]

What hope do you see in this?

Hope for future entertainment, and low-quality Democratic politicians who will attempt to cater to such people.  These candidates will, or should, make easy targets.

I've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia.

Your word choice is intriguing.  I assume you selected the word persona for a reason.  That's a critical distinction, at least for me.  I've read comments about not just Scalia's decisions and opinions, but comments attacking him for reasons as variable as the number of children he had to his weight to his religion.  I get disliking his opinions, but actually hating him as a person is rather silly.  He's dead.  Everyone who is alive won.  Time to move on to a battle among the living to replace him.  If people choose to speak ill of the dead, that's fine by me, but I've never seen much of a point to it since I'm not politically active, and therefore have nothing tangible to gain.  Sure, a dead opponent may come in handy at some point in the future, but right after they die, not so much.  Of course, I also don't care enough about political figures as people to dwell on them enough to actively like or dislike them as people since I only know about their public selves.

I disagree about Scalia causing harm, and at the very least, when he was on the losing side, he forced the winning side to sharpen their thinking and writing, and his dissents have value.  Even my uber-liberal con law professor way back when admitted that Scalia helped keep liberal jurists sharper.  SCOTUS must have sharp conservative voices.  Nothing is worse that ideological uniformity in public institutions.

Incidentally, all I draw from comments sections is entertainment, and occasionally, an entertaining limerick.

[Pat B]

They may not have thought this through.

McConnell is placing a triple bet, of which only the first component is a safe bet.
1)The GOP will maintain a safe hold on the Senate
2) A conservative president will be elected in November
3) Said president will nominate a truly conservative judge (like Scalia was) and get him through the Senate.

As opposed to Obama nominating someone  now, in a state of political weakness.

Not thinking things through is par for the course for McConnell.

The Senate looks like a toss-up. There are a lot of R-held seats in purple states, and they look especially vulnerable in Illinois and Wisconsin. The presidential election will boost turnout compared to 2010, and being the undercard to Trump or Cruz could be uncomfortable for the likes of Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte. (Toomey endorsed Rubio just days before the latter's wiring malfunctioned.)

I think McConnell made a strategic blunder in obviously politicizing the nomination up-front, as opposed to waiting for it and then pretending his opposition is about the nominee's record or character. The only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year. It will be interesting to see what effect that has, if any.

The worst-case scenario for McConnell will be to successfully obstruct Obama (which will ensure that the vacancy is a major issue in the Presidential election), fail to capture the White House, lose the Senate while pushing his caucus further away from the center, then rely on the filibuster to prevent a Democratic nominee immediately after an election in which that specific nomination was a major issue because of the Rs' own actions.

Given the state of the R Presidential primary, I'm not even sure what the best-case scenario for McConnell is.

I am assuming that he is not attempting to sabotage his own party, though there are certain advantages to being the minority party.

[Daverz]

Your word choice is intriguing.  I assume you selected the word persona for a reason.  That's a critical distinction, at least for me.

Classic Todd.  Always closely parsing what others say to reflect his own resentments.  Please just fuck off, I'm not interested in playing.

EDIT: Sorry, that was uncalled for for just the usual nonsense on this thread.  Was misdirecting some stupid family shit I'm dealing at the moment.

EDIT: And no, I wasn't referring to Scalia's person, but to his public persona, the kulturkampf trolling he liked to indulge in in written opinions and public appearances.

[Sammy]

But isn't refraining from saying what we really think of the recently dead that Political Correctness thing we keep hearing is so pernicious.  I've never accepted the custom of not speaking ill of the dead, especially a public persona like Scalia.  There are some nice things that can be said about him (he seemed to have a good sense of humor), but at the end of the day, Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole who did real damage to the country.

I can't recall any damage he's done to the U.S.  I sure wouldn't want all the Justices to have the same legal, social and political views.  Scalia was an "originalist", and that's a position that is as viable as any other I've heard about.

[Florestan]

Scalia was an extreme right-wing asshole

Sounds like a man after my own heart. I should have really liked to buy him a beer or two.

[drogulus]

Not thinking things through is par for the course for McConnell.

The Senate looks like a toss-up. There are a lot of R-held seats in purple states, and they look especially vulnerable in Illinois and Wisconsin. The presidential election will boost turnout compared to 2010, and being the undercard to Trump or Cruz could be uncomfortable for the likes of Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte. (Toomey endorsed Rubio just days before the latter's wiring malfunctioned.)

I think McConnell made a strategic blunder in obviously politicizing the nomination up-front, as opposed to waiting for it and then pretending his opposition is about the nominee's record or character. The only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year. It will be interesting to see what effect that has, if any.

The worst-case scenario for McConnell will be to successfully obstruct Obama (which will ensure that the vacancy is a major issue in the Presidential election), fail to capture the White House, lose the Senate while pushing his caucus further away from the center, then rely on the filibuster to prevent a Democratic nominee immediately after an election in which that specific nomination was a major issue because of the Rs' own actions.

Given the state of the R Presidential primary, I'm not even sure what the best-case scenario for McConnell is.

I am assuming that he is not attempting to sabotage his own party, though there are certain advantages to being the minority party.

     McConnell is not acting out of concern for the immediate present out of short-sightedness, but more likely because he sees clearly how bleak the long term outcomes are. Preserving his leadership requires that he keep one step ahead of of the maniacs he enabled. These people devour their former leaders at an alarming rate.

[Todd]

Classic Todd.  Always closely parsing what others say to reflect his own resentments.  Please just fuck off, I'm not interested in playing.

OK, so you don't, or can't, make the distinction.  Can't say I'm surprised.

[Pat B]

     McConnell is not acting out of concern for the immediate present out of short-sightedness, but more likely because he sees clearly how bleak the long term outcomes are. Preserving his leadership requires that he keep one step ahead of of the maniacs he enabled. These people devour their former leaders at an alarming rate.

Yes, that's what I meant when I said: "the only explanation I can think of is that he's worried about keeping his leadership position next year."

But how many days of their tolerance does this stunt buy him?

[listener]

Rubio goofs again, shows Vancouver as an example of a beautiful American city
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/marco-rubio-campaign-ad-vancouver-1.3449589
and yes, Canada, particularly out west, has had its number of eccentric politicians.

[drogulus]

     From 2012:

     

     The Incoherence of Antonin Scalia

     By Richard A. Posner