Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[drogulus]

     From the TNR blog today:

There's no way President Obama gets his Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.

It just isn't happening, despite some wishful thinking on the part of Democrats like Chuck Schumer who believe voters will be incensed by Republican obstructionism. Even if Democrats nominate a guy who was sent to a federal appellate court on a 97-0 Senate vote, even if they thoroughly discredit the bogus notion that it is "common practice" for presidents to refrain from making Supreme Court appointments in election years, and even if all this hurts Republicans in the fall, it doesn't change the basic dynamic of conservative politics, which is dominated by an angry, revanchist base.

As Scott Lemieux argues in the New Republic, citing recent elections: "Actions that are bad for the Republican Party as a whole aren't necessarily bad for individual Republican members of Congress." All the incentives lie in preventing Obama from putting a liberal on the court—no one gets points for being a deal-maker or respecting the actual words of the Constitution.

     

[Todd]

Will Dodd-Frank/Big Banks become a hot topic once again?  And is Neel angling for Treasury, or does he want Yellen's job?

[drogulus]

     Experience as a bailer out isn't such a bad thing. Who would know better?

     

     

[Turner]

Our national network showed this Matt Frei documentary about Trump; recommended.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-mad-world-of-donald-trump/on-demand/63576-001
http://alistairreignblog.com/2016/01/29/full-documentary-the-mad-world-of-trump-with-matt-frei/

Some hints at a few actual policies of his can be deduced from here, but not much:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

[Pat B]

     From the TNR blog today:

There's no way President Obama gets his Supreme Court nominee through the Senate.

It just isn't happening, despite some wishful thinking on the part of Democrats like Chuck Schumer who believe voters will be incensed by Republican obstructionism. Even if Democrats nominate a guy who was sent to a federal appellate court on a 97-0 Senate vote, even if they thoroughly discredit the bogus notion that it is "common practice" for presidents to refrain from making Supreme Court appointments in election years, and even if all this hurts Republicans in the fall, it doesn't change the basic dynamic of conservative politics, which is dominated by an angry, revanchist base.

As Scott Lemieux argues in the New Republic, citing recent elections: "Actions that are bad for the Republican Party as a whole aren't necessarily bad for individual Republican members of Congress." All the incentives lie in preventing Obama from putting a liberal on the court—no one gets points for being a deal-maker or respecting the actual words of the Constitution.

   

I understand it better now, and may have underestimated McConnell on this. He and the other Rs are obviously appealing to their base, but they're also trying to limit their damage in the center by inventing a myth that Presidents have traditionally avoided making appointments in election years.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/playthings
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/feb/14/marco-rubio/do-presidents-stop-nominating-judges-final-year/

[Todd]

but they're also trying to limit their damage in the center by inventing a myth that Presidents have traditionally avoided making appointments in election years.

Whatever works.  From a PR standpoint, Republicans should just focus on the once in the last century for SCOTUS factoid, come up with a lofty sound-bite or two to defend their stance, and not bother with lower courts at all.  SCOTUS is more important, final, and all that.  Maybe dig up FDR appointee Robert Jackson's famous quip "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final" as rhetorical evidence of just how crucial the appointment is, and how Obama's choice could ruin the country, poison the judiciary, and make apple trees stop producing fruit. 

Rick Perry's championed reform (ie, eighteen year terms for SCOTUS justices with one cycling out every two years) is looking better all the time . . .

[Gurn Blanston]

Rick Perry's championed reform (ie, eighteen year terms for SCOTUS justices with one cycling out every two years) is looking better all the time . . .

That was Rick Perry? I wonder who he got to do the math for him? It's a pretty good idea, after all...

[Todd]

That was Rick Perry? I wonder who he got to do the math for him? It's a pretty good idea, after all...

He publicly supported the idea.  It wasn't his originally.  It has been around for years, and has supporters left and right.

[Karl Henning]

The El Tupé tipping point?...

[Todd]

The El Tupé tipping point?...

The good news from the article: "The eventual winning nominee will have to amass 1,237 delegates. Right now Mr. Trump has 17."

[Karl Henning]

Here's hoping the news stays that good 

[Pat B]

Whatever works.  From a PR standpoint, Republicans should just focus on the once in the last century for SCOTUS factoid, come up with a lofty sound-bite or two to defend their stance, and not bother with lower courts at all.  SCOTUS is more important, final, and all that.  Maybe dig up FDR appointee Robert Jackson's famous quip "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final" as rhetorical evidence of just how crucial the appointment is, and how Obama's choice could ruin the country, poison the judiciary, and make apple trees stop producing fruit.

This situation is rare. "Once in the last century" sounds significant, but what they are demanding from Obama -- to intentionally leave a seat vacant for at least 11 months -- has happened zero times in the last century.

There is no historical or constitutional justification for preemptively blocking this nomination. What I think they should have done is:
1. Pretend to mourn Scalia at least until rigor mortis set in, or better yet, wait for the Ds to raise the issue of nomination.
2. Wait for an actual nomination before opposing it, and accuse the specific nominee of liberalhood and/or character flaws.
3. Not mention the lower courts, as you mentioned, because the history there is very clearly not on their side.

They will surely still do #2, but now only Rs and the gullible (apologies for redundancy) will believe that their opposition is sincerely about the nominee.

It will be interesting to see whether the press accepts their myth. That's the only way I can see their statements benefiting them. It won't increase hatred for Obama among their base because that is already maxed out.

Beyond all that, I'm still doubtful that a Supreme Court vacancy as a campaign issue is a winner for them. My sense is that moderates tend to side with Rs on economic and tax issues (and foreign policy until W totally botched that) and with Ds on the sorts of issues that the SC hears.

[drogulus]

     Obama probably won't nominate an atheistic transgender abortionist. But would it matter if he did? It might create a bit of a stir and enthusiasm in some quarters, but as far as opposition goes, I can't see it mattering much.

[Todd]

"Once in the last century" sounds significant

That's all that matters.  It's just spin, spin, spin from here on in.  The liberal media bias!  Obama power grab!  And so forth.  Liberals will support the President, and Conservatives oppose him, leaving the undecideds and less politically oriented voters to be besieged.  How much general voter interest is there in a SCOTUS nomination, really?

I say Obama go the novelty route and nominate Sri Srinivasan.  The first Asian American, checking a heretofore unchecked protected class box, will surely garner more press attention, and Dems can crank up the warm-hearted, immigrant makes good American Dream type story.  Plus, Democrats can play the race card.  Republicans hate him because of his race!  (Never mind his prior confirmation or fossil fuel friendliness.)  He's a winner of a nominee, politically speaking.

It won't increase hatred for Obama among their base because that is already maxed out.

There's always something to be gained in maximizing turnout of the faithful, and getting people who only mildly dislike Obama to turn out. 

[drogulus]

     

     "Clinton has every advantage and should win handily in South Carolina," University of Virginia political scientist Larry J. Sabato said on Tuesday in an email. "If she loses or it is close, the calls to [Vice President] Joe Biden will start."

     I think Biden could do it if he started in the next few weeks. He'd get a bushel of superdelegates quickly and could win in the south, midwest and the coasts. If Hillary falters (I'm still betting she won't), Biden will for sure be taking calls, and then making them, too.

I say Obama go the novelty route and nominate Sri Srinivasan.  The first Asian American, checking a heretofore unchecked protected class box, will surely garner more press attention, and Dems can crank up the warm-hearted, immigrant makes good American Dream type story.  Plus, Democrats can play the race card.  Republicans hate him because of his race!  (Never mind his prior confirmation or fossil fuel friendliness.)  He's a winner of a nominee, politically speaking.

     A unanimous confirmation is about as good a sign of substantive suitability as one could hope for. Not that I don't think other considerations are relevant. He's 48.

[Pat B]

The El Tupé tipping point?...

This article talks about the delegate lead but ignores the possibility of a brokered convention (which seems most likely right now). It's hard to see a path for anybody to get 1,237 delegates.

According to wikipedia, the true winner-take-all states are Florida, Ohio, Arizona, Nebraska, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota for a total of 366 delegates. So assuming Trump gets a plurality in all of those states, he needs 900 of the other 2106 delegates (about 43%). That will be tough to reach. If he doesn't, then we get the intrigue and entertainment of convention shenanigans.

[drogulus]

     The economy gives us clues to what's going on among the extinctionoids.

     Re-sizing U.S. Counties Based on Local Economies

     

     

[Pat B]

That's all that matters.  It's just spin, spin, spin from here on in.  The liberal media bias!  Obama power grab!  And so forth.  Liberals will support the President, and Conservatives oppose him, leaving the undecideds and less politically oriented voters to be besieged.  How much general voter interest is there in a SCOTUS nomination, really?

Usually, it's not much of an election issue, but usually, there isn't an open vacancy at the time of the election. And the Rs' rhetoric seems designed to make it an issue.

You may be right on the confused response of independents, though. Or, worded differently, I may have underestimated the numbers of the gullible.

There's always something to be gained in maximizing turnout of the faithful, and getting people who only mildly dislike Obama to turn out.

I think the hatred for Obama among the R faithful has been maxed out for a while.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks, Obama.

[Brian]

I think the hatred for Obama among the R faithful has been maxed out for a while.

Just wait until, on his last day of office, he pardons Bowe Bergdahl!