Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[johnu]

And appearances can be deceiving ... Trump used "Lock her up!" to great advantage and still does (Feinstein) yet nary a hint of real prosecution.

Run on electoral substance and let the people decide .... oh wait, half are deplorable and a lot of the rest aren't elite enough to be "trusted". No wonder Hil is inciting violence, the empress has no clothes and she is not much to look at.

 

Wow, you need to get to a doctor's office and get treated for Dennison syndrome

[Winstonm]

Right. The Dionne article I cited, advocating increasing the size of the Supreme Court as soon as Dems get the power to do it, speaks for one branch of the Dems. The party has some things to decide. As do Republicans. There are more than a few conservative columnists who are not supporting Trump.

Some of this, probably a lot oi it, comes down to how we approach the world. I think it would be a good idea for Dems to say what they intend to do about Kavanaugh, and I think that not saying what they will do leaves them open to being portrayed in the worst light. I do recognize that they have a problem. It's a natural human tendency to duck problems, but it doesn't always work so well.

 

Ken,

 

I don't understand how you can propose the Dems take any position on Kavanaugh without proper evidence. If they say impeach, and the evidence doesn't follow, they look like a rabid mob. If they say don't impeach, and the evidence shows impeachment proper, they look like part of the swamp.

 

What they should do is act and speak like adults: we will investigate and act accordingly. That's all any reasonable person can truly say.

 

The Dems should be showing the country that they are the adults in the room.

[kenberg]

Ken,

 

I don't understand how you can propose the Dems take any position on Kavanaugh without proper evidence. If they say impeach, and the evidence doesn't follow, they look like a rabid mob. If they say don't impeach, and the evidence shows impeachment proper, they look like part of the swamp.

 

What they should do is act and speak like adults: we will investigate and act accordingly. That's all any reasonable person can truly say.

 

The Dems should be showing the country that they are the adults in the room.

Of course they cannot say that they will impeach him without evidence, the proper phrase would be pursue impeachment, or maybe investigate impeachment or maybe some other phrase. I might have spoken carelessly. But we do both understand the choice, do we not?

 

 

51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?

I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"

Am I really being that unclear?

 

 

 

[Winstonm]

Of course they cannot say that they will impeach him without evidence, the proper phrase would be pursue impeachment, or maybe investigate impeachment or maybe some other phrase. I might have spoken carelessly. But we do both understand the choice, do we not?

 

 

51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?

I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"

Am I really being that unclear?

 

Maybe I am dense.

[johnu]

51 Senators confirmed Kavanaugh and there are now nine justices on the Supreme Court. Of course any or all of the nine could be investigated. Do the Dems feel that such an investigation is particularly warranted for any specific one of these nine?

 

I don't speak for anybody but myself but now that you bring it up, there's a good case for doing another background check on Clarence Thomas. But, as for the the same reasons as Bart O these should be put off for at least 2 more years.

[johnu]

I expect that some Dems believe that the answer is yes, and some believe that the answer is no. Instead of making us guess, they could tell us. Voters sometimes appreciate clarity. This has all been recent enough so that few voters will say "Kavanaugh, who's that?"

Am I really being that unclear?

 

LOL, you expect politicians to provide clarity? I'll try to track down the turnip truck that you hitched a ride into town on :D

[kenberg]

LOL, you expect politicians to provide clarity? I'll try to track down the turnip truck that you hitched a ride into town on :D

 

Well, to be technical, no, I don't expect it. I would like it. I would like many things that I don't actually expect to happen.In this particular case, my argument is that I think not being clear hurts their chances in the election. I am not trying to appeal to their better natures, I am giving them unasked for advice about how to cope with some of the R attack strategy.

 

I was going to say "But nobody listens to me" and then put in a crying emoticon but I don't see any crying emoticons, what's a sorrowful guy to do?

 

 

The Rs say "If the Dems win they will purge our guy", everyone from Trump to Pelosi thinks the Rs will profit from that strategy, the Ds could counter this by making a clear statement that they accept the result of the confirmation and are prepared to move on, they don't do this. So voters conclude, probably with some accuracy, that the Ds do hope to oust Kav when they get the power to do it, and I think this is going to cost them with a lot of everyday type voters who are really tired of the paralysis that comes with nothing ever being considered settled.

 

Well, too late now. If a straightforward unambiguous response to a simple situation takes weeks to appear, nobody believes it.

 

More unasked for advice: We need a crying emoticon.

 

 

[Winstonm]

Ken,

 

I am surprised you listened to the fake news reports about the Democrats when you know that as soon as that great civil rights activist, Robert E. Lee, is appointed over the objections of the angry mob of 17 Democrats that the sale of $110 billion in arms will prevent Mexico from stealing our jobs as soon as the wall is complete. China, too!

[hrothgar]

Agreed but..........What is the history of changing the confirmation votes needed from 60 to 51?

 

More importantly, who thought that was a good idea? Under the 60 vote scenario wing-nuts need not apply, left or right and I for one would like to see it make a comeback.

 

The cloture requirements for circuit court justices was changed from 60 --> 51 back during the Obama administration when the Republicans refused to seat ANY Obama nominees to circuit courts.

 

The reason that Trump is getting to appoint so many judges is that he inherited 100+ vacancies.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/

[hrothgar]

 

The Rs say "If the Dems win they will purge our guy", everyone from Trump to Pelosi thinks the Rs will profit from that strategy, the Ds could counter this by making a clear statement that they accept the result of the confirmation and are prepared to move on, they don't do this. So voters conclude, probably with some accuracy, that the Ds do hope to oust Kav when they get the power to do it, and I think this is going to cost them with a lot of everyday type voters who are really tired of the paralysis that comes with nothing ever being considered settled.

 

 

Ken, regardless of whether or not the Democrats planned to impeach Kavanaugh, the Republicans would be claiming that they would and their idiot cult like followers will eat it up.

 

With this said and done, I do hope that the Democrats launch an investigation into Kavanaugh's background and pack the Supreme Court.

Its much more humane than assassination.

[barmar]

And appearances can be deceiving ... Trump used "Lock her up!" to great advantage and still does (Feinstein) yet nary a hint of real prosecution.

This is just a rallying cry, not a serious claim that either is a criminal. The only people who took it seriously were probably also "birthers" during the Obama administration.

 

And it's not surprising that Trump instigated both. He may not know much about politics, international relations, or any of the other things that qualify one for the Presidency, but he knows how to play on the emotions of rubes, like carnival barkers and snake oil salesmen of old.

[kenberg]

Ken, regardless of whether or not the Democrats planned to impeach Kavanaugh, the Republicans would be claiming that they would and their idiot cult like followers will eat it up.

 

With this said and done, I do hope that the Democrats launch an investigation into Kavanaugh's background and pack the Supreme Court.

Its much more humane than assassination.

 

Of course idiot cult followers eat stuff up. At the risk of over-over-repetition, those are not the voters I am thinking of. When polls are taken a month apart, they typically produce different numbers. From this I conclude that during that interval some people make-up their minds and some people change their minds. These are not cult followers, and very possibly they are busy people who have limited time for political engagement. I think of myself at 21 as an example. It's 1960. Newly married in June, working full time with a good deal of overtime in the summer, I started grad school in the fall and, since I was a somewhat eccentric undergrad, I had various gaps that had to be filled. And I was teaching two courses. I took my responsibility to vote seriously. I wasn't a cult follower. I was very busy. I did the best I could with the time that I had. There are many many such voters. They have to choose and they will. It's this general sort of voter, they come in various forms, not a cult follower, busy, wanting to do right, this is the sort of person that I hope that the candidates would court. There are cult followers out there. There are also busy honest people wanting to do their best. It's at least possible that they would pay attention to what a candidates says. Or doesn't say.

At any rate, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. We can focus too much on cult followers.

 

[Winstonm]

Of course idiot cult followers eat stuff up. At the risk of over-over-repetition, those are not the voters I am thinking of. When polls are taken a month apart, they typically produce different numbers. From this I conclude that during that interval some people make-up their minds and some people change their minds. These are not cult followers, and very possibly they are busy people who have limited time for political engagement. I think of myself at 21 as an example. It's 1960. Newly married in June, working full time with a good deal of overtime in the summer, I started grad school in the fall and, since I was a somewhat eccentric undergrad, I had various gaps that had to be filled. And I was teaching two courses. I took my responsibility to vote seriously. I wasn't a cult follower. I was very busy. I did the best I could with the time that I had. There are many many such voters. They have to choose and they will. It's this general sort of voter, they come in various forms, not a cult follower, busy, wanting to do right, this is the sort of person that I hope that the candidates would court. There are cult followers out there. There are also busy honest people wanting to do their best. It's at least possible that they would pay attention to what a candidates says. Or doesn't say.

At any rate, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. We can focus too much on cult followers.

 

Sounds to me like you're describing the poll's margin of error. :D

[Al_U_Card]

This is just a rallying cry, not a serious claim that either is a criminal. The only people who took it seriously were probably also "birthers" during the Obama administration.

 

And it's not surprising that Trump instigated both. He may not know much about politics, international relations, or any of the other things that qualify one for the Presidency, but he knows how to play on the emotions of rubes, like carnival barkers and snake oil salesmen of old.

So, should Trump's stumping for Republicans help result in continued control of congress, does that mean that ever more voters are being taken in? Should not the dems be able to expose such chicanery and if not, why not? Where exactly should the blame be lain?

[kenberg]

Sounds to me like you're describing the poll's margin of error. :D

 

I have been truly surprised by the numerous ways that my simple suggestion has been dismissed. So just to be certain that I have this straight, after whiich I wil leave the topic, my suggestion was that middle-of-the-road voters would have looked favorably on a Democratic announcement that they regard Kavanaugh's place on the Supreme Court as a settled matter. I do not claim this would, by itself, swing an election but I do believe that for the undecided voter it would be seen as a positive step, part of how they would make their choice. Based on the responses to my post, I gather that many, including you, regard this as not the way things work.

 

Possibly you are right, that has to be acknowledged, but I have not yet changed my mind. I doubt that either of us will be changing our minds on this any time soon.

[Winstonm]

I have been truly surprised by the numerous ways that my simple suggestion has been dismissed. So just to be certain that I have this straight, after whiich I wil leave the topic, my suggestion was that middle-of-the-road voters would have looked favorably on a Democratic announcement that they regard Kavanaugh's place on the Supreme Court as a settled matter. I do not claim this would, by itself, swing an election but I do believe that for the undecided voter it would be seen as a positive step, part of how they would make their choice. Based on the responses to my post, I gather that many, including you, regard this as not the way things work.

 

Possibly you are right, that has to be acknowledged, but I have not yet changed my mind. I doubt that either of us will be changing our minds on this any time soon.

 

Finally, I see. Have you considered how much air you would take out of the progressive balloon, though, with such an announcement? The one thing the Democrats have going for them is energy to vote, especially, it seems, women voters. The issue it seems to me is to propel more young and minorities to get in line and vote, not to appease some unknown middle. The time to appeal to the neutrals will be 2020, not 2018 IMHO.

 

Again, I think the best policy is not to attack Kavanaugh's confirmation yet acknowledge that it needs to be reviewed. This is a tricky middle ground, I know, but it gives a nod to both sides and seems a reasoned approach rather than using a sledge hammer to hang a picture.

[kenberg]

Finally, I see. Have you considered how much air you would take out of the progressive balloon, though, with such an announcement? The one thing the Democrats have going for them is energy to vote, especially, it seems, women voters. The issue it seems to me is to propel more young and minorities to get in line and vote, not to appease some unknown middle. The time to appeal to the neutrals will be 2020, not 2018 IMHO.

 

Again, I think the best policy is not to attack Kavanaugh's confirmation yet acknowledge that it needs to be reviewed. This is a tricky middle ground, I know, but it gives a nod to both sides and seems a reasoned approach rather than using a sledge hammer to hang a picture.

 

Adam made a similar, not exactly the same but similar, point earlier. Basically, announcing the position is not cost free. I will suggest two things.

1. The middle voters: There are many factors in any election, some can be addressed, others can't. One factor in Trump's victory surely was that some middle voters, people who often would vote D, concluded that the D leadership dismisses them as unworthy of consideration. This can cost.

2. Silence: Silence really is not a realistic option. Many Ds are opposed to moving on from Kavanaugh. Trump and other Rs are portraying the Ds as unwilling to move on. Silence by the leadership, when many Ds are advocating eventual removal, will lead the voters to conclude the R's are accurate in their claims. If in fact the Rs are accurate in their claims then it would be better for the D leadership to acknowledge this and make their case for it. Silence allows the Rs to phrase it in their terms.

 

The D leadership consists of professionals, I have no training in political campaigning, but there are times I think that they have some severe blind spots. Usually such things come from spending too much time talking to each other.

 

[Winstonm]

Adam made a similar, not exactly the same but similar, point earlier. Basically, announcing the position is not cost free. I will suggest two things.

1. The middle voters: There are many factors in any election, some can be addressed, others can't. One factor in Trump's victory surely was that some middle voters, people who often would vote D, concluded that the D leadership dismisses them as unworthy of consideration. This can cost.

2. Silence: Silence really is not a realistic option. Many Ds are opposed to moving on from Kavanaugh. Trump and other Rs are portraying the Ds as unwilling to move on. Silence by the leadership, when many Ds are advocating eventual removal, will lead the voters to conclude the R's are accurate in their claims. If in fact the Rs are accurate in their claims then it would be better for the D leadership to acknowledge this and make their case for it. Silence allows the Rs to phrase it in their terms.

 

The D leadership consists of professionals, I have no training in political campaigning, but there are times I think that they have some severe blind spots. Usually such things come from spending too much time talking to each other.

 

I'm not so certain there is such a thing as a middle voter in the age of Dennison. Here in Oklahoma the governor's race on the Republican side is an appeal to Dennison support/Hillary hate. I doubt any middle voters can be swayed by that message.

 

From what I see nationally, there is little doubt the Senate will remain solidly Republican because the nature of the voting base gives rural areas more sway and the election cycle this time favors Republicans in Senate races anyway. In reality, all we are discussing is the House, and in the House it is more district-centric, meaning that there isn't nor should there be a single national message about Kavanaugh, IMHO.

[hrothgar]

So, should Trump's stumping for Republicans help result in continued control of congress, does that mean that ever more voters are being taken in? Should not the dems be able to expose such chicanery and if not, why not? Where exactly should the blame be lain?

 

1. A electoral model in which the Republicans are able to control 52% of the Senate seats with 46% of the popular vote.

2. Sufficient Gerrymandering such that the Democrats need to capture 57+ percent of the popular vote to win 50% of the seats

3. Lead poisoning

[kenberg]

I'm not so certain there is such a thing as a middle voter in the age of Dennison. Here in Oklahoma the governor's race on the Republican side is an appeal to Dennison support/Hillary hate. I doubt any middle voters can be swayed by that message.

 

From what I see nationally, there is little doubt the Senate will remain solidly Republican because the nature of the voting base gives rural areas more sway and the election cycle this time favors Republicans in Senate races anyway. In reality, all we are discussing is the House, and in the House it is more district-centric, meaning that there isn't nor should there be a single national message about Kavanaugh, IMHO.

 

In mathematics we sometimes have theoretical proofs of existence, for example every polynomial of any degree has a root even if it has not been found. These are contrasted with explicit proofs of existence, for example the quadratic formula for polynomials of degree two. I offer myself as an explicit proof of the existence of a middle voter.

 

Of course it can be a matter of definition, so: In Maryland the ratio of registered Ds to registered Rs is something like 2 to 1. We have a Republican governor, Larry Hogan. I voted for him four years ago. It went like this: The D candidate was the Lt. Gov and like most Lt Govs in most places he did not have many responsibilities. So, as the ACA was coming into being, he was assigned the job of doing what had to be done to get us in on it. He made a hash of it and we imported the solution from Rhode Island or somewhere. Of course the D leadership then explained that he really had very little responsibility for the mess, really it was all someone else's fault, but there was quite a bit of fanfare when he was put in charge of it and had it gone well he surely would have boasted of this success. I figured that the one thing he had been given to do, surely to give him something he could boast of, he screwed up. So I voted for Hogan. He is running for re-election and the last I heard he has a 20 point lead.

 

At the other end of my life, I was a 13 year old supporter of Adlai Stevenson in 1952 but four years later I thought Ike had done a pretty good job and, had I been a voter, I might well have voted for him. Maybe yes, maybe no, but again I was in the center.

 

So we exist. The D leadership seems to have trouble noting our existence. A pity.

 

Added: Of course I am not claiming that I am a down-the-line centrist, far from it. I am a registered D, I mostly vote D, I agree with a large part of D positions. I am only saying that I, and many others whether registered D or R, will vote as we think best in any given election, and that the leadership might want to consider that fact as important. We really do exist.

 

[ldrews]

1. A electoral model in which the Republicans are able to control 52% of the Senate seats with 46% of the popular vote.

2. Sufficient Gerrymandering such that the Democrats need to capture 57+ percent of the popular vote to win 50% of the seats

3. Lead poisoning

 

The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a confederation of states, all of whom agreed to join based on the republic form of government being offered.

 

Gerrymandering does not just happen in a vacuum. The Republicans won control of the state legislatures and redistrictijg by offering voters more of what they wanted.

 

It would be interesting to watch what happens if the Democrats resort to violence. The Republicans own a disproportionate share of guns and ammunition.

[hrothgar]

The US is a republic, not a democracy. It is a confederation of states, all of whom agreed to join based on the republic form of government being offered.

 

Gerrymandering does not just happen in a vacuum. The Republicans won control of the state legislatures and redistrictijg by offering voters more of what they wanted.

 

As I recall, the rallying cry when the North American colonies rebelled from England was no taxation without representation.

As the Republicans consistently work marginalize Democratic voters, they risk delegitimizing our entire system of government.

 

I don't know what the results will be, but I can't imagine that they will be good.

 

And, while Drews and the like may revel in things today, they aren't going to be happy when the worm turns...

[ggwhiz]

 

It would be interesting to watch what happens if the Democrats resort to violence. The Republicans own a disproportionate share of guns and ammunition.

 

"Enemy of the people" (journalists and their murder worldwide is up sharply this year) "lock her up" (to a few Dems) "good people on both sides" (including the Tiki Torch mob) and Trump likes the murderous despots in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, the Phillipines and of course Russia who infiltrated the NRA and committed murder on British soil.

 

"if the Democrats resort to violence" WTF are you talking about and on what basis?

[hrothgar]

It would be interesting to watch what happens if the Democrats resort to violence. The Republicans own a disproportionate share of guns and ammunition.

 

You completely mis-interpret my use to the word lead poisoning.

I was being quite literal.

 

There are a lot of good studies showing a lagged relationship between environment lead and crime rates. (Lead does really nasty things to developing brains, especially wrt impulse control. So you see all sorts of studies showing that crime rates start spiking roughly 18 years after the introduction of leaded gasoline in a given area and declining again after leaded gas gets phased out)

 

If you look at support for the modern republican party, you can see very similar patterns. I don't deny that there is probably some relationship between increases in crime rates and support for law and order conservatives. Me, and I am deadly serious here, I think that a more moderate form of brain damage is also to blame.

 

Which is OK. Drews and the like will be dead soon enough.

 

We just need to make sure that his generation isn't able to do too much more damage before they circle down the drain.

[Winstonm]

In mathematics we sometimes have theoretical proofs of existence, for example every polynomial of any degree has a root even if it has not been found. These are contrasted with explicit proofs of existence, for example the quadratic formula for polynomials of degree two. I offer myself as an explicit proof of the existence of a middle voter.

 

Of course it can be a matter of definition, so: In Maryland the ratio of registered Ds to registered Rs is something like 2 to 1. We have a Republican governor, Larry Hogan. I voted for him four years ago. It went like this: The D candidate was the Lt. Gov and like most Lt Govs in most places he did not have many responsibilities. So, as the ACA was coming into being, he was assigned the job of doing what had to be done to get us in on it. He made a hash of it and we imported the solution from Rhode Island or somewhere. Of course the D leadership then explained that he really had very little responsibility for the mess, really it was all someone else's fault, but there was quite a bit of fanfare when he was put in charge of it and had it gone well he surely would have boasted of this success. I figured that the one thing he had been given to do, surely to give him something he could boast of, he screwed up. So I voted for Hogan. He is running for re-election and the last I heard he has a 20 point lead.

 

At the other end of my life, I was a 13 year old supporter of Adlai Stevenson in 1952 but four years later I thought Ike had done a pretty good job and, had I been a voter, I might well have voted for him. Maybe yes, maybe no, but again I was in the center.

 

So we exist. The D leadership seems to have trouble noting our existence. A pity.

 

Added: Of course I am not claiming that I am a down-the-line centrist, far from it. I am a registered D, I mostly vote D, I agree with a large part of D positions. I am only saying that I, and many others whether registered D or R, will vote as we think best in any given election, and that the leadership might want to consider that fact as important. We really do exist.

 

Perhaps semantics is involved. My understanding of your middle-ground voter is the one who is registered as independent. I doubt the crossover vote will again be as large as it was in 2016, and that I attribute more to Hillary hate the Dennison fandom.

 

The person you describe I simply call reasonable - with much in common with me. In the bible belt, we don't get too many viable Rebuplican alternatives, and, until the balance of power and sanity is resotored to politics nationally, I can't imagine giving a vote that would encourage this group of Republicans to keep power.

 

Perhaps I simply have a more dire outlook than you about the present situation. Normals are gone, and The Times They Are A Changin'.

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday the United States would be "punishing" itself by halting military sales to Saudi Arabia even if it is proven that Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the country's consulate in Istanbul.

 

There can be zero middle ground when it comes to those politicians who protect this family from investigation and responsiblity for their decisions.