Posted on Mar 4, 2016
3
3
0
"It sounded like such a good idea at the time - why didn't someone tell us that this might happen?" is something that you are hearing a lot of in the Republican backrooms these days. It's generally accompanied by "Now how do we get out of this mess without looking like a bunch of weak-kneed, flip-flopping, dolts?" (and the ushering of those saying "But we DID tell you." out of the room).
Anger Over Supreme Court Vacancy Could Expand 2016 Senate Map
Posted from publicpolicypolling.com
Supreme Court
Election 2016
Republicans
Congress
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
Results make me wonder who they asked the questions to. I can promise you NO conservative says they are mad because the Senate wont approve a far left liberal judge to the Court that thinks its ok to rewrite the constitution from his court perch.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; If you go to the bottom of the article and click on the "Full Results Here" link you can check out the methodology for yourself.
You may PROMISE, but can you deliver? Besides the position you state is NOT the Republican position. The Republican position is that they will not even hold hearings to consider if a nominee might potentially be considered at least theoretically qualified for the position REGARDLESS of who that nominee might be.
However, I do suspect that a person's approval for the Republican's absolute refusal to even hold hearings to consider if a nominee might potentially be considered at least theoretically qualified for the position REGARDLESS of who that nominee might be probably gets stronger the more reactionary and/or blindly adherent to a policy of simply voting for the candidate that has the correct party designation after their name is.
You may PROMISE, but can you deliver? Besides the position you state is NOT the Republican position. The Republican position is that they will not even hold hearings to consider if a nominee might potentially be considered at least theoretically qualified for the position REGARDLESS of who that nominee might be.
However, I do suspect that a person's approval for the Republican's absolute refusal to even hold hearings to consider if a nominee might potentially be considered at least theoretically qualified for the position REGARDLESS of who that nominee might be probably gets stronger the more reactionary and/or blindly adherent to a policy of simply voting for the candidate that has the correct party designation after their name is.
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
COL Ted Mc I believe they will hold hearings so they don't look like total fools, but I also don't believe they will approve a far left liberal for fear they will lose there seat in Congress for approving a Liberal.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 Mark Saffell - PO; After they have already announced that they WILL NOT hold any hearing REGARDLESS of who the nominee is, the Republicans are going to look like fools if they DO hold any hearings.
The odds that President Obama would nominate a "far-left" (whatever that means to you) judge are incredibly low.
Tactically, President Obama's best course of action would be to nominate a "liberal leaning centrist" judge who has recently been overwhelmingly approved for the highest level of court (and it wouldn't hurt if that judge were a disabled veteran, who was also a female, and 'ethnic') and then let the Republicans absolutely refuse to consider that nomination.
Even the DNC isn't dumb enough not to know that and the RNC is not dumb enough to know that that is what is likely to happen so that the Republican Senators either look like pig-headed, bigoted, obstructionistic, fools or "flip-floppers" who are only interested in their own electoral advantage.
The odds that President Obama would nominate a "far-left" (whatever that means to you) judge are incredibly low.
Tactically, President Obama's best course of action would be to nominate a "liberal leaning centrist" judge who has recently been overwhelmingly approved for the highest level of court (and it wouldn't hurt if that judge were a disabled veteran, who was also a female, and 'ethnic') and then let the Republicans absolutely refuse to consider that nomination.
Even the DNC isn't dumb enough not to know that and the RNC is not dumb enough to know that that is what is likely to happen so that the Republican Senators either look like pig-headed, bigoted, obstructionistic, fools or "flip-floppers" who are only interested in their own electoral advantage.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
That a citizen was planning on casting a vote for a Republican senator, and then changes his mind because that senator did not allow yet another liberal activist on the supreme court, is not at all likely. Maybe they should stick to their word for once and see what happens.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; In theory the voter votes for the person who is most likely to represent them and their (community) interest the best. This is not the same thing as voting for a candidate simply because they belong to a certain political party.
If more voters exercised their theoretical right, then possibly people wouldn't be so successful in running for office by promising to do one thing and then doing the exact opposite once elected.
If more voters exercised their theoretical right, then possibly people wouldn't be so successful in running for office by promising to do one thing and then doing the exact opposite once elected.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Regardless, it's not like many GOP lawmakers are looked at in a favorable light as it is. Sure those polls say one thing, and usually the actions are something totally different. The GOP stands a good chance of loosing their hold on congress even without this mess. Come on strong in 13 promising one thing, get voted in power in 14, and it only went from bad to worse. It's really bad when the Dems had a role in making it worse, but the political infighting inside the GOP really made them look incompetent, uninformed, and out to settle personal "beefs" rather than get to the business they swore was so important in 13. The whole Bengazi fiasco when the results came out? No7 is a bad look for the GOP.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/12/hillary-clinton/clinton-there-have-been-7-benghazi-probes-so-far/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/12/hillary-clinton/clinton-there-have-been-7-benghazi-probes-so-far/
Clinton: 7 Benghazi probes so far
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested last week that Congress’ current investigation into the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, is a political move against former Hillary Clinton, and she was quick to jump on the Republican’s gaffe. In an interview Monday morning, Clinton was visibly frustrated with the ongoing Benghazi investigation.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Warren Swan - Sergeant; It looks to me that the Republicans could stand to replace some of their "tactics experts" with "strategy experts".
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
COL Ted Mc - Maybe so, but I think the Old Guard of the GOP would have to give in to the younger members, and I don't see that happening. For some it's easier to die in office than to retire and find a new calling. Again that problem is on both sides, but the Dems already know how to use the Youth vote to help them along. Bernie is going to loose no doubt, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some of his ideas implemented.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Warren Swan - Staff; In the eyes of many, the main difference between Ms. Clinton and Sen. Sanders is how "electable" each is.
As I see it, one of the big advantages that the Democrats have in 2016 is that they are all campaigning from the same platform (limitedly not exactly the same places on that platform) and all sending the same message that "The Republican establishment is screwed up." that the Republicans are sending. Where the Democrats have it over the Republicans on that message is that the Democrats can say "But WE are NOT Republicans." while the Republicans are stuck with "Well, OK, yes, I'm a Republican BUT I'm NOT one of the screwed up ones. Trust ME.".
As I see it, one of the big advantages that the Democrats have in 2016 is that they are all campaigning from the same platform (limitedly not exactly the same places on that platform) and all sending the same message that "The Republican establishment is screwed up." that the Republicans are sending. Where the Democrats have it over the Republicans on that message is that the Democrats can say "But WE are NOT Republicans." while the Republicans are stuck with "Well, OK, yes, I'm a Republican BUT I'm NOT one of the screwed up ones. Trust ME.".
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Fair enough Sir, but it still begs the fact that the RNC NEEDS to reinvent itself, and they're doing a poor job of it. When the armor is cracked, and clearly visible, you leave yourself vulnerable. That is a problem, and yet, the Dems haven't really attacked it yet. Not that I've seen in a real hardened attack at least.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google