The Kavanaugh Hearing
GL2 said:
cramer said:Little Rhody's own!
I've been really impressed with Sheldon Whitehouse. He's excellent.
"This week, Senate Judiciary Committee members are releasing their Questions for the Record for Brett Kavanaugh (questions that he won’t be able to answer given the accelerated confirmation process Chuck Grassley has set). Sheldon Whitehouse’s QFRs have already generated considerable notice. Amid questions about predictable legal (prosecuting a president, environmental rulings, Roe, transgender rights, labor, guns) and GOP rat-f--ry (Starr, staff secretary, and other Bush White House policy issues), Whitehouse asked two questions that should have but did not come up in his hearing: about how debt allegedly tied to Washington Nationals season tickets evaporated when he came under consideration for SCOTUS, and the possibility he’s a heavy gambler (as suggested by one of the letters Don McGahn and Bill Burck tried to keep hidden).
But I’m more interested in some of Whitehouse’s other questions about finances. First, after asking about the baseball tickets, Whitehouse asks why the aspiring Justice has declared himself “exempt” from reporting certain gifts and/or reimbursements.
continued: https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/09/12/the-other-thing-kavanaugh-and-trump-share-hidden-money-stories/
No matter how Collins votes on Kavanaugh, the Democrats and liberal organizations will do everything they can to defeat her, since she is a Republican and her presence in the Senate is a vote to empower Mitch McConnell and not Chuck Schumer. For instance, Lincoln Chafee was very liberal, but that didn't stop the Democrats (Sheldon Whitehouse) from defeating him in 2006.
The other Senator from Maine is an Independent. To me that means that Independent voters are crucial in that State. Those are the people whom the Dems and "liberal organizations" are trying to influence.
Runner_Guy said:
( : Because don't we all want "better" rather than "acceptable"?
When the purpose of elections is to give us a choice, yes. We do.
Runner_Guy said:
Why would a Democrat, who is still angry about what happened to Merrick Garland, ever vote for Susan Collins when Collins' support for McConnell is what enabled the blockade in the first place?
The question is why would a Democrat, whose priorities and policy preferences probably align better with the party he or she chose, ever vote for Susan Collins when her priorities and policy preferences differ?
Are you saying that because of an issue or two, or tribal identity, Democrats are voting for a Democrat they like less than the Republican and Republicans are voting for a Republican they like less than the Democrat?
DaveSchmidt said:
Runner_Guy said:The question is why would a Democrat, whose priorities and policy preferences probably align better with the party he or she chose, ever vote for Susan Collins when her priorities and policy preferences differ?
Why would a Democrat, who is still angry about what happened to Merrick Garland, ever vote for Susan Collins when Collins' support for McConnell is what enabled the blockade in the first place?
Are you saying that because of an issue or two, or tribal identity, Democrats are voting for a Democrat they like less than the Republican and Republicans are voting for a Republican they like less than the Democrat?
Yes, I do think there has been an increase in the proportion of Democrats who vote for Democratic candidates they like less than the Republican alternative and there are increasingly more Republicans who do the equivalent. I think the motivation for this is the the realization that Senate & House control are more important than anyone's individual Senator or Representative and that voting for an opposite-party candidate is a way to end the agenda of a president you don't like.
For instance, check out this ad from Mitch McConnell linking all of his potential opponents to Barack Obama.
Political scientists can track this by tracing the decrease in the number of Senate seats and House seats that are held by people from the opposite party of each state's and district's presidential choice. Politicians themselves are aware of this, and often run ads against their opponents that ignore their opponent's personal stances and character and focus on partisan membership.
This "send a message" mentality even exists in gubernatorial elections.
In the 2017 gubernatorial race when Phil Murphy repeatedly tried to link Kim Guadagno to Donald Trump and said that his own election would "send a message" to Trump. Indeed, 44% of Democrats said they were voting for Murphy for that reason!
There are exceptions. Last year a lot of Republicans opposed Roy Moore, but then again, I don't think a single Democrat has publicly opposed Bob Menendez. (correct me if I'm wrong).
Even before the 2016 election there was a ton of evidence that voters were increasingly reluctant to care about the personal stances of their Senator or Representative and vote based on the candidate's party.
Susan Collins has said that the fundraising campaign against her is equivalent to a "bribe," but she also probably realizes that she will be a Democratic target no matter what.
Runner_Guy said:
In the 2017 gubernatorial race when Phil Murphy repeatedly tried to link Kim Guadagno to Donald Trump and said that his own election would "send a message" to Trump. Indeed, 44% of Democrats said they were voting for Murphy for that reason!
Where did you see that figure? It’s not in the article you linked to, and the poll itself says 53 percent of Democrats agreed their vote was a way to send a message to Trump and congressional Republicans (with 44 percent saying it wasn’t). That’s a higher percentage, but then again, “see ... as a way to” is not the same as “for that reason!”
In a separate question, 24 percent of Democrats said Trump was a major factor in their vote in the governor’s race. (Twelve percent of Republicans said so; the margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 points.)
As you came to your conclusions, what convinced you to reject the contrary thesis: that the candidates, not the electorate, are what’s different? They’re the ones you say are choosing and sending the messages. Are their voting records following party lines more often, giving voters a starker choice? Could it be that, for reasons we’ve discussed before (primarily gerrymandering), the partisanship is more from the supply end than the demand end?
Runner_Guy said:There are exceptions. Last year a lot of Republicans opposed Roy Moore, but then again, I don't think a single Democrat has publicly opposed Bob Menendez. (correct me if I'm wrong).
If you mean prominent Democratic politicians, you are correct. If you are talking about the Democratic voters who showed up to vote in the primary, you're wrong.
I think the stakes are too high in practical purposes for any Democratic politicians to openly criticize Menendez. There is the slimmest chance of the Senate flipping Democratic this November, but Menendez is the potential turd in the Blue Punchbowl.
As stated above, judicial appointments are just one reason we need a Democratic Senate in January.
the fallacy in the stories bemoaning (or seemingly bemoaning) the increases in voter partisanship is in assuming that the two parties are simply mirrors of each other. Which they are NOT. Today's typical GOP candidate is virtually always some combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues. Today's typical Democratic candidate is usually someone closer in temperament and policy positions to Tom Kean or Christie Whitman than they are to Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy.
So of course anyone outside of the Tea Party is likely to vote for any Democrat over any Republican.
Personally, the continuing false equivalencies that are made between the parties is frustrating beyond belief. There are a whole lot of people with abhorrent ideas running for office as Republicans, and there is no equivalent in the Democratic Party.
DaveSchmidt said:
Runner_Guy said:Where did you see that figure? It’s not in the article you linked to, and the poll itself says 53 percent of Democrats agreed their vote was a way to send a message to Trump and congressional Republicans (with 44 percent saying it wasn’t). That’s a higher percentage, but then again, “see ... as a way to” is not the same as “for that reason!”
In the 2017 gubernatorial race when Phil Murphy repeatedly tried to link Kim Guadagno to Donald Trump and said that his own election would "send a message" to Trump. Indeed, 44% of Democrats said they were voting for Murphy for that reason!
In a separate question, 24 percent of Democrats said Trump was a major factor in their vote in the governor’s race. (Twelve percent of Republicans said so; the margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 points.)
As you came to your conclusions, what convinced you to reject the contrary thesis: that the candidates, not the electorate, are what’s different? They’re the ones you say are choosing and sending the messages. Are their voting records following party lines more often, giving voters a starker choice? Could it be that, for reasons we’ve discussed before (primarily gerrymandering), the partisanship is more from the supply end than the demand end?
The section about NJ gubernatorial voters "sending a message" to Washington appears at the end of the article:
“Forty-four percent of Democrats say that they’re using their vote in New Jersey’s gubernatorial to express their disapproval for what’s going on in D.C., as compared to 26 percent of Republicans who say they’re using it to send a note of approval,” she said.
Phil Murphy himself certainly campaigned a lot on "sending a message" to Washington. He even campaigned on this before the official primary election, as if his opponents weren't also anti-Trump.
Runner_Guy said:The section about NJ gubernatorial voters "sending a message" to Washington appears at the end of the article:
“Forty-four percent of Democrats say that they’re using their vote in New Jersey’s gubernatorial to express their disapproval for what’s going on in D.C., as compared to 26 percent of Republicans who say they’re using it to send a note of approval,” she said.Phil Murphy himself certainly campaigned a lot on "sending a message" to Washington. He even campaigned on this before the official primary election, as if his opponents weren't also anti-Trump.
Thanks. My fault for missing it and then searching for “44.” In any case, I think Jenkins may have been reading off the wrong column. My questions about supply (see ml1’s comment, too) vs. demand remain.
mrincredible said:
Runner_Guy said:There are exceptions. Last year a lot of Republicans opposed Roy Moore, but then again, I don't think a single Democrat has publicly opposed Bob Menendez. (correct me if I'm wrong).If you mean prominent Democratic politicians, you are correct. If you are talking about the Democratic voters who showed up to vote in the primary, you're wrong.
I think the stakes are too high in practical purposes for any Democratic politicians to openly criticize Menendez. There is the slimmest chance of the Senate flipping Democratic this November, but Menendez is the potential turd in the Blue Punchbowl.
As stated above, judicial appointments are just one reason we need a Democratic Senate in January.
Mr. Incredible,
I think it is completely rational for anyone who doesn't like conservativism to vote for Menendez over Bob Hugin, despite Menendez' misconduct and Hugin's lack of it. Even if Hugin were a convincing moderate I don't think it would make any sense for a person with Democratic leanings to vote for him, since Hugin empowers McConnell and a slew of equally right-wing committee chairs.
Indeed, I think that rejecting a relatively upstanding Republican in favor of the Senate's most corrupt Democrat actually might send a message to the Republican leadership that they should be more moderate. (Unfortunately it's a message that the Republicans can afford to ignore since the Senate's malapportionment already favors them and a message that Republicans have to ignore since their donors are far-right.)
I am only pointing out that there has been a large increase in straight-ticket voting and therefore Susan Collins has no reason to expect electoral mercy even if she were to oppose Kavanaugh. I am not saying there is anything morally wrong or irrational with straight-ticket voting on the federal level, although when it filters down to state-level and even local-level politics it can produce distortions where candidates with ideologies that are nowhere near the median voter easily win by campaigning against federal-level politicians who are locally unpopular.
the fallacy in the stories bemoaning (or seemingly bemoaning) the increases in voter partisanship is in assuming that the two parties are simply mirrors of each other. Which they are NOT. Today's typical GOP candidate is virtually always some combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues. Today's typical Democratic candidate is usually someone closer in temperament and policy positions to Tom Kean or Christie Whitman than they are to Walter Mondale or Ted Kennedy.
Tom Kean (Jr.) actually did run for the Senate from NJ in 2006. He lost 53.3% to 44.3%. Menendez, who even then was credibly accused of taking kickbacks, attacked Kean as a "Pro-War, Pro-Bush Republican."
Like I said earlier. A liberal or moderate Republican is just as liable to be taken out by the Democrats a conservative one. The reason that the Democrats target moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and not Orrin Hatch is that Chafee is vulnerable, Hatch isn't.
In 2020 there will be millions that pour in to defeat Collins no matter what she does.
Republicans will do the exact equivalent. Heitkamp in ND, Donnelly in IN and Manchin in WV are being targeted despite the fact that they voted to confirm Gorsuch.
Despite her moderation, Heitkamp is one of the most vulnerable Senators of all.
Heitkamp moves to the top spot due to a combination of polling, a tough challenger and her state’s partisan shift. She still might be able to bring together a coalition of voters to prevail, but North Dakota has shifted further right since she won a first Senate term by less than 1 point in 2012. While she has her own brand in the state, so does her opponent, GOP Rep. Kevin Cramer, who represents the entire state as its at-large House member. Cramer lags behind Heitkamp in fundraising, but the dynamics are still tough for North Dakota’s last remaining statewide Democrat.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/09/12/nd-sen-more-bad-news-for-heidi-heitkamp-shes-now-listed-as-most-vulnerable-incumbent-senator
IMO, the US has a toxic political culture, but the problems of our political culture are exacerbated by our being trapped in an 18th century Constitutional system.
Along those lines, something for me to consider: Senate seats, unlike House districts and the presidency (through the Electoral College), are not gerrymandered, yet the Senate can be the most polarized branch of the bunch. Maybe that’s a symptom of what R_G is talking about. Maybe it’s a reaction to what I was talking about.
Runner_Guy said:
Tom Kean (Jr.) actually did run for the Senate from NJ in 2006. He lost 53.3% to 44.3%. Menendez, who even then was credibly accused of taking kickbacks, attacked Kean as a "Pro-War, Pro-Bush Republican."
Like I said earlier. A liberal or moderate Republican is just as liable to be taken out by the Democrats a conservative one. The reason that the Democrats target moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and not Orrin Hatch is that Chafee is vulnerable, Hatch isn't.
I thought the poster was talking about Sr. not Jr.
Lincoln Chafee is now a Democrat.
One of the most Democratic or "Blue States" is Maryland. The incumbent Republican Governor is expected to be re-elected easily.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/house/
Kyrsten Sinema, A Democrat from Arizona from a very Conservative District and who is now running for the Senate, votes in accord with Trump's position 60.9% of the time.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, A Florida Republican whose district voted for Hillary Clinton, votes in accord with Trump's position 69.9% of the time.
No one else is even close. Almost all the Republicans vote with Trump over 90%, perhaps a majority in the high 90s and almost all Dems score below 25%, many in the teens.
LOST said:
Runner_Guy said:I thought the poster was talking about Sr. not Jr.
Tom Kean (Jr.) actually did run for the Senate from NJ in 2006. He lost 53.3% to 44.3%. Menendez, who even then was credibly accused of taking kickbacks, attacked Kean as a "Pro-War, Pro-Bush Republican."
Like I said earlier. A liberal or moderate Republican is just as liable to be taken out by the Democrats a conservative one. The reason that the Democrats target moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and not Orrin Hatch is that Chafee is vulnerable, Hatch isn't.
Lincoln Chafee is now a Democrat.
One of the most Democratic or "Blue States" is Maryland. The incumbent Republican Governor is expected to be re-elected easily.
Yes, the OP was talking about Kean Sr. I mention Kean Jr as an example of how relatively moderate Republicans still appear on ballots in NJ, even ones still named "Tom Kean." I could have also mentioned Bob Franks, Doug Forrester, or even Kim Guadagno.
Yes, Chafee is now a Democrat (where he should be based on his own views), but in 2006 he was a liberal Republican. The 2006 defeat of Chafee, despite his liberalism and personal popularity, is an example of how increasingly people vote on a politician's party membership, not individual stances or character.
DaveSchmidt said:
Along those lines, something for me to consider: Senate seats, unlike House districts and the presidency (through the Electoral College), are not gerrymandered, yet the Senate can be the most polarized branch of the bunch. Maybe that’s a symptom of what R_G is talking about. Maybe it’s a reaction to what I was talking about.
The usual definition of "gerrymander" is to intentionally draw district lines with the intention of allowing one party to gain seats out of proportion to its share of votes.
The Senate's "districts" are permanent, and so not intentionally drawn for partisan advantage, and yet the Senate's electoral dynamic produces an even larger skew between votes cast and representation. You could say, with license of wit, that the Senate is actually far more "gerrymandered" than than House, but the gerrymandering was done by the Founding Fathers themselves.
I think Senate moderates are more visible and probably more empowered than in the House, but this comes not from the permanence of Senate districts and lack of intentional gerrymandering, but from the fact that individual Senators have much more leverage than individual House members and they get more media attention (due to that leverage and due to there being only 100 Senators). If a House member dissented from the Republican agenda, it wouldn't really matter, but if a Senator did? Depending on the scenario, then the item might not pass at all.
Right now the Senate is 51-49, so the leverage comes partly from the narrowness of the Republican majority, but due to Senate holds, the filibuster, and arcane parliamentary maneuvers that can freeze normal business up even an individual Senator has more power than 4.3 House members have.
An example of how disempowered House dissenters are, look at the passage of Trump's tax cut. Rodney Frelinghuysen was Appropriations chair, but he couldn't stop it. (his opposition may not have been sincere anyway). By contrast, Bob Corker from TN could wring out several concessions to get his support.
ml1 said:
Today's typical GOP candidate is virtually always some combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues.
This is just a silly statement. If you believe that half of the elected representatives of this country are bigots because of their political affiliation all is lost.
Also the Senate is a far more moderate than the House as they are not forced to face the voters every 2 years. Case in point when "go-nowhere" legislation is passed by GOP fire-eaters in the House it routinely dies in the Senate.
DannyArcher said:
ml1 said:This is just a silly statement. If you believe that half of the elected representatives of this country are bigots because of their political affiliation all is lost.
Today's typical GOP candidate is virtually always some combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues.
no. I believe that many of them are bigots because of the statements they make. I never said every Republican candidate is bigoted. I said "virtually" all of them check at least one of the boxes I listed. How many Republicans spout discredited supply-side economic nonsense for example? How many will tell you climate change is a hoax? How many have made ridiculous statements about immigrants or LGBTQ people? Even a guy like Chris Christie, who I am SURE knows better claimed to be against same-sex marriage, and wouldn't say evolution shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Rep. Steve King is a senior member of his party, and a frequent spokesperson for it in the media.
Steve King is a racist, and conservatives don’t want to talk about it
Is there any question at all which party a guy who re-tweets Nazis belongs to?
Runner_Guy said:
I mention Kean Jr as an example of how relatively moderate Republicans still appear on ballots in NJ, even ones still named "Tom Kean."
I think the word "relatively" is an important qualifier. When Kean Jr. was running for Senate, one of my work colleagues, who was a Union County GOP official, invited me to a lunchtime "meet and greet" with the candidate. He knew my political leanings, but he wanted to give me a chance to meet Lamar Alexander, who was accompanying Kean. The conversation was pleasant, but I was taken aback when Kean made a point of saying something about Menendez not being in favor of "English only" for our "national language". I glanced at some of the faces of the professionals gathered there, and I knew that not all of them were impressed by that kind of talk. I think Kean Jr. was under the impression that anybody who would be in that crowd could be reached with some of that old-fashioned, conservative GOP pitch. So "relatively" does mean something.
I'm wondering if there are any known GOP candidates or elected officials who openly support a woman's right to chose. Other than Murkowski and Collins. Of all of the generalities, I think it is fair to say, that their opposition on this issue links them most noticeably.
DannyArcher said:
ml1 said:This is just a silly statement. If you believe that half of the elected representatives of this country are bigots because of their political affiliation all is lost.
Today's typical GOP candidate is virtually always some combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues.
Also the Senate is a far more moderate than the House as they are not forced to face the voters every 2 years. Case in point when "go-nowhere" legislation is passed by GOP fire-eaters in the House it routinely dies in the Senate.
ml1 said a "combination of crazy, bigoted, anti-environment, and anti-science, promoting a slew of discredited ideas on economic issues." So if someone isn't necessarily a bigot, you can be damn sure that one of the other attributes applies.
And by that measure, that is a perfect description of the modern Republican Party. I defy you to show us a Republican at the state or national level who doesn't fit that description.
You folks are a trip. "I defy you..." Lighten up Francis.
How about the NJ Republican nominee for the Senate, Bob Hugin? He's not crazy, supports gay rights, reproductive rights, believes in climate change and that humans have a role in it, opposes drilling off the coast and supports investments in renewables, believes the cap on SALT deductions is wrong for NJ, supports a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other undocumented immigrants.
Or you can vote the party line for the career politician who is one of only 12 US Senators to ever be indicted by the federal government.
DannyArcher said:
Or you can vote the party line for the career politician who is one of only 12 US Senators to ever be indicted by the federal government.
In normal times I'd likely vote for Hugin.
dave23 said:
DannyArcher said:In normal times I'd likely vote for Hugin.
Or you can vote the party line for the career politician who is one of only 12 US Senators to ever be indicted by the federal government.
not me. I don't care as much that Menendez was taking gifts from a rich guy as I do that Hugin was running a company that did (admittedly legal) stuff like this:
Celgene under Hugin spent a record amount of money to help defeat legislation that would have made it easier for generlc companies to get drug samples, and President Donald Trump's Food and Drug Administration singled out the company for refusing to make those samples available to competitors.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/08/why_drug_prices_are_an_issue_in_menendez-hugin_slu.html
I probably should have added that if a GOP candidate isn't described by one of the words I used above he/she is probably dead set against any kind of regulations that make life even a smidgen better for regular folks.
DannyArcher said:
You folks are a trip. "I defy you..." Lighten up Francis.
How about the NJ Republican nominee for the Senate, Bob Hugin? He's not crazy, supports gay rights, reproductive rights, believes in climate change and that humans have a role in it, opposes drilling off the coast and supports investments in renewables, believes the cap on SALT deductions is wrong for NJ, supports a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers and other undocumented immigrants.
ml1 might call this a false equivalency if you are comparing the two parties
ml1 said:
I don't care as much that Menendez was taking gifts from a rich guy as I do that Hugin was running a company that did (admittedly legal) stuff like this:Celgene under Hugin spent a record amount of money to help defeat legislation that would have made it easier for generlc companies to get drug samples, and President Donald Trump's Food and Drug Administration singled out the company for refusing to make those samples available to competitors.I probably should have added that if a GOP candidate isn't described by one of the words I used above he/she is probably dead set against any kind of regulations that make life even a smidgen better for regular folks.
https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/08/why_drug_prices_are_an_issue_in_menendez-hugin_slu.html
Exactly. And Hugin was on the "Trump Train" very early on, so whatever he says now about any issue has to be evaluated in that light. Also, he would be a reliable vote for any Trump judicial nominee, and helps keep Mitch McConnell in control over Senate business.
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
The prospect of Kavanaugh being confirmed frightens me.