Kavanaugh vs Blue Wave - Give up one for the other?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Sep 25, 2018.

?

Would you give up a potential Blue Wave for killing Kavanaugh nomination?

Poll closed Oct 2, 2018.
  1. Yes

    4 vote(s)
    16.7%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    83.3%
  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    For my friends on the left, would you be willing to sacrifice a possible Blue Wave for killing the Kavanaugh nomination?

    Note, this thread is simply about the question, not whether or not you think I am correct in my thinking.

    My premise is that content people don't necessarily show up and vote, mad people do. So if the Dems managed to force Kavanaugh out as a nominee, that is going to rile up a bunch of conservatives to go vote potentially killing a Blue Wave.

    So which is more important to you 1) Blue Wave or 2) forcing Kavanaugh out.

    Again this is not about my premise, just which of the two possible outcomes you would prefer.
     
  2. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #2
    I was more or less resigned to Kavanaugh being confirmed months ago. Even when the first allegations came to light, I did not expect them to derail his confirmation. Also, there's a very petty spiteful part of me that wants Kavanaugh to be confirmed so Democrats will start caring about Supreme Court nominations more. Republicans understood that the Supreme Court is more important than the personality of the guy in charge and Democrats didn't get it. Maybe this will force them to get it.

    I want my blue wave, yo :cool:
     
  3. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #3
    From a political standpoint I think the (D) have played this poorly.....

    If Kav is not confirmed then you can bet the (R) will be energized and motivated to vote. In the end, they may end up with a Justice further to the right than Kav (Barrett) and hurt their chances in the mids..

    If Kav is confirmed then they still run the risk of an energized (maybe slightly less) (R) vote over the perceived games they've played...
     
  4. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #4
    I don't think a bald faced liar should be on the supreme court, period. Frankly, you shouldn't either.

    Nevermind the terrible premise here.

    The house looks to be going blue, could it go the other way? possibly but odds are in the democrats favor.

    The senate is a fairly safe bet for republicans, which means any nominee free of scandal that can get a Collins and Murkowski vote has a great chance of being confirmed.

    The longer this goes on though, or if republicans in the Senate are perceived to be rushing this through or demeaning/shaming sexual assault survivors, the more dicey republican hold on the senate gets.
     
  5. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #5
    You assume this to be an either/or situation.

    I do not.
     
  6. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #6
    I'm not on the left, but I don't understand how you think people can answer your question if they don't agree with your premise. If they don't agree those are the only two options, how can they answer?
     
  7. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #7
    There are too many variables at play here to make an answer to this poll, so to be honest, the poll is logically flawed, but not due to anything the OP is trying to say.

    BL.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #8
    It's a false dichotomy rife with assumptions.

    That said, I'd rather have the blue wave than an end for Kavanaugh, if only because if the Dems somehow took the House and the Senate, they could blunt the president for two years, and should the accusations against Kavanaugh get worse, seek impeachment. (This would be ugly, but assuming that Maryland opens an investigation, and then a grand jury accepts charges, Kavanaugh could be toast.)

    And, counter-point: By crushing Kavanaugh's nomination, Democrats can say they won at the 10-yard line, but if people want bigger wins, they need more Democrats in the Senate.

    At the same time, conservatives might become forlorn having gotten slapped around at the 10-yard line with yet another man with a history of sexual assault causing them to lose. Really, Kavanaugh, Trump, and Roy Moore start to create an ugly pattern. And, that's before we talk about the Nazis running for office, including Russell Walker in North Carolina and Arthur Jones in Illinois.

    And, what do independent women think of this? My suspicion is that either way, Republicans are boiling away their support with the nomination of Kavanaugh.
     
  9. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    I can’t vote, because I don’t buy the premise. The Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat in 2016 and that had almost no effect on voter turnout. The sort of people who are truly energized by this type of issue (on either side) were already going to vote.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #10
    Solid point.
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    This, exactly.

    But on top of that, and as I've said in various other threads, the bigger picture isn't being looked at. Here's what I mean.

    The poll assumes that the Blues "let" Kavanaugh get his seat at SCOTUS. The Reds can "claim victory" easily and try to watch our heads spin. That would be the "easy" way out (lack of a better word). What isn't being taken into account here is if the Blues put up a hard fight and Kavanaugh still gets on. That fuels an even bigger Blue wave, let alone a Women's wave. The Blues can take back the House quite easily, though the Senate would be better in 2020. If the Blues take back both this year, then Kavanaugh has a hard chance of keeping his seat, though he could slightly, especially if Pence has to cast the deciding vote.

    So let's fast forward to 2020. That Blue wave hits and hits again. Trump is sent packing, and the Blues get the Senate. at that time, you'd have RBG close to 90, and Thomas, Alito, and Breyer close to retirement. The Blues reopen Kavanaugh, find out more about his dealings, and could possibly impeach him...

    .. that gives a potential FIVE OPEN SEATS that a POTUS can fill in the next 4 years.

    Again, the Reds aren't seeing the forest from the trees, and are only in the here-and-now just to piss off the Blues. The Blues can claim pyrrhic victory here while the Reds get a seat and a small slice of the pie, even though the rest of the entire pie could be eaten by the Blues, while the Reds are still trying to quash that growl in their stomachs.. too bad there wouldn't be any more pie left to eat.

    And the other thing that the Reds are missing, and let's just bring it in just for humour; let's say Trump gets impeached for obstructing justice, while the first part of a Blue wave hits. Bringing in Kavanaugh serves no purpose for helping him out, as only Roberts is involved as far as SCOTUS goes for hearings during the impeachment process.

    Which brings up another question: If a POTUS is impeached, does that mean that all of the cases that SCOTUS is going to hear for that year are put on hold?

    BL.
     
  12. Populism, Sep 25, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2018

    Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #12
    It’s called a thought experiment.

    If you had to choose, which would you choose?

    Worry not - if you answer the thought experiment as asked, you won’t cause it to happen.

    Jesus the long-winded hyper-defensiveness.
     
  13. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #13
    I did choose. Like I said, it's a "false dichotomy rife with assumptions," but, "...that said, I'd rather have the blue wave than an end for Kavanaugh."
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    That said, I would as well. again, pyrrhic victory comes to mind. Kavanaugh gets on, at the cost of him leaving later because of his lies under oath. Blue wave still comes in, Kavanaugh gets dumped, another pick goes in (which will happen more than likely after 2020), right an unjust action, 3 more go in, and then see how the Reds like that.

    Again, pyrrhic victory for thinking long term, while the Reds go for instant gratification, which hurts them in the long run.

    BL.
     
  15. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #15
    If anyone actually thinks Kavanaugh would be impeached and removed from the court really don't understand how the process works. Do you really think the Senate could muster 67 votes for conviction? That is a non-starter.
     
  16. CaptMurdock Suspended

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #16
    -- Richard Nixon, 1973.
     
  17. John-F macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Location:
    Nevada
    #17
    Disagree with your assumptions and predictions. You are assuming or asserting Kavanaugh lied even though all "witnesses" asserted by the accusers have denied any knowledge or refuted the claims. He has already been through several FBI investigations. Whatever happens with the nomination, I think the Democrats have overplayed their hand, having been motivated by the far-left base. The women I know, even those who are not generally political, are furious at the weaponizing and politicizing of sexual assault claims. They see it as diminishing the legitimate claims of real victims. Aside from that, I think more people are seeing the Democrats as dishonest and disreputable. The Democrats could be punished for their tactics.

    The Democratic Party is far different than what it used to be. They deserve to be destroyed politically and out of the ashes, more moderates might emerge.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #18
    Well, as I noted earlier, "This would be ugly, but assuming that Maryland opens an investigation, and then a grand jury accepts charges, Kavanaugh could be toast."

    If Maryland launched an investigation and there was a grand jury decision against Kavanaugh, it may not be that hard to peel 17-20 Republicans away from the party to sack him. However, without that remote possibility, Kavanaugh would likely stay, no matter how much he stinks up the court's impartial role.

    Of course, Kavanaugh could also be impeached like Samuel Chase, for allowing his politics to interfere with his decisions, but that's even more remote, I think.

    It's also worth noting that Chief Justice Roberts might tell Kavanaugh to sit down and shut up and restrain the new justice's decisions in order to protect the court. Roberts wants a legacy and I doubt he'll let Kavanaugh's partisanship tarnish that.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 25, 2018 ---
    Public polling shows that Kavanaugh's nomination is almost historically unpopular, polling lower than Harriet Miers whose nomination was withdrawn by the George W. Bush administration, but higher than Reagan's choice of Robert Bork, who was also not picked for the Supreme Court.

    This is especially true of women who believe Christine Ford over Kavanaugh by a 10-point margin.
     
  19. John-F macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Location:
    Nevada
    #19
    We've learned a few things about polling since 2016. But regardless, much could be said about people who believe Ford with absolutely no witnesses (and the "witnesses" denying her story) over Kavanaugh. These people in many cases are a product over an increasingly unfortunate education system, but that is another story for another thread.
     
  20. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #20
    All we have learned about polling since 2016 is that

    1. People don't understand statistics
    2. People ignore margin of error
    3. People don't understand that state polls are less reliable than national ones in a presidential election
    4. If you were betting in a casino, a 1/3 chance of winning gives you decent odds.

    The 2016 polls were fine. The fact that you still think otherwise, says much more about our education system than Blasey Ford.

    Kavanaugh is a proven liar beyond the allegations of sexual assault.
     
  21. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    No one has “denied” her story. They say they don’t remember it, and the only person she identified as an actual eyewitness is an admitted blackout drunk. I believe her, but maybe my Harvard degree and law degree are just products of our “unfortunate education system.”
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    How many republican seats are up this year? And additionally, how many are up in 2020? Again, you're not thinking long term, but instead go for instant gratification. If Trump keeps going the way that he does (which is why I'd rather not see him impeached), he'll get thrown out on his arse by some lady Blue wearing a pantsuit who won't take his crap by any means, plus continue that Blue/women's wave to where those the 33 seats seats up in 2020 are taking by Blues. Then that can be revisited. The Reds have 20 seats up for re-election, not including the McCain special election. The Blues only need to hold their 13 and then take 4 more to get that majority, and that isn't even including Sanders.

    It is more than doable.

    BL.
     
  23. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #23
    Yeah and RBG got 95 votes for her SCOTUS seat. A lot has changed since then.
     
  24. John-F macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2011
    Location:
    Nevada
    #24
    Not true. Several have denied being at the "party" she claims through a very foggy and confused recollection. I also went to a top school in Cambridge, MA and I know several of Harvard law grads whose ability to reason logically has been compromised by their ideology. Maybe you should listen to your esteemed professor Dershowitz who makes a hell of a lot more sense than those who believe her based on the lack of evidence on her side versus what has been put forth by the many others including women who support Kavanaugh. But I suppose some consider the good professor a sell-out.
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #25
    Actually, looking at the votes, the results for Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are rare.

    Many more votes have been rampantly partisan, and there have been many times when a nominee was rejected by the Senate. For instance, in 1811, Alexander Wolcott was denied the nomination 9-24, easily the worst showing in history.

    Under Nixon, two nominees failed to get the votes, G. Harrold Caswell and Clement Haysworth could only get 45 votes each.

    Even the vaunted justice Thurgood Marshall had to fight for his nomination, earning only 69 votes to 11 against. But, Scalia received 98-0, followed by Bork who was denied, and then by Kennedy who earned 97 votes.

    It seems that it's not just partisanship, but also the justice. Some are caught up in politics, some are bad candidates, and some just can't get the votes.
     

Share This Page

81 September 25, 2018