'It's a Terrible Vote': Red-State Democrats Face an Agonizing Supreme Court Choice

[yallerdawg]

Whoa. This is getting seriously complicated.

Source: New York Times, by Carl Hulse


Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.

The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.

A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.

But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.


Read the rest at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/us/politics/democrats-supreme-court-nominee.html

[RandySF]

1. Another Dems in Disarry story

Ignore the Post and NYT until after the election.

[yallerdawg]

2. Exactly why...

I'm on a political blog.

[FBaggins]

17. Because what we ignore we can make disappear

Duh

[yallerdawg]

18. Yes, especially the day after the confirmation vote...

and everyone wants to get rid of the Blue Dog Democrats.

"What we ignore we can make disappear."

[Takket]

3. you dance with the person who took you to the prom.

that's what you do

[yallerdawg]

6. Lose the battle...

and hope to win the war.

If the Red State Democrats hold their seats, we only need 2 more to take the Senate.

Then it will seriously be on Democrats everywhere to turnout!

[Demsrule86]

10. You save your seat...this is not a vote to lose your seat for...the GOP will get their judge ...one

way or the other...we need to save the seats of conservadems...we might get the senate this year...and consider that no judge will ever be confirmed without the senate...we have to think about 20 where a potential Democratic president could appoint judges but only with the Senate.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. If more democrats come out to vote, the blue senators in red states

might have a decent chance of winning. Senators are not gerrymandered like congressional districts.

[Demsrule86]

11. That is not true. We need those senators...

we lost the conservadems in 10 and have not had a working majority since...

[Garrett78]

5. "...to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters..."

I find it hard to believe that a Democrat voting to confirm Trump's nominee will win over Republican-leaning voters. Won't they vote for the Republican challenger regardless?

[yallerdawg]

7. In Red States...

"Republican-leaning" are the swing voters.

As long as the Democrat doesn't do anything to piss them off, they'll vote for the "Democrat" 'cause they like him/her.

[Volaris]

8. Yes.

[mountain grammy]

9. Right, exactly.

and why would Democrats be demoralized by their Senator voting not to confirm another radical, right wing justice.

Give us a break, NYT.

[yallerdawg]

13. If my Democratic senator voted to confirm an anti-abortion judge...

it would be demoralizing (what NYT is saying).

It would also be demoralizing if we went from 2 more seats to control the Senate, to needing 5 more.

[mountain grammy]

15. Thank you for clearing that up for me

I completely missed that point.

[yallerdawg]

16. When you live in the South like I do...

it is ALWAYs confusing!

[mountain grammy]

19. I feel bombarded with everything.

Constant state of confusion..but glad to live in Colorado.

[yallerdawg]

24. Hey...

I have two brothers in Colorado.

Must be something in the air.

[Demsrule86]

12. if they don't vote for the nominee...they lose a vote...that is the problem.

[Efilroft Sul]

14. Then these senators better find a ruling or opinion by the nominee that harms the MAGAbillies.

Last edited Sun Jul 8, 2018, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

The more, the better. But don't make it about abortion, because that's not their hill to die on. They need to find the issues that matter to their voters and make it look like they are fiercely defending their constituents' rights from an out-of-touch ideologue or corporate shill. That's how they can discredit the nominee and can cast a vote against him or her.

Look, the asshole opposition is going to say shit anyway, so it's better for them to be perceived as strong fighters for their states instead of the go-along weak sauce that's expected of them. It's even better if the assumed vulnerable Dems ARE strong fighters for their voters and tear down Trump's nominee.

Your mileage may vary.

[Dan]

20. Actually they don't

The founding fathers did not anticipate career politicians - but rather citizens that took on a political role for a limited amount of time. If they approach their political position as a temporary role until they returned to their real jobs - then acting in the best interest of the nation is not that hard.

We need to get away from these career politicians - they tend to forget their roots.

[Tavarious Jackson]

21. It a consequential life long vote.

In my opinion, there is no time to be selfish. This is a vote worth losing your job for.

[WillowTree]

23. And also worth losing this chance to take the Senate?.............OK.............I guess.......

[Recursion]

22. Sometimes you need to make a politically unpopular vote, when it matters. This isn't that.

If a vote matters, sometimes you need to make it, even at the cost of your seat.

A vote against Trump's nominee is entirely symbolic (they won't call the vote until they have Collins and Murkoswki lined up anyways). Making an entirely symbolic vote that antagonizes your electorate is a bad idea.

[kentuck]

25. Hard vote for whom?

The Senators or the voters?

The voters can simply vote against any Democrat that votes with Trump on this vote.

[yallerdawg]

27. Really?

Heitkamp in North Dakota. Unopposed in primary. Vote for the R?

Donnelly in Indiana. Unopposed in primary. Vote for who?

Manchin in West Virginia? Won primary with 70%. His Republican opponent won primary with 35% of votes. Who?

[kentuck]

29. Just my opinion but....

...if I lived in either one of those states and one of those Senators voted with the Republicans to put a Justice on the Supreme Court that would kill Roe v Wade, they would not get my vote in the general election. Yeah, that's right.

[still_one]

31. That is the same bullshit some pulled in 2016 by refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee,

because they refused to think of the BIG PICTURE, and we lost TWO SC appointments because of that folly

The majority party in Congress CONTROLS THE AGENDA. Which part of that statement do you fail to grasp

Anyone who refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate against the republican candidate in the general election in the midterms, is voting for the Donald Trump Agenda, it is that simple

[Ikeoftheprairie]

35. rock and hard place

That is the concern in my state of North Dakota. Heitkamp is in a battle against Cramer(R) in the mid-term. If she doesn't support Trump's choice for USSC that might be the tipping point voters need to elect Cramer. Not sure if that is a sound long-term strategy.

[still_one]

30. anyone who doesn't vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, is voting for trump

It is that simple.

Because of what happened in 2016, where some self-identified progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either not voting or voting third party we are in the terrible situation we are in now.

The priority should be getting the majority in both houses, in order to stop this insanity. After that we can argue among ourselves over where the future direction of the Democratic party should be.

It is the majority party that determines the agenda, and most people should grasp that by now.

The SC WAS THE ISSSUE in 2016, and obviously some didn't care enough about it to vote. We lost 2 SC seats because of that mindset. Yes, the odds are against us that we will be able to delay or stop trump appointing another SC justice, but the November election STILL affords the opportunity to prevent more of the same, not only at the SC level, but at the other federal levels also.

The majority party controls the agenda in Congress, and the majority in the Senate controls the appointment of judges

Yes, things can get a lot worse if we lose the midterms

[still_one]

26. They need to do whatever it takes to give us the best chance to get the majority in the Senate.

That is the big picture, and would NOT have been necessary or needed if some of those self-identified progressives had not refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, by either voting third party or not voting


The majority in the Congress determines the agenda, and right now getting that majority is parmount


If we are able to acheive that, then we can not only stop the insanity from this administration, and can continue the conversation among ourselves on our future direction.

We don't achieve that, it is a moot point

[yallerdawg]

28. I'm bracing myself for the coming assault on our Democratic office holders.

We've seen it starting already.

The Big Picture (like a Democratic president ) is what smart Democrats, progressives and liberals have to keep in mind.

[still_one]

33. I am sorry yallerdawg, but anyone who refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate against the

the republican candidate in the midterms is voting for the trump agenda, and they CANNOT RATIONALIZE THIS OFF by their failure to recognize that it is the majority party in Congress controls the agenda.

This was the same attitude among some in 2016 who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016, and because of that reasoning we lost TWO SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS.


YES, I DO HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE


Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, because 47% didn't bother to vote.


There is a reason why Howard Dean's 50-STATE strategy was so successful. He realized that West Virgina is NOT California

[Loki Liesmith]

32. No Republican voters will care

Either way

[blueinredohio]

34. How many times did Manchin and Donnelly vote with republicans

When it wasn't around election time? My guess is a lot.