General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsImagine if Hillary had gotten the chance to replace two conservatives on the Supreme Court
I really wish this had been emphasized more during the election.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)Seriously ...
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)People slammed her campaign location decisions but much of it was designed to help out in senate and governor races. Polls made it look like she could reach for thats
standingtall
(2,787 posts)So losing to 2 supreme court justices would be the next best thing compared being able to replace them. Maybe after 2018 or 2020 Democrats would've had the majority in the Senate if Hilary were President.
nycbos
(6,038 posts)Many people ignored it.
JI7
(89,264 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Will negotiate the next decade, they stand to lose a lot.
JI7
(89,264 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Yes, the smart ones voted for Hillary, but there were a lot of loud ones that disrupted our convention, then voted for Stein or Trump or Johnson (because Johnson was for Pot).
CBHagman
(16,987 posts)...is a workable strategy, and I'm rapidly losing patience with people who appear to think voting is about their self-esteem or level of excitement when it's actually all about what happens to them and their neighbors and to people around the world.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)underpants
(182,877 posts)"and the best part is that it ISN'T Hillary" heard that twice in two different shows - national and local.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)This was the most important election in my lifetime.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But even with that, the 2016 election was ALSO the most important in my lifetime so far, the only one that may be more important is 2020, because we could be fighting to survive as a country.
But 2016 had it all, a chance to positively define our values as a nation and reject hate. A clear contest between good (Hillary) and evil (Trump). And some people thought that they were so damned smart and knew better that those that saw the clear and present danger without blinders, or outright jackassery blinding them.
roamer65
(36,747 posts)I think some states will become independent nations and others will join the Canadian confederation.
A mainstream Canadian news magazine says:
https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/is-it-time-for-canada-to-annex-blue-america/
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Would make sense with Vancouver BC being the other province on that side of Canada. I would have to move because I am screwed living in Florida if a spilit happens.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)Here on DU, many pooh poohed it as not a big deal. Hillary was a corporatist warmonger, you know.
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)mcar
(42,372 posts)How many on her policies?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)who soaked up the "crooked Hillary" lies into seekers of truth. Same for any other issue.
Some people are especially vulnerable to being tricked with lies written especially for them, and nothing we said could stop the flood of lies or their new sophistication.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)It didn't seem that way at least.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)He got literal billions in free advertising for well over a year.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Oh, there was pretense, but daytime cable on all networks served anti-Democratic Kool-Aid for years, not just the last two. Judged by CNN's Zucker's actions, not his claim to being only chasing ratings, CNN was as committed as Fox to electing Trump and increasing Republican control over governments across the nation.
The NYT and AP are both proven blatantly corrupt and working to elect Republicans -- for just two among many, but a big two. AP news reports especially turn up in virtually all local and national news media, on Facebook, almost everywhere.
But, hey, blame the Democrats. NOT for our long history of limiting the power of the very wealthy over the people and fighting Russia's hegemony, NOT for our principled behaviors that required these huge anti-democracy forces to stop up.
Blame our leaders for being too stupid to what every armchair warrior knows and too lazy and too corrupt to act even when you tell them.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)Alpeduez21
(1,755 posts)integrity or email or she's a woman or she favors wall street or what the fuck ever I am a selfish prick and don't really care that MF'er Hump could win.
GET OUT THE VOTE THIS TIME YOU SELFISH BASTARDS!!
Mike Nelson
(9,966 posts)
much more than normal, I thought. It should be mentioned that, along with Hillary winning the actual vote, Democrats won he "popular vote" for Congress, too, if you count the overall votes... without looking at the way they divide up the districts and such...
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)What we need is people not wasting votes in critical states and costing democrats wins there. Anyone who don't see that the Democratic Party is the ONLY hope is a damned fool at this point.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)She mentioned that the next President could make four appointments often.
This is what drives me crazy. People saying that she did not mention it, when she did, often.
Cosmocat
(14,572 posts)She is a very decent, highly capable publics servant, and ran a solid campaign overall. Not perfect, but good enough to win if she wasn't running at a time when this country veered into DEFCON 1 stupid.
This thing where people make her out to have been "a bad candidate" enables the complete lack of responsibility that republicans rely on.
She lost because 1/3 of the country is insane, and 1/3 of the country is too GD scatter brained to not bother to vote.
We have no hope to get this turned around until we start to call things for what they are.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The news media, the left, 30 years of lies about her. Young women, of all people, who were barely or not born in 1996 were talking about what an awful person she was. The lies and slander against her were complete bullshit.
That being said, I think that we can turn this around in 8 years, November is critical, if we fuck up then, we are doomed. But if we hold in the Senate and win the House, then in 2020 we can capitalize and gain in 2022 and 2024. Roberts, Thomas will likely step down on the right sometime during that period, if we control the Senate, we can prevent confirmation of any more justices, then defeat Trump in 2020 and consolidate our gains in 2022 and 2024, if we do that, we could have. 6-3 liberal Court by 2026. We just CANNOT have far left people exclusively attacking democrats, if they do, we need to get more POC registered to vote NOW (Perez is doing a quiet but excellent job on that front). Look, the rightwing hate vote maxed out in 2016, it is not going to grow, but we had a lot of people sitting at home or pulling shit attacking Hillary at the polls.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Not really discussed much on CNN/MSNBC and the like.
wonkwest
(463 posts)I know in speeches and appearances, Clinton and many other Democrats pressed the point often and hard.
But, we have no control over cable news. They want spectacle, controversy, and rubbernecking.
Politicians and strategists talking soberly about policy is no fun at all.
mcar
(42,372 posts)The rest on Dotard. Then they had the nerve to say she didn't talk policy.
Let's not forget those on the left who rejected the idea that SCOTUS was important.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)down and rebuild it crowd will be long dead before these Justices are gone.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The hardcore republican/hate vote was maxed out in 2016, it won't get larger. Special election results are indicating that a lot of the No Hillary or sit at home voters on 2016 finally pulled their heads out of their asses and are voting for democrats. Trump has screwed up a key piece of the ACA in regards to poor people, that will hurt a LOT of his voters, add that on to what is happening with some farmers.
We can have a 6-3 liberal Supreme Court by 2026, but that will take discipline in every election through 2026. It is absolutely critical that we hold or gain in the Senate and take the House in November. In the Senate, we can pick up Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee and maybe Arizona again if McCain vacates. If we hold seats and pick up two, that gives us control of the Senate and we can fillabuster anyone Trump tries to appoint ala Mitch McConnell.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)The picks will have to sit through the 2020 election without hearings or a vote.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)anything to do with this mess.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Another poster did point out that Clinton's appointments would've been held up forever. The Democrats won't do that, however.
MineralMan
(146,329 posts)Wrote about it here, too, in threads that sank like stones.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)...across the subject line and stopped trying to engage them. Very stupid people -- or possibly trolls. Hard to tell the difference sometimes.
lapfog_1
(29,223 posts)so, for right now, a moot point.
But yes, she would have named at least one moderate to liberal... and we wouldn't worry so much about the health of RGB, and there is also others on the court that might pull a "scalia" and die in their beds.
tavernier
(12,400 posts)We are too fair minded.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,600 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2018, 09:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Mitch McConnell would have died before he scheduled hearings for one of Hillary's nominees. His successor would have continued that policy.
From January 20, 2017, until July 31, 2018, there would have been eight Supreme Court justices. From August 1, 2018 until whenever, there would have been seven Supreme Court justices.
Why? The possibility of impeachment, because of Benghazi, or email, or -- anything, really.
standingtall
(2,787 posts)If just one Conservative Supreme retired the balance of the Supreme Court would shift from 5 to 4 to 4 to 4. Which would've been huge. If 2 retired it would'e shifted to 4 to 3. Maybe by 2018 or 2020 Democrats would have the majority in the Senate.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)can do...and down ballot Democrats like Feinstein should have won...it is a damn disgrace and those voters involved in not voting
for the Democratic nominee have dealt progressive policy a near fatal blow...with two fucking SCOTUS conservatives being confirmed.
LisaM
(27,830 posts)Bush's picks were absolutely terrible.
I know that moving forward is the only option, but we should never, ever forget the stolen 2000 election.
JI7
(89,264 posts)It wasn't the first time they did it.
I notice many who felt too pure in 2000 were the same ones discouraging support for Clinton in 2016. And attacking Obama because they had to convince people he wasa horrible president so they can claim there is no difference.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)MannyGoldstein, SomethingPenn, several others. I notice some are back with different usernames, people need to be careful when reading posts that say democrats are weak or need to do something or the leaders don't care. Their goal is to peel off the people that fall for their shit and turn those people against democrats.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)Of course, they barely discuss Trump there, like hes doing no harm. Mostly they whine about the Democrats being harsh on Russia. Gee wonder why?
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)I never tire of pointing this out: the majority of voters voted for Hillary and against Trump. The majority of voters found her message compelling.
However, voter rolls were ethnically cleansed in a number of states, as many as 200,000 in one state where she "lost" by a slim margin.
I'll skip the rest of my sermon. You know the drill.
D_Master81
(1,822 posts)I know several people who didnt like Trump but voted for him b/c they didnt want Hillary to be able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court.
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)and the Republicans held the Senate they would never approve any of her nominations to the Supreme Court and they didn't care how many vacancies there might be.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The days of 98-0 confirmation votes appear to be over.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)it was not uncommon for SCOTUS nominees to be rejected when voted upon - 7 in the 19th century. It happened five times in the 20th century, but the vacancy was always later filled by the same president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Hard to imagine seeing those sorts of votes again anytime soon.
NewJeffCT
(56,829 posts)he would continue to block any supreme court nominee she put forward.
1) If she nominated somebody in January or February of 2017, I would hope she gives it the qualifier of saying that if the nominee does not get hearings and a vote within 90 days, the Senate will have waived their right to advise and consent.
2) I think Kennedy would not have stepped down if Clinton had won, so maybe holds out for a few more years hoping Clinton loses in 2020.
3) I would think RBG would have stepped down soon after #1 happened, so it would have been a liberal for a liberal.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I guess that's what would've been needed.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Both Hillary and Obama repeatedly told crowds what was at stake, but the left hated Hillary more than they feared Trump and you know the rest..
dflprincess
(28,082 posts)I did support Bernie right up until Hillary became the nominee. I honestly don't know any Bernie supporters who didn't vote for Hillary but then most of them are in my age group and have been through this kind of thing before.