Why didn't ANY SENATORS join the congress members who tried to prevent Trump from being certified?

[Goblinmonger]

On the similar thread about Sanders, whenever the point is brought up that NO senator did this, the replies seem to be "this thread is about Bernie." So, let's have the bigger discussion. Or maybe that isn't the point of the other OP. Not sure.

"They could have stood up to the GOP today (to make up for not standing up 16 years ago when Bush* was installed). They needed ONE senator to join them. Just one.

Don't say it's because it would have been meaningless and a waste of time. What could be more important than preventing a psycho from taking office?

Several House Democrats tried to raise objections as a joint session of Congress met to formally count the Electoral College results certifying Donald Trump's presidential election.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) cited Russia's interference in the election and alleged voter suppression efforts as he raised the first Democratic objection to Trump's Electoral College victory.

Vice President Biden, who was presiding over the proceedings, ruled McGovern's objection out of order because it wasn't backed by a senator.

Any lawmaker can offer an objection during the Electoral College counting process, but it must be endorsed by a member of both the House and Senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/313056-dems-try-to-voice-objections-as-congress-certifies-trumps-win

"

[guillaumeb]

1. It would have been street theater.

And in the end, it would have accomplished nothing.

The time to act would have been when Kris Kobach introduced Interstate Cross Check.

[Fast Walker 52]

8. if they stopped him, how would it have "accomplished nothing"???

[kudzu22]

11. They would not stop the inevitable

They'd just be posturing for the cameras. The objections would not be sustained by both houses of Congress, and the vote tally would continue.

[dionysus]

23. They would not be ve able to stop shit, that's the point. Are you under

the assumtion that trump.cpuld be legally stopped from taking office, just that people aren't doing it?

[Fast Walker 52]

26. I'm not sure... other people were acting like this could stop him

but more recently people here have cleared that issue up.

[femmocrat]

2. I would like to know this, too.

I have been wracking my brains, trying to think of a good progressive in a safe seat, or in his or her final term, who could have shown some courage.

From now on when I see one of these feckless senators getting on a (twitter or FB) soapbox, my reply will be, "You could have stood against trump on Jan. 6 and you did not."

I do understand that according to the process, it would not have produced a different final result, but the required debate could have been informative for future historians. And it would have shown that senator to be a true patriot and person of principle.

[Fast Walker 52]

9. Bernie would be the obvious one-- I thought he was the truthteller

[dionysus]

24. No one did it because A it wouldn't work B most people would see it as sore loserism, and

C they would be subjecting themselves to ridicule all tje wau tobdeath threats with no gain whatsoever...

[Lil Missy]

3. At this point it would be a losing battle. Better to fight another fight on another day.

[pangaia]

27. There aren't any days left!

[elleng]

4. Thanks.

We want to KNOW.

[HassleCat]

5. I will say it's useless.

The most it would do is delay the process for an hour our two, during which time there would have been some speeches. That's it. There's no illusion it would prevent Trump taking office.

[Fast Walker 52]

10. delay and then what-- it gets over-ridden?

[kudzu22]

12. If they did have a senator's signature

Then the objection is considered and must pass both houses of Congress to be sustained. Given that both are GOP controlled, that seems unlikely.

[Fast Walker 52]

18. ah, thanks

[panader0]

6. I've seen some here saying that Bernie is just like Trump.

That he's trying to legitimize the Russian interference in the election.
It's unreal. Trump is the enemy, not Bernie.
Bernie will appearing with Schumer at a rally for health care in Michigan today.
The guy IS ON OUR SIDE. What is it some very obsessed DUers don't get
about that?

[dionysus]

25. Because some of us are incapable of seeing any problem in our candidates

campaign, or any responsibility for losing, there must be a scapegoat.

Bernie is a perfect scapegoat, they already loathed him from the primaries, now they can blame him for hillary's loss and loathe him forever.

In a rational world, we'd all be happy that we have a liberal senator getting young people interested in politics

[RazBerryBeret]

29. well said

[Snackshack]

30. I like your username.

Heard an anecdote about him from Joan Walsh on MSNBC longtime ago on KO's show. I don't know why but it has always stuck with me.

That he was seen walking around Rome talking to the statues. Someone asked him why he was doing that. His reply was that he was preparing himself for disappointment.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Well, didn't Bernie supporters say that the Dem Party are all establishment hacks and Bernie isn't?

Don't all Sanders supporters tell us, day in and day out, that Bernie's the true Democrat among faux Democrats, and that he'll stand for Democratic ideals the way no other Democratic politician could or would?

Why then do you need to ask why no Democratic Senators stood with House Dems against the corrupt results of the EC? That's what Bernie supporters would expect them to do as bought-and-paid-for establishment hacks, right? Act like establishment hacks?

On the other hand, it was expected that Sanders, being the rebel in Congress and the bombastic critic of the lack of Democratic Party spine would've happily stood with progressive House Dems to object to the corrupt EC results just as Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer did in 2005.

But no. He remained dutifully silent just like all those 'establishment Democrats'. Doesn't that bother his supporters that he's acting like an establishment politician now?

[Goblinmonger]

13. I would agree that it would have been pointless

Trump is going to be president.

Those singling out Sanders just want another reason to bash him.

[NobodyHere]

14. "Don't say it's because it would have been meaningless and a waste of time."

It's because it would have been meaningless and a waste of time. It would not prevent a psycho from taking office.

[JHan]

16. Yes they all knew that..

The objection would have been symbolic and for the record.

[HassleCat]

15. The grudge against Sanders will never die.

As you can see by the many responses that say, "Bernie thought he was sooooo special!" Or words to that effect. Bernie pointed out a weakness in neoliberal strategy, and he will never be forgiven for that. They're on his ass for everything he does. If he drinks coffee, it should be tea. If he wears a blue tie, it should be red.

[Goblinmonger]

17. Yup. This times 1,000

Any chance to bash on the guy who is still fighting for progressive values.

[LaydeeBug]

19. It bothers me that Reid or Mikulski didn't do this.

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2017, 08:26 PM - Edit history (1)

They are both retiring.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. They weren't there

Their terms ended three days before the electoral vote count.

[LaydeeBug]

31. Oh good. well at least there's that. nt

[trof]

20. Well whatever you do, PLEASE don't call them names.

Your post will be removed.
Like xxxx.
God forbid you should hurt some tender feelings.

[milestogo]

21. I asked Tammy Baldwin to object but she didn't.

[trof]

22. Because OUR Senators are the bestest, smartest ones so don't ever call them names.

You could look it up in the DU rules.
Remember Reagan's 11th Republican commandment?
"Thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican"?
Well we have the same rule right here.
I feel safer.

[Ruby the Liberal]

32. Keeping their powder dry

Just like on the lies that got us into Iraq.