Democratic strategy on Nominee votes... yes, folks, there's a strategy

[justiceischeap]

The bigger picture, if you can step back and look at it, is that they can't think to stop all the nominees. What they can do, is pick the absolute worst of the bunch, and vote as a block, to try and stop them. This way that can't be accused of being obstructionists when they seek those 3 Republicans to stand with them on DeVos or Price.

It's that simple. I'd love to see them voting no on all nominees, it'd feel really good to see that but then, when they needed support from Republicans, it'd never happen.

That's why I suspect Gillibrand was given the role to vote "no' on all but one of the nominees.

As far as the ban, I suspect our Democratic leaders (which we're still trying to see who will really emerge as that) are trying to figure out what to do. This didn't just hit us and travelers by surprise but them as well. Once they got a handle on things, they sent folks out to certain airports to show support.

I think they're also trying to figure out what to do with us... they're constituents. Trumo isn't the only change they've had to contend with. They have to contend with a populous that has suddenly become engaged in a big way and making demands they're not used to (their and our faults--we've been complacent too long).

[yardwork]

1. This is much too subtle. We're at war.

[uponit7771]

19. +1, fuck subtle... sometimes the enemy needs to be busted in the mouF. Then be subtle after they

... stop bleeding all over the place.

Conservatives should have to put up with putting in a government over a years time... fuck them... they're out to hurt America anyway

[TDale313]

28. Yep! They need to get this fact.

[rzemanfl]

2. If they don't "OBSTRUCT" they are complicit. n/t

[Blue Idaho]

3. With respect - do you know something or

Is this just your hypothesis? If it's your best guess, that's fine but I'd rather our elected representatives voted the will of their constituents which seems to be why they were elected - no?

[chowder66]

5. Al Franken on Rachel Maddow talked about a strategy

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sen-franken-on-resisting-trump-we-have-a-strategy-863866947628

He or someone else, either on Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes or Lawrence O'Donnell spoke about saving political capital for
the nominees they want to block. The OP explained it the same way as I heard the other day. It makes sense considering how
the democrats only have 48 votes and have to try to win over 3 republicans.

[Blue Idaho]

6. Thanks! nt.

[chowder66]

8. : ) nt

[uponit7771]

20. I don't understand what capital they think they have? They're going to be more disliked if they dont

... fight tooth and nail.

Its not like those who voted Benedict Donald are going to turn their alegience because they were nice to the KGOP !!

This doesn't make a lot of sense

[chowder66]

25. My understanding was that...

all they can do is slow down the nomination process and if they spend their time blocking every nominee, they will instantly be seen as only doing this as obstructionists - and yes, they are aware that the Republicans are obstructionists.

Their political capital is being used to block bigger fish which would require getting a few republicans. They do not want to start from an obstructionist footing. It would be better to block those than not block any at all.

[Me.]

4. So The Strategy Involves All Yesses (w/out Gillibrand)

so far? The benefit of that escapes me.

[mvd]

7. Sometimes our party is guilty of overthinking

Let's hope it is not the case this time. I disagree with all his picks, and couldn't see myself voting for any of them.

[Me.]

9. Too Smart For Our Own Good

as opposed to those who go straight for the jugular?

[justiceischeap]

10. It's about saving capital for when you really need it.

And it's a best guess to answer someone else's question using logic.

[Me.]

11. We Need It Now Rather Than Saving It For A Sometime In the Future

when the nominees will already be in place causing even more harm.

[Squinch]

14. We'll be a Nazi stronghold, but our powder will be impressively dry. I can't believe how dumb this

"strategy" is.

[TDale313]

29. Keep that powder dry!

How's that worked out for us so far?

[Dream Girl]

12. DeVos, not Sessions???? They can all agree on the one woman, but the lunatic racist is okay?

[justiceischeap]

16. Sessions, I think, is gonna be hard to get no votes on

We'll see if Graham & McCain's new found spines will hold.

[uponit7771]

21. If not then the DNC will lose a lot more support than they think they'll win. Sessions is a fuck..

... a racist fuck and to vote a racist fuck in is going to kill a lot of the DNC's chances for 2018...

She or He voted for the racist...

Done, before they started

[TDale313]

30. Why? Also, why not make the friggin' case

That he's a racist scum and vote no even if he'll pass on a party line vote anyway?

Being obstructionist hasn't hurt them. There is no one on the other side acting in good faith we can actually work with. Millions are marching in the streets in part to say "This is not normal" I want to see that the Dems in Washington get that. Casting a No vote to these insane cabinet picks seems a small price to ask.

[Squinch]

13. This is just dumb. If they ALL voted no on ALL the nominees, they would not be putting

any Republican noses out of joint, because the Republicans can approve whoever they want.

If they ALL voted no on ALL the nominees, and then tried to get 3 Republicans to go with them for each of their chosen nominees, the result would be no different than it will be with their current strategy, but they would have made a stand and signaled that they are not going to cooperate.

Now, if they aren't able to get 3 Republicans for any of their chosen nominees, they are just patsies.

Really, really dumb.

Now I am scared.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, yes... this scares me a lot because it signals there will be no SMART opposition to Benedict ...

... Donald.

They've gained NOTHING by being the adults in 8 damn years !!!

What do they think doing the same thing on a different day is going to do for them!?!

"getting along" with stupid isn't a good strategy ... it normalizes stupid

[Squinch]

24. And they REALLY gain nothing by not objecting to EVERY appointment.

[uponit7771]

26. +1,I don't think ENOUGH KGOPrs are going to side with them on sessions etc... we're fucked if

... this is our leadership right now.


Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhit

[Squinch]

27. .

[mrgorth]

15. I fear that

if something like this is tried, dump and the thugs will just put who they want in there. They've showed they don't care what the constitution says, why start now? Still, they have to try.

[Doremus]

17. Are you seriously suggesting we should worry about being viewed as obstructionists?

1) After 8 solid years of nothing BUT obstructionism from the opposition party?
2) After viewing the events of the last week and our country's free fall into fascism?

In case you haven't noticed, the old playbook is on the burn pile. It's time to fight like our lives depend on it.

[justiceischeap]

18. I'm not saying we, I'm saying them. nt

[uponit7771]

23. +1, dems should learn by now their base nor the general public care about obstructionism at all

.... we care if they're going to lead on an issue and stand up and strong.

Conservatives spent 25 billion shutting down the government and all they got was more stupid votes in the senate !!

[Dream Girl]

31. They are just too comfy cozy in their positions...it's all a big fucking

Game to them. The problem is, they were never all that fucking good at it to begin with. And as someone said, the rules a are on the burn pile.

[GeorgeGist]

32. Keeping powder dry.

Brilliant.