I'm just a caveman. Can someone explain the strategy of Joe Donnelly?

[DefenseLawyer]

And the other red state Senators that are backing Gorsuch? Does he really think that conservatives in Indiana will suddenly vote for him if he votes or Gorsuch? Is there polling to support that? I don't really know. It seems nuts to me. You alienate Democrats to court conservatives that literally hate you. Donnelly only won in the first place because a loon primaried Dick Lugar, then imploded by suggesting that pregnancy from rape was God's will. I guess he can hope for that again. Maybe it's the smart move, but I just don't see it.

[nycbos]

1. Indiana is a Trump state.

He is going to have a tough reelection. A few Ted state Dems are voting yes for political cover while still having enough vote to sustain a filibuster

[NurseJackie]

11. Thank you. Concise and factual. That was perfect.

[WoonTars]

13. But what "cover" will they get? Republican voters weren't going to vote for him anyway...

And if that is the case, that he's perpetually worried about "cover , then what use is he on the tough votes?

[nycbos]

15. Might sway some independents

[WoonTars]

19. Really? I have a hard time believing that...

...

[salin]

22. Not necessarily true

until recently split ticket voting was very common.

Indeed when Trump plucked Pence out of the Gov. reelection race, he was in a very tough race - because while he had campaigned 4 years earlier claiming he would focus on running the state and not culture war issues - he did not govern that way. At the state wide level beneath the Presidential race, state wide republicans have tended to wince away from extremist candidates. However, in primaries the most extreme gop folks are active. It isn't beyond the pall to believe another extremist will be the senate nominee - and that some business focused (usually urban/cosmpolitan) GOP voters will peal off and vote for the 'centrist' dem.

[JCanete]

21. pandering to your constituency in a way that will ultimately HURT your constituency,

is not representing them though, which is what these Senators are supposed to be doing. It is hard to make the argument that allowing a pro-corporate conservative to the extremes of Gorsuch to get onto the court could possibly be counterbalanced else-where. It's usually the call that goes out when people are hemming and hawing about whether to vote for their candidate ...."Do you want the other side to get to choose the next Supreme Court Justice?" Its that big that people vote party line on this issue alone, and yet we say "sure," go ahead and give this GOP nomination the cover of bipartisan support to the tune of 3 Democratic Senators?

I get the argument that their votes aren't technically, needed, but their votes are needed. Their solidarity is needed. Our politicians need to stick to our Democratic ideals. Doing this makes it harder to espouse those ideals. It makes it harder to draw clear lines about what we stand for, and certainly what these particular Senators stand for.

[Blue_true]

23. Indiana likely will get hurt by Trump policy, once there is policy.

Photo ops of bought jobs only go so far. Ultimately the economic damage that Trump policy will cause takes hold.

[nycbos]

24. They will still vote Republican dispite all that.

[ret5hd]

2. Really?

[DefenseLawyer]

10. Close

[world wide wally]

3. I totally agree

Why not be who he is and let the chips fall where they may?

[Lurks Often]

4. They want to get re-elected in 2018

and while they do not expect to get conservatives to vote for them, they are hoping to get enough independents and others closer to the political center to vote for them. They recognize that their chances of winning re-election are slim to begin with and that voting against Gorsuch will hurt more then it will help.

[DefenseLawyer]

12. I understand that's conventional wisdom

I just question whether it works for a 1st termer like Donnelly. I guess we'll find out.

[Lurks Often]

16. Donnelly probably has a pretty good idea of what his consituents want

which is why he is voting for Gorsuch. In some states the choice is either a moderate Democrat or a Republican and a moderate Democrat is going to have to compromise on some issues when a Democrat in a very blue state doesn't.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. You do realize Donnelly won by accident last time, right?

I am one of his constituents, and I can tell you that the track record of the state party here gives no indication that they have "a pretty good idea" about much. We have a heaping pile of "moderates" that we have been putting up for years for senate and governor that have crashed and burned. The only exception was Evan Bayh and he rode the coat tails of his father (who was a liberal, by the way) for as long as he could. But you may be right, that may be his only shot. I think if he was a Ben Nelson who had a long incombency it would make for sense. Honestly I don't think he wins either way, but I can tell you he can't expect much excitement for his re-election campaign.

[Lurks Often]

20. No, I don't follow Indiana politics

but I still think that he has to vote for Gorsuch or lose any chance at winning in 2018, even if it is a long shot right now.

And I agree he will probably lose regardless in 2018.

[LanternWaste]

18. Why would it not work for a first termer if it works for a multi-termer?

All things being equal, why would it not work for a first termer if it works for a multi-termer?

[unblock]

5. i'm guessing it's more a matter of taking democrats for granted.

figuring that he'll still be the most liberal option available, so democrats will vote for him even if they're annoyed at him.

more important, he's figuring, to remain palatable to the right-leaning independents from whom he needs some support to win.

candidates of the weaker party tend to try to neutralize the overt political issues and then focus on local issues, maybe social issues, etc. i.e., try to connect to voters on some basis other than political orientation.

for the most party, republicans in new england do similar things. they try not to appear overly partisan (even though they rarely stray from party-line votes), they try not to talk about ultra-right wing crap their party is all about, they try to focus on social issues, maybe highlight the one thing they're liberal about and ignore the 999 things they're conservative about.



the alternative strategy of really motivating the base, in fairness, is likely to motivate the other party's base as well. this tends to mean a republican win in a red state.

[crazycatlady]

6. he could be getting phone calls to support Gorsuch

[Adrahil]

7. Not likely.

He's my Senator, and I've supported him pretty strongly. When I spoke with a staffer yesterday, they just called it a "strategic" vote. They admitted calls coming in were heavily anti-Gorsuch. They hope to blunt any criticism that he is too partisan.

I told them that if they think they can win by not pissing off Trump voters too much, they are about to find out the hard way that will not work. The only way Donnelly retains the seat, IMO, is if Democrats turn out in droves to vote for him AND Trump voters are dispirited. This is not a Democrat friendly state.

[crazycatlady]

8. keep calling

[Adrahil]

9. Oh, I'm on the phone with them several times a week... NT

[diva77]

14. whenever these dems do things that don't make sense, all I can think of is dark money

[Demsrule86]

26. It is showing independence...if he votes in lock step...

then we could lose...it is a very very risky election in 18...we could lose enough to give the GOP 60 votes. Now I think with Trump and his ratings...we could may gain and be still my beating heart take back the Senate...in which case...we won't approve a nominee for another two years. This vote is not important because we can't stop Gorsuch...it is symbolic over a stolen seat...and to get rid of the filibuster which I am in favor of.