wtf with the alarmist posts about Democrats voting for Gorsuch?

[JHan]

As far as I know, three outliers have said they're going to vote Gorsuch, and yet I'm seeing posts as if the whole party has decided to back this nomination.

Can y'all quit.

-_-

[Tanuki]

1. Also, it's been the case forever that if there are enough votes

(as there are in this case), the leadership will cut Dems in vulnerable districts some slack so they can go back home and claim some degree of independence, without jeopardizing the outcome.

[SaschaHM]

3. For a political forum, I feel like this has to be stated every single hour.

[JHan]

5. thanks, i thought so as well.

[SaschaHM]

2. Your profile picture is perfect.

Huey Freeman is my spirit animal when I'm on DU.

[JHan]

4. I'm all out of evens to can't right now. smh.

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm like.. did I miss some press conference where Dems decided collectively we're gonna capitulate .. since when has Manchin and Heitkamp and Donnelly come to represent *The democratic party in all of its essence and givings*

chroist.

[Chellee]

73. Donnelly ("D" - IN)

Bennett hasn't said how he will vote on Gorsuch, but he has said he will not support a filibuster.

I just wish we could present a united front.

[JHan]

74. thanks for the correction, I'll edit the rest of my posts.

I think we're united as is - ( I know it's not ideal) Tonight Michael Tomasky ( from Daily Beast) was on hardball, he's from WV and explained to Tweety that if Manchin voted against Gorsuch the republicans would clobber him with ads.

As much as I cannot stand Manchin, until we have strong majorities , I'll give these dems leeway unless their votes matter in significant ways ( for example if his vote affected the filibuster and Schumer couldn't whip up enough for a filibuster, I would be hopping mad) I suspect he and Schumer came to some kind of understanding.

lesson to be learned here is that dems in red states ( at all levels) need support.

[Chellee]

75. It's not really a correction, more of an FYI.

Donnelly is my senator.

All of my emails and phone calls have fallen on deaf ears. I have even called since his announcement to let him know there is no shame in a last minute change of mind, but I wouldn't pin your hopes on it.

It's so frustrating, because it's pointless. He isn't going to get Hoosier Republican cross over votes because of it and it certainly won't lessen their attacks on him come 2018, so what is this for?? Just to spit on the people who do vote for him? Honestly, KXL, Planned Parenthood, and now Gorsuch. AAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Sorry... I'm not sure what happened there. I'm very frustrated with Joe Donnelly right now.

I mean, I understand your point. Indiana is INCREDIBLY red. More than most people realize. But it's also true that our turnout is abysmal. If we could get even a fraction of the "never voters" to become Dems while also keeping the base enthusiastic, we could beat them. And you don't do that by being wishy washy Republican light. OTOH, Donnelly probably doesn't have it in him. He's an anti-abortion, pro-business, 70% democrat kind of guy.

Sorry.

[Glitterati]

6. If you want to know why Democrats stay home on election day, here it is

Why bother with all the effort to get Democrats elected if they are just going to vote with the Republicans?

This is DEMORALIZING to the Democrats who busted ass and scrounged up every extra penny they could afford to get their guy elected.

[kcr]

7. If Dems start staying home for that reason, it's because they're told that's a reason to stay home

Why bother? Because a tiny minority of blue-dog Dems from red states voting this way because this is how our country and electoral system is set up does not mean the Dem party as a whole is no different from the GOP. Those who spread this bullshit to DEPRESS voter turnout are trolls.

[JHan]

9. thank you!

[Glitterati]

13. AND THERE it is.

How pathetic a response this whole thing is.

OK, you don't WANT to understand why Democratic voter are staying home in droves on election day.

No further conversation necessary.

[LanternWaste]

18. If you're going to point at a thing and label it The Cause of low voting

"No further conversation necessary..."

If you're going to point at a thing and label it The Cause of low voting, objective evidence would go far in establishing conversation. A simple allegation however, does indeed deny further rational conversation.

Regardless of WHERE it is...

[Glitterati]

22. Here's all the proof you should need

Zell Miller's 2000 election and subsequent betrayal in Georgia resulted in this:

As of 2016, this is the last Senate election in Georgia won by a Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia,_2000

He was, in fact, the last STATEWIDE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE elected in the state.

17 years of HARD DATA right there.

[wildeyed]

42. That is not proof of anything but shoddy logic.

It could also be that Zell Miller was the tail end of the Dixiecrat voters moving to the GOP. It used to be called 'the solid south', meaning solid for the racist Democratic coalition members called the Dixiecrats. When LBJ passed Voting Rights, white southern Democrats started to bleed over to the GOP.

There are no more statewide Democrats in GA now because of racist whites, not because of Zell Miller.

[brer cat]

67. Zell Miller had nothing to do with Democrats losing elections in GA.

The introduction of Diebold voting machines with no paper trail, and the "counting" of votes being in the republican hands is what ended any prayer of Democrats winning statewide elections.

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Still dont understand how the two party system works, eh?

You either vote for every democratic policitican running or you ARE voting FOR fascists who want you DEAD.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

38. +1000

Republicans let a few of their own members vote their own way so long as their ultimate victory is assured. This is how politics operate, especially with difficult elections coming up for a lot of red state Democrats (Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly). Gorsuch is also not the absolute worst nominee that Trump could have named either. Schumer apparently knew that he had the votes he needed for a filibuster, so he let them off the hook. And it isn't as though they're trying to blow Trump a big wet kiss either (well, maybe Manchin is, I dunno, but still...). They are casting a vote with an eye looking forward to the next election which is a little more than a year away. It's politics.

[Demsrule86]

57. And this helped Trump win the election in my opinion...and lost us

the house in 2010 and of course the 2000 and 2004 elections...Kerry and Gore just weren't good enough and Obama didn't get us everything we wanted like single payer sarcasm. Time to realize...if you want to win you vote for the person with a "D" next to his/her name and if you don't...then it's on the person who didn't vote. Don't blame the party (which is bigger than one person),they can't please everyone...and certainly you get nothing if a GOP goes in...and all the talk about about the 'revolution'...not happening.

[JHan]

8. are you serious?

how did 3 democrats come to represent all democrats or was my post mystifying? I thought I was clear??

[sheshe2]

12. You were very clear and I agree!

Thank you for your post.

[Glitterati]

15. Yeah, you're very clear

In refusing to even discuss how Democratic voter have become demoralized and are staying home on election day.

Just keep it up and see how many elections we can continue to lose in the future.

[JHan]

21. Are you in Manchin's state?

Look, my post is not an endorsement of Manchin's position. My post is a rejection of the idea that 3 Democrats in red states define the Democratic party's stance on Gorsuch.

[Glitterati]

24. Georgia, same thing

The 2000 Georgia United States Senate special election was held on November 7, 2000. Incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Zell Miller, who was appointed by Governor Roy Barnes to replace the late Paul Coverdell, won re-election to serve the remainder of the term. As of 2016, this is the last Senate election in Georgia won by a Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia,_2000

This was in fact, the last election where a DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WON A STATEWIDE ELECTION in Georgia.

There's 17 years of hard data for you.

[JHan]

26. again.....

The democrats have the votes to filibuster - how did 3 come to define 41?

[Glitterati]

27. And, again

with the dishonest debate tactics.

*Plonk*

You are clearly incapable of discussing issues honestly.

[JHan]

28. I am very capable, you're just determined to avoid the point.

I know it's easy to beat up on our politicians. It's an enjoyable exercise, sometimes I do it...

but it's like Seeing the forest for the trees:

I am seeing 41 united democrats.

you are seeing 3 democrats who in your view is the democratic party right now.

intriguing.

[Glitterati]

34. Don't put words in my mouth

I never said any such thing.

But that's OK, I'm done with your stupid debate tactics. Welcome to my ignore list. I'll take you off if you ever grow up and learn how to have an honest discussion.

Oh, and your namecalling.........right here......."self righteousness is a drug."

Bye bye.

[JHan]

36. Ok bye!

and yes, it is, it was a thought that occurred to me : when we're faced with situations that are not ideal and decide to take aim and fire at everything in sight.

that's not smart, it's not clever.

But if you think that's namecalling................................................................

[JustAnotherGen]

68. It wasn't name calling

No worries.

[Squinch]

48. Wow. Sorry but this is a little crazy.

[JustAnotherGen]

69. I'm not following that poster's logic either

[JHan]

71. lol. Right? Lesson learned....

some posts are best left alone.

[wildeyed]

43. You are easily demoralized.

Thanks for your concern, but I do not think that anyone who is that easily deterred is considered a likely voter to start with.

[JHan]

46. You really have to wonder sometimes tho - anyway my thinking on this..

Until we grant a Democratic President FDR majorities, I'm not going to manufacture outrage about red state Dems. Dems in red states offer some protection against Republicans completely taking hold of red america. whatever we do has to be aimed at support, not derision. It requires a mindset change where we understand the terrain that exists in those communities and tailor messages to suit that terrain without completely sacrificing democratic principles.

For me, these 3 votes are only of interest with regard to how these Senators think it will help their re-election prospects. But that's not the argument today - today is about Gorsuch and we have enough votes to filibuster ( and I don't even like the filibuster)

[wildeyed]

50. FDR had the Dixiecrats.

He appointed and ex-KKK member to the Supreme Court who filibustered anti-lynching laws when he was a senator. Ironically, Hugo Black's civil rights record on the court was pretty good once he was on the court and didn't have to face re-election anymore.

The Democratic Party has always been a coalition and there has always been a wide spectrum of beliefs when the Democrats held real power. People who argue for purity either don't know history or they don't want a successful coalition for other reasons.

I agree totally. We have the votes to filibuster. The people are behind the party and want them to do this. If they don't, then I will be mad. But a few at-risk red state Dems who are fighting for re-election already are not on my radar.

[JHan]

52. yep.++++++

[Eliot Rosewater]

60. This type of attitude represents either someone very immature about politics

who doesnt understand how the two party system works, that you either vote FOR the Democratic candidate in EVERY election or you are voting for your own death.

Or, it is someone with an agenda who knows exactly what they are doing and it is being done all over social media by you know who.

[synergie]

33. Honestly, if Dems are being told things like this, whomever is manipulating

needs to be called out and exposed for ratfucker that they are.

What's demoralizing is that people are so remarkably ignorant about how their government works. In this past cycle we got an education in how our education system has been miserably failing our citizens, especially the younger ones and those who live in states controlled by the Republicans.

[Glitterati]

35. They don't have to be TOLD anything.

They experience it first hand.

And the "ratfuckers" are the people like Zell Miller who run as Democrats and vote as Republicans.

[synergie]

40. They do need to be told, since they're not expeiencing anything first hand, since they

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)

are not showing up in DC everyday, someone is telling them things. The media, various groups that are trying to manipulate them and anyone taking advantage of the basic ignorance in the population about how civics works.

Ratfuckers are the people who tell you things that are not true, attacking from within to undermine and weaken you, so that you do things like believe that both parties are equal, and that your vote doesn't matter, or that your greatest enemy is Democrats and the party.

They need to be told these things and there is no shortage of ratfuckers around working to help Trump and the GOP destroy this country.

[Glitterati]

41. Aha! I get it now.......

A DEMOCRATIC office holder who doesn't toe the party line is just keeping the seat with a D on it; but.....

A DEMOCRATIC voter that doesn't toe the party line is a "ratfucker."

I hope you can clearly see your hypocrisy.

[synergie]

45. Wow. That's a interesting bit of nonsense you made up there.

Where did I say any of that?

This is what I mean about ignorance and a failure of education, simple literacy seems to be beyond some people. Either that or they choose deliberate dishonesty, or their argument is so weak that obvious strawmen must be constructed to facilitate an ad hominem.

The deliberate and blatant use of such fallacies expose where the hypocrisy truly lies, I hope you can understand what was just exposed here.

[JHan]

37. Indeed.

Ideally, I'd love ALL of them to vote against Gorsuch , but 3 votes is now cause to grind one's teeth against all Democrats we already have the votes to filibuster. Incredible to see.

[Demsrule86]

53. You realize that Gorsuch will go on the court.

We can't stop him and if you stay home for such a reason...well I just don't what to say. We can and will filibuster...I heard we have 41 or 42 that is all we need. But Turtle boy will use the nuke option and get him on...how about saving all the angst for something we can win. I want them to filibuster because I hate the filibuster and they stole Pres. Obama's nominee...but It is not a deal breaker for me if some Senators especially from red states doesn't want to sign on to a filibuster...it is after all symbolic.

[mythology]

61. This is painfully inaccurate

Manchin is the Democratic Senator who most votes with the Republicans and he still votes Democratic 75% of the time. It is an absolutely objectively false argument to claim that Democrats just vote with Republicans. The parties are more polarized than any time since Reconstruction.

Please stop spreading falsehoods.

[murielm99]

65. Thank you for this post. n/t

[betsuni]

66. +1

[panader0]

10. Even three is too many.

Are there three R's who will vote against him? No.
The R's will vote united.

[JHan]

11. Yes, let's excoriate the party over 3 votes

self righteousness is a drug.

[panader0]

14. Not sure about the self rightousness part,

but, if elected, Gorsuch will be a staunch conservative on the Supremes for
many years. After the way Garland was treated by the R's, I fail to see how any
Democrat could fold.

[Glitterati]

16. These folks don't care

They're going to beat you up because you have an opposing opinion on the matter.

That's how it works for them - agree with ME or leave.

[JHan]

20. oh I beat you up did I?

[Glitterati]

25. No, I just refuse to come down to your level of "debate"

Because you just namecall.

Trying DISCUSSING the issues honestly.

[JHan]

30. Where did I namecall?

Feel free to alert the post where I namecalled you.

[JHan]

19. Because we have the votes to filibuster already.. we already know about Manchin..

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't get Manchin, he often sounds like a damn idiot, but I know his record, the times he's supported the party line and the times he hasn't - I won't make the mistake of letting Manchin's politics ( or Heitkamp's or Donnelly's) define the party on this move.

[LanternWaste]

23. Would their failure to vote as is help or hurt re-election in their particular districts?

Would their failure to vote as is help or hurt re-election in their particular districts (and please show your work-- empty allegations are for children seven and under) and allow a Republican to sit in their chair?

If voting the Purity Ticket results in their next election loss, how specifically does that help the Democratic Party in any meaningful way?

[NurseJackie]

17. What really gets under my skin...

... are the ones who threaten "revenge" by primarying those senators.

As if one of those Coastal Liberal Elite type candidates would fare better?

Others have been quite vain about it... bragging that they'd rather LOSE by voting their conscience (I assume they mean voting third party) than to "reward" a conservative Democrat.

People are weird.

[wildeyed]

44. People have never been to West Virginia.

And the reason that those who would rather lose than compromise are not in politics is because they LOST.

Weird is a nicer word for what they are than I would pick to describe their problem.

[Demsrule86]

62. Someone told me a Bernie like voter was running in Texas for

Cruz's seat. While one hopes he can win...I just don't see a progressive winning Texas.

[tammywammy]

72. The guy running against Cruz was not a Bernie supporter. n/t

[50 Shades Of Blue]

29. Because ONE Democrat voting for this evil asshole is one too many!

[JHan]

31. yes, I don't like it, however 41 is not 1, not 2 or 3. :)

we have 41 Democrats united against this nominee.

[Demsrule86]

51. Right...well I wish to retake the Senate...thus I have no interest in divisive the

sky is falling posts. Democrats are a big tent party...there are different view points. And no Republican is better than any Democrat.

[NCTraveler]

32. It's a really shady tactic people use.

It's how we have held POC down for a long time. Use a few to paint the whole. Do it relentlessly. It works.

[cry baby]

39. I agree. nt

[betsuni]

47. It never ends.

The type of person who sees a few members of a group do something and it turns into ALL members do that. If it's a group they're a member of, however, and it's said that a majority of them do something, they get upset and scream NOT ALL.

[Demsrule86]

49. Divide and conquer Democrats...

Trying to sow seeds of dissent. I do think some hate returned here from afar .

[still_one]

54. Exactly JHan. The Democrats are unified on this. No doubt the republicans will remove the

filibuster and Gorsuch will get it, but this will eventually come back and bite the republicans evil asses. They are accessories to a presidency which is under investigation for collusion with a foreign power to interfere with our elections, and they are going to pay a big price for putting their party ahead of the country

[Jonny Appleseed]

55. It's representative of the fact that a fear of disagreeing with the WH will result in retaliation

is beginning to cross party lines. Nobody is willing to stand for what's right in the GOP, and seeing the same occur on our side and excusing it is a not-so-subtle hypocrisy.

[JHan]

63. I've no idea the conversations between Schumer and Red dems..because..

if we want to anchor their decision round the party itself as an institution we'll have to look at the leadership and ask questiosn about Schumer's effectiveness - Schumer got the 41 votes so it's a moot point - so what is the point of this?

and I expect hypocrisy in politics, ..every single politician currently in DC has been guilty of that to some degree.

I'll repeat what I said further up:

As of now, I don't care much for what these 3 red state dems do - some are acting surprised that Manchin would not follow the party line? I mean really? How is this surprising? Heitkamp and Donnelly* made some odd calculations but we have the filibuster 41 is greater than 3. People want 44, we have 3 less while retaining the filibust.

And until we have FDR majorities in congress, I'll continue to see these red dems as some form of protection against a full GOP take over of red America.

I think it's much better to focus on fashioning a message for red states, without sacrificing our principles, than excoriating 3 red dem senators whose choices had no effect on dem strategy today.

It's a matter of prioritizing. We've been too distracted lately while Trump and the Republicans are immersed in a horror show of their making. I'm tired of the busterisms and manufactured outrage that seems to serve no coherent purpose.

[Afromania]

56. Any is too many

but we're at the point where we've got to play the same game the Republican politicians are. I hate the out the mouth behind closes door way of doing things but playing by civil rules has brought us the Orange Menace. The 3 or 4 that keep voting for these things tend to be the same ones and from seats in a sea of Red; all you can do is shrug.

[WinkyDink]

58. Can y'all MYOB?

[JHan]

64. And yet , here you are, in this thread's business.

[JI7]

70. I'm not going to vote for Feingold because of the way Manchin voted

Demented fucks. As stupid as trump .

[emulatorloo]

76. Typical DU Hyperbolic Divisive Bullshit n/t