Red-state Democrats refuse to come out against Kavanaugh

[Calista241]

Source: Politico

Democrats have all the cover they need to vote in lockstep against Brett Kavanaugh. But a half-dozen of them have refused to go there, even after the pair of sexual assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee.

Democratic insiders are feeling more bullish than ever that the party’s 49 caucus members ultimately will oppose Kavanaugh. Yet the undeclared bloc of Democratic senators could be a problem for Democratic leaders, who want to put the weight of the nomination entirely on a handful of holdout Republicans.

“I’m very open. I haven’t closed any doors at all on Kavanaugh. I just want to make sure there’s a fair, open and civil hearing,” said Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, perhaps the most conservative Democrat. “The man has to have a chance to clear his name, but these ladies have the complete opportunity to tell their story.”

Manchin said the allegations haven’t made him any less likely to vote against Kavanaugh than he was two weeks ago: “It hasn’t changed anything. I’m still waiting for this hearing.”

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/25/red-state-democrats-kavanaugh-841400

[idcdu]

1. This is why we *SHOULD* not expand our tent to include right-wing Democrats

who vote to the right of Attila the Hun.

Thank you.

[Honeycombe8]

6. But if we didn't have Manchin or someone like him, it would be a real Republican.

The candidates reflect the people who live there. If it were a Republican, he would vote with the Republicans almost 100% of the time, if not 100%. A conservative Democrat votes with the Democrats most of the time, but sometimes w/the Republicans, because of his constituents. And because he's a Democrat, he goes on the Dem. side of the aisle and counts to give the Dems a majority sometimes. So it's a good thing the Senator is a Democrat, even if he is conservative. That conservative area is not going to vote for a traditional Democrat.

The Democratic Party doesn't press its members to vote party line as hard as the Republican leaders do, but I wish they would.

[appalachiablue]

22. Hard situation but even Joe said a month ago that he has 800,000

people in W.Va. with pre-existing medical conditions in a state with 1.7 mill population. Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare what there is are in jeopardy. A couple or more of these Red State Dems. vote right is my hope.

[SCantiGOP]

24. Of course it's better to have Manchin

instead of a Tea Party Republican, which are the only two alternatives.

[scipan]

54. I'd much rather have robert byrd.

How do you know who wva voters will vote for?

[SCantiGOP]

57. Just a guess because

It is one of the most republican states in the nation and has the second or third highest Trump approval in the entire country. Pretty safe assumption.

[Honeycombe8]

63. True. I live in a dark red area. There is no way La. is going to elect a regular Democrat....

right now. Not these days. It's Trump territory.

This can be gradually changed, however...but not by regular Democrats. Only by conservative Democrats. The people here hate 'them libruls." "They eat salad and sissy stuff like that. They back them gays and them transgenders in the bathrooms. They are against our God and our guns. And they let in them A-rabs and other foreigners." The KKK, to the extent it still exists, exists here.

This is about the way it is. No way that these people would ever vote for a Democrat, unless he's almost like a Republican. Pro-oil&gas. Anti-transgenders in the bathroom (this is huge issue here). Anti-abortion. Anti-tax.

The ways in for Dems: Healthcare, preserving Medicare, preserving Social Security.

[SCantiGOP]

64. honeycombe8:

The final three points in your post - healthcare, Medicare and Social Security - should be tattooed on the forehead of every Democrat so they would see it every time they look in a mirror, and the voters would see it every time they look at a Democrat running for office. Those three are the keys to victory, the keys to energizing Democrats to vote, swinging Independent voters and recapturing the idiots who, for some reason, voted for Trump last time.

[Honeycombe8]

66. I think so, too. A # of the Repubs here use Obamacare. And rely on Social Security & Medicare.

This is the reason the Republicans try to call privatizing SS as "making it more secure" or "protecting it." They know that their older base would shoot them down, if they realized the Repubs were going to end Social Security or Medicare.

Democrats should push these things hard. And it's true, so it's not giving a line.

We DO have a Democratic Governor. I hadn't moved back here yet, so not sure how that happened. He'd promised to expand Medicaid, and he did do that. So I guess that had something to do with it. And we have a large Af. American/minority population, altho concentrated in a few parishes (counties). So a conservative Democrat COULD be voted in, theoretically...if he's conservative.

[pnwmom]

7. Wrong. We need every DINO vote for becoming the majority party, and being able to set the agenda.

DINO's like Manchin would give us Senate and House leadership, allowing us to lead all the committees, and to determine which bills are brought to the floor.

When Dems failed to support our moderates and centrists in red states, we lost the House and the Senate. We have to get them back and keep them, even if that means accepting some centrists into the fold (who are still far, far more liberal than so called "moderate" GOP like Collins and Murkowski.)

[7962]

17. You & Honeycombe are exactly right.

The "my way or the highway" is how so many GOP candidates end up losing. The RW "base" stay home because "he's a RINO".

[john657]

16. No, we shouldn't.

Then we'd end up with a pub in their place.

[idcdu]

60. I remind you of Harry S Trumans quote

It is still relevant.

[SunSeeker]

42. If it weren't for Manchin, we wouldn't have the ACA.

He voted yes on Obamacare. https://www.atr.org/senator-vote-obamacare-a7134?amp

His vote saved thousands of lives.

A Republican from West Virginia would have voted no.

[leftynyc]

47. Uh - no

If it weren't a conservative Democrat, it would be a Republican who is likely busy kissing degenerate donnie's butt. No thanks.

[KPN]

58. Actually it's why we should have plain talking, thoughtful people who can relate to and be

engaging with WV voters run in the primary against Manchin. He's way right of Reagan for crying out loud.

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Your formula would guarantee the Democrats would not have control of any area

of government.

I question ...cough cough

[Honeycombe8]

2. Let's hope they're waiting to see how their constituents feel about it after Ford's testimony.

But I was afraid a couple of Democrats would vote for him, just like for Clarence Thomas, when 11 Democrats voted for him. Thomas wouldn't have been confirmed w/o the Democratic vote, if you can believe that.

[LandOfHopeAndDreams]

3. If These "Democrats" Vote Yes, And Then Lose

There will be no tears from me. And I will hope that they NEVER hold office again.

If it costs us a chance at taking the Senate, my anger will be even greater.

Would someone show me the repubs running in Blue states that are willing to cross the line and would consider voting against Kavanaugh? Then show me the bridge you're trying to sell.

[elmac]

15. it never makes sence for dems to vote with fascists

they lose Democratic voters and will never gain or keep fascist voters so its like shooting themselves in the foot.

[SHRED]

4. It's called "political strategy"

If we want to lose more seats in the Senate then by all means have our red state Democrats come out strong against Kavanaugh.

[Calista241]

5. I still think that if Repubs retain control of the Senate, Thomas will retire before 2020.

and we can only pray RBG stays alive long enough to see a Dem President. If Trump can nominate 4 Repubs to the Court, we're in deep shit.

[cstanleytech]

11. Well there is one option and that is to increase the number of SCOTUS judges the next time we have

the majority as well as the White House and then we stock the new posts with liberal judges.
Granted I would rather not have to do that but if the Repugnants force us to do that then so be it.

[7962]

19. I dont think people would support that. It would just look like stacking the deck because we lost.

And if it gets talked about a lot, the damn GOP may well beat the Dems to the punch and add a seat or two NOW. Then even when they get beat, there wont be a SCOTUS pick that would matter for years

[Calista241]

20. That's not a reasonable strategy. First, we'll have to control all 3 branches of government.

Which is not a common thing. Secondly, the optics of this kind of strategy are not great. Republicans will have a much easier message battle when this kind of legislation comes up.

We'll take a big hit pursuing this. The Court has been at 9 Justices for decades. FDR wasn't able to increase the size of the Court despite being arguably one of the greatest Presidents.

And eventually, Repubs will be in that same position, and then they'll can add another 30 Justices to the court. Ultimately, increasing the size of the Court will diminish its power and relevance.

[Laura in LA]

29. I agree with you all!

Gerrymandering, ending the filibuster, all come back to bite us in the end. We need to fight hard but not dirty.

[David__77]

36. Ending the filibuster is a good idea.

Progressive legislation would be largely popular. Smart conservatives know this and oppose eliminating the filibuster.

[cstanleytech]

8. Exactly.

What they are waiting for is for is to see if enough of the Repugnants are going to blink and if it looks like that will happen then they will feel free to vote against him.

[SHRED]

10. Yep.

[hatrack]

28. Right . . .

Because nothing could energize and inspire WV Democrats more than Manchin voting to install a corrupt Federalist Society hack nominated to a lifetime position on the SC solely for the purpose of protecting Trump's fat, lazy corrupt ass.

Then he could rally his supporters for an inspiring victory this November by getting in front of a camera and sputtering "But but but but BIPARTISANSHIP!!"

Stop worrying about Shitstain's base, and start worrying about ours for a change.

[JonLP24]

53. Exactly

Kavanaugh is so unpopular.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. Yes!

the cowardice in here makes me sick. Give the people an actual choice. Virginia voted in Obama.

Offering them a DINO as their only choice is insultingly paternalistic to them. But yes, they have to be able to relate, and get simple, straightforward messages out. They CAN win. This is not the 1950's.


So funny seeing all these pro-Avenatti posts praising the balls of the guy that if any Democrat tried to be so brazen they'be quickly be shoo shooed by Nancy and Chuck. There is still, unfortunately, still an archaic paralyzed group at the top that is stuck in the past, where they just ASSUME that people can't change, can't learn, can't be swayed. Well...NEWS FLASH..they surely won't consider anything else if the national Democratic party treats you like your babysitter who can't handle grown-up scissors.

[JonLP24]

56. As far as political strategy goes

Why are they protesting Collin's office when they could be protesting Democrats who may vote to confirm?

[DarthDem]

9. Ignore.

Part of Politico's ever-reliable "Dems in disarray" narrative. The quotes are assuredly taken out of context.

[Cicada]

12. If kavanaugh will be confirmed anyway they should vote yes

They need to know if he will get 50 Republican votes. If so they should vote to confirm him. Why lose reelection votes if there is nothing to gain from it?

Will two republicans vote no? Collins and murkowski? If the vote is Friday? Toss up, slight tilt to at least one voting yes

[mopinko]

37. i think they have permission from schumer, unless it matters.

if they think or see that there are any thug no votes, they will be expected to fall in line. they have plenty of cover at this point.
they are doin their jobs as of now.

[Kilgore]

51. I agree

Why imperil your reelection to accomplish nothing?

[Hulk]

14. Do they honestly think voting no to his appointment would make a damned bit of difference?

Maybe it would, but isn't your self respect worth something these days?

[jalan48]

18. And we expect Republicans like Collins to vote with us? These Democrats are cowards.

This is a vote for a LIFETIME POSITION. Show some courage Dems!

[Snake Plissken]

23. They need to get a grip on reality, Kavanaugh has a 31% approval rating

Not even 100% of Trump's cult members him, what votes to they they they will attack by voting Kavanaugh? it certainly will not offset the amount of votes they will lose if they do vote for him

[BigmanPigman]

44. Ditto!

[jaysunb]

25. Fuck Politico

Just stirring shit

[olddad56]

26. any democratic senator who votes for Kavanaugh should change political partys.

[meadowlark5]

27. Why doesn't Manchin just give it up already

He's not really a democrat and each year gets harder and harder for him to vote on important issues for fear of losing his seat. If he votes for kavanaugh just be a republican.

[Midnight Writer]

30. Of course they should delay committing themselves until all the facts are in. All Senators should.

Just as a Justice should not commit to a decision until the facts are heard and both sides have their say.

To me, there is ample reason to vote against confirmation, and that is without any accusation of sexual assault. The man has lied under oath and is a partisan hack who changes his judicial opinions as fast as the Republican Party changes positions.

But there is no reason to cast your vote before the hearings are complete. Let the facts come out, publicly, then make your decision based on the preponderance of the evidence.

[spooky3]

39. I disagree with "all senators should." If there is enough

Evidence of behavior that is disqualifying already in evidence, then no amount of positive info can overcome that. This is quite different from taking a position that you will support a nominee no matter what negative evidence comes forward, eg in Thursday’s hearing.

Please see Sen. Kaine’s statement opposing Kavanaugh, which I posted in an OP earlier.

[Xipe Totec]

31. Let them posture and wiggle. It's their final vote that counts.

If the Repugs vote as a block, there isn't a thing these red state Democrats can do to change that, but don't let them use that as an excuse. Don't let the Repugs claim the nomination was approved by a bipartisan vote.

[spooky3]

32. They are in a tough position, and we need them to win in 2018. What I would like to think

is that they figure the timing matters. If they remain mum for a few days, all hell may break loose. Dr. Ford's testimony may be really compelling, despite all the roadblocks, and Avenatti's client may speak out. If so, there may be enough of a public backlash that they will more easily be able to say "I waited until all the evidence came in, and now I know that I can't support the nominee."

[Puzzledtraveller]

33. No surprise there

Kavanaugh gets confirmed, drinks on me everyone if I am wrong.

[EricMaundry]

34. In the end they will oppose

Let them do what they politically have to do in their own states.

[Cosmocat]

61. Kavanaugh is so horrible there is no downside in not voting for him at this point

The scumbag has a 33% favorability ... Even in a "red" state a D senator would lose far more votes than pickup (which would be the case for any non sexual predator nominee anyways) by voting for this POS.

[shadowmayor]

35. These people are elected to lead

Following polls isn't leadership. Changing polls is. This is the fundamental flaw in their strategy. Senators should lead the people to the correct decision, rather than follow what the papers and CNN tells them the people are thinking.

[Calista241]

40. They're elected to represent their constituents, not the broader national population

I would bet they’re all running internal polls of people in West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota to see what their constituents want and support.

[shadowmayor]

41. You made my point for me I'm afraid

Pardon me if I misunderstood your point. Senators are elected BY their constituents to represent them, including those times when they must vote against the feelings of their constituents. Blindly following the polls isn't representation, it's just echoing the consensus. Sometimes, a representative must lead by going against the grain. After what the repukes did to Garland (who was hardly a liberal choice) these democrats should stand tall and say "hell no" to Kavanaugh.

[ThoughtCriminal]

38. My guess

If two Republicans vote "No", so will they. If 51 Republicans vote "Yes", some of them will join in to confirm.

[SunSeeker]

43. Good guess. nt

[dchill]

45. politico.com - clickbait for wonks & nerds.

[beachbum bob]

46. I think the cover will be in place once Ford has appeared before the committee and torn to

shreds by the gOP operative....the GOP is counting on a woman questioning (prosecuting) another woman would create minimal havoc in the eyes of the public and I suspect its will not turn out that way. Especially with other accusations being raised and GOP attempts at cover up.

[rpannier]

48. As long as they vote against him I don't care what they say or do not say

Their vote is all that matters

[Akacia]

49. I do not know how any Democrat can vote for him

with all the redacted paperwork. That alone is telling.

[Snoopy 7]

50. two things

HEY EVERYBODY why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time? With everyone screaming about his "sexual assaults" there are no questions about his FINANCIAL MIRACLES. Why are they not asking about how he magically got rid of all his debt or how could he afford the house under his pay?

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. It's their votes that matter, not when they announce their intentions

It may serve them better with constituents if they exhibit having an "open mind" about confirmation until all of the hearings are completed.

[truthisfreedom]

65. Dinos