2020 Presidential Election

[JosephReidBooks]

Nate Cohn of the NY Times poses an interesting question. What makes McConnell's maneuvers to stymie Obama's pick but grant Trump's more justifiable than a presumed Democratic controlled Senate court packing (which I am personally against by the way) and adding DC/PR as states? All of these maneuvers (McConnell's and presumably Schumer's)are legally under the purview of the Senate and all are norm breaking. Why would the norm breaking be any more or less defensible on the left than on the right? If this has just become a method of projecting power, then why would there be indignation at one norm breaking move vs another?

I haven't heard anyone on the left contend that court packing or creating new states isn't "norm breaking." (Although I do think it's underreported how many people care about giving the people of DC and Puerto Rico representation for representation's sake rather than merely using them as pawns in the Congressional cat-and-mouse.) I think the left openly acknowledges they would be norm breaking but see it as the only way to counter the moves made by McConnell that consistent break norms without care. Blue slips, Merrick Garland, you name it. The primary comeback to that is that Harry Reid changed the rules to let some of Obama's appointees through, but again, the left would counter that he only did that because of unprecedented obstruction by the Republicans.

I've heard this argued all the way back to Robert Bork's unsuccessful nomination about "who started it." The problem is that one side is far more willing to norm break than the other, and that imbalance had led to some extreme outcomes. The other side now feels like they have to norm break just to compete and/or catch up, so we have become locked into a destructive cycle.

[ClemmonsDevil]

This is my initial concern too. It's just further erosion of any level of decorum or political honor or principles by both parties.

I'm getting further and further from even being able to see a solution to the nonsense.

Agreed. I am not a fan of moral relativism. I would be fine if everyone would stand down and slow roll a confirmation. If McConnell pushes this through I suppose he thinks they will hold the Senate or defeat Democrats in the court of public opinion. The former is a possibility but I don't think the latter matters anymore. I think Democrats will be out for blood.

[OldPhiKap]

I haven't heard anyone on the left contend that court packing or creating new states isn't "norm breaking." (Although I do think it's underreported how many people care about giving the people of DC and Puerto Rico representation for representation's sake rather than merely using them as pawns in the Congressional cat-and-mouse.) I think the left openly acknowledges they would be norm breaking but see it as the only way to counter the moves made by McConnell that consistent break norms without care. Blue slips, Merrick Garland, you name it. The primary comeback to that is that Harry Reid changed the rules to let some of Obama's appointees through, but again, the left would counter that he only did that because of unprecedented obstruction by the Republicans.

I've heard this argued all the way back to Robert Bork's unsuccessful nomination about "who started it." The problem is that one side is far more willing to norm break than the other, and that imbalance had led to some extreme outcomes. The other side now feels like they have to norm break just to compete and/or catch up, so we have become locked into a destructive cycle.

The old saw is that Republicans don’t fight fair, and democrats don’t fight.

For those of us who think the Two parties themselves are the problem, the constant fight over “who started it” is maddening, we don’t accept this from our kids, but this is how we have run our country for decades.

(BTW, started Joseph Reid’s excellent book “Takeoff” yesterday. Enjoying it so far!)

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Nate Cohn of the NY Times poses an interesting question. What makes McConnell's maneuvers to stymie Obama's pick but grant Trump's more justifiable than a presumed Democratic controlled Senate court packing (which I am personally against by the way) and adding DC/PR as states? All of these maneuvers (McConnell's and presumably Schumer's)are legally under the purview of the Senate and all are norm breaking. Why would the norm breaking be any more or less defensible on the left than on the right? If this has just become a method of projecting power, then why would there be indignation at one norm breaking move vs another?

A few Dems spitball an idea and it gets attributed to the entire party and the world is up in arms. Trump is really good at capitalizing on this. Meanwhile Trump (who is actually the president and has the power to get things done unilaterally) throws out crazy ideas like drinking bleach and it just rolls off people's sleeves. The Dems really need to get a lot better at messaging.

Also, I see the idea of a dangerous slippery slope here, but I think the last four years have already taken us a long way down that slope. The number of norms of political behavior that have been shattered is uncountable. One could argue that there is a leap from breaking norms of behavior to larger structural changes, but I don't think it is that different.

Could we refocus on COVID, jobs, trade, moral decency, etc.

[mattman91]

A few Dems spitball an idea and it gets attributed to the entire party and the world is up in arms. Trump is really good at capitalizing on this. Meanwhile Trump (who is actually the president and has the power to get things done unilaterally) throws out crazy ideas like drinking bleach and it just rolls off people's sleeves. The Dems really need to get a lot better at messaging.

Also, I see the idea of a dangerous slippery slope here, but I think the last four years have already taken us a long way down that slope. The number of norms of political behavior that have been shattered is uncountable. One could argue that there is a leap from breaking norms of behavior to larger structural changes, but I don't think it is that different.

Could we refocus on COVID, jobs, trade, moral decency, etc.

The President did not recommend drinking bleach.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...d-coronavirus/

[MarkD83]

I’ve been thinking about this, and about the general voter disengagement in the US, and have come up with a working theory. The US system is designed to more or less preserve the status quo, and substantial change is very hard. However change is not impossible, it just requires substantial effort. So if your views aren’t far off the status quo then it’s not worth the effort to try to make small changes. What that leaves is people who’s views are farther away from existing status deciding it is worth the effort, and as a result politics is more weighted with those with strong views and beliefs away from the mainstream. And it used to be that general elections would suppress these candidates, but gerrymandered districts mean that most general elections are between two extreme candidates from each side. Just a few not-so-well constructed musings so feel free to shoot holes in this.

I agree with your assessment when it comes to the House. In Virginia we actually have the ability to change the issue in bold this election cycle...

https://www.elections.virginia.gov/p...mendment-2020/

[MarkD83]

The President did not recommend drinking bleach. Stop spreading fake news.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...d-coronavirus/

One could argue that Trump has learned from the lawyers he has dealt with in the past. He rarely if ever suggests anything that could make him liable...he just throws out statements that he can plausibly deny...

[ClemmonsDevil]

A few Dems spitball an idea and it gets attributed to the entire party and the world is up in arms. Trump is really good at capitalizing on this. Meanwhile Trump (who is actually the president and has the power to get things done unilaterally) throws out crazy ideas like drinking bleach and it just rolls off people's sleeves. The Dems really need to get a lot better at messaging.

Also, I see the idea of a dangerous slippery slope here, but I think the last four years have already taken us a long way down that slope. The number of norms of political behavior that have been shattered is uncountable. One could argue that there is a leap from breaking norms of behavior to larger structural changes, but I don't think it is that different.

Could we refocus on COVID, jobs, trade, moral decency, etc.

I think that is the crux of Nate's question though. Republicans don't spitball an idea. They execute them. Democrats have historically not responded. If Democrats do respond expect Republicans to feign indignation, but norm breaking is norm breaking based on this line of thinking. I think democratic messaging is fine, where they get jobbed is in execution.

[Indoor66]

Well, that's not the same thing. Although he didn't win a majority, Clinton's wins were sizable and not affected by a third party candidate (Perot).

Do you move the goalposts often?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The President did not recommend drinking bleach.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...d-coronavirus/

Sorry. Not the perfect example. But he constantly implies things by saying "people tell me" or "perhaps." In my book, and in the way this country has worked since its founding, the president owns his words. He does not hypothesize. He makes well-educated statements based on facts and utilizes the intelligence of other branches of government and science (heaven forbid) to justify his comments. The president does not shoot from the hip. Clearly that seems to be a great change of pace and makes the crazed masses happy, so perhaps I am just a stodgy traditionalist. But I kind of liked the way America worked when there was decency and respect. And don't start with "you started it."

I am so fed up with this whole situation and this whole country and people tying themselves in convoluted knots to justify morally reprehensible behavior. Let me off the ride.

[ClemmonsDevil]

Do you move the goalposts often?

Wait. Is that what happened on the FG and extra point misses yesterday!?!?

[bundabergdevil]

Sorry. Not the perfect example. But he constantly implies things by saying "people tell me" or "perhaps." In my book, and in the way this country has worked since its founding, the president owns his words. He does not hypothesize. He makes well-educated statements based on facts and utilizes the intelligence of other branches of government and science (heaven forbid) to justify his comments. The president does not shoot from the hip. Clearly that seems to be a great change of pace and makes the crazed masses happy, so perhaps I am just a stodgy traditionalist. But I kind of liked the way America worked when there was decency and respect. And don't start with "you started it."

I am so fed up with this whole situation and this whole country and people tying themselves in convoluted knots to justify morally reprehensible behavior. Let me off the ride.

Well, just to be clear about where the President (of the United States) stands on this issue --- he did not say drink bleach, he implied he'd like to see if injecting disinfectant could work. "And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?" The President (again, of the United States) then pointed at his head and said, "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."

Because it was the President (of the United States, still) saying this and not a Yahoo discussion board troll, emergency medical services, companies, and doctors felt compelled to take time out of their presumably otherwise busy schedule to issue statements that, no, under no circumstances should individuals inject disinfectant.

So we can tie a bow at this issue, yes? The President did not suggest drinking bleach, he spit-balled injecting disinfectant. Agreed? Let's move back to SCOTUS.

[YmoBeThere]

This is my initial concern too. It's just further erosion of any level of decorum or political honor or principles by both parties.

Which leaves moderates on both sides with a dilemma. And I think that one side has been doing a better job of messaging the consequences to those caught in that dilemma. As was noted earlier in this thread, the other side has essentially outsourced that function to groups like The Lincoln Project, Vote Vets, Republican Voters against Trump, etc. However, there is no substitute for landing punches yourself. Perhaps they are doing it and I'm just not exposed to it.

[JasonEvans]

Yeah, we are gonna take a little break for a bit.

When we reopen, I would ask us to avoid the Supreme Court debate and all the stuff about "norms" being broken. If you want to address how the Supreme Court pick will impact the state of the race, that is fine but general comments about that issue should be avoided.

-Jason "I will get us reopened this evening" Evans

[JasonEvans]

Ok, reopened... play nicely

[camion]

Ok, reopened... play nicely

But, he started it when he hit me back!!

[LasVegas]

Reuters/ipsos poll taken after RBG’s death shows 62% of adults, including HALF of republicans, believe the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the election.

I’ll stand by my point that this would be a death kiss for Trump and maybe even for the senate majority. This does not poll well and certainly will not help the GOP like some have suggested.

[Furniture]

But, he started it when he hit me back!!

My dad is bigger than your dad...

[Tripping William]

My dad is bigger than your dad...

My lawyer can beat up your lawyer ....

[OldPhiKap]

My lawyer can beat up your lawyer ...

Damn straight.