Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC Party III

[childeroland]

I'm not sure what this means, but I thought it interesting.

Why Democrats Partially Nuked the Filibuster

The Senate just passed a rule change that, on its face, makes very little sense. By a 52 to 48 margin, senators — all Democrats — voted to eliminate filibusters of judicial and executive-branch appointments. The filibuster still exists for regular legislation and Supreme Court appointments.

Lowering the threshold for executive-branch appointments makes perfect sense — presidents ought to get wide discretion to fill out their own team. But why the ban on judges rather than legislation? Legislation can always be overturned, while judges sit on the bench for life. And why the exception for the Supreme Court?

The main reason for this odd, partial clawback of the filibuster is that President Obama has no real legislative agenda that can pass Congress. At the beginning of the year, it seemed plausible that House Republicans might go along with immigration reform, but even that possibility now looks remote. Nothing can pass.

That reality means two things. The first is that President Obama’s second-term agenda runs not through Congress but through his own administrative agencies. His appointees are writing rules for financial reform, housing policy and — the potentially enormous one — climate emissions. Senate Republicans have tried to stymie this agenda by blocking executive-branch appointments, most recently filibustering the nomination of Mel Watt to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The executive-branch filibuster has become a primary Republican weapon against Obama’s agenda.

 

[SV Fan]

I'm not sure what this means, but I thought it interesting.

Basically for a nominee of a President to get passed it has to get a vote of 51-49 in the Senate. All that being said the opposing side has the option to filibuster the nomination meaning the candidate needs to get a 60-40 vote to be nominated. In general up until 25 years ago this procedure was little used but in the past 25(especially past 10 it's been used more and more as a way to obstruct judge appointments). The Dems were bad during Bush's reign and the Republicans basically taken it to the point they almost don't allow anything during Obama's reign. The Dems are now saying they sick of nothing getting done and will make it straight 51+ votes to pass judge nominations

 

[childeroland]

Gotcha. But will the Dems talk about trying to change this if they ever lost the Senate majority? Will it be worth it down the line if the Repubs can also get judges onto the DC circuit court also that they can use as a farm team for Supreme Court appointees?

 

[SV Fan]

Gotcha. But will the Dems talk about trying to change this if they ever lost the Senate majority? Will it be worth it down the line if the Repubs can also get judges onto the DC circuit court also that they can use as a farm team for Supreme Court appointees?

Well if the President is Dem it doesn't matter if the Senate is Republican, but you basically need a Republican Senate and President to make this turn out bad for the Dems

 

[childeroland]

Poor McConnell!

 

[chaseter]

Well if the President is Dem it doesn't matter if the Senate is Republican, but you basically need a Republican Senate and President to make this turn out bad for the Dems

Which will happen sooner or later. Not too long ago, the Democrats were fighting against this when the Republicans were trying to do it. Harry Reid and Obama were against it and now apparently for it.

 

[SV Fan]

Which will happen sooner or later. Not too long ago, the Democrats were fighting against this when the Republicans were trying to do it. Harry Reid and Obama were against it and now apparently for it.

Well they came to an agreement(ie the gang of 14) to stop filibustering so much after that point they stopped filibustering. In the case of the Republicans they sort of came to a handshake agreement they wouldn't filibuster as much so after letting a few (non judge) appointees through they are back on there filibustering judges rampage(for no reason then just to filibuster).

 

[chaseter]

Who gives a dump about filibustering political appointees? Who honestly cares that it takes an extra week to get someone into office? What this is going to do is evolve beyond that.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...-please-dont-panic-celebrate-just-yet/361109/

Democrats Lead in Key Southern Senate Races — But Please Don't Panic / Celebrate Just Yet

The Wire strongly recommends that you not tie your emotional state to the fluctuations of Senate polling, but should you fail to follow that advice: Prepare to be irrationally elated, Democrats. The embattled Southern incumbents are doing better than expected in a new survey from The New York Times.

A quick recap. In order to retake control of the Senate, the Republican Party needs to win six Senate seats (and hold all of their current ones). They're almost certain to win the open seats in West Virginia and South Dakota. They'll probably win in Montana, too. Which leaves them three short. And the lowest-hanging fruit to grab those three seats are the races in Arkansas, Louisiana, and South Carolina.

According to the new Times poll, the Democratic incumbents lead in all three of those races.

In Arkansas, Sen. Mark Pryor leads Rep. Tom Cotton 46 to 36. In Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu leads several Republican opponents by a wide margin, though she would face a run-off if she didn't receive 50 percent. In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan leads two opponents by a narrow margin (shown is her margin over Thom Tillis, 42 to 40).

 

[Matt]

Brian Schweitzer basically declares for 2016, tears Obama and Clinton apart

Holy shnikes....can this man please be President in 2016? My favorite quotes:

[Hillary] can’t be the candidate that shakes down more money on Wall Street than anybody since, I don’t know, Woodrow Wilson, and be the populist."

and on why the Obama presidency failed:

the Republicans are mostly owned by corporate America and the Democrats are partially owned by corporate America. The same insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, the same military industrial complex that fills the coffers for Republican reelections, they filled the coffers of Democrats for reelection. So that things don’t get done shouldn’t surprise you because it’s safe not to get things done. The status quo works.

Oh snap. At any rate, Schweitzer is doing exactly what he needs to do to make 2016 a race. He is the only Democrat who stands apart from Hillary. Warren isn't running. Cuomo, O'Malley, Kaine, Warner, Hillary...they are all the same type of corporatist Democrats. Schweitzer is the only real populist in the race. He is the only candidate who draws a contrast to Hillary. Problem is name recognition. But he is doing exactly what he needs to do to fix that. He is coming out swinging hard 3 years in advance. He is touring Iowa and South Carolina nonstop. This will build a brand. Schweitzer could pull off the upset.

 

[Persistence]

I guess he's a guy to look out for, but is he going to go any farther than your previous populist fave John Edwards. I doubt it....he can't beat the Clinton machine. Obama at least had a Chicago machine behind him. Is there a machine in Montana?

 

[Matt]

I guess he's a guy to look out for, but is he going to go any farther than your previous populist fave John Edwards. I doubt it....he can't beat the Clinton machine. Obama at least had a Chicago machine behind him. Is there a machine in Montana?

Edwards lacked stones to say things like this. If Schweitzer comes out swinging now, he can create a name for himself as a dark horse. Hillary doesn't play in Iowa. Bill doesn't either. The Clinton brand just doesn't play there. O'Malley, Cuomo, Kaine, they won't either. Schweitzer will. If Schweitzer takes Iowa, he takes South Carolina. If he takes South Carolina it is a two horse race, Schweitzer vs Clinton. The question will be, does he have the money and infrastructure and recognition to beat her? Because if he does, he does beat her by carrying middle America (who rejected her last time and will do it again). By starting now, he can build those things and give her a serious run for her money. Not sure he'll win, but it will be a fight.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Never heard of the guy but I like what he is saying and they way he is going about it. Will be nice to be able to vote in the primaries and have actual options

 

[SV Fan]

Brian Schweitzer basically declares for 2016, tears Obama and Clinton apart

Holy shnikes....can this man please be President in 2016? My favorite quotes:



and on why the Obama presidency failed:



Oh snap. At any rate, Schweitzer is doing exactly what he needs to do to make 2016 a race. He is the only Democrat who stands apart from Hillary. Warren isn't running. Cuomo, O'Malley, Kaine, Warner, Hillary...they are all the same type of corporatist Democrats. Schweitzer is the only real populist in the race. He is the only candidate who draws a contrast to Hillary. Problem is name recognition. But he is doing exactly what he needs to do to fix that. He is coming out swinging hard 3 years in advance. He is touring Iowa and South Carolina nonstop. This will build a brand. Schweitzer could pull off the upset.

I said for awhile now that Schweitzer has that "Middle America" appeal that could make him tough in some primaries(Iowa for starters). He is sort of the Democrats answer to Chris Christie(a Democrat who polled well in a Republican State) minus the meanness and bridge scandal.

I personally think the Bolo Tie you constantly see him wear is genius(sort of a good way to make him stand out and present an image of himself). I think one thing that will help him in a Democrat primary is he can claim he is a scientist(soul scientist that is). Democrats claim they love scientists so he can push his degrees compared to all the lawyers he will be up against.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The problem is that Schweitzer is governor of a state which has less people than a small city in New Jersey. He has no name recognition, and virtually no support base.

I am as into politics as someone can be without actually being actively involved, and I barely recognize the name.

Sans Hillary, I feel that Cuomo has the best bet of winning the nomination, and then losing the election, since he is an empty suit who rode into office on the coattails of his much more competent father. Still, he has a sizable support base, and name recognition in the Northeast.

He also has as much charisma as John Kerry, and talks like Joe Biden.

Still, don't count out Joe Biden either. He already seems to have a campaign slogan "Why not?"

 

[Matt]

The problem is that Schweitzer is governor of a state which has less people than a small city in New Jersey. He has no name recognition, and virtually no support base.

I am as into politics as someone can be without actually being actively involved, and I barely recognize the name.

Sans Hillary, I feel that Cuomo has the best bet of winning the nomination, and then losing the election, since he is an empty suit who rode into office on the coattails of his much more competent father. Still, he has a sizable support base, and name recognition in the Northeast.

He also has as much charisma as John Kerry, and talks like Joe Biden.

Still, don't count out Joe Biden either. He already seems to have a campaign slogan "Why not?"

We shall see. Schweitzer was first on the ground in Iowa. He's been working Iowa and SC for about two years. His grassroots strength might be higher than one thinks. If he wins those two, it is a game changer. He goes from dark horse to a front runner.

 

[summerteeth]

We shall see. Schweitzer was first on the ground in Iowa. He's been working Iowa and SC for about two years. His grassroots strength might be higher than one thinks. If he wins those two, it is a game changer. He goes from dark horse to a front runner.

As a Republican, I like Schweitzer quite a bit and could see myself voting for him in the general election depending on the Republican candidate. I like that he's a Governor of a state that has very low unemployment and has done so by cutting taxes and drilling for oil. Only thing I'm concerned about is public health care and while I feel like he will likely pivot away from that if elected, the last Democrat I thought would do the same given an economic crisis didn't exactly work out like I thought.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I swear I have to unfollow idiots on Facebook everyday. This guy shares a "news article" claiming that Obama is going to run for president for a third time and then he and his friends proceed to get all pissy about it. Some people are truly moronic

 

[Chris B]

While I don't think he'd beat her, I'd also like to see Schweitzer make a run against Hillary. The thing that really dampers any enthusiasm I have for a candidacy with here is the sense of her being too much of a coporatist. So I'd like to see a populist challenge to her in the primaries. Besides, considering that it will have been eight years since her last campaign, I don't think some practice for the general would hurt.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/schweitzer-apologizes-for-stupid-comments-about-cantor-and-feinstein/

Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has finally apologized for remarks he made in a National Journal profile earlier this week in which he called Eric Cantor effeminate and likened Dianne Feinstein‘s hypocrisy on surveillance to a prostitute suddenly acting chaste.

Schweitzer said that Cantor sets off his gaydar and that Feinstein was “the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says, ‘I’m a nun,’ when it comes to this spying!”

Might win him a few marks with the politically incorrect crowd but a huge gaffe on his part(by the way I agree with him about Cantor. lol)

 

[Matt]

Clinton media machine is trying to take him down by making a mountain of a molehill.

 

[hippie_hunter]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/schweitzer-apologizes-for-stupid-comments-about-cantor-and-feinstein/

Might win him a few marks with the politically incorrect crowd but a huge gaffe on his part(by the way I agree with him about Cantor. lol)

He's right about Feinstein as well. Poor choice of words to describe it, but still correct. She and Harry Reid are two of the biggest hypocrites in the Senate when it comes to the principles of the Democratic Party.

 

[SV Fan]

He's right about Feinstein as well. Poor choice of words to describe it, but still correct. She and Harry Reid are two of the biggest hypocrites in the Senate when it comes to the principles of the Democratic Party.

Not sure it's a good strategy but I think he should have doubled down on his comments saying he is just telling it like it is. When you a long shot to win you have to swing for the fences(grant you that's how we got Palin on the ticket in 2008). I know calling some Republicans a bunch of closeted homosexuals who are just afraid to tell everybody how they truly are, hence their animosity to the gay lifestyle would get my vote.

 

[summerteeth]

Clinton media machine is trying to take him down by making a mountain of a molehill.

Yeah, this is what I got out of this whole thing too. People saying he's disqualified himself for a Presidential run by saying these things. The fact is it's waaaay too early in the cycle for this to even matter. It will be forgotten about, but I find it humorous seeing Dems and former Obama staffers blast the guy after these comments.

 

[SV Fan]

Yeah, this is what I got out of this whole thing too. People saying he's disqualified himself for a Presidential run by saying these things. The fact is it's waaaay too early in the cycle for this to even matter. It will be forgotten about, but I find it humorous seeing Dems and former Obama staffers blast the guy after these comments.

It doesn't disqualify him but don't think the comments will be brought up in 2016 if he poses any threat to Hillary