Flake is a No--he's too irrationally anti-Trump over his hurt feelings during the 2016 primaries and again shortly after Trump was inaugurated. And he's changed his tune regarding the FBI investigation he held out for: he's spent the week on the daytime talk shows going on about a lack of temperament, the latest meme of his BFF Chris Coons. Murkowski is a No--she's the new McCain--maverick for the sake of maverickness Collins is uncertain, but leaning No.
I'm not even sanguine that the cloture vote will succeed.
And Trump guaranteed those outcomes with the idiocy of his mocking Ford's Judiciary Committee testimony at a rally. He didn't need to do that to sway moderate Republicans and Independents, but he did need to not do that, knowing as he must have, how that would be received by those three Senators.
The press about Manchin and Heitcamp is irrelevant. Manchin won't go against his DC boss, Schumer, and Heitcamp has fallen so far behind that her loyal vote of No will have no effect on her electability.
I'll wager that Flake and Manchin are yeses. That means Collins and Murkowski can be 'conscience votes' if they want to be, although the poll numbers suggest that Republican women are incensed about the slander as a class. Which makes sense; the biggest factor in being a Republican woman is being married, and thinking about your partner (and half-ish of your own livelihood) being destroyed by slander is enraging. Plus married women have sons, sometimes, about whom they might worry.
My best Senate source said last night that Cocaine Mitch had locked up the votes. That could change; it'll be wild. But we're going into this with Mitch at least believing he has firm commitments to confirm.
Collins and Murkowski may grumble about what Trump says but voting No on Kavanaugh doesn't do anything but get both the pro-Trump horde and the #NeverTrumpers mad at them. It'll be 53-47.
...poll numbers suggest that Republican women are incensed....
That's entirely likely; however, it's irrelevant. Trump needs three Senators' votes on Friday, and if he gets them, he needs three Senators' votes again on Saturday. It won't matter how fired up voters might be next month, it won't matter if Republicans hang onto the House and Senate if Kavanaugh goes down. If that happens, Flake, Murkowski, and possibly Collins will have validated the Progressive-Democrats' tactic of slander and ruination as the preferred tool of choice--and utility--for blocking nominees of whom they disapprove. That they tried that technique at all should be enough to burn the Progressive-Democratic Party to the ground next month, but if the tactic works....
Collins may well have the integrity to vote for/against the nominee and not against Trump's rhetoric; that's why I only have her leaning. The other two are done deals. You can take dat to da bank.
I'm not convinced that McConnell is convinced he has the votes. He is forcing the issue and forcing critical Senators on the record without further delay, to have that choice for future reference. He has to play the long game, and he has to play the short one that's an unavoidable step in the long.
Someone suggested yesterday that, if the vote is "no," Trump should re-nominate Kavanaugh and let the new nomination sit straight through the mid-terms.
I’d think the Republican Senators will vote yes if only to avoid rewarding the protester circus within their office buildings. For their own peace, they have to show that tactic won’t work. Otherwise they’ll need police escorts every day for the rest of their careers.
Trump guaranteed those outcomes with the idiocy of his mocking Ford's Judiciary Committee testimony at a rally.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I just started reading The Great Revolt and one point the authors make is that during the election Trump made outrageous statements for which the news media criticized him. However, in order to criticize, the news media had to relay to their audiences what Trump had said. So, yeah, it might look dumb for Trump to bad-mouth Ford's credibility but when the news outlets lambaste him for it they are also telling a wider audience that there are troubling inconsistencies in her testimony, something that audience may well never have heard before. Three-dimensional chess or shooting from the lip? Who knows?
The problem, though, is that the audience of import for Trump's remarks was not his base, or moderate Republicans, or Independents, or a trolled NLMSM. The audience was three Senators who caucus with the Republicans, one of whom has made it pretty clear she's a No, and the other two of whom are giving strong indications of No.
I'm not sanguine cloture will succeed tomorrow, although it might: it wouldn't be the first time a vote for cloture occurred solely to bring a matter to the floor in order to be voted down there. That'll be the case on Saturday if cloture succeeds.
The problem, though, is that the audience of import for Trump's remarks was not his base, or moderate Republicans, or Independents, or a trolled NLMSM.
That depends on what is important. Perhaps for getting Kavanaugh confirmed, Trump's remarks were unhelpful/harmful. But in a longer time frame, they may be quite helpful.
I"m not in the least persuaded that his remarks were unhelpful even for the purpose of getting Kavanaugh confirmed. No Democrat in a close mid-term race would be wise to ignore the polls, particularly the polls reflecting the views of voters least likely to be already in the bag for either side.
But in a longer time frame, they may be quite helpful.
There isn't a longer time-frame than the Supreme Court's. His remarks already have turned Murkowski. We'll get an indication of their impact on Collins in a few.
I don't believe for an instant that those remarks turned Murkowski. That she was willing to blame them in order to salvage the support of a specific portion of her base, I could believe.
There isn't a longer time-frame than the Supreme Court's.
I take your point, at least I think I do: getting the Supreme Court out of the hands of leftists who are using it to legislate is crucial. But - and this seems to be my day for using talking points from books - I recently re-read Conservative Insurgency. One of the points of this future history piece is that simply winning politically is not enough; unless the culture - the mindset - can be changed, all such victories are subject to reversal.
So, get Kavanaugh onto the Court but do so with a lot of people convinced he was "credibly accused" and you set Trump/the Right up for more trouble down the road. Get voters started thinking that maybe Dr. Ford wasn't so credible and maybe the Democrats really are that bad and it's possible there will be a shift in attitudes that could widen and deepen. (Seems like now would be a good time for me to quote from another book - Pollyanna :+)
Yes, but without a restored Supreme Court, we don't have time to fight that fight--which is generational, and it requires years of recovering our educational system and restoring parental responsibility--and instilling the recognition that there is such a thing.
Winning today's Congress but losing the Court just lets the Left's Supreme Court cancel anything a conservative Congress might achieve.
Now it's for Republicans to get off their dead a** and actually get into the 'hoods and explain to the folks, first, why conservative policies are good for them personally and second (and only second) why the Progressive-Democrats' policies are--have been--failures--a more politic and concrete version of "what the hell have you got to lose?" And point out in no uncertain terms how the present Progressive-Democrats have no policies at all, only the politics of hate and character assassination and smear.
Perhaps my not feeling as urgent about Kavanaugh being confirmed was because I figured if he wasn't confirmed, Trump would just come back with someone even less palatable to the Left. So I never felt like we were going to fail to move the Court right, even if that didn't happen via Kavanaugh.
And to clarify: when I say "not feeling as urgent" I mean in a political/long march/etc., way. As far as fair play, decency, rule of law, the man involved, all the virtues, I felt a great deal of urgency. As I said to a (leftish) friend: I thought Obamacare radicalized me but the Kavanaugh nomination horror took that radicalization to a whole new level. To quote Tex: Burn it down. Plough it under. Salt the ground it stood on.
My concern about not confirming Kavanaugh (which seems more likely tonight, but the confirmation vote has not yet been held) was that with 51 Senators caucusing as/with Republicans, the only way that would fail would be if the Republican caucus failed. As it is, it's been a very near thing. Murkowski voted No, and her speech tonight rationalizing her No was a long, meandering "I'm agonizing over his temperament" wallow; it took Manchin voting his desire to be reelected to save the thing. His No would have left the vote a tie, and with Pence apparently not present to break the tie, the cloture would have failed.
I've been uncertain about Collins, and I still am about Flake. But Collins impressed me with her afternoon speech today. I haven't heard Flake speak today, but his prior remarks have been little more than self-serving dithers.
If this tender, fragile Republican caucus failed with Kavanaugh, they'd not come close with a second effort by Trump. Grassley and Hatch have had their hair on fire the last couple of days, and Graham seems finally woke, but there aren't enough of them.
I was amused this afternoon to read the comments on a YouTube video showing Manchin trying to explain his vote over shrieks of "Look at me! Look at me!" Most of the commenters were outraged that they had to put up with this ersatz Democrat who keeps voting like a Republican. Hey, I feel your pain.
Fair points, Eric. I suppose I'm assuming the Republicans will hold the Senate after November and perhaps even increase their numbers. It will be an interesting month.
Elise, even if the Senate holds their numbers after November, if they fail on Kavanaugh (and as I write, the confirmation vote still has not occurred), they will have demonstrated that those numbers are not equal to the task.
I agree that it seems unlikely many of the shriekers were women--shrieking is more the province of the Left's beta and gamma males.
My bet:
ReplyDeleteFlake is a No--he's too irrationally anti-Trump over his hurt feelings during the 2016 primaries and again shortly after Trump was inaugurated. And he's changed his tune regarding the FBI investigation he held out for: he's spent the week on the daytime talk shows going on about a lack of temperament, the latest meme of his BFF Chris Coons.
Murkowski is a No--she's the new McCain--maverick for the sake of maverickness
Collins is uncertain, but leaning No.
I'm not even sanguine that the cloture vote will succeed.
And Trump guaranteed those outcomes with the idiocy of his mocking Ford's Judiciary Committee testimony at a rally. He didn't need to do that to sway moderate Republicans and Independents, but he did need to not do that, knowing as he must have, how that would be received by those three Senators.
The press about Manchin and Heitcamp is irrelevant. Manchin won't go against his DC boss, Schumer, and Heitcamp has fallen so far behind that her loyal vote of No will have no effect on her electability.
Eric Hines
I'll wager that Flake and Manchin are yeses. That means Collins and Murkowski can be 'conscience votes' if they want to be, although the poll numbers suggest that Republican women are incensed about the slander as a class. Which makes sense; the biggest factor in being a Republican woman is being married, and thinking about your partner (and half-ish of your own livelihood) being destroyed by slander is enraging. Plus married women have sons, sometimes, about whom they might worry.
ReplyDeleteMy best Senate source said last night that Cocaine Mitch had locked up the votes. That could change; it'll be wild. But we're going into this with Mitch at least believing he has firm commitments to confirm.
Collins and Murkowski may grumble about what Trump says but voting No on Kavanaugh doesn't do anything but get both the pro-Trump horde and the #NeverTrumpers mad at them. It'll be 53-47.
ReplyDelete...poll numbers suggest that Republican women are incensed....
ReplyDeleteThat's entirely likely; however, it's irrelevant. Trump needs three Senators' votes on Friday, and if he gets them, he needs three Senators' votes again on Saturday. It won't matter how fired up voters might be next month, it won't matter if Republicans hang onto the House and Senate if Kavanaugh goes down. If that happens, Flake, Murkowski, and possibly Collins will have validated the Progressive-Democrats' tactic of slander and ruination as the preferred tool of choice--and utility--for blocking nominees of whom they disapprove. That they tried that technique at all should be enough to burn the Progressive-Democratic Party to the ground next month, but if the tactic works....
Collins may well have the integrity to vote for/against the nominee and not against Trump's rhetoric; that's why I only have her leaning. The other two are done deals. You can take dat to da bank.
I'm not convinced that McConnell is convinced he has the votes. He is forcing the issue and forcing critical Senators on the record without further delay, to have that choice for future reference. He has to play the long game, and he has to play the short one that's an unavoidable step in the long.
Eric Hines
Someone suggested yesterday that, if the vote is "no," Trump should re-nominate Kavanaugh and let the new nomination sit straight through the mid-terms.
ReplyDeleteSen. Graham suggested that.
ReplyDeleteI’d think the Republican Senators will vote yes if only to avoid rewarding the protester circus within their office buildings. For their own peace, they have to show that tactic won’t work. Otherwise they’ll need police escorts every day for the rest of their careers.
I just want the vote to happen and the circus to stop. Or fade into the background, at least. What a disgusting spectacle.
ReplyDeleteTrump guaranteed those outcomes with the idiocy of his mocking Ford's Judiciary Committee testimony at a rally.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how that plays out. I just started reading The Great Revolt and one point the authors make is that during the election Trump made outrageous statements for which the news media criticized him. However, in order to criticize, the news media had to relay to their audiences what Trump had said. So, yeah, it might look dumb for Trump to bad-mouth Ford's credibility but when the news outlets lambaste him for it they are also telling a wider audience that there are troubling inconsistencies in her testimony, something that audience may well never have heard before. Three-dimensional chess or shooting from the lip? Who knows?
The problem, though, is that the audience of import for Trump's remarks was not his base, or moderate Republicans, or Independents, or a trolled NLMSM. The audience was three Senators who caucus with the Republicans, one of whom has made it pretty clear she's a No, and the other two of whom are giving strong indications of No.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sanguine cloture will succeed tomorrow, although it might: it wouldn't be the first time a vote for cloture occurred solely to bring a matter to the floor in order to be voted down there. That'll be the case on Saturday if cloture succeeds.
Eric Hines
Twenty bucks or a case of beer, old son. I say he makes it.
ReplyDeleteNext time we meet up.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
The problem, though, is that the audience of import for Trump's remarks was not his base, or moderate Republicans, or Independents, or a trolled NLMSM.
ReplyDeleteThat depends on what is important. Perhaps for getting Kavanaugh confirmed, Trump's remarks were unhelpful/harmful. But in a longer time frame, they may be quite helpful.
I"m not in the least persuaded that his remarks were unhelpful even for the purpose of getting Kavanaugh confirmed. No Democrat in a close mid-term race would be wise to ignore the polls, particularly the polls reflecting the views of voters least likely to be already in the bag for either side.
ReplyDeleteBut in a longer time frame, they may be quite helpful.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't a longer time-frame than the Supreme Court's. His remarks already have turned Murkowski. We'll get an indication of their impact on Collins in a few.
Eric Hines
I don't believe for an instant that those remarks turned Murkowski. That she was willing to blame them in order to salvage the support of a specific portion of her base, I could believe.
ReplyDeleteWell, it turns out I'm wrong, too, about Manchin's vote, so there it is.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
There isn't a longer time-frame than the Supreme Court's.
ReplyDeleteI take your point, at least I think I do: getting the Supreme Court out of the hands of leftists who are using it to legislate is crucial. But - and this seems to be my day for using talking points from books - I recently re-read Conservative Insurgency. One of the points of this future history piece is that simply winning politically is not enough; unless the culture - the mindset - can be changed, all such victories are subject to reversal.
So, get Kavanaugh onto the Court but do so with a lot of people convinced he was "credibly accused" and you set Trump/the Right up for more trouble down the road. Get voters started thinking that maybe Dr. Ford wasn't so credible and maybe the Democrats really are that bad and it's possible there will be a shift in attitudes that could widen and deepen. (Seems like now would be a good time for me to quote from another book - Pollyanna :+)
Yes, but without a restored Supreme Court, we don't have time to fight that fight--which is generational, and it requires years of recovering our educational system and restoring parental responsibility--and instilling the recognition that there is such a thing.
ReplyDeleteWinning today's Congress but losing the Court just lets the Left's Supreme Court cancel anything a conservative Congress might achieve.
Now it's for Republicans to get off their dead a** and actually get into the 'hoods and explain to the folks, first, why conservative policies are good for them personally and second (and only second) why the Progressive-Democrats' policies are--have been--failures--a more politic and concrete version of "what the hell have you got to lose?" And point out in no uncertain terms how the present Progressive-Democrats have no policies at all, only the politics of hate and character assassination and smear.
Eric Hines
Perhaps my not feeling as urgent about Kavanaugh being confirmed was because I figured if he wasn't confirmed, Trump would just come back with someone even less palatable to the Left. So I never felt like we were going to fail to move the Court right, even if that didn't happen via Kavanaugh.
ReplyDeleteAnd to clarify: when I say "not feeling as urgent" I mean in a political/long march/etc., way. As far as fair play, decency, rule of law, the man involved, all the virtues, I felt a great deal of urgency. As I said to a (leftish) friend: I thought Obamacare radicalized me but the Kavanaugh nomination horror took that radicalization to a whole new level. To quote Tex: Burn it down. Plough it under. Salt the ground it stood on.
My concern about not confirming Kavanaugh (which seems more likely tonight, but the confirmation vote has not yet been held) was that with 51 Senators caucusing as/with Republicans, the only way that would fail would be if the Republican caucus failed. As it is, it's been a very near thing. Murkowski voted No, and her speech tonight rationalizing her No was a long, meandering "I'm agonizing over his temperament" wallow; it took Manchin voting his desire to be reelected to save the thing. His No would have left the vote a tie, and with Pence apparently not present to break the tie, the cloture would have failed.
ReplyDeleteI've been uncertain about Collins, and I still am about Flake. But Collins impressed me with her afternoon speech today. I haven't heard Flake speak today, but his prior remarks have been little more than self-serving dithers.
If this tender, fragile Republican caucus failed with Kavanaugh, they'd not come close with a second effort by Trump. Grassley and Hatch have had their hair on fire the last couple of days, and Graham seems finally woke, but there aren't enough of them.
Eric Hines
Even with Collins in the mix, there aren't enough.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
I was amused this afternoon to read the comments on a YouTube video showing Manchin trying to explain his vote over shrieks of "Look at me! Look at me!" Most of the commenters were outraged that they had to put up with this ersatz Democrat who keeps voting like a Republican. Hey, I feel your pain.
ReplyDeleteFair points, Eric. I suppose I'm assuming the Republicans will hold the Senate after November and perhaps even increase their numbers. It will be an interesting month.
ReplyDelete... shrieks of "Look at me! Look at me!"
ReplyDeleteI assume none of the shriekers were women. Surely no decent left-leaning woman would invite the male gaze.
Elise, even if the Senate holds their numbers after November, if they fail on Kavanaugh (and as I write, the confirmation vote still has not occurred), they will have demonstrated that those numbers are not equal to the task.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it seems unlikely many of the shriekers were women--shrieking is more the province of the Left's beta and gamma males.
Eric Hines
I owe young dad twenty bucks or a case of beer.
ReplyDeleteNext time we meet up.
Eric Hines
An expensive favorable outcome: I owe my wife dinner out, too.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines