Right. So why shouldn't left target red-state Dems who vote for Gorsuch?https://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/848172495987396608 …
Because the more they feel pressure and move to left when it doesn't count, the more likely they are replaced by R Senator
-
-
See my previous question and your previous answer: no evidence that, say, WV swing voters care.
-
I would argue Scalia's seat was a significant part of why Blunt eeked out a win over Kander in MO.
-
some on left criticized appt of Garland, but I liked it as whole; minor reason: someone else could have been more red meat for such voters
-
(also think too little was made of the courts by Democrats as whole in '16 ... too complacent ... now they have to play catch-up)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Especially if you make a clear argument to them about why Gorsuch is bad for them.
-
It will be about turnout and Republicans showing up in a state like MO. They will focus on guns and abortion, not frozen trucker.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Which goes back to my point that no blue state GOP Senators paid a political price for blocking Garland.
-
Because so far it is asymmetrical and it was unusual election
-
Sure, but that assume try is self-pereptuating unless Dems take courts as seriously as GOP and don't hold Dems accountable.
-
*assumption is self-pereptuating unless Dems hold Dems accountable
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And, more generally, unified opposition helps the politics for all Dems.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can't govern out of fear of what might be. That's how we got into this mess. You have to proceed as if doing the right thing would
-
produce the best result. It's not naive to support ethics and accountability.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.