Thread by @jamisonfoser

Please read @danpfeiffer’s excellent post debunking the myth that court expansion is politically perilous for Democrats, drawing on research from @TakeBackTheCt: messagebox.substack.com/p/dont-believe…

(1/6)

Last November it became fashionable in some circles to say that court expansion hurt Democrats in Senate races, based on no evidence whatsoever. People who oppose expansion just asserted it, because they want to scare Democrats out of expanding the court.

Didn’t happen. (2/6)

Here’s the thing: Republicans don’t believe their own assertions about the politics of court expansion. We know that because *they didn’t run ads about it.*

Lemme say that again: *Republicans didn’t run ads about it.*

(3/6)

If Republicans really believed court expansion hurts Democrats, they would’ve run ads hammering away at it. And if they thought it hurt Democrats in November, they SURE would’ve run ads in the Georgia runoffs with control of the Senate at stake.

(4/6)

But, again, *Republicans did not run ads about court expansion.* When they say court expansion hurts Democrats and try to convince you they’re eager to talk about it, they’re bluffing. They know it’s bullshit. You should, too.

(5/6)

As @danpfeiffer notes, this isn’t new. Democrats have to stop falling for it. And, a reminder: Clinton promised new gun laws, was elected, signed new gun laws, kicked off his re-election campaign with an ad bragging about them, and was re-elected with 379 electoral votes. (6/6)

@danpfeiffer (PS: Take a guess how much money Republicans will spend on ads blasting Democrats for getting rid of the filibuster.)

PS This got some buzz last November — and it’s the worst analysis of anything I’ve ever seen. It portrays a few passing (free!) statements as candidates’ “closing narrative” and “centerpiece” of their campaign. The weakness of the argument speaks volumes.
abovethelaw.com/2020/11/court-…