(I quote-tweeted here not to shame Sam, or to cause a pile-on, but because his views aren't his alone—I figured it made more sense to address them once in public than in half a dozen different subthreads.)
I mean, we know that progressives are pissed off and energized by the Kavanaugh confirmation, right? Doesn't it make sense EVEN AS A MATTER OF PURE ELECTORAL POLITICS to validate and amplify that anger over the course of the next month?
"two men who called themselves Jose Rosales and Ahmahd Sadia walked into the campaign office of first-term Democrat Tom O’Halleran, with $39.68 and an urgent desire for the 'Northern Arizona University Communist party'"
"They made clear they were not an official group but were holding meetings. But they also insisted on a receipt."
If you're going to be doing campaign/GOTV work on election day, consider applying for an absentee ballot. It'll give you a lot more flexibility to go where you're needed for as long as you're needed.
I haven't voted in person in a presidential election since 2000. Every cycle (and some in between) I take my kids to a swing district and door-knock from Saturday through Tuesday.
In 2004, my plan was to drive home from Philly in time to vote in NYC before the polls closed, but I wound up putting in a full day and going to the (state leg) campaign's victory party, so I didn't get to vote.
With Haley's announcement at her resignation photo-op that she's going to support Trump in 2020, the time from "This is the Republican who will save the GOP!" to "No, not this one either." is down to less than an hour.
There is no reason to believe that Trump will face a meaningful primary challenge in 2020. If the Kavanaugh confirmation process taught you nothing else, let it teach you that.
The Republican Party is what it is, and it's not going to become something different anytime soon. It's amazing that this still needs repeating at this late date, but apparently it does.
I was trying to explain to @grammar_girl how seventies and how Upper West Side this restaurant I went to when I was a kid was, so I said its menu couldn't have been typeset in anything but Bookman or Benguiat.
She knew Bookman but she didn't know Benguiat, so I said Benguiat was Bookman at a key party.
Dean Heller (R-NV) just voted to confirm Kavanaugh. He recently called the sexual assault allegations against the judge "a little hiccup." He's up for re-election next month.
Jacky Rosen, Heller's Democratic opponent, said Kavanaugh "lacks the impartiality, the integrity, and the judicial temperament to sit on the Supreme Court." 538 says she has a 52.9% chance of winning. You can donate to her campaign here. secure.actblue.com/donate/jr_fr-s…
538 says Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) has a 31.4% chance of winning, but she voted against Kavanaugh anyway—in North Dakota—saying "our actions right now are a poignant signal to young girls and women across our country." You can support her campaign here. secure.actblue.com/donate/heidi-h…
Yep. It's not "young people don't vote," it's "each one of us, when we're young, is less likely to vote than we will be when we get older." And there are practical, structural reasons for that—things that we can change.
It's not that we don't know how to make it easier and more attractive for people to vote. It's that a lot of people in power—disproportionately, though not exclusively, Republicans—aren't interested in doing so.
Youth voter turnout is going to be higher this year than it is in most midterms, but it's not because old people have been yelling at young people to shame them for not voting.
Just a reminder that the vote that's happening right now is a vote invoke cloture—to limit debate and move to a vote on the nomination. Voting yes now (as Collins, for one, will do) isn't a tell on your vote tomorrow.
That said, Murkowski voting no is ... quite interesting.
(Collins announced before the cloture vote that she was voting yes on cloture but wouldn't announce her vote on the nomination itself until later today.)
David Brooks thinks the problem with people's responses to the Kavanaugh nomination is that they predictably adopted positions in line with their prior sociocultural commitments. Which position is, of course, predictable and in line with his prior sociocultural commitments.
"People formed their opinions on Kavanaugh mechanically and predictably!" says Brooks, in a column that anyone who's ever read two Brooks columns could have dictated verbatim a week ago.
Fun fact: I wrote the above two tweets on the basis of a one-sentence screenshot someone tweeted, and only afterwards went back and read the column to make sure I wasn't making an ass of myself. I wasn't!
An interesting, easy to miss, sentence from WaPo's piece on Manchin and the Kavanaugh vote tonight.
Note the phrasing here—Republicans think they can get Manchin "if they can get 50" votes without him. But they only need a total of 50, since Pence can break a tie if needed.
Now, this may be an error—@seungminkim, can you comment?—and what they meant to say was that the GOP believes that if they can get to 49, Manchin may get them to 50, but that's not what the piece currently says.
Heitkamp calls Ford's testimony "heartfelt, credible, and persuasive." Says "survivors should be respected for having the strength to share what happened to them—even if a generation has since passed."
Heitkamp doesn't offer an "I believe Christine Blasey Ford" soundbite, but she leaves no doubt that she believes Ford's testimony is truthful and accurate.
When a judge you clerked for makes SCOTUS, that's a life-changing moment. To cross him right before that happens—to burn that bridge—is a very big deal.
And I'm guessing here, but I have a hunch it's not all moral courage in this case. Kavanaugh is so tainted at this point—as a man and as a judge—that walking away from him may be in part a self-interested decision.
Because I am home now, and still not over being annoyed at being reminded that UB40 exists, I'll be listening to One Step Beyond on repeat for the rest of the evening. That is all. End of transmission.
If Kavanaugh's confirmation were a foregone conclusion, it would have happened already. It's not done until it's done.
If the GOP had the votes to move forward without a hearing on Blasey Ford, they would have done it. If they had the votes to move forward without an FBI investigation, they would have done it. They don't have 50 votes yet. Period.
Is it likely they'll have 50 votes to confirm Kavanaugh in a week? I don't know. I can make a case either way, and believe it. But I do know that they didn't have the votes this afternoon.
On the Kavanaugh vote, my sense is that six votes are in play right now: Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly. That could shift depending on what the FBI finds, but if there are no bombshells, they're likely it.
Flake has to be assumed to be a likely "yes" vote, since that's how he initially came out today, and Donnelly a likely "no" for the same reason, but Donnelly emphasized process issues in his statement this morning, so he could move.
If all that is correct, there are 46 solid "no" votes, and the Dems need five out of the six to get to the 51 they need. So Flake can flake, but only if all the others vote no.
Judiciary Committee in recess amid stories that Flake is caucusing with Coons for unknown reasons. CNN showing the clip of Flake's elevator encounter with survivors of sexual abuse from earlier in the day.
Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh nom in less than fifteen minutes. Lots of whispering happening. People ducking in and out of the room to confer.
No firm reason yet to believe that anything monumental is happening, btw. Just weird pre-vote jitteriness so far.