So it looks like Flake is a yes and Murkowski is a no on Kavanaugh and it all comes down to Collins and Manchin. Collins to announce her vote at 3 ET. I think Manchin votes yes if Collins does. If she's a no he'd be the deciding vote.

But what does it mean to win? It would be absolutely shocking under any scenario if the Dems didn't get more House votes than the GOP, but 5% more may not be enough to flip control of the House. To put that in perspective, the GOP won in 2010 by @7% and took 63 seats. The Dems could win by 10% and not break 60 seats.

The Dems need to find a way to overcome this, I agree. They need to stand for something, I absolutely agree. But, right now a minority of voters control the House, Senate, and White House and will soon get two SCOTUS justices. I'm in favor of the Senate staying counter-majoritarian, but a system where the majority of voters control nothing is not a system that will remain civil or stable.

How can Collins say she hopes Kavanaugh will work to bring the divide together when one of the first things he did in his statement was scream about this being a political hit, the Dems, and the Clintons?

Collins is a yes. Welp. Guess being a judge who believes in conspiracy theories and political hit jobs is the new thing for a Supreme Court justice :rolleyes:

Whatever you think about her vote, you can't possibly feel like she just made up her mind. It sounds like she was never in play at all, really.

Pretty cunning move by McConnell to stage this as the "big reveal" of a swing vote and ensure that it's the full-on endorsement that the most die-hard Republican Yes vote would have given.

I get why the man's hated, but he plays the political game almost too well.

And of course, Manchin is now a Yes.

It's disgusting how these guys will sell their souls to get reelected.

When we allow people to make a career out of politics, that's kinda what you have to expect. They want to keep their jobs for as long as possible.

Manchin, Murkowski, and Collins probably planned this days ago.

I'm not sure it would be good general election strategy, but the first Dem primary candidate to run on adding two justices is going to get a nice fundraising boost and some early momentum.

Well, first non-Avenatti candidate.

On the other hand, do we expect Senators to represent their constituents? One can make an argument that Collins did not, but West Virginia went for Trump by 45%. I'm positive the vast majority of West Virginians wanted Kavanaugh confirmed. Doesn't Manchin have some responsibility to listen to his constituents here?

Murkowski is a No vote though.

But it's a meaningless no vote that provides cover, like Manchin's Yes.

This is my biggest problem with the, "Avenatti killed it," folks. She may complain about Avenatti, but she also thinks Ford is a liar, and that's much morelikely to be the reason for her vote.

I did think of that when I posted. The whole thing just had me disenfranchised

Hers was stated well before Collins or Manchin. And it isn't like Alaska is a super blue state.

If anything, if they planned this, Murkowski would have been the yes and Collins the no so Collins doesn't get curbstomped in 2020 (Murkowski isn't up for re-election until 2022).

FWIW, if you're a PredictIt person, I think the market makes no sense here:

https://www.predictit.org/Market/460...vote-by-Oct-31

I think the proper price is something like 50 at 40c, 51 at 55c, and a few cents for everything else... but buying shares of exactly 50 votes is way higher, and exactly 51 votes is way lower. I just poured my whole account into 51 and 52.

Are they really going to hurry a "done deal" vote and force Manchin to be #50?

Murkowski had some unique pressures back home. She's heavily reliant on the Native vote. They have astronomical rates of sexual assault in Alaska and Natives get the brunt of that. Plus there was a big sexual assault scandal that I can't fully remember that was huge news in the state (I think someone got let off with a slap on the wrist for rape, maybe I'm wrong).

Collins & Manchin voting yes, so he's in.

Justin Schneider. He strangled a woman until she passed out and then masturbated on her.

No jail time for man who pleaded guilty in strangling assault - KTVA 11 - The Voice of Alaska

To be fair and accurate, it was not a sexual assault and well he did lose his job so there's that.

Because some GOP Senator is going to be away for his daughter's wedding, who would have voted "yea", he and Senator Murkowski - voting "nay" - have a pair between senators, so she's not going to vote either.

That puts the vote at 50-48, the same margin as if both of the senators above had voted.

The upshot is that Trump’s gambit with firing Comey and installing Chris Wray in his place has worked, and FBI investigations can now be run out of the West Wing to suit Trump’s political agenda.

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) October 6, 2018

Not to be missed. According to the NYT story tonight, McGahn didn't want a full investigation, so he put serious restrictions on it, the WH repeatedly lied about the restrictions, and the Director of the FBI has said nothing.

How is strangling someone and then masturbating on them not a sexual assault ... that seems rather well odd?

How is strangling someone and then masturbating on them not a sexual assault ... that seems rather well odd?

Now for something really important.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/trave...es/1537513002/

No guarantees that seat sizes will increase but its better than nothing.

Yeah, it was too good to be true. I sold off after Lisa announced her “present” stunt but still lost a decent bundle.

And so the hit job conjured by the dregs of humanity fails.

It's a good day.

Now if only we can be lucky & he turns out to be a decent jurist.

That's as pretty clearly as I've heard the modern Republican party state it's purpose. 1. Pwn the Libs. 2. Worry about the governing later.

Conservatism is the opposite of liberalism, updated hourly.

WTF happened to Graham?

What do you mean?

When did he become a Breitbart commentor?

Not sure how this is any from his typical conservatism.

But really that doesn't matter in the slightest, eh? There was a battle to make liberals sad in this moment, even if it means giving up any and all a values that anyone might have held, and your guys did that, so lets laugh it up and make sure we call some women sluts and comment about the plight of the endagered white male along the way.

All in a days work. Well done.

IT really is sad that we have gotten to the point where winning is more important that doing what is best for the country. Then when you do win ignoring the needs or wants of the side who didn't vote for you.

Funny, that's exactly what my dad, a trump supporter, said about the Obama administration. He told me after the election, as mad as you are, this is how 'we' felt for 8 years. I really didn't understand how his presidency had the appearance of completely ignoring those who didn't vote for him.

Exactly.

Our country is in sad shape because of career politicians who make it their job to win. piss on the other party and pander to the lowest common denominator of your party to win.

But when it happens to their party it is shitty politics.

Lets open this up. Let 3rd party candidates into debates. We dont have a democracy until that happens

Find me 1 example of Obama pissing on the other party.

#notmyjudge

Meanwhile, at the Supreme Court tonight...

Not worth it. Im wrong in everything I post. You enjoy your better than everyone attitude. You win. Oh wait, you havent in about 2 years. Maybe thats an indication of how the country feels about your attitude.

Or we're almost an apartheid system. Currently a minority of voters controls the WH, the House, and the Senate.

Jesus Christ man, thats why people hate the current state we are in. All about winning.

You claimed the previous administration pissed on the other side. I am asking for an example. Like everything else Trump supporters do you will deflect and talk about winning, because thats what is important, the future of our country be damned.

Delusional much?

You just explained the democratic party in one sentence. Yet you dont see it. And this is why Trump was elected.

Wake up. Get a clue. YOU are why Trump was elected.

And for your information, I voted for Gary Johnson.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAH

Your party fucked over the candidate your voters wanted. Yet its the minority of voters.
'
What a joke. Fix your party before you fix the country

At least you're not even bothering to hide your trolling now.

But I'm sure you don't have a horse in this race either.

No, he's not. It's like the "Obama hates police" example. Stated as fact, but hand-waved away when asked for examples that back up the assertion (or when presented with info that refutes it).

Now he's not pissing on the police, he's pissing on the other party. And again, the response to asking where that perception comes from boils down to "bah, you guys are assholes who don't listen. This is why you lose!"

Not at all.

Dems rigged their primary so Hillary is the candidate because she has the best chance of WINNING.

She is as corrupt as any other politician out there. Probably moreso.

When she loses and every other Dem loses its because of a conspricay against you.

Wake up. The middle of this country holds great sway. Your BS politics and pandering to the minority will not work. Your side is losing and will continue to do so until you wake up and start understanding what this country is built on, the middle class.

I get your holier than thou attitude and understand. But until you quit whining and suck it up and quit pandering to the individual and go back to the greatest statement by any politician ever "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" (A democrat) your party will continue to lose.