How about McCaskill?

Especially after her warning about the pitfalls of blocking Gorsuch... http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141742644

But she says she's still mulling it over, so who knows? She is up for re-election in a red state, so I can understand where she's coming from.

Either way, I've read that Schumer has his 41 votes anyway.

Assholes

He's extreme. He's not some moderate judge. You aren't a real Democrat if your conscience can allow you to vote for Gorsuch

Republicans. He always votes with them!

He is a conservative jerk and I loathe him, but he votes with the Democratic Party 60-75% of the time, which is a whole lot better than the 0 we would get if he was replaced by a republican. He is from one of the most conservative states and he WILL be replaced by a republican if he doesn't run.

Congress are the lifeguards on the beach of our Republic.

They are not lifeguards at all. They are elected officials who represent the needs and interests of their constituents. If their constituents feel they do a poor job, they get fired. Lifeguards goo through a specific training and certification process to do a very specific job. They are not elected either.

you might sell Coke 50% of the time.

especially since there will be dying involved.

You may think they are wrong. I sure do. But in a democracy, we all get one vote.

It appears that Dems have more than enough votes to filibuster. From what I read, Dem leadership is OK with at-risk red-state Dems voting yes. So what's with y'all? Leadership seems to think that it will be easier to hold these swing seats if the reps are 'given space' to make their own decision. If Durbin and Schumer thought it was important, they would be aggressively whipping for these votes. But they are not.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/326435-dem-leaders-give-centrists-space-on-gorsuch

West Virginia isn't going to send us anything better any time soon.

Let's say you're at the local pool and there are two lifeguards on duty. The first lifeguard, Bob, successfully saves people 60-70% of the time. The other lifeguard, Derek, successfully saves people 0% of the time. If you need assistance do you yell out for Bob or Derek? (Or neither, and just drown quietly on your own?)

I wouldn't argue that having a lifeguard who only saved you 60-70% of the time would be "cool", but there are certainly situations where it might be the least worst option available.

an actual progressive micro-culture in these areas that could actually spread because the ideas are good? We are tying our hands in these places with these people who don't support or promote the very best that progressivism has to offer, and who at some point, screw not just their own constituents but all of us, when their support is most needed. Nothing will have more impact than Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, and not only are these Senators not going to filibuster him, they are going to vote form him? And we're going to back these people another round?

hell no.

You understand that 30-35% is way better odds, right?

Have you spent significant time in WV? Take some time and go spread your progressive ideas and then get back to me on how that went..... There are 1000's of pages written about the culture of the Appalachian Scotts-Irish. Go read some of that before you start trumpeting about how you know that they will jump right on the progressive train, if only someone told them about our AWESOME ideas. Trust me. Someone told them and they are not buying.

WV Democrats are their own breed. If we want their votes, progressives will sit down, shut up and let the people who grew up in that culture and speak that language lead them. Their brand of politics will never be the same as ours. Best we get is a coalition member. And the GOP spends a huge amount of money on divisive social issues to be certain that never happens either.

Actually, more precisely, what was said was 65% to 75% of the time, which implied this would happen more than once, which is what i was playing off of. Seemed to me the odds were gong to catch up, and fast.

Yes, the GOP spends a ton of money on that. We spend a ton of money there to support candidates who don't try to push against that but instead look for some vague purchase of left values on something. We don't push back by funding the progressives at these levels in these states because we've made up our mind they can't win, but that has to effect the presence and voice of those values in these states because the money isn't there for them...just as the republican noise machine affects the mindset of these counties and states negatively.

You have exactly the same chance of being saved each time.

Your view of WV voters is paternalistic and EXACTLY one of the reasons they hate 'progressives'. They have their own culture and their own way of doing things that has frustrated politicians since they got here. Pretty sure they got here because they pissed off the people in power so much they got kicked out of where they came from..... But whatever. Go read a few of the 100s of books and articles that have been written on the topic and then spend some time knocking doors for your great progressive candidate in that state. Get back to me on your success rate.

I agree that we have to campaign aggressively in all states. But if we do that successfully, it means more Democratic representatives who look like Manchin and Heitkamp, not fewer. The places they come from are culturally more conservative than ours. It is really frustrating to get along with them, but we can't change them with a snap of the fingers either. If you can't accept that, then resign yourself to being a member of a minority party forever.

part, we all continue to (or evolve to) believe what we do because we think we got it right. I happen to think that our ideas, if presented, can actually be catching, because they withstand scrutiny, whereas I find others fall down in the face of it. Preaching to people, and calling them deplorables or stupid, is the kind of shit that prevents actual discussion. That is judging. That is being superior.

Again, our money and how we spend it in that state matters. No one person can do that effectively. You wouldn't use that same logic if I had an idea for how to get a rocket to get into space. "Go build it in your garage and when it fails, come tell me about it."


And yes, each individual swim, you have a 75 percent chance of being saved. You want to tell me what the odds are if you calculate that assuming 10 swims or 20 or 100? Anyway it was a joke, and isn't worth all this effort, but come on.

YOU do the work. If you happen to think that your ideas will work, YOU go do it. No one is stopping you. That is the insane but difficult beauty of our system. We don't have to rely on anyone else to start change. We just go do it and no one can stop us. But we actually have to do the work too.

If you want to get a rocket into space, you can go campaign on that idea and win votes you need to get the funding to do the project.

If you want the Appalachian decedents of Scotts-Irish settlers to vote for 'progressive' candidates, you go campaign on that idea, win enough votes, and there you go! Relying on the party to do your work for you is foolish. There is considerably less money available than you seem to think, and people TRIED it already and failed. I swear to god they did..... But if you think the time is right for another go, have at it!

Again, there are millions of words written on the topic by historians, political experts and actual residents of the state. Try reading a few of them and maybe actually VISIT the state before making judgements on the inherent inferiority of the candidates they elect to office.

You are saying, basically, that your socially progressive ideas and candidates are better than theirs. You KNOW they would agree if only they would listen to you. But have you listened to them? Maybe they want YOU to understand the inherent superiority of their culture and political choices and change yours to suit them.

Personally, I don't thing either side is going to change. The best we can do is co-exist enough to create a coalition that can win a few elections and pass some decent legislation. This is the thing the GOP is incapable of doing. Have you notice how they can't pass shit because their Team Purity won't cooperate? It's fun to watch

As far as probability, you were saying it was better to go with the 100% chance of dying because you were bound to die anyway at some point with only a 65% chance of dying. I dunno what was funny about that.... Just pointing out that you are not certain to die with the 65% chance because probability resets each time. You always have 65% chance of not dying. Which is always better than 0%. I mean everyone dies SOMEDAY. It's inevitable. Do you mean take the 100% chance of dying now because you have a 100% chance of dying someday and its better to die with honor? Scotts-Irish might actually like that scenario but I dunno if that is going to be a super-popular option, in general

repeatedly. I didn't start off as identifying as progressive, so I know people do change.

Basically, as to the odds, there is nothing I would willingly do repeatedly(or once for that matter) that returned a 75 percent chance of survival every time I did it. That sounds like sure suicide to me, even if it doesn't to you. It was a fair assumption I think, of the ultimate result of taking such odds over and over.

Okay, say I'm going to roll a 100 sided die 20 times, what are the odds of me not rolling a 66 to 100 in those 20 rolls, or more? I'm no math wiz, and correct me if I'm wrong, but if it were just going to be 3 rolls, wouldn't I assume a 27 percent chance that the die wouldn't come up between 66-100 on one of them?

As to the Republicans, it is hard to know what is going on. It isn't the purity test that is really the problem is my guess. I think they're afraid of owning the disaster that they are about to create, and some are using the hardline as cover not to get this passed. I rarely see idealogue-ing actually get in the way of their typically horrible legislation, since those are usually just hats they wear for the masses depending on the mood.

That is a fair point, to an extent about what money is or isn't available. I understand that. If it isn't a lot though, then the question remains, how is it best spent, and i"m not convinced we are spending it right by backing these guys. I understand the argument that having a D instead of an R is better, but I wonder if that's the case if then we as a party have to own our failures when we are in power, and when we can't stop the excesses of Republicans with these politicians when the GOP is in power.

you would pick the 75% chance. And every single time you roll the dice, the odds of getting a certain result are the same. It doesn't matter how what happened in the past. That is not predictive of what the dice will do on the current roll. You many have died or not died 100 times in a row previously, but you chance of not dying is STILL 75% on the current roll.

Let's say I am flipping a coin. The probability that it would come up tails 50 times in a row is slim. I would not bet money on that happening. But each time I flip the coin, there is a 50/50 chance it will be tails. Doesn't matter what happened last time or the time before. Your luck does not run out. There is no lucky streak. It is random. The coin has no memory. Probability resets for each event.

This fact is why most people are really bad at gambling.

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/articles/units/calculating-chance.php


OK, we have probably tapped this subject out! Lemme know if you ever want to shoot craps

But I am still disappointed. It's ok to feel disappointed.

He was solid on not repealing ACA. He is 100% better than even a moderate Rep. And if we want to actually CONTROL the Senate again, we need him. It's just basic math.

The red dot on the left is Collins. This puts things into perspective however.

What is 'leadership score'? Link please.

They are helping to fence stolen goods.

the whole movement is about not ignoring the thugs anymore, and thinking they will never listen to their constituents
it is about getting out there and making them listen.
it is working.
bigly.

those states are also full of people who DIDNT vote for cheeto.

Heartbreaking but they are in red states and know the politics of their state.

FUCK THAT.

Vote your conscience (perhaps they have none) and then AFTERWARDS explain it to you constituents. "This was the best thing for our district." If they don't re-elect you because you're too honest, then you were in the wrong job to begin with.

I was drunk posting.

be pandering to their poor understanding of what this man is going to do, but that is NOT representing them. It is letting them rot so that these officeholders can attempt to keep their precious seats.

the US Senate? Same goes for WV US Senator Rockefeller-D
Dorgan voted NO on Alito
Rockefeller voted NO on Alito.
If Rockefeller could vote NO on Alito, then Manchin could vote NO on Gorsuch and not worry about losing re-election in 2018.

I would venture to guess that many of those you listed above voted for cloture.

Howard Dean said earlier today that the Manchin and Heidkamp votes are "already baked in"

Pick and choose our battles, IMO ~

Manchin/Heitkamp aren't taking optical votes for the pleasure of liberals in blue/purple states.

As long as we get to 41 to block.

Brown and Casey should not be intimidated. They are both more popular that Himmler Jr. in their respective states.

I could have told you it was those 2 without even looking. And with Trump likely in big trouble now, why help him?

in exchange for Gorsuch being confirmed. I hope it happens. They just need 6 more votes. It could be all democrats or possibly include a couple republicans.

The filibuster will not work on Gorsuch, it'll be nuked and just be a waste, but it may work on a second nomination that would change the balance of the court. It should be saved for then.

Both my GOP Senators vote with Trump 100% of the time. We Democrats and indys are pissed. We call them all the time and they don't answer. We try to have town halls, but they won't come. We gonna vote their sorry asses out next time because they only represent their fucking party, not the views and the interests of their state. Bet you hate them too and wonder how they can support Trump all the time when they won by a sliver and half the people in their state are Democrats too.

Manchin is from a state the has a solid majority of Republican voters. Dems already have the votes they need to fillibuster. They are just waiting to see if Turtleman has the balls to go nuclear, given the FBI investigations and Trump's epically low approval ratings. If Turtle pulls the trigger, pretty sure Durbin will start whipping the votes and get Manchin and Heidkamp into line.

There is plenty to be stressed about right now, but not sure if this is worth the effort at this point in the game.