POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

Still not jealous, Pannonian?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/h...sting-cdc.html

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.

But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...mcconnell.html

Many of us are coping with that lacerating redefinition by knowingly rolling our eyes. Ginsburg’s death hurts, but more than one strain of political grief is operative. This is why so many political reactions at present seem to orbit around the question of whether an unwanted outcome was unexpected. “And you’re surprised?” is a frequent response to some new instance of Trumpian corruption. This brand of cynicism has spread, quite understandably: It’s an outlook that provides some cognitive shelter in a situation that—having historically been at least somewhat rule-bound—has one side shredding the rules and cheering at how much they’re winning. Folks who at one point gave Republican declarations of principle the benefit of the doubt (I include myself) feel like chumps now. Conversely, the cynical prognosticators who used to seem crabbed and paranoid just keep getting proven right. Whatever the worst thing you imagine McConnell doing might be, he can usually trump it.

GOP appointees have been a majority of the Supreme Court since I was six months old.

With a new confirmation, they could easily remain a majority until I am 65 and possibly until I am 70, even if the GOP never wins the presidency or Senate again.

California Senator Feinstein on filibuster: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.”


Trump on Supreme Court vacancy: 'When you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want'

When we have the votes, overhaul the federal judiciary, admit new states, curtail gerrymandering and voting rights restrictions.

I think it would be a mistake on the Dems part to get sucked into all the hysteria surrounding this SCOTUS pick. In the end, unless 4 GOP senators break with party line, and all 47 Dems vote as a single bloc, there's nothing the Dems can do to stop it. That doesn't mean they should just run up the white flag, but allowing the GOP to divert the focus from the abysmal pandemic response, the shit-hole economy, the rampant white supremacy in the White House, the lack of respect for military veterans, etc, etc, etc, is exactly playing into Fearless Leaders game. If all of that is allowed to fade into the current noise about court-packing, and veiled threats about 'retaliation', then the Dems simply continue to be bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will lose. Stay focused on COVID-19, the economy, and the subversion of democracy.

I basically agree, but beyond messaging the issue itself I want to highlight the significance vis-a-vis the Democratic agenda - and it's something that has become an emergent motivator of Democrats and Independents. It's reassuring to see how many have been at least halfway-radicalized, by not just the concrete power seizure and threat to American life but the sheer insult of it. As they should be! I made two mistakes in my previous post, first using "civic" where I meant "civil," and "Bolshevik" where "Bolshevist" would have been apter as an allusion. I hope you understand.

Regardless of what kind of rhetorical posture or focus individual Dems adopt around it during the campaigning - and Biden surely would never be the standardbearer here - the Supreme Court is on almost everyone's mind; positive indicators as to the Dems' willingness and ability to respond appropriately remind us of what's needful and give us confidence that the party will fight on our behalf. The Dems shouldn't try to shut down the government over this, but once in power the only way forward is structural reform.