Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 2:27 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
If they expect to have any credibility, they'll hold fast.


yes they certainly want to maintain their credibility as it will help them maintain their high approval rating.


http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm


And, if they approve him, will their ratings improve?

No.

So, it's either principle or they can be spineless morons and move to Canada where they'll be welcomed.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 2:34 pm

It's a Presidential election year so their prospects are going to be more determined by the bigger picture. The question really is whether they want to settle for a man they can tolerate or risk having to put up with a nominee they find much harder to stomach. How lucky do Senate Republicans feel ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 16 Mar 2016, 2:41 pm

Sassenach wrote:It's a Presidential election year so their prospects are going to be more determined by the bigger picture. The question really is whether they want to settle for a man they can tolerate or risk having to put up with a nominee they find much harder to stomach. How lucky do Senate Republicans feel ?


And, there is a group of seven willing to meet with the nominee.

I'd be surprised if we see any official "change" of position before September. By then we'll see who the nominees are and how things are shaping up. If it's Trump v. Clinton and the polls show Clinton up by 30, the GOP will approve Garland.

It's way too early, but that won't stop some here from being authoritative.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 16 Mar 2016, 2:48 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
Sassenach wrote:So what do we think of the nominee ? I obviously don't know the first thing about him, but from what I've read Garland is about the best the Republicans could ever expect to come from a Democratic President. Do they go for broke and hope that Trump gets elected and nominates somebody more palatable (a double gamble in that respect of course) or do they figure this is better than risking Hillary getting elected and nominating somebody more liberal ?


Yeah, he's a strong nominee, and relatively moderate ... based on what they say, the Republicans will continue to act some weird kind of crazy ... what's that disease where mice have their brains infected so that they purposefully get caught by cats?

(cross posted with Dr. Fate -- enjoy the contrast)


Funny.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Mar 2016, 11:51 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I'd be surprised if we see any official "change" of position before September. By then we'll see who the nominees are and how things are shaping up. If it's Trump v. Clinton and the polls show Clinton up by 30, the GOP will approve Garland.

It's way too early, but that won't stop some here from being authoritative.

:confused:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Mar 2016, 12:19 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I'd be surprised if we see any official "change" of position before September. By then we'll see who the nominees are and how things are shaping up. If it's Trump v. Clinton and the polls show Clinton up by 30, the GOP will approve Garland.

It's way too early, but that won't stop some here from being authoritative.

:confused:


What confuses you?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 17 Mar 2016, 3:11 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I'd be surprised if we see any official "change" of position before September. By then we'll see who the nominees are and how things are shaping up. If it's Trump v. Clinton and the polls show Clinton up by 30, the GOP will approve Garland.

It's way too early, but that won't stop some here from being authoritative.

:confused:


What confuses you?
It is almost as if you have never been "authoritative. :wink:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 17 Mar 2016, 3:44 pm

danivon wrote:It is almost as if you have never been "authoritative. :wink:


Well, as I said, anyone who predicted Trump would be this close to the nomination a year ago, please raise your hand.

Similarly, anyone who thinks they know what will happen in November is . . . guessing. Probably wildly.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 7:12 am

Fate
Well, as I said, anyone who predicted Trump would be this close to the nomination a year ago, please raise your hand.


A year ago? That seems a little bit excessive. 8 days before he entered the race you said he would never do so...

When people were poo poohing his chances last Fall one person said this ....

09 Dec 2015, 9:09 am
Well, he does have a good shot for the nomination. before the weekend his polling numbers were going up, and for some reason these outbursts seem to serve to boost him when sensible people would be turned off.

And someone else responded
Yes, he can win the nomination, but he can't win the election. His negatives are too great


Anybody remember who ?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 7:56 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Well, as I said, anyone who predicted Trump would be this close to the nomination a year ago, please raise your hand.


A year ago? That seems a little bit excessive. 8 days before he entered the race you said he would never do so...

When people were poo poohing his chances last Fall one person said this ....

09 Dec 2015, 9:09 am
Well, he does have a good shot for the nomination. before the weekend his polling numbers were going up, and for some reason these outbursts seem to serve to boost him when sensible people would be turned off.

And someone else responded
Yes, he can win the nomination, but he can't win the election. His negatives are too great


Anybody remember who ?


Ooh, this is vital, except . . . December 9th is barely "Fall."

So, a couple of months ago . . . big deal. He was already well ahead in the polls. Furthermore, no one said he could not win the nomination.

So, give yourself a big pat on the back and get ready to go visit Hillary in jail.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 2:15 pm

Fate
So, give yourself a big pat on the back

Danivon was the first quote.
Rayjay the second.

Fate
Furthermore, no one said he could not win the nomination.

Lots of people did.
Especially you after saying he would never run.
Your early favorite was Marco.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 2:39 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
So, give yourself a big pat on the back

Danivon was the first quote.
Rayjay the second.

Fate
Furthermore, no one said he could not win the nomination.

Lots of people did.
Especially you after saying he would never run.
Your early favorite was Marco.


So, are you flat-out saying Trump will be the nominee and will lose?

Or, are you just being dopey?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 2:42 pm

God knows there's been some pretty dismal arguments here over the years, but arguing over which of us has the worst prediction record (when we've all made so many blunders) surely has to be right up there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 3:10 pm

Sassenach wrote:God knows there's been some pretty dismal arguments here over the years, but arguing over which of us has the worst prediction record (when we've all made so many blunders) surely has to be right up there.


Actually, I find it interesting that he's willing to spend his time digging through the archives. How far back will he go? What did RJ say about Gore v. Bush?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 18 Mar 2016, 3:15 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
Sassenach wrote:God knows there's been some pretty dismal arguments here over the years, but arguing over which of us has the worst prediction record (when we've all made so many blunders) surely has to be right up there.


Actually, I find it interesting that he's willing to spend his time digging through the archives. How far back will he go? What did RJ say about Gore v. Bush?


Back then I was a Democrat.