House GOP fears retirement wave will lead to tsunami

[mystery-ak]

The House Is Already Losing at Least 11 Republicans—And That Number Could Rise
https://fortune.com/2019/07/30/house-republican-departures-retirements?utm=newsbreak

[sneakypete]

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.

@Jazzhead

You see him as a solution. I see him as being at the core of the problem.

[skeeter]

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.

Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.

Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.

[Bill Cipher]

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate. 

Exactly.  When the history books are written, in the chapters on the federal judiciary, McConnell will be identified as a much more important, influential actor than Trump.

[Bill Cipher]

Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.

Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.

Trump has had very little to do with the nominees, other than generally following the instructions given him by the federalist and the others working to remold the judiciary.  Trump following orders rather than his own twitter muse is why the judiciary is the one true bright star in this otherwise addle-pated administration. 

[Jazzhead]

Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.

Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.

I give him due credit,  but why not continue this progress for the next four years?    That requires a GOP President and Senate.   If Trump's the nominee,  I fear we lose both.   

[Bigun]

Trump has had very little to do with the nominees, other than generally following the instructions given him by the federalist and the others working to remold the judiciary.  Trump following orders rather than his own twitter muse is why the judiciary is the one true bright star in this otherwise addle-pated administration.

No nomination = no confermation.

[truth_seeker]

Trump had something to do with those solid jurists as well. Maybe more than Mitch, since these solid nominees just started flowing.

Trump, the guy you wanna get rid of.

Trump:

1. Got elected.
2. Made appointments like he said he was when running.

Unlike Presidents Dole, McCain, Romney, Kasich, etc.

No Republican except Trump can win over the democrat.

The next best Republican is most certainly a reversion to previous talk-nice, play gentle losers.

[Bill Cipher]

No nomination = no confermation.

Which is why it’s a good thing the judiciary is the one place where Trump is showing some intelligence and following the instructions of those who really do know what they’re doing.  Like McConnell. 

In this case, it’s a good thing Trump is being a rubber-stamp, although that’s not really something he should be overly proud of. 

[Bigun]

Which is why it’s a good thing the judiciary is the one place where Trump is showing some intelligence and following the instructions of those who really do know what they’re doing.  Like McConnell. 

In this case, it’s a good thing Trump is being a rubber-stamp, although that’s not really something he should be overly proud of.

Whatever his motivations, he is STILL the one making those nominations and there is nothing that says he has to.

[Bill Cipher]

Whatever his motivations, he is STILL the one making those nominations and there is nothing that says he has to.

Great.  You’re absolutely correct that he could be screwing that up too, if he were following his own predilections and not the instructions of others.  At least he’s doing one thing right.  It’s too bad he won’t listen to smart people on other areas.  He’s certainly no great shakes when it comes to negotiating things: North Korea, for example. 

[Bigun]

Great.  You’re absolutely correct that he could be screwing that up too, if he were following his own predilections and not the instructions of others.  At least he’s doing one thing right.  It’s too bad he won’t listen to smart people on other areas.  He’s certainly no great shakes when it comes to negotiating things: North Korea, for example.

All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.

[XenaLee]

All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.

And .... he has thoroughly pissed off the radical/extreme idiot left in the process.   It's a win-win....lol.

[libertybele]

All I know is that he has done more in 3 years to move the ball in my direction than anyone else has since Reagan.

Pretty much. Like him or not, right now he IS the one standing between us and the radical liberal left and their intent to destroy our Republic.

Those GOP that have decided to retire supposedly because of Trump were part of the RINO brigade anyways ... so we can only pray and hope that they will be replaced with those more conservative.

[DCPatriot]

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.

How many GOP senators retired prior to Reagan's 2nd term?   

Did he have to deal with the same human weakness regarding loss of committee majorities and power?

During the Presidential election, most people vote straight Party ticket all the way down.  Next year, it will be a 'no brainer'.

[Smokin Joe]

Exactly.  When the history books are written, in the chapters on the federal judiciary, McConnell will be identified as a much more important, influential actor than Trump.

Ha! Not if the bunch currently cranking out His/Herstory is the group that publishes it.

[txradioguy]

Like many, you underestimate Mitch.    He is almost singlehandedly responsible for the plethora of solid conservative jurists, including Neil Gorsuch.   He would not be afraid to deliver reality to the President, especially if in early spring the numbers appear dire for keeping the Senate.

Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.

He singlehandedly  helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President.  Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran.  He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies.  Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.

Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.

[libertybele]

Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.

He singlehandedly  helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President.  Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran.  He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies.  Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.

Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.

 

[roamer_1]

People can vote or not vote as their conscience dictates.  However, anyone who expects not voting to "send a message" is missing the mark:

The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.

The difference being that you have affirmatively helped to put that thing in power.

It is in the end, nothing but a popularity game, when principles are not applied.
And I have never liked the popular crowd.

[Smokin Joe]

Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.

He singlehandedly  helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President.  Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran.  He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies.  Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.

Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.

Well put! 

[Smokin Joe]

The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.

The difference being that you have affirmatively helped to put that thing in power.

It is in the end, nothing but a popularity game, when principles are not applied.
And I have never liked the popular crowd.

Precisely. A vote in favor is seen as approval.
Abstentia is seen as tacit approval.
Only a vote for something else is seen as rejection. While Third Parties may be looked down on because they don't have the clout the 'big boys' have (yet, remember the Whigs), as the percentage of third party votes increases, so does the obvious and emphatic rejection of the Pubbies or the Dems. At present the calculus is one of whether the third party helps or hurts among the big two, but it could become one of how many votes are being lost and why if the margins get thinner. (They don't get much thinner than last time around, and with W.) The GOP didn't lose those votes to the Left, they lost them on the Right, and with those who just got so disgusted they stayed home.

[sneakypete]

Actually many here...as well as in the Commonwealth over estimated what McConnell would do as Majority Leader both times he's held the position.

He singlehandedly  helped Obama deliver most of his agenda in the 8 years he was President.  Working behind the scenes with Obama while everyone else was on recess to get things done that Obama wanted passed...to include that illegal unconstitutional deal with Iran.  He outright lied to Republicans about getting rid of Obamacare "root and branch". He shut real conservatives out of working in positions in the steering committee and the research service and replaced them with his cronies.  Mitch is willing to to work behind the scenes even if it means betraying his constituents and other Republican members of the senate if it's beneficial to him.

Mitch only cares about Mitch and that's why he and a few others...need to go.

@txradioguy

Yeah,that's the way I see it,too. I would only add that he he seems to care about his Chinese wife/handler.

[roamer_1]

Precisely. A vote in favor is seen as approval.
Abstentia is seen as tacit approval.
Only a vote for something else is seen as rejection. While Third Parties may be looked down on because they don't have the clout the 'big boys' have (yet, remember the Whigs), as the percentage of third party votes increases, so does the obvious and emphatic rejection of the Pubbies or the Dems. At present the calculus is one of whether the third party helps or hurts among the big two, but it could become one of how many votes are being lost and why if the margins get thinner. (They don't get much thinner than last time around, and with W.) The GOP didn't lose those votes to the Left, they lost them on the Right, and with those who just got so disgusted they stayed home.

That's exactly right. The battle is always pitched as though it is a war between two sides, stealing voters from each other... And it is...

Till Conservatives hear the clarion call and the factions come together... There are far more not voting than the difference between the two parties. The money shot is getting the disaffected Conservatives to the polls. Conservatism works, every time it's tried.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The opposite is also true, @Maj. Bill Martin
voting *for* someone when you don't support the platform, or don't believe in the man, is still translated as support - As mandate.

I disagree.  A vote for someone means only that you'd prefer that person win over the alternative.  Why you prefer them, or how "good" you consider them in an absolute sense, or whether their policies are ones you personally endorse, can't be determined by the mere fact of a vote.  It's a statement of relative preference, not absolute preference.

@roamer_1

[roamer_1]

I disagree.  A vote for someone means only that you'd prefer that person win over the alternative.  Why you prefer them, or how "good" you consider them in an absolute sense, or whether their policies are ones you personally endorse, can't be determined by the mere fact of a vote.  It's a statement of relative preference, not absolute preference.

But that is not how it is taken @Maj. Bill Martin .
Nobody does all that navel gazing.  Tumpy went forth like he had a mandate, even though it was a very narrow win, and with a depressed electorate.

And I will bet you money that had it gone the other way, Clinton would have done the same.

There is nothing for it. You only have an affirmative vote, and the vote you cast is approval of the agenda and the man.


All the rest is nonsense.