Reply With Quote
Anyhoo... speaking of work... Laters.
Another thing that many conservative/libertarian minded people miss is that we are not islands unto ourselves.
Personal decisions almost invariably affect others in one way or another. In that way we are a society, with a collective risk and responsibilities.
If my personal decision is to ignore my kids to the point that they grow to be criminals, my choices have forced their victims to pay, and society as a whole to pay for their incarceration, just as a quick, easy example. Reality is much deeper, and more intertwined.
Societies as a whole benefit from allowing people to reach their potential. This is the huge strength of free markets that provide rewards for talent.
BUT
At some point, how much is enough for a human being, especially when it comes at the expense of others? Economies require labor and capital to function. Reward one too much over the other and everybody loses, i.e. communism and hyper-concentrated capitalism.
Anyhoo... speaking of work... Laters.
Not to mention that EVERYONE benefits from a society where basic needs are guaranteed. Employees with less to worry about at home are going to work better, take fewer sick days and in general be better consumers. Having good roads helps for the transportation of goods and again ensures that employees can get to work on time. Standardized (high-level and affordable) education means a broader workforce to choose from and hopefully a wealthier clientele to push goods onto. It's just a basic investment strategy here.
Grassley at center of court storm
Grassley, the chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, prides himself as being an advocate of transparency and good government. But those credentials are being called into question in the intense debate over replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Grassley issued a statement an hour later concurring. “It only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
The editorial board of the Des Moines Register ripped Grassley for the statement, saying the senator missed an opportunity “to be less of a politician and more of a statesman.”
“He could have made it clear that he favors a Senate vote on the matter — a move that still would enable Republicans to accept or reject the eventual nominee based on merit — but he chose instead to disregard his cons utional duty by rejecting a nominee who hasn’t even been named,” the paper wrote.
Grassley has since backed off his statement under growing pressure from Democrats, outside groups, legal observers and even fellow Republicans.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...of-court-storm
Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing
If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.
“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the
“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”
“Senator McConnell is right, under no cir stance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action, the lobby arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation
The Family Research Council is also advocating that Senate refuse to take up any nominee Obama submits.
FreedomWorks is preparing to target senators who look like they’ll back down from the fight, while bolstering those who hold to McConnell’s tough initial line.
“In some cases where there are potential primary opponents, we might consider supporting a primary opponent if the senator did not do the right thing,”
part of the strategy of denying the Obama administration even a hearing is to prevent the media from focusing on the person instead of the process, and in effect, starving the story of oxygen.
But the outside groups pushing the tactic also argued it’s a more principled approach to blocking a nominee that Republicans will inevitably block in a vote anyway.
“It’s the most honest,” Levey said. ”The very fact that people on our side feel very strongly that there shouldn’t be a hearing before we know the nominee is because it’s not really about the nominee. ... Frankly, the real objection here is to Obama.”
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outside-groups-scotus-nom-fight?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_ca mpaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29
... and the "strong on law and order and Cons ution" Repugs say: " the Cons ution" when it pleases us, just like s bag Scalia.
"Work hard" is relative. I'm sure most successful people work hard relative to not working. My issue with the self-determination ideal is it implies everybody has equal opportunity to move upward just by "working hard." In reality, if you are born into wealth, you have a much better chance of success than if you are born into poverty, even if you work equally hard in the two scenarios.
Sandra Day O’Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by a Republican president, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.O’Connor specifically said during the interview, “I think we need somebody there to do the job now and let’s get on with it.” She added, in reference to President Obama, “It’s an important position and one that we care about as a nation and as a people. And I wish the president well as he makes choices and goes down that line. It’s hard.”
O’Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.
That’s not at all what Republicans wanted to hear.
On the contrary, O’Connor, a Reagan appointee who retired in 2006, effectively said the opposite of what GOP senators have argued since Saturday night.
Obviously, O’Connor is now a private citizen and her opinions are her own, but she’s also a respected figure, especially on matters related to the high court. If she’d said the opposite in the interview, encouraging Obama and sitting senators to leave the seat vacant until 2017 for the good of the ins ution, it’s a safe bet Republicans would be citing her judgment every day for the next several months.
But she didn’t. O’Connor seems to have no use for the GOP arguments whatsoever.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
Sure... go back on topic...
heh.
The GOP members involved will have to walk back the "not no how, no way" they first committed themselves to.
Someone made a very good point that Scalia himself would likely have taken a dim view of ignoring the cons ution when trying to replace him.
Not a fitting way to honor the man, as many on the right claim to do, IMO.
"safe bet" indeed.
Scalia's Death and the Republican Party of Strict Obstructionism
By Frank Rich, New York Magazine
itch McConnell's pledge to block any Supreme Court nominee to succeed Antonin Scalia is finding what appears to be near-unanimous support from Senate Republicans, but others speculate that President Obama may use the fight to increase Democratic turnout at the polls this fall. What are the risks of McConnell's strategy?
Excuse me, but if we are talking about the politics of this brawl, it’s a no-brainer.
Obama, a lame duck who will not be on the ballot in November, has nothing to lose by standing on principle and carrying out a president’s duty to submit a nominee to the Senate.
The GOP, by contrast, has a lot to lose come Election Day — including control of the Senate. Though a Times front-page headline this morning reads “Court Path Is Littered With Pitfalls, for Obama and the G.O.P.,” the only potential pitfalls it actually identifies are all for the GOP.
Still, before we get to the politics of the Scalia vacancy, please let’s talk about the bigger picture. The cons utional picture, if we must be grand about it.
As the president pointed out Tuesday, it’s laughable that conservatives who claim to be strict cons utionalists in the Scalia vein want to defy the Cons ution by declaring that a president has no right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during his final year in office. As the Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell has pointed out, the GOP has taken the position that the first year of a president’s term also does not officially count — that’s the logic by which its presidential field (Donald Trump excepted) keeps insisting that President Bush “kept us safe” despite the fact that 9/11 occurred eight months into his presidency.
Then again, the radical right that now rules the GOP, for all its protestations of strict fidelity to the Founding Fathers, has been as hostile to the federal government during the Obama years as the secessionists who embraced the ideology of John C. Calhoun to foment the Civil War.
Republicans in Congress have
held up countless judicial appointments and Executive-branch appointments, denying American governance the essential tools of personnel in top-tier jobs;
they have balked at the routine fiscal task of raising the debt ceiling;
they have shut down the government altogether when they couldn’t get their way.
Today’s secessionist insurgency has reached such an extreme that both Republican senators from the Dixie stronghold of Alabama, Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions, have blocked the elevation of Abdul Kallon to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (where he would be the first African-American from Alabama to serve) even though they both backed him for his current post as a U.S. District judge.
Which brings us to the politics. Rob Portman of Ohio is one of seven in bent Republican senators up for reelection this year in states that Obama won in the 2012 election. After Scalia’s death, he tweeted that it was “the best thing for the country” to “trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment.” He refuses to acknowledge that the American people did weigh in on who should make that appointment when they voted in the last presidential election and the one before that.
But like a true nullifier of the Calhoun persuasion, he simply denies the legitimacy of elections, laws, and a president he doesn’t like.
Does he not think this will not be noticed by his own cons uents when they return to the polls this fall?
What’s more, Obama could inflict more damage on Portman and other vulnerable Senate in bents — and on the GOP’s national ticket — by nominating a qualified justice who by definition will further highlight the party’s knee-jerk hostility toward immigrants, women, black people, gay individuals, and Hispanics.
James Hohmann of the Post cites the potential nominee Monica Márquez, the first Latina and first openly gay justice of the Colorado Supreme Court.
Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast proposes Tino Cuellar, an associate justice in the California Supreme Court who was born in Mexico and became a naturalized citizen before earning degrees at Harvard, Yale Law, and Stanford.
Cuellar’s wife, Lucy Koh, is another contender: America’s first female Korean-American district judge, confirmed by a 90-to-0 vote in the Senate when Obama nominated her for the post in 2010 but sure to be rejected now by the same Republican senators who voted for her then.
How exactly does this end well for the GOP in an election year?
By refusing to act on the Scalia vacancy, the party will once again brand itself as the party of obstructionism, government dysfunction, and animosity toward the growing majority of Americans who do not fit its predominantly white male demographic.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/scalias-death-and-gops-strict-obstructionists.html
chuck schumer is a democrat
Glenn Beck says God killed Scalia to goose Ted Cruz's poll numbers. Sure, why not.
On Tuesday, the conservative radio host and Cruz supporter assumed the voice of God to explain to listeners how Scalia's death was a divine wake up call for conservatives. [...]
Beck then took on the voice of the Lord: "I just woke the American people up. I took them out of the game show moment and woke enough of them up to say, 'Look how close your liberty is to being lost,'" he said.
"The Cons ution is hanging by a thread. That thread has just been cut. And the only way that we survive now is if we have a true cons utionalist (as president)," Beck said.
Beck, who has endorsed Cruz, often invokes God during speeches at the Texas senator's campaign rallies, and has even claimed that Cruz's birth was brought about by "the hand of divine providence."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/0...28Daily+Kos%29
again, what the are these headlines... how is this considered journalism?
Journalism
President Obama Trounces Republicans as 62% Want SCOTUS Vacancy Filled Now
Even with a leading question, a new Fox News poll shows what Republicans are up against as 62% say the President and Senate should take action to fill vacancy now, while just 34% say wait.
Independents broke along similar lines 61% to 35%.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/18/62-president-senate-fill-scotus-vacancy.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed &utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Polit icus+USA+%29
The Judicial Crisis Network's Incredibly Dishonest Pro-Obstruction Ad
The messaging that conservatives seem to have settled on regarding the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia is that somehow Americans won’t have a say in who the next justice is unless the confirmation of any nominee is stalled until after the next president takes office. (No matter that the current president was, in fact, elected by the American people for this very job.)
The first TV ad out of the gates in the Supreme Court battle comes from the Judicial Crisis Network, which uses this messaging in an effort to pressure Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to stand strong on denying a hearing to any Obama nominee for the seat.
The screen shows softly lit stock footage of diverse Americans as a voiceover says:we always have to note that during the George W. Bush administration the
It’s ‘We the People.’ Sometimes the politicians forget that. The Supreme Court has a vacancy and your vote in November is your only voice. Sen. Chuck Grassley agrees: the American people should decide. This isn’t about Republicans or Democrats. It’s about your voice. You choose the next president, the next president chooses the next justice. Call Sen. Chuck Grassley. Thank him for letting the people decide.
Judicial Crisis Network was called the Judicial Confirmation Network and that
its stated mission was to ensure that “the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote."
As far as we know, the Judicial Confirmation Network didn’t oppose any of the 28 federal judges who were confirmed during Bush’s final year in office.
But it definitely “isn’t about Republicans and Democrats”!
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/judicial-crisis-networks-incredibly-dishonest-pro-obstruction-ad
GOP LYING? never!
GOP tries to make up Supreme Court ‘tradition’ that doesn’t exist
Marco Rubio, like most Senate Republicans, intends to maintain a blockade against any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President Obama, regardless of the person’s qualifications. He even has a talking point he’s eager to share.
Yesterday, CNN’s Jake Tapper noted, for example, that Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in President Reagan’s final year in office, but Rubio replied that doesn’t count because the nomination was made a couple of months prior. The senator added:
“This is a tradition that both parties have lived by for over 80 years where in the last year, if there was a vacancy in the last year of a lame duck president, you don’t move forward.”
Rubio isn’t the only one using the word “tradition” this way. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said on social media yesterday that President Obama should “follow a tradition embraced by both parties and allow his successor to select the next Supreme Court justice.”
I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that traditions matter in the political process. In fact, I made just such a case earlier this week, exploring the consequences of congressional Republicans abandoning traditional norms that have helped make governing possible for generations.
But now seems like a good time to add some clarity to the matter. Honoring traditions is one thing; making up traditions that don’t actually exist is something else.
Look at that Rubio quote again: “This is a tradition that both parties have lived by for over 80 years where in the last year, if there was a vacancy in the last year of a lame duck president, you don’t move forward.”
Now, I have no idea if Rubio is confused, uninformed, or trying to deceive the public. I do know, however, that his talking point doesn’t make any sense.
There is no such “tradition.” In order for something to become “traditional,” it has to happen routinely over the course of many years, and in this case, the number of instances in which both parties have agreed to leave a seat on the Supreme Court vacant for a year, waiting for an upcoming presidential election to come and go, is zero.
Or put another way, if Rubio and Murkowski want to compile a list of all the examples that help establish this tradition – instances in which Supreme Court vacancies went unfilled because it was a presidential election year – I’d find that incredibly useful.
But I have a hunch such a list won’t appear anytime soon. That’s because plenty of presidents have nominated justices in election years – and those nominees have generally been confirmed.
One might even say the American tradition holds that presidents do their jobs when there’s a vacancy (choosing a nominee), which leads senators do their jobs (consider that nominee for the bench).
It’s one thing to make up “rules” that don’t exist. But to characterize an event that hasn’t occurred as a bipartisan “tradition” is to take partisan propaganda to unhealthy levels.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...d=sm_fb_maddow
iow, the Repugs to .
sounds like chuck schumer circa 2007
Scalia’s Resort Trip Was Gifted By a ‘Friend’ Who Had Business Before the Supreme Court
It’s now been revealed that the luxury hunting ranch vacation Antonin Scalia was on when he died was a gift from someone who Scalia indirectly helped with a recent Supreme Court decision.
In late 2015, the Supreme Court declined to hear an age discrimination suit (Hinga, James V. Mic Group, LLC) against a subsidiary of the manufacturing company J.B. Poindexter, which is owned by John B. Poindexter. Poindexter also owns the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch in Shafter, Texas, where Scalia was vacationing when he died last weekend. According to the Washington Post, Scalia didn’t payfor his flight to the ranch, or for his room at the luxury ranch. His food and beverages were also free. Poindexter maintains that Scalia wasn’t given any preferential treatment, as the 36 people staying at the ranch that weekend were all staying for free.
However, the Post also reports that lingering questions remain about who else was staying at the ranch, and whether or not Poindexter or any of the ranch’s guests were trying to curry favor with the late Justice:
The nature of Poindexter’s relationship with Scalia remained unclear Tuesday, one of several lingering questions about his visit. It was not known whether Scalia had paid for his own ticket to fly to the ranch or if someone else picked up the tab, just as it was not immediately clear if Scalia had visited before.
It is also still not known who else was at the Texas ranch for the weekend, and unless that is revealed, there could be concerns about who could have tried to raise an issue around Scalia, said Stephen Gillers, who teaches legal and judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law. He compared it to unease that arises when judges and officials from major companies are invited to seminars or educational events that bring them together for periods of time.
During Justice Scalia’s tenure on the nation’s highest court, an astonishing number of decisions favored corporate plaintiffs and defendants, prompting the New York Times to call it the most corporate-friendly court since the World War II era. An op-ed in theAtlanta Journal-Cons ution called the current Supreme Court — which, including Scalia, had the conservative majority of Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Scalia-Kennedy deciding cases in favor of big business — an “enforcer of corporate power.” The op-ed cited a professional statistical review that examined the results of over 2,000 cases:http://usuncut.com/news/scalia-hunting-trip-was-a-gift/
The study published in the Minnesota Law Review ranked the 36 justices who have served in the post-WWII era in terms of how corporate-friendly their rulings have been. Not surprisingly, the five conservative members of the current high court all ranked in the top 10 most business-friendly justices to serve in that era. Four of the six most business-friendly justices now serve on the court.
Not the first time Scalia didn't bother to avoid an appearance of corruption.
The Roberts court is the 1%/VRWC/BigCorp court.
Outside Groups Warn GOP: Don’t Even Think About Holding A SCOTUS Hearing
If any Republican senator is thinking about defecting from the GOP’s tough line on blocking a Supreme Court nomination until next year, then let them be warned. Outside conservative groups are preparing to go to war over who should get to pick a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly over the weekend, and they don’t want to see even a hearing considering the nominee President Obama has vowed to put forward.
“The strategy that makes the most sense is to say that there should not be any consideration of this nominee,” Curt Levey, executive director of the FreedomWorks Foundation, said in an interview with TPM. "It would be irrelevant to have a hearing because it’s the situation: the fact that it’s an election year, the fact that his policies are before the court, the fact that the court is so finely balanced at the moment.”
The pressure he and other groups are putting on lawmakers comes after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued a statement almost immediately after Scalia’s death, signaling that Republicans would delay the confirmation process, regardless of the nominee, until after a new president has been inaugurated.
“It’s not about any one particular nominee,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the conservative legal organization Judicial Crisis Network, told TPM. “We know exactly the kind of person [Obama] is going to appoint. Getting into those details is just a silly distraction.”
For both sides of the political divide, the stakes could not be higher.
“We’ve known this was coming for while. We set aside resources for this fight because everyone knows the next president is likely to have maybe three nominations to make,” Severino said. She wouldn’t go into details about her group’s next moves when it comes to halting the Obama nominee, but said “we’re totally prepared for it,” including financing the effort.
One key choice for Republican lawmakers is whether to go through the motions of considering a nominee -- though hearings and other vetting -- before blocking them in a vote, or whether GOP leaders should refuse to even begin the process in the first place. McConnell’s statement, which was quickly followed by statements made by other Republican leaders echoing his logic, suggested they were planning for a full stonewall -- no hearings, no nothing
Outside conservative groups with influence on Capitol Hill -- and particularly those that inhabit its far-right flank
“Senator McConnell is right, under no cir stance should the Republican Senate majority confirm a Supreme Court nominee as Americans are in the midst of picking the next president,” Michael Needham -- the head of Heritage Action,
The Family Research Council
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/outs...otus-nom-fight
It’s time to end Antonin Scalia’s prison state: How the next SCOTUS justice could help end mass incarceration
Few people did more to ensure the ranks of American prisons swelled over the past generation than Scalia
It’s hard to believe that the United States’ vast prison archipelago, holding roughly 2.2 million human beings in cages, somehow squares with the cons utional prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.” To many eyes, it is both of those things: The system is fueled by statutes prescribing long sentences that are both extreme and by comparison odd for crimes both minor and major.
But narrow majorities on the Supreme Court led by recently-deceased Justice Antonin Scalia haven’t seen it that way.
Scalia, reaching back to the 18th century as he liked to do, pushed the Court to adopt a maximally restrictive view of what kind of punishment could be so grossly disproportionate so as to run afoul of the Cons ution. In practice, he found nothing that would qualify.
Replacing Scalia with a more humane, less hidebound justice could allow the Court to take a more expansive look at the Eighth Amendment and, in doing so, do something quite radical: help end mass incarceration. In could also end the death penalty, something that Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have strongly suggested they are ready to do.
“Scalia was perhaps the strongest opponent of proportionality analysis of any kind under the Amendment,” emails Jonathan Simon, a University of California Berkeley law professor and faculty director of its Center for the Study of Law and Society.
“A more robust proportionality rule would go a long way to eliminating some outsized determinate sentences that drive a big part of mass incarceration.”
But by 1991, the Court put an end to their flirtation with checking excessive punishment, voting in Harmelin v. Michigan to uphold Ronald Harmelin’s state mandatory life without parole sentence for possessing 672 grams of cocaine.
Scalia, writing for himself and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, found that “the Eighth Amendment contains no proportionality guarantee” because while “disproportionate punishment can perhaps always be considered ‘cruel,’ but it will not always be (as the text also requires) ‘unusual.’”
Simon points to the 2011 decision Brown v. Plata, where the Court ruled that California’s overcrowded prisons were uncons utional, pushing a recalcitrant state toward some measure of decarceration. Predictably, Scalia called the ruling “outrageous” in his dissent. By contrast, Justice Kennedy’s majority decision indicated the Court’s growing willingness to consider even those duly convicted of a crime to nonetheless remain human beings.
An additional justice who understands this, and maybe even a bit more expansively than Kennedy, could usher in a sea change in Eighth Amendment jurisprudence—one that could put a huge dent in mass incarceration. A fair look of the harsh sentences that hundreds of thousands of Americans currently serve makes it clear that the system is no doubt both cruel and unusual. To end mass incarceration, the Court needs another Justice Marhsall.
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/21/its_...incarceration/
Republicans debate whether to honor cons utional process
Republicans made a bold claim – tradition holds that the Senate ignore Supreme Court nominees in presidential election years – and Democrats “disagree” with that claim. Which side is correct? The article doesn’t say.
So let’s answer the question with the demonstrable truth: Republicans are lying.
There is no “common practice” that justifies their blockade strategy, and there is no “tradition” to honor.
The gambit GOP senators have launched is simply without precedent in the American experience.
Whether or not some “agree” or “disagree” with a party’s talking points is irrelevant. Partisans can respect traditions, norms, and common practices, but they can’t simply make them up out of whole cloth – and reporters certainly shouldn’t help them by playing along.
the Indiana Republican, who’s retiring this year, said he’s applying a “litmus test” in which Antonin Scalia’s replacement should agree with Scalia’s “cons utional position.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...l_mra_20160222
Olympia J. Snowe, a former moderate Republican senator from Maine. “I believe that the process should go forward and be given a good-faith effort
good-faith from the Repugs?
Republicans Risk Five Key Senate Races With Supreme Court Stance
The Senate is in play this November, and the same vulnerable Republicans whose defeats might cost the G.O.P. control of the chamber are at once among the likeliest to back President Obama’s nominee. They are also the likeliest to suffer if the fight has political costs to the party.
The Democrats aren’t favored to retake the Senate. They would need to gain five seats (or four if they retain the presidency). But they have a real opportunity to win because a large number of Republicans from compe ive or Democratic-leaning states are up for re-election. These Republican senators could have strong electoral incentives to support Mr. Obama’s Supreme Court nominee — otherwise, their opposition will be used against them.
The large number of relatively moderate Republicans from relatively moderate states is an artifact of the sweeping Republican victory in the midterm elections six years ago. In that election, Republicans won six Senate seats in states that Mr. Obama would carry in 2012: Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Illinois.
All of these senators, except Marco Rubio of Florida, are running for re-election, and all of them are vulnerable. Democrats have recruited strong candidates in all but one of these states, Pennsylvania — and the situation there isn’t so bad for the party.
What all of these vulnerable senators have in common is that their success depends on winning a fair share of relatively moderate voters who traditionally vote Democratic in presidential elections.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/16...ate-races.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions