African-American Voters See Court Fight as Affront to Obama

[mia]

Watching the fight unfold between President Barack Obama and Senate Republicans over who should choose the next Supreme Court justice, Michael A. Bowden got angry at what he saw at the latest affront to the first black president.

And then his thoughts turned from Washington to his own state.

Obama won't be on the ballot this fall, but Pennsylvania GOP Sen. Pat Toomey will — and Bowden has made defeating him in November a priority.

"This kind of thing really burns me to the core," said Bowden, a 56-year-old Air Force veteran from Philadelphia. "I've already started planting the seed in people's heads that Sen. Toomey is one of those people in lockstep with the Republicans. This could give him a wake-up call that he could be vulnerable as well."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/african-american-voters-court-fight-affront-obama-37257323

[rufus dog]

1. Um, no shit

This shows the absolute fucking stupidity of the Republican and faux Christians. The can't comprehend basics, an amazing inability to put themselves in anyone's shoes.

The level of motivation will vary, but all Obama supporters will be pissed off, add the ethnicity of the eventual SC appointee and millions will be motivated to vote as a big FU to the Repiggies.

[Rex]

2. A lot of people see that, after 8 years of abuse by the GOP Congress

it would be hard to miss.

[mia]

4. Time for Dems is now, "it is unlikely that they will get another opportunity until at least 2020."

...Control of the Senate is up for grabs again in 2016. In order to take the chamber back, Democrats will need to gain five seats in 2016, a difficult but not impossible task. The majority of seats up for election are held by Republican incumbents, many of whom are freshmen who were swept into office in the Republican wave of 2010. Additionally, the Senate election coincides with a presidential election, which should be a boon to Democratic candidates. Democrats have made gains in the Senate in the last two presidential elections, while they have suffered losses in the years between. However, Democratic gains are far from certain. Should the Republican Party field a much stronger presidential candidate, they could hold or even manage to pick up seats. Should Democrats fail to retake the Senate in 2016, it is unlikely that they will get another opportunity until at least 2020.[1]

The coinciding presidential election will have a significant impact on the elections for U.S. Senate. There are several U.S. senators up for re-election in 2016 who have made their presidential ambitions public in 2015. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have all declared their presidential candidacies.[2] Of those senators running for president, only Rubio and Paul are up for re-election in 2016. Rubio did not seek re-election to the U.S. Senate, while Paul sought both the presidency and re-election. The Republican Party of Kentucky decided Rand Paul could run simultaneous campaigns for president and the Senate. In a 111-36 vote, the party’s central committee approved a presidential caucus to replace its presidential primary, thereby preventing Paul from appearing on two ballots and violating Kentucky campaign law. Paul has since suspended his presidential campaign, making this a non-issue.[3]

The unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, places even greater importance on the 2016 Senate elections. Confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice requires 60 votes in the Senate, meaning that the Republican controlled Senate can and likely will deny any nominee chosen by President Barack Obama. Several Republican senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, have declared that the next president should have the responsibility of appointing the new justice. McConnell said in a statement, "The American people? should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."[4]

Assuming that the Senate does block any nominee of President Obama, confirmation will be left to the newly elected Senate in 2017. This puts increased pressure on both parties to win the Senate in 2016, as the chamber will have the ability to confirm or deny the next president's nominees. This could also raise the issue of Republican obstructionism in battleground states and potentially harm Republican incumbents who need to appeal to more moderate voters in order to win re-election. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the issue, "I believe that many of the mainstream Republicans, when the president nominates a mainstream nominee, will not want to follow Mitch McConnell over the cliff. The American people don't like this obstruction. When you go right off the bat and say, 'I don't care who he nominates, I am going to oppose him,' that's not going to fly."[4][5]

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_elections,_2016

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. I agree with them.

Ugly, racist Republicans control the House and Senate.

[mia]

9. It would be great if we could pick up more seats in both chambers.

In order to flip control of the chamber, the Democratic Party needs to pick up 30 seats, a nearly impossible task. Presidential elections tend to result in smaller changes to House partisan balance than midterms. The last two presidential elections saw gains of only eight and 24 seats for Democrats.[1][2] While it is extremely unlikely that the Democratic Party will be able to gain control of the chamber in this election cycle, Democrats can still hope to reduce the majority that the Republican Party holds. Republicans currently hold their largest majority in the U.S. House since 1928.[3]

The coinciding presidential election is likely to have a significant impact on the elections for U.S. House. Presidential election years lead to increased voter interest and turnout, which has an effect all the way down the ballot. In the past decade, presidential elections have led to Democratic gains in the U.S. House, while midterms have helped Republicans. If the trend holds, Democrats should look to pick up some seats in November.[3]

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2016

[Warpy]

5. Gee, guess AA voters aren't the stupid ones

because that's exactly what it is, a bunch of racist old farts doing what a bunch of other racist old farts put them into office to do.

It's disgraceful.

Even if Obama had only one day left in office, it's still his job to nominate the next Justice. It's their job to make sure the nominee is qualified.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. So do I.

nt

[malaise]

7. They should

Rec

[Zambero]

8. This will backfire big time on the GOP

They already have more than twice as many Senate seats to defend as do Democrats, putting them in a somewhat shaky defensive mode given their current narrow 4-seat majority . Their obstructive tactics will ultimately motivate more PO-ed Democrats to the polls to (hopefully) retire a significant number of these "strict Constitutionalists", in addition to increasing the number of votes cast for the top of the ticket. In a very close presidential race, it could tip the results to affect the future make-up of the Supreme Court itself. Republicans are greedy monkeys these days, grabbing so much fruit that they won't be getting their clenched hand out of the hollowed-out coconut containing it. If they pay dearly for it come November, it won't come as a great surprise, but indeed a delayed blessing of sorts.

[virgogal]

10. Obama is the first mixed-race president,not the first black one.

I often wonder why this fact is ignored so much.

[Deuce]

11. Probably one-drop rule...

The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan-African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood) is considered to be black (Negro in historical terms). This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into law in the 20th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

[brer cat]

12. That is his choice. He identified as black

on the census form instead of mixed.

[virgogal]

13. That is a slap in the face to the white mother and grandparents who raised him.

I have mixed race grandchildren-------and they identify as mixed race,which honors both parents.

Obama seems to have favored the father who abandoned him.

Odd !