I even saw some ridiculous nonsense this week - some of it fomented by Thom Hartmann - that the DOJ was not acting because Garland had cut a deal with Republicans to be the nominee to replace Breyer should he step down.
The DOJ was gathering facts and making its case to a grand jury - a process done in secret. This isn't a Republican DOJ, which doesn't enforce any laws and can thus say "no" to everything quickly. Actual law enforcement takes a bit of time.
Couldn't even get the one GOPer in Michigan who was clearly in the tank to vote no. He abstained (a real profile in courage).
So, that's the end of the Michigan drama. And Trump. And the concern trolls.
But the GOPers, by showing themselves to be enemies of the democratic process (and by activating, then visibly failing, their base of low-information supporters), may have done lasting damage to themselves, starting in Georgia.
Everyone knew the GOP and their online allies weren't just going to give up, right? The point of the Barrett hearings is not just to install her on the Court; it's to rally their base and demoralize Democrats.
So it's no surprise that a quick survey of the board threads in the last few hours, on the opening day of the Barrett hearings, reveals loooooads of horserace stories, focus on one bad Senate poll (which even the most rudimentary analysis shows isn't credible or even that bad), and anecdotes about Dems in Disarray!! Oh noes!!
This is, of course, part of a coordinated effort to dismay and deter, and to generate polls that show a "tightening" race. It isn't going to work.
This is not 2016. It's a completely different race. The vast majority of people see the Barrett Rush for what it is. And Democrats are doing well; just as well as they were a week ago. In fact, probably better.
Vote. Donate to races if you can (that aren't oversaturated). Sign up for phone banking or texting or some other means of volunteering. Clear your head. Do something! They can't win unless we cooperate.
And it wasn't Mr. Trump.
You can see it in the tweets, in the instapolls (with the typical caveats about flawed methodology, etc.), and in the second-thought, upon-reflection commentary by the pundits. After the "debate" ended, the media's instant reaction was to call it a "s***show," which implied that Joe did poorly too and somehow played a role in the sequence of events that unfolded.
But after that wore off and everyone got over the shock (for whatever reason) that a president of the United States of America would act the way he did and say the things he did . . . well, it's becoming pretty clear that Biden's debate strategy was masterful and he executed it very well. He stood there and let Trump self-destruct, but he wasn't overly aggressive to the point where anyone could really dismiss him as "rude to the president" or any such silliness. He made his points, he kept his cool, and he got in the clear line of the night, saying what so many people have wanted to say to Trump for a while now.
Not bad. I'm feeling more cheerful tonight about this race than I have in a while - and I was already pretty cheerful.
Next up, let's see what Sen. Harris has in store for Mr. Pence.
She said that voters may have internalized impeachment and realized that they should take a close look at Biden, the person Mr. Trump feared enough to risk his presidency.
I'm glad she switched sides. She's really insightful.
(a) it wasn't a caucus but a primary and
(b) the results were called almost immediately with no goofiness dragging out the count, etc.
Apart from the obvious differences between the other three states to have gone so far, I find that intriguing. And suggestive.
So very kind.
Of course every development of any kind is always dooooooom, doooom for the Democrats in the eyes of the media, but today I'm seeing some of this on DU as well and it puzzles me. First off, I was a Harris supporter but have now switched to Biden and I'm saddened that she ended her campaign.
BUT this isn't indicative of some huge diversity problem that the Democrats allegedly have. It's more a combination of three factors:
1. Harris ran a pretty poor campaign and failed to adjust when needed (probably most notably after the first debate);
2. Booker's campaign has been phony and tin-eared and he just hasn't resonated;
3. Huge numbers of black voters support Joe Biden.
With Biden already in the race and the first choice of so many African-Americans, and with Booker and Harris doing poorly as candidates no matter what their race, there really is no evidence of some systemic problem with the Democratic primary process. Particularly when we just had a Democratic black president from 2009-2017. And as far the claims that there aren't enough women, I just don't get it. Warren and the relatively surging Klobuchar are both very much in this, and our very last nominee three years ago was a woman.
Stop feeding into the Politico/The Hill-style "Dems in Disarray - Oh Noes!!!!!11" nonsense. There's enough of that coming from the other side and foreign bots already, thanks very much.
I had to miss it due to work and I'd like to catch up on it over the weekend. (I've remembered to record it tonight.) Or maybe there's a way I can stream Wednesday's session? Thanks to anyone who knows.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bye, Steve.
Katie Hill is an extraordinarily impressive person with a background assisting the homeless and ran a near-flawless campaign. She will be a wonderful addition to Congress.