Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 1932 General Election [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(101,663 posts)3. Rachel Bitecofer who I respect says because of negative partisanship
Rachel Bitecofer who I respect says because of negative partisanship there are limits to either party's gains or losses. Maybe so but this election is going to be a referendum on Trump's handling of COVID-19 and I don't expect the non-FOX crowd to think he handled it well.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Expand it to 15, replace the two oldest liberal Justices also. Eight really young solid
Blue_true
Apr 2020
#8
Like republicans when they see an opening, we should not be adverse to a first.
Blue_true
Apr 2020
#13
Well, sometimes mental masturbation is fun, it doesn't have to happen, but one
Blue_true
Apr 2020
#20
During the Clinton administration, the right prevented Judges from getting promotions by
Blue_true
Apr 2020
#24
Aside from getting a better balance on the Court, more justices are needed anyway.
Lonestarblue
Apr 2020
#29
I suspect Stalin wanted Hoover to win and continue maximizing the contradictions.
DemocratSinceBirth
Apr 2020
#9