The case for midterm incumbent Senate Dems in Red states not to publicly oppose Kavanaugh yet.

[ehrnst]

1. As we should all know by now, if all GOP senators vote to confirm, it does not matter how many Dem Senators vote no, it's done. No amount of resistance will make any difference in stopping Kavanaugh after that. No amount of furious phone calls to Democratic reps shouting, "WHY ARE YOU NOT DOING ANYTHING TO STOP THIS TRAVESTY???? Assure me that THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE you can do OR WE WILL PRIMARY YOU!!!" will make a damn bit of difference. The only resistance to Kavanaugh left will be to take the House and the Senate, and legislatively work to preserve . See also: after Gore v Bush was decided.

2. UNTIL there are confirmed defectors in the GOP senate, sitting Dem senators in states that went for Trump will most likely lose their seat in the midterms if they talk about voting against Kavanaugh. UNTIL/if then, to demand that they do - and sacrifice actual Democratic Senate seats for a single futile, symbolic vote "no," is cutting off our nose to spite our face. Those are the options, like it or not. In the likely event of a straight GOP vote to confirm, there is no realistic way that Senate Democrats can satisfy our demand for a straight party vote, and keep their seat to enable resistance in the Senate.

McConnell is counting on those red state Democrats to having to choose between keeping their seat and avoiding rage from the base directed at Democratic leadership from those who think that they are owed a futile vote. That's an either/or that WE are participating in, and we don't have to.

I am willing to put the future of our democracy, civil rights, and perhaps the rule of law itself above my deep deep desire to see all Democrat Senators give the finger to Kavanaugh and the GOP then walk out in righteous lockstep - but right off the edge of the midterm cliff.

The Dems on the judiciary committee are using the hearings to make the case to swing voters in red states that this process and this candidate are corrupt. Unlike futile and self-defeating theatrics that will please some, (like leadership guaranteeing that all Dem Senators will vote no, no matter what, or boycotting the hearings in protest) this will give red state Dem incumbents some chance to win, or even be able to vote no without risking our vital midterm success.

I will not call the offices of Manchin and Heidkamp, because I am not a constituent. They need to know what their constituency is actually thinking about this, in order do what they have to keep their seat, should the GOP all line up and vote to confirm.

I will, however, burn up the phone lines of Collins and Murkowski every single day with polite requests for putting the future of our democracy above party. That is a positive, potentially productive outlet for my rage, and a far more appropriate target for it.

[mcar]

1. You are correct, ehrnst

Murkowski and/or Collins will vote to confirm Kav, thus making our red state Dems' vote moot.

Still, I predict a howling among certain types about how they betrayed us.

[Trust Buster]

2. I understand the Red State Dems theory when it comes to legislation.

But, if they cannot search their conscience and vote “no” on a extreme Supreme Court nominee that has perjured himself multiple times in a process that has seen his past worked buried from public view, then you have no business serving as a Democrat in the Senate IMO. To claim that you will not call and pressure Democratic Senators to vote “no” but will call Republicans Senators to urge them to vote “no” IS LAME BEYOND WORDS IMO.

[drray23]

3. They will vote no if Collins and murkovsky do so.

I dont think Manchin or heidkamp ever gave the deciding vote to the GOP. They vote with the GOP when it's already a foregone conclusion to preserve their seats. If we manage to flip gop senators, they wont vote yes, they will vote no because they will be able to tell their voters this guy is so bad. It was a bipartisan rejection.

[Trust Buster]

4. They must vote their conscience on this one. NO EXCUSES !!!!!!!

[ehrnst]

7. I think that trying to preserve Dem Senate seats and democracy itself

is somewhat more than what could be dismissed as an "excuse."

I hear right wingers say that a woman has no "excuse" other than death to say no to childbearing. I guess it all comes down to what you think is unimportant enough to dismiss as an excuse.

The future of our country is too important to dismiss as an "excuse" not to cast a futile, pointless vote.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I am in full agreement

If we can not get Collins and Murkowski to oppose Kavanaugh he will be confirmed. While I do not at all minimize the importance of taking a principled stance on matters of grave consequence (more often than not it is called for even at a high political price), it is of grave consequence to our nation on multiple fronts that the leadership of the Senate be taken away from today's Vichy Regime Republican Party. War and Peace could be at stake. The survival of our constitutional democracy could be at stake. Color blind Justice could be at stake, and on and on, if Democrats do not regain control of government. That should not be put in jeopardy over a vote of conscience for truth if that vote can not derail the Kavanaugh nomination. Other Democrats in the Senate will have to speak the truth for all of us and their beleaguered colleagues running for reelection in Red States if we can not muster the votes needed to actually defeat Kavanaugh with their support.

[Squinch]

6. I usually completely agree with this strategy, but I don't for this. It's setting up a game

of chicken among red state Democrats and Collins and Murkowski.

If Collins and Murkowski can't depend 100% on ALL Dems voting against Kavanaugh, there is no reason for Collins and Murkowski to consider doing so. If they think Manchin is going to vote against, there is no reason for them to stick their necks out.

If Collins and Murkowski know that theirs will be the deciding vote, it is much more a matter of them having to deal with their consciences and the promises and statements they have made in the past.

If Kavanaugh gets in, everything we think of our country is up for grabs Birth control, equal rights, voting rights, public lands, equitable taxation, just name it. Kavanaugh gets in and we all just become a bunch of pockets for rich and powerful white men to pick for their own benefits.

This is the one area where I think the ire of the constituents in the red states is worth the price.

[Roland99]

8. Exactly. This is BS to be complicit with the Repukes

[Squinch]

11. But in almost everything else, I'm totally fine with red state Dems saying what they

need to to keep their seats. I just think in this case, it goes against our intent.

[ehrnst]

13. It's "complicit" to keep one's Senate seat blue rather than cast a

futile, symbolic vote?

Giving up one's Senate seat to a Republican for nothing but a "conscience" vote sounds way more like complying with what Repukes want.

I'm more interested in Democrats acting like they care about the future of our democracy, not playing along with the GOP playbook for the midterms.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. There are several scenarios

If Collins and Murkowski want to oppose Kavanaugh, but only if their no votes will actually help stop his confirmation, then they can negotiate a deal in private with one or two Red State Democrats who feel the same way. This could be done in person with no "paper trails". Given the personalities involved I suspect this could be accomplished if all felt it were in their interest to form such a "secret pact".

Beyond that scenario I believe a "game of chicken" can play out in public between a handful of Senators who do not announce their intended vote to the public prior to the roll call. They can be temporarily "absent" while the roll is called. If Collins and Murkowski think that their local electorates would punish them for a "yes" vote - they could blinkfirst.

In either case there is no reason why endangered Red State Democratic Senators must play their cards now if they are still unsure if Kavanaugh can be stopped.

[leftstreet]

9. If voters support Kavanaugh, why would they support Democrats?

I suspect this is all theater invented to make deals

Most voters don't know, or care, about Kavanaugh

[ehrnst]

10. We're talking swing voters.

And what evidence/statistics do you have that "most voters don't know or care about Kavanaugh?"

[standingtall]

12. The most important duty of Senate Democrats have right now is to stop

the Supreme court from being packed with rubber stamps for Trump and republicans. If Democrats take back the house of congress what Senators vote for in terms of legislation over the next two years will not matter anyway. Giving red state Democrats permission to vote to confirm this guy is setting the party up for failure. If republicans get what they want and overturn Roe V Wade then they will set the new status quo. Takes solidarity to overturn the status quo. If Democrats cannot stand in solidarity in opposition to this guy now? How on earth are they ever going to stand together to fix the mess repukes are about to make?

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. "Takes solidarity to overturn the status quo."

In this specific instance it takes solidarity plus two Republican votes. And future control of the Senate agenda takes 51 Democratic Caucus members. A Democratic Senate Leader cam usually manufacture "solisartiy" by not allowing votes that would split his/or caucus from reaching the floor for a vote in the first place. That is what happens with the Republican slim majority now.