538 is pleased with their dem-side polling Out of 5, two went a few more points Hillary than expected (3 points and 4 points), two went a few more points Bernie than expected (3 and 4, again), and one's bang-on about it being a coinflip. Makes up for the Michigan miss.
So Marco Rubio lost every single county in Florida besides Miami Dade.
This is stark opposite to his election to the senate where he won 62% of them.
So what went wrong with Rubio?
My guess is he got voted in, did the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do, meaning he said he was against amnesty, then got elected and rushed to sign a major amnesty bill.
This is bar far the worse decision of his life.
The second was being elected and never showing up for work and started to run for president the day he got into the senate.
If Marco was as smart as he claims, he should have known this would come back to bite him in the ass.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hey Rob, Kasich "huuuuuuge win" isn't that huge anymore, its in single digits now, seven points to be exact, and only 42% of the vote is in. Well see how it holds but he was way out in front, now its looking like its going to be a lot closer then everyone expected.
Ohio is a take all state, so it doesn't matter if you win by 1 point or all out.
Mitch McConnell.
You know, just seeing that man's face literally causes my body to generate adrenaline. Like tense in your shoulders, playing sports in a really close game. I don't think I can really express in words how much I hate Mitch McConnell. I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation with him.
Originally posted by Robtard
Heard part of Obama's rose garden speech on it while driving to work this morning.Mitch McConnell already vowed to not do his job.
He is just invoking his colleagues rule called the Biden rule.
Why is that not ok with you?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He is just invoking his colleagues rule called the Biden rule.Why is that not ok with you?
Two wrongs don't make a right and as Mitch McConnell once argued himself:
Any President’s judicial nominees should receive careful consideration. But after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote. . . . It’s time to move away from advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent. The stakes are high . . . . The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. -M. McConnell
Then there's these:
[The idea that July 2008 would trigger the] Thurmond Rule __– that’s just plain bunk. The reality is that the Senate has never stopped confirming judicial nominees during the last few months of a president’s term. -Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)[/quote[quote]There’s no excuse for not considering and voting upon a well_ qualified judicial nominee in the United States of America today… [J]ust because it’s a presidential election year is no excuse for us to take a vacation. And we’re here. We’re ready to go to work -Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“[N]ow is the perfect time for a new politics of judicial confirmation to arise where Republicans and Democrats work together to confirm qualified men and women to the federal bench. Now is the perfect time because, of course, we’re in a presidential election year and no one yet knows who the next president will be. What a unique opportunity to establish that regardless of the next president’s party, the nominees will be treated fairly and on the basis of their qualifications, and not on the basis of ancient political squabbles. -Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
I think it’s clear that there is no Thurmond Rule. And I think the facts demonstrate that. -Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
So maybe we should just follow what the Constitution dictates and let the sitting president do his/her job of nominating a SCJ and the senate should do it's job.