"Red-State Democrats' Fears Over Kavanaugh Vote May Be Overblown"

[dflprincess]

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/red-state-democrats-fears-over-kavanaugh-vote-may-be-overblown

....If the past is prologue, what looks like the politically safest course now may turn out to be just the opposite later. Certainly, this was the lesson of 1991, when eleven Democrats defected from their side and voted to confirm George H. W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Several Democrats evidently hoped to placate voters in their home states who were incensed at Anita Hill after the previously unknown law-school professor accused Thomas, her former boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, of sexually harassing her on the job. At the time, for centrist Democrats, casting a vote in favor of Thomas seemed the course of least political resistance.

But Klain, who was an aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time, recalls that, instead, the Thomas confirmation triggered an unexpected political backlash, particularly among women who felt that the men in the Senate had disrespected women’s rights. The following year, a wave of female candidates ran for office, much as they are running now. In fact, 1992 came to be known as “the year of the woman.” Unexpectedly, several of the Democratic senators who had voted to confirm Thomas, including Alan Dixon, of Illinois, and Wyche Fowler, of Georgia, found themselves defeated. Dixon, in fact, was knocked out in the Democratic primary by a black female candidate, Carol Moseley Braun. Others, such as Chuck Robb, of Virginia, were reëlected but never fully escaped the cloud that hung over their records. Even Joe Biden, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who opposed Thomas’s confirmation, but whose treatment of Thomas was seen by critics as too deferential, continues to be dogged by it almost three decades later.

“The Senate had a revolution because of that vote,” Klain said. “All of these people wrongly believed that their constituents wouldn’t forgive a no vote. But it was exactly the opposite,” he said. “I don’t know anyone who suffered because they voted no on Clarence Thomas. But I know plenty who did because they voted yes.”

According to the poll, conducted by Hart Research Associates, Democratic senators may actually be better off politically, even in states that went overwhelmingly to Trump in 2016, if they cast votes against Kavanaugh. The polling data, which was gathered between June 30th and July 5th from about twelve hundred voters in those four states, are, of course, self-serving. But it makes the case that, if Democratic senators in conservative states frame their opposition to Kavanaugh clearly as a matter of conscience, based on one of three possible arguments, a majority of voters will likely accept and support the decision. The survey shows that fifty-four per cent of voters polled in these states said they would approve of a Democratic senator opposing Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court if it protected the independence of the Court as a check on Presidential power. The same slim majority of voters would support their Democratic senator opposing a Trump nominee if his or her opposition was based on the nominee having “a record of siding with corporations” and “consistently ruling against workers’ rights.” Additionally, fifty-two per cent of these voters said they would approve of their senator opposing any nominee who was “likely to overturn/eliminate protections” in the Affordable Care Act for those with “pre-existing conditions, people over age fifty,” and“women.”...

[bigtree]

1. k&r

[populistdriven]

2. makes sense nt

[KPN]

3. When between a rock and a hard place, bust out.

[backtoblue]

7. +1 nt

[marylandblue]

4. I hope Joe Manchin reads this

[torius]

5. When Kavanaugh takes their health care away

The voters in those states will not reward those who put him on the bench.

[pstokely]

14. that may be 30 years from now

nt

[stuffmatters]

6. TY K&R. An invaluable article . Hope it stays o the DU front page a long time.

[Garrett78]

8. I've never really understood the argument that these red state Dems have to vote Republican.

Isn't it better to demonstrate to your base and swing voters that you're willing to stand on principle, as opposed to appealing to those who aren't going to vote for you anyway? Especially when most don't pay super close attention to the details.

[KPN]

9. Principles went out the window long ago.

In my view, Trump is the upshot as is the current balance of power between the two parties. Whether it’s better to stand on them or not, especially over the long haul, is hard to know with certainty. All I really know is what we’ve been doing got us here where we are today. But then there’s also all the but, but, buts. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[mr_liberal]

10. Trump would just nominate someone even more conservative.

Democrats would have to win control of the senate. And even if they did win the senate, how could you hold out for two years?

[PaulX2]

11. Easy

Ask McConnell.

[mr_liberal]

12. That was 10 months during an election year.

I could see doing it 1 year during an election year, but two years would be much harder. I guess its possible but they'd have to have complete control of the senate.

If they lost in 2018 though then Trump would just nominate someone more conservative and then i doubt he could be stopped.

[dflprincess]

13. Prior to the 2016 election both McConnell & McCain

Said, if Clinton won, they would block any nomination she made to the Supreme Court and they didn't care how many vacancies might cone up