mtutiger

I'd really like to see someone address this. My biggest problem whenever this stuff comes up is that we treat it like fantasy baseball and just say, "oh, i'll drop Biden from my team and add Whitmer", and it's really not at all that straightforward. Whatever you may believe on whether he should or shouldn't run again.

In the abstract, there are quite a few decent candidates that could run on the D side. Whitmer and Shapiro from PA are the cream of the crop if you ask me. It's the "how do you get there from here" question that kinda derails the whole thought exercise. The reality is that if you do not want Biden to run, you have to come to terms with Kamala Harris being the nominee. And unsurprisingly, many of the same people (at least in media) who have complained about Biden running the most (Bill Kristol, Nate Silver, others come to mind), would ***** and moan about her being the nominee as well. I'm not saying he should run at this point, I've been concerned about his age and running for reelection for a while.... but lets not pretend that they could easily and bloodlessly meander their way to Candidate Whitmer.... that's a fairy tale.

Amazing

Amazing

All valid questions, and to be honest, there's context here (such as the interview being immediately after the October 7 attacks) that may be factor as well. None of that really solves the political problem, IMO. His age was always a liability, and it's one thing that can never be solved... literally no one gets younger. The same can be said of Trump as well, given he's pretty damn old and under indictment

The Krassenstein brother really buried the lede in his post.... the comment about being an old man with a poor memory is cheap as hell, but it's gonna hurt.

I was pretty agnostic on this one overall, but it shouldn't be surprising. And I'm not sure I love the precedent set if they did see it through. The ruling yesterday on immunity, to the extent that the law is a factor going forward, is gonna be where the rubber meets the road. I suspect that SCOTUS will not take that one up and there *will* be a trial on the DC Case prior to the election.

Would be surprised if it wasn't unanimous... I do think that if they even hear the immunity case though, it's going to be a different story. At least outside of Thomas and Alito

Today on Days of our Congress...

Lol, heaven forbid we do any legislating during an election year.

Damn

To Eric's point:

What a ridiculous question

Totally, I get it.

As much as we laugh about this stuff as well, it's pretty frustrating to know that Ukrainians are currently suffering real world consequences while these guys are busy with their performative dumb***ery.

It later came out that Scalise will not be coming back tomorrow.... we'll see if Mike Johnson notices lol

Al Green being wheeled in no doubt caused this, they assumed he wouldn't be there... It's almost an intelligence failure in that you'd expect them to at least have some sources within the opposing party to know something like that was a possibility

Uhh lol

Yep, got it...

Without a doubt, the most useless, most ineffective Congress of my lifetime...

215-215... the Dems had someone show up who wasn't expected to be there. Just an incredible failure by House Leadership to do basic math lol Edit: you're correct, official tally 214-216

How long until Trump tanks this one?

Just to take a step back, this is what people do not understand about how legislating works in the House of Representatives.... bills don't just see the floor because they are popular, a Speaker of the House has enormous discretion as to what sees or doesn't see the floor. Theoretically, you could have a bill that has the support of 70-80%+ of the House, but if the Speaker doesn't support it and doesn't want it to get a vote, he or she has the discretion not to bring that bill to a vote. There are mechanisms to get around that (such as a discharge petition), but the power dynamics of going around a Speaker don't really lend itself to that tool being used much.