Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Frank Luntz: Undecideds in VP Debate Focus Group Found Kamala Harris ‘Abrasive and Condescending’

Frank Luntz: Undecideds in VP Debate Focus Group Found Kamala Harris ‘Abrasive and Condescending’

“if this is a battle over style and substance … this was Mike Pence’s night”

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6198582029001#sp=show-clips

If you watched the vice presidential debate this week, you may have noticed that Kamala Harris often seemed agitated and nervous. This presented itself physically in her facial expressions, nervous laughter, and attitude.

According to pollster and analyst Frank Luntz, this did not go over well with the undecided voters in his focus group.

To be fair, they weren’t exactly thrilled about Vice President Pence, but they saw him as more presidential, and Luntz has concluded that Pence won the night.

Yael Halon reports at FOX News:

Undecided voters found Harris ‘abrasive, condescending’ in vice presidential debate: Frank Luntz

Voters found Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris to be “abrasive and condescending” at various points throughout Wednesday’s debate with Vice President Mike Pence, pollster Frank Luntz told the Fox News reaction panel.

“The complaint about Kamala Harris was that she was abrasive and condescending,” said Luntz, who monitored the reactions of 15 undecided voters from eight battleground states throughout the evening.

“The complaint about Mike Pence was that he was too tired, but [he was] vice presidential, or presidential,” added Luntz, who went on to say that “if this is a battle over style and substance — which is often the case with undecided voters because they simply do not choose on policy, they also choose on persona — this was Mike Pence’s night.”

Luntz clarified that “it’s not that Pence did so well, it’s that they [voters] felt both candidates were not answering the questions as well as they would have liked.”

Watch the video clip below:

Luntz made similar points about Pence on CNBC. Kevin Stankiewicz reports:

GOP pollster: Pence beat Harris in debate not for what he said but how he said it

GOP pollster Frank Luntz told CNBC on Thursday that his 15-person focus group of undecided voters felt Vice President Mike Pence performed better than Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris in the vice presidential debate.

“All but two of them felt that Mike Pence won the debate,” Luntz said on “Squawk Box.” “I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that he did, and he did not because of what he talked about, but how he communicated.”

In particular, Luntz said he believes Pence was well-received by participants because in Wednesday night’s debate in Utah, he cut a sharp contrast to how President Donald Trump performed in his brawl against Democratic nominee Joe Biden. Luntz stressed that voters are looking for more than just where candidates stand on particular issues.

I commented about Harris’s body language during the debate:

She doesn’t seem to realize how distracting and annoying this behavior is.

Featured image via FOX News video.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

My kid, who is a Bernie Bro, watched the whole thing, and said exactly this.

I watched snippets, because that’s all I can stand of that flouncing woman. A body language video, which I mostly tend to discount, pointed out that some of her expressions were jarring and inappropriate for the things she was saying. Perhaps that explains it.

    2smartforlibs in reply to Valerie. | October 10, 2020 at 10:37 am

    Heels up has many tells. the Clinton Cackle, that better than you mean girl look, the “let’s have a conversation” They all mean she’s boxed in. You don’t need body language for that.

    GatorGuy in reply to Valerie. | October 10, 2020 at 11:55 am

    Passive-aggressive, ‘seems to me (a lay opinion), in any case.

In short slightly less attractive then Hillbully Clinton.

A tangential question: How can there possibly be such a thing as an undecided voter? I cannot believe there is such an animal.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to bobtuba. | October 10, 2020 at 11:06 am

    I can see it. Swing voters exist. Most of them are suburban women and elderly who are extremely angry about the coronavirus, and intensely dislike Trumps manner, but who are nominally Republican and economically conservative in their outlook. These voters are strongly conflicted between their emotions and a rational analysis of self-interest. Usually, such conflicted voters always side with their emotions.

    There are people who just hate to make a decision, even when the consequences are clear. Usually, they want someone else to decide. At work, that means their boss. At home, it means their spouse or their parents or the cat. In the privacy of a voting booth, they are lost and afraid.

    I’ve met a lot of these people. It’s impossible to understand them but they really do exist.

    maxmillion in reply to bobtuba. | October 10, 2020 at 11:29 am

    There are those out there who reflexively dislike and object to Trump because of his style, but at the same time have a sense as to how bad the Democrat ticket is.

If you listened to the debate on the radio, as I did, you probably thought that Harris did extremely well. While both candidates were obviously evasive and did not answer questions, Pence did not have answers to the most important issues to swing voters, namely countering the charge that the Trump Admin’s coronavirus response was a total failure and that ObamaCare will be yanked away from people who need it. I don’t think swing voters care anywhere near as much about things like court packing. I understand that people actually watching the debate and seeing facial expressions and mannerisms (and the fly that Pence was totally unaware of) could have a different opinion, but I have always considered the audio to be the only thing that really matters in a debate.

    I see your point when it comes to listening to it via the radio vs. watching it. Wasn’t it that infamous Bush-Gore debate in which the radio listeners thought Gore won but the TV viewers hated his bullying tactics so it really was a loss? It’s not like this hasn’t happened before.

    Nixon thought the same thing when he debated Kennedy. Voters disagreed by a huge margin.

      alaskabob in reply to irv. | October 10, 2020 at 12:14 pm

      The stage camera and lighting was set to enhance Kennedy. This time The Shrew was on equal terms with Pence…except for CGI.

    maxmillion in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | October 10, 2020 at 11:40 am

    Everybody should be concerned with court-packing. That’s banana republic territory. Even FDR at the height of his popularity was severely criticized for suggesting it.

      maxmillion: Even FDR at the height of his popularity was severely criticized for suggesting it.

      There is a distinction. FDR was criticized, even by New Deal Democrats, because he objected to specific rulings of the Supreme Court. The situation today has to do with Republicans strong-arming through justices; in particular, not even considering Garland while pushing through Barrett just before the election. Justices, who must represent all Americans, should be approved by general consensus, not on highly divisive votes.

      “The whole country will reap the whirlwind.” — Brett Kavanaugh

        maxmillion in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2020 at 12:23 pm

        They considered Garland and rejected him ab initio.

          maxmillion: They considered Garland and rejected him ab initio.

          That is incorrect. They announced that they would not consider him due to the proximity of the election. They never even brought him up for consideration, even on the committee level.

        So, in other words you’re saying that any SCOTUS nominees put forward by a Democrat president should get clear sailing while Republicans better well nominate moderate judges to keep the Democrats happy? As in we’d never see a Scalia or a Thomas on the court again because they don’t have the correct thoughts on things, according to Democrats?

        Because history shows Republicans often hold their noses and vote to confirm nominees, judicial and otherwise, they fundamentally disagree with. Democrats have no problem voting against nominees whose resumes indicate they are perfectly qualified for the jobs to which they’re nominated but they’re being appointed by a Republican president, and that’s good enough for a no.

          p: So, in other words you’re saying that any SCOTUS nominees put forward by a Democrat president should get clear sailing while Republicans better well nominate moderate judges to keep the Democrats happy?

          No. It’s best if justices have broad support. This results in a court that has broad respect by the public.

        CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2020 at 12:45 pm

        Zach,

        Just FYI, SCOTUS members are nominated and confirmed. They are not elected and most certainly do not ‘represent all Americans’. Nor are they supposed to.

        Since FDR the d/progressive bloc has attempted to use the judiciary as a puedo legislature. This course picked up steam with Roe.

        The fact is that if SCOTUS hadn’t been turned into such a perversion of it’s true role the nomination process would be far less contentious.

        It is absurd for the d/progressive bloc to complain that their political/ideological opponents are using the same hardball tactics to reverse the d/progressive dominance of the judiciary.

        Your comment may be the single most inane thing I have read on this site.

          CommoChief: Just FYI, SCOTUS members are nominated and confirmed. They are not elected and most certainly do not ‘represent all Americans’.

          Everyone who goes to court deserves to have their case heard without prejudice. Excessive partisanship undermines the credibility of the courts.

          CommoChief: Since FDR the d/progressive bloc has attempted to use the judiciary as a puedo legislature.

          Yes, we understand people still have gotten over the courts ending segregation as an affront to the Equal Protection Clause.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 10, 2020 at 4:28 pm

          Zach,

          Non sequiturs don’t make your case. Neither does making ludicrous innuendos attempting to project your beliefs in an attempt to obscure the weakness of your argument.

          Either you stand by your inane comment that the SCOTUS must ‘represent all Americans’ or you don’t.

          Since you haven’t retracted that it is clear that you don’t intend to. Please refrain from further ad hominem attacks.

          CommoChief: Either you stand by your inane comment that the SCOTUS must ‘represent all Americans’ or you don’t.

          If the courts are overly partisan, then it undermines the public’s belief in equal justice. Yes, presidential nominations should be given deference, and presidents should nominate people who can garner wide support.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 10, 2020 at 7:17 pm

          Zach,

          Ok since you have switched topics let’s go to the new one: ‘SCOTUS nominees should garner wide support’.

          Wide support being defined how? A poll? No the Senate is audience not the Citizens. How many Senators would indicate wide support? 50+ what number? I don’t see a plan here.

          Maybe you really mean uncontroversial nominee? How do we define that? The opinions of the citizens? The talking heads in the MSM? The ABA?

          The fact is that the time to have made this plea for forbearance would have been when the d/progressives held power over nomination and confirmation. The days of a weak kneed r nomination process are long gone.

          No nomination would be overly controversial had the d/progressive bloc not sought to turn the courts into weapons and succeeded. Now, happily the r have confirmed a historic number of federal judges and soon Trump will place a third nominee on the SCOTUS.

          Let’s take another tack, how can d/progressives/MSM realistically hope to convince folks that Trump is the devil since y’all said Romney and McCain and W were the devil?

          Y’all can’t. No one believes that BS anymore. That’s why Trump got elected and why there is a r Senate majority. Which means that in the opinion of our representative democracy the Citizens have made their choice to vest Trump and the r Senate majority with the power to nominate and confirm judges until January of 2021.

          If the d/progressives flip the Senate and elect Biden then they can fill any vacancy that occur until the next election.

          See reply below.

        buck61 in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2020 at 12:59 pm

        I haven’t heard one repub that was in the senate at the time go on the record that they would vote to confirm Garland.
        You don’t have the close to the number of votes, why even start the process. Not going through the process saved the public humiliation of not being confirmed, I would rather live my life not getting the process than going through the process and not getting past the finish line.
        Maybe a more moderate candidate gets at least some consideration, I listened to Garland’s questions during the Flynn case, he did not sound moderate or non partisan.

          buck61: I haven’t heard one repub that was in the senate at the time go on the record that they would vote to confirm Garland.

          Nor did they even consider his qualifications. They intended to reject Obama’s nomination regardless of merit, just as many Senators have said they would confirm anyone Trump picked regardless of merit.

          buck61: Maybe a more moderate candidate gets at least some consideration

          Garland is highly respected by both sides of the aisle, and being older, would not have been on the court as long as other possible nominees. Obama proposed a reasonable compromise candidate, which is why the Republicans couldn’t give Garland a hearing. It would have been obvious he was qualified and not a radical in any sense of the word.

        Please, if the situation was reversed, you would not be objecting with “general consensus” nonsense.

        The fact is that the Senate worked its will under the Constitution, but you did not like the result.

        Should they pack the Court?

          oldschooltwentysix: Please, if the situation was reversed, you would not be objecting with “general consensus” nonsense.

          We have consistent views on the issue. The president’s nominees should be given deference, but the president in return should attempt to find candidates that can garner respect across the aisle. Picking a fight over nominees only serves to undermine the authority of the courts.

          oldschooltwentysix: The fact is that the Senate worked its will under the Constitution, but you did not like the result.

          Increasing the size of the Court is also under the U.S. Constitution.

        nordic_prince in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2020 at 5:30 pm

        “Justices, who must represent all Americans”

        Now that’s rich. Do you really think RBG represented all Americans?

        No, she didn’t. Neither do Kagan or “the wise Latina.”

        Go study a little history, and you’ll find that vacancies in an election year, *when the President and the Senate are of the same party* (noteworthy distinction, which differentiates this situation from the Garland scenario) are filled without the delay the Ds seem to think they’re owed.

        And if you think the Ds would hold off were the situation reversed, you’re delusional. Ds never miss an opportunity to ram through any & all items on their agenda whenever they can.

        Suck it up, bud. Trump is President for four years, not three years and eight months. Even that old bat RBG agreed to that principle.

          nordic_prince: Now that’s rich. Do you really think RBG represented all Americans? No, she didn’t. Neither do Kagan or “the wise Latina.”

          Justice, Senate vote
          Ginsburg, 96-3
          Kagan, 63–37
          Sotomayor, 68-31

          All represent a strong consensus.

          nordic_prince: Go study a little history, and you’ll find that vacancies in an election year, *when the President and the Senate are of the same party* (noteworthy distinction, which differentiates this situation from the Garland scenario)

          The claim at the time was that the people should decide in the presidential election. It was obvious dissembling then, and it’s obvious dissembling now. If you mean they have the power, then sure. It’s an exercise of power, just as expanding the size of the Supreme Court will be an exercise in power.

          By the way, the last time the Senate didn’t even consider a Supreme Court nominee, Millard Fillmore was president.

          tom_swift in reply to nordic_prince. | October 10, 2020 at 7:26 pm

          By the way, the last time the Senate didn’t even consider a Supreme Court nominee, Millard Fillmore was president.

          And the Senate was controlled by Democrats.

        tom_swift in reply to Zachriel. | October 10, 2020 at 6:57 pm

        Justices, who must represent all Americans, should be approved by general consensus

        Really? In that case, they should be elected, and they should be removable when they lose approval of the consensus. But why aren’t they? The drafters of the Constitution knew what elections are; it would have been a mere matter of penmanship to have made the Court a creature of the electorate. But, for better or worse, that’s not how they did it. Evidently, approval by general consensus doesn’t have anything to do with it. Nor should it, considering the Court’s intended function (that is, pre-Marbury).

        Ah, but then came “emanations of penumbras”, and now national policies are dictated by unelected functionaries answerable to no one. The fix is to relegate the Court back to its proper function, not to turn it into some sort of incompetent mini-legislature of last appeal.

          tom_swift: Evidently, approval by general consensus doesn’t have anything to do with it.

          The founders also allow Congress to set the size of the Court. So there is that.

    DaveGinOly in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | October 10, 2020 at 6:55 pm

    By only hearing the audio, you get less information than is actually transmitted by the speakers. “Body language” is a think because humans have evolved to interpret facial expressions, gestures, and poses. We can look at still photographs and accurately determine the mental states of those in them by evaluating even subtle facial expressions.

    Just listening to the audio deprives you of information necessary to evaluate a speaker’s comfort with the question (and answer), honesty, confidence level, and many other factors that go into an evaluation of their spoken words. Your evaluation may be correct, but without being able to compare it to body language and facial expressions your analysis is incomplete. This is why in-person job interviews are conducted and reliance is not placed on written responses to questions on an application – the words in this case are twice-removed from their source. You’re better off actually hearing the spoken words, but you’re better off still with the entire presentation that only comes from listening to and watching a person.

When you think about it, how many people the other night got to see Harris for the first time, as in really got to see her? Essentially, a first introduction to the person who will become POTUS at some point if Biden wins next month?

Because being “abrasive and condescending” isn’t exactly unheard of when it comes to her. There are more than enough examples of her behavior at Judiciary Committee hearings to prove it.

What will be very interesting is how she behaves at the Barrett hearing next week, although I have a feeling they’ll have other Democrat senators ask the more “controversial” questions and she’ll try to tamp down on the attitude.

    The_Mew_Cat in reply to p. | October 10, 2020 at 11:08 am

    I predict the Democrats will totally boycott the ACB hearings next week. If the Democrats stay away, that bolsters their argument that the nomination is illegitimate, justifying court packing later, and also has the benefit of preventing Harris from getting angry and saying something that would harm her campaign for President.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to The_Mew_Cat. | October 10, 2020 at 12:29 pm

      “Harris from getting angry”

      Around tween age, when one of my children was pitching a fit and telling how mad they were, my response was that my wife and I might occasionally car if thy were mad, the rest of the world did not give a s…

In particular, Luntz said he believes Pence was well-received by participants because in Wednesday night’s debate in Utah, he cut a sharp contrast to how President Donald Trump performed in his brawl against Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

That must be one hell of a focus group.

I have trouble picturing a crowd of voters who are so in-the-dark that they’re actually “undecided” at this late date, but are still capable of giving Luntz the sort of meticulously-argued essays he’d need to reach this conclusion.

It sounds to me more likely that, much like everyone else, Luntz is ladling out his own opinion but using the mighty weight of his focus group to prop it up and give it a gravitas it doesn’t merit on its own.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom_swift. | October 10, 2020 at 1:27 pm

    RE: “I have trouble picturing a crowd of voters who are so in-the-dark that they’re actually “undecided” at this late date….”

    Easy. The focus group are all life-long registered Democrats.

Hard to be specific in less than 2 minutes and being interrupted by the moderator

I missed it live but heard BBC (no fans of Trump) wrap up at 10:30 that night while it was still fresh. They said that both were talking to the faithful and Pence won on presentation. They pointed out Harris’ facial expressions.

My CNN watching Leftist best freind (sorry) sent one text saying “Pence is dilusional”. That speaks to the BBC comment above.

I finally watched it last night. I thought Pence was brilliant. He nailed it. Stayed calm. Master of every topic. Said everything he wanted to say. Got questions to Harris that everyone knew the host wouldn’t ask. Harris repeated herself nonsensically. Jumped around. Was making faces and giggling. Presented everything like she heard it in a political advertisement. She is a terrible debater.

Last point – I read that Pence talked for 35 minutes and Harris for over 38. I assume that is correct but I, like everyone else, thought that Pence dominated the clock. This says to me that she wasted her time and Pence used his time effectively. Again, this shows that Pence is a skilled debater and really should have been deemed winner.

I’d be nervous and jiggy too if I had to carry those old threadbare Democratic party talking points over the goal line while dodging pesky questions about court packing and no fracking. Best line of the night: “Joe and I….”. What a howler, there is no Joe there; it depends on what your definition of “Joe” is.

There are no true undecided in the country right now. The ideology of the two campaigns is simply too polarized. The only block of undecideds out there are those who have not yet decided if they are going to vote or not.

CommoChief: Ok since you have switched topics …

Our original comment, and to which you replied, was “Justices, who must represent all Americans, should be approved by general consensus, not on highly divisive votes.”

CommoChief: How many Senators would indicate wide support? 50+ what number?

A general consensus. The president’s nominations should be given deference, and the president should choose nominees that can garner support from both sides of the aisle. If the courts become just another political branch, it will undermine the integrity of equal protection and the rule of law.

    CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2020 at 10:43 am

    Zach,

    Let’s try a sports analogy. The blue team is on defense backed up against the end zone. The red team has the ball 1st and goal from six inches out with three TO and 55 seconds on the clock and the lead.

    The red team is not going to be polite or nice or ‘gentlemanly’ and take a knee instead of attempting to score.

    The days of gentlemanly r conduct are over. The r will continue to play by the actual rules, but will no longer embrace the ‘unwritten’ rules of conduct the d/progressives abandoned gleefully many years ago.

    In fact to continue the analogy, if a SCOTUS Justice gets hit by a bus between now and the end of Trump’s 1st term, I fully expect them to on side kick, recover it and score again before the clock expires.

    If the d/progressives didn’t want this they should have followed these ‘civic and political norms’ when they were in charge. Demonizing r candidates and voters for the last 30 + years may have been productive short-term. It has built a near infinite well of resentment and determination among r voters to ‘run up the score’ so to speak every opportunity we have.

      CommoChief: The red team is not going to be polite or nice or ‘gentlemanly’ and take a knee instead of attempting to score.

      No, but they should play according to the rules rather than changing the rules to suit. And there are higher values than procedural rules. There are norms necessary to the functioning of democracy. Lying about why they wouldn’t even consider Garland, then lying again when considering Barrett undermines the functioning of democracy.

      CommoChief: If the d/progressives didn’t want this they should have followed these ‘civic and political norms’ when they were in charge.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej_pVwYWoAMqFLw?format=jpg&name=large

      CommoChief: I fully expect them to on side kick, recover it and score again before the clock expires.

      So, presumably, you are okay with the Democrats increasing the size of the courts if they get the chance, as the current size is not set by rule, but by norms.

        CommoChief in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2020 at 12:45 pm

        Zach,

        We are ‘playing by the rules’. The written rules aka Constitution. The unwritten norms that the d/progressives abandoned long ago are no longer an impediment for us.

        Sure, pack the court if you have the votes. On the other hand be prepared to take your coming electoral loss. When that occurs you should also be prepared for judicial changes.

        What changes? As.you are doubtless aware, Congress has the power to create and therefore modify or even eliminate ‘inferior courts’. If it were me as POTUS with a r HoR and r Senate Majority I would: Ram through legislation that:

        1. Dissolved every inferior court
        2. No standing court means all judges are not judges as the court to which they were appointed no longer exists
        3. Redraw the various boundaries for the circuits to more closely reflect population
        4. Immediately appoint or re appoint judges whose judicial philosophy matched my own

        Of course this step wouldn’t have been necessary if you and other d/progressives would shut your yap about threatening to pack the SCOTUS.

        After a simple two years of a judiciary rubber stamping the changes necessary to prevent theme/progressive bloc from rising from the ashes for a generation or so maybe we could begin playing nicely.

        To continue the sports analogy. Until your blue team pulls their starting offense, gives up any pretense of attempting to make a 1st down much less scoring The red.team will continue to play with the intent to deliver maximum pain and humiliation to the blue team.

        This is the state that we have been pushed to by the blue team. You guys can lessen the intensity and duration of your well deserved pain by giving up. Offering resistance will only prolong your agony.

          CommoChief: Sure, pack the court if you have the votes.

          That would probably only serve to further undermine the court system. It turns out that much of the U.S. democracy depends on norms and the honor system.

          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ej_pVwYWoAMqFLw?format=jpg&name=large

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 1:53 pm

          Zach,

          You are so close to a breakthrough in understanding.

          The average citizen has already lost faith in the Judiciary, our legislature and many other institutions. That damage was intentionally done, drip by drip for short term political advantage by the d/progressive bloc; the blue team.

          For decade after decade the red team watched as our nominees and candidates were unfairly and falsely vilified. We observed the methods that the blue team used so successfully to our detriment. We begged the blue team to stop and think about the long term damage these deliberate actions were doing to our institutions and our civic norms.

          We were ignored. We were told that ‘elections have consequences’. We were told that we were ‘bitter clingers’ desperate to hold onto outmoded cultural traditions. We were told that our cultural adherence to western philosophy and Judeo Christian was passe. We were called every version of ‘ist’ in the book with some new ones thrown in. We were told that the Wall ST. oligarchs who outsourced and off shored manufacturing jobs that devastated our middle class had our best interests at heart; learn to code.

          Then a very strange thing happened. DJT ran for President. He emerged as the r nominee. Then he won election. Immediately following the incomprehensible emotional breakdown of the d/progressive bloc they regrouped. They used every tool at their disposal to thwart the will of the Citizens who elected him by blocking, slow walking, ignoring, interfering, judge shopping and creating a Russian collision myth.

          Those of us on the red team remember all of this. We may eventually offer forgiveness. That will be after the blue team confesses, willing offers repentance and serves out the penance the red team dictates.

          You and the rest of your blue team have much to answer for. Attempting to invoke the same political and cultural norms your team ignored for decades is laughable.

          The red team endured a hostile SCOTUS for decades. I am sure, if you put your mind to it, swallow your pride and accept that the shoe of 5/4 and 6/3 rulings is on the other foot you and the blue team will get through it. Just as the red team did.

          CommoChief: That damage was intentionally
          done, drip by drip for short term political advantage by the
          d/progressive bloc; the blue team.

          While both sides deserve some blame, it’s clear the Republican Party is nihilist, as exemplified in their abandonment of all their stated principles under Trump.

          CommoChief: For decade after decade the red team watched as our nominees and candidates were unfairly and falsely vilified.

          It’s usually dated to Bork, but Bork was complicit in the Saturday Night Massacre. Whatever you might think of his actions, his nomination was clearly provocative. When he said he didn’t believe in a general “right to privacy,” his nomination was doomed.

          CommoChief: The red team endured a hostile SCOTUS for decades.

          Which dates to the Brown decision.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 2:17 pm

          Zach,

          I have patiently explained the reality of the consequences the d/progressive bloc has wrought. I have shown you where the water is, if you refuse to drink that’s up to you.

          My advice is stock up on KY. On November 3rd you should simply relax, lay back and think of England. It will be less painful if you do.

          Good day.

          CommoChief: I have patiently explained the reality of the consequences

          And we patiently explained with particulars why your explanation is faulty. The Republican Party espoused certain principles, which they have abandoned in order to retain power. The Republican method is that any compromise that leads to bipartisan agreement is a lost opportunity, that any vote over 51% means they should have pushed a more reactionary stance.

          This shattering of norms undermines the ability to compromise, which is necessary for the health of democracy. What you are left with is authoritarian government with a mere decoration of democratic traditions.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | October 11, 2020 at 2:26 pm

          PS, it ain’t the Brown decision that’s the problem. That was a.good decision. Why do you d/progressives wallow in the Court forcing you to stop segregation?

          The real problem is Wickard v Kilburn. Now that we are about to have another Justice concerned about the text of the Constitution that particular ruling is well overdue for casting upon the ash heap.

          Once again, good day.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend