If as many people were worried about the SC as they say they are then NO WAY Trump would've gotten out of the primary.

 

The Supreme Court is really important to people who supported others during the primary but will still support Trump over a Democrat. For those folks, any Republican, even Donald Trump, is more likely to appoint their kind of justice than Clinton.

 

The problem is that all those people who find the court so important were fractured by Cruz and Rubio and Carson and whoever else during the primary. The people who were more concerned about jobs and the minorities coming to take them were united under Donald Trump. He didn't get a majority... just the plurality he needed.

The Supreme Court is really important to people who supported others during the primary but will still support Trump over a Democrat. For those folks, any Republican, even Donald Trump, is more likely to appoint their kind of justice than Clinton.

 

The problem is that all those people who find the court so important were fractured by Cruz and Rubio and Carson and whoever else during the primary. The people who were more concerned about jobs and the minorities coming to take them were united under Donald Trump. He didn't get a majority... just the plurality he needed.

I agree with this statement. The GOP was so divided on who we all wanted to be the nominee that we made Trump into who he became. In reality if all of the smaller more localized candidates who in reality had only a small chance of winning their state much less the country (Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, etc.), would have dropped out early on I don't think Trump would have been the nominee. I think if it would have gotten down to Trump, Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz earlier on I think there is a good chance that the GOP would have unified around a candidate that wasn't Trump.

Ginsburg 83

Kennedy 80

Breyer 78

Thomas 68

Alito 66

Sotomayer 62

Roberts 61

Kagan 56

 

@PurplePride92. I'd say the sun is in fact setting on a few of these folks.

I have a feeling that the Conservatives in Congress will wish they had just approved a SCOTUS nominee by Pres. Obama... I say that regardless of who wins this election.

 

What I've said for quite some time now.

I agree with this statement. The GOP was so divided on who we all wanted to be the nominee that we made Trump into who he became. In reality if all of the smaller more localized candidates who in reality had only a small chance of winning their state much less the country (Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, etc.), would have dropped out early on I don't think Trump would have been the nominee. I think if it would have gotten down to Trump, Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz earlier on I think there is a good chance that the GOP would have unified around a candidate that wasn't Trump.

 

This is what the GOP has to learn going forward. You can't have 17 people running for the nomination. 4 at most I would say.

It is my belief (not statistically verified) that when a candidate - from either side of the aisle - or in this particular case, from both sides of the aisle - is particularly odious, many of us will fall back on the "it's the SCOTUS nomination possibilities that's my tipping point" argument.

Anyone wishing Congress would've went ahead and confirmed Merrick Garland yet?

 

I'd say a bunch of them are wishing that, probably Paul and Mitch included.

Do you? Until Bernie came along in the primaries Hillary was right of Obama. In all reality she probably still is if she wins the election. I expect Garland type appointments.

 

Wouldn't surprise me. He would probably be a good SC justice. I'm hoping for someone more in the mold of Obama's other two appointments.

This is what the GOP has to learn going forward. You can't have 17 people running for the nomination. 4 at most I would say.

Whether or not Trump wins the election or not (I don't think he will), the GOP has to get a face of the party that we can point to and say this is our guy or gal that we know is going to run in 2020 and get behind them from the start. As soon as Obama was elected in 2012, Hillary started campaigning for 2016. The democrats got a 3 year head start. I think even if Trump gets elected, I think the GOP won't let him be the incumbent for the next election because he will be that bad of a president. I think the next decade is sadly going to be conservatives that hated Trump blaming conservatives that supported Trump because he essentially destroyed the GOP.

When it comes to SC justices, shouldn't both sides of the political spectrum want the most moderate appointments possible? It's the Supreme Court for Gods sake it's supposed to be impartial. Both sides are at least somewhat satisfied with a moderate SC justice.

I agree with this statement. The GOP was so divided on who we all wanted to be the nominee that we made Trump into who he became. In reality if all of the smaller more localized candidates who in reality had only a small chance of winning their state much less the country (Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, etc.), would have dropped out early on I don't think Trump would have been the nominee. I think if it would have gotten down to Trump, Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz earlier on I think there is a good chance that the GOP would have unified around a candidate that wasn't Trump.

 

This is what the GOP has to learn going forward. You can't have 17 people running for the nomination. 4 at most I would say.

 

Whether or not Trump wins the election or not (I don't think he will), the GOP has to get a face of the party that we can point to and say this is our guy or gal that we know is going to run in 2020 and get behind them from the start. As soon as Obama was elected in 2012, Hillary started campaigning for 2016. The democrats got a 3 year head start. I think even if Trump gets elected, I think the GOP won't let him be the incumbent for the next election because he will be that bad of a president. I think the next decade is sadly going to be conservatives that hated Trump blaming conservatives that supported Trump because he essentially destroyed the GOP.

 

Question(s): Back when the process was playing out with the first-tier and second-tier GOP debate structure, I recall many people (not specifically anybody quoted here) suggesting that having all those options was a good thing, and it was billed as a stark but positive contrast to the DNC anointing just one from the get-go.

 

Will future GOP primaries be reined in as to the number of participants by the RNC? This could prove critical going up against what appears to be an incumbent (albeit damaged and easy to dislike) Hillary in 2020.

 

Has the lack of real leadership in the GOP — a unifying voice, if you will, or at least somebody who can get the rank and file on the same page — permanently wounded the party?

 

Can the GOP find a unifying voice, somebody to gather all the factions under one tent?

 

And one more: Were all the people who convinced themselves that a crowded GOP primary was a good thing simply telling themselves what they wanted to hear? That it was different from what the Dems were doing with Hillary, so it must be a good thing?

Question(s): Back when the process was playing out with the first-tier and second-tier GOP debate structure, I recall many people (not specifically anybody quoted here) suggesting that having all those options was a good thing, and it was billed as a stark but positive contrast to the DNC anointing just one from the get-go.

 

Will future GOP primaries be reined in as to the number of participants by the RNC? This could prove critical going up against what appears to be an incumbent (albeit damaged and easy to dislike) Hillary in 2020.

 

Has the lack of real leadership in the GOP — a unifying voice, if you will, or at least somebody who can get the rank and file on the same page — permanently wounded the party?

 

Can the GOP find a unifying voice, somebody to gather all the factions under one tent?

 

And one more: Were all the people who convinced themselves that a crowded GOP primary was a good thing simply telling themselves what they wanted to hear? That it was different from what the Dems were doing with Hillary, so it must be a good thing?

 

I think the one guy that could unite the Repubs, didn't want the job. I think Paul Ryan is respected by all the Repubs and even part of the Dems. He is going to have to be convinced to run next time.

 

I think Hillary will be so bad that even the Dems will want her gone by 2020.

Question(s): Back when the process was playing out with the first-tier and second-tier GOP debate structure, I recall many people (not specifically anybody quoted here) suggesting that having all those options was a good thing, and it was billed as a stark but positive contrast to the DNC anointing just one from the get-go.

 

Will future GOP primaries be reined in as to the number of participants by the RNC? This could prove critical going up against what appears to be an incumbent (albeit damaged and easy to dislike) Hillary in 2020.

 

Has the lack of real leadership in the GOP — a unifying voice, if you will, or at least somebody who can get the rank and file on the same page — permanently wounded the party?

 

Can the GOP find a unifying voice, somebody to gather all the factions under one tent?

 

And one more: Were all the people who convinced themselves that a crowded GOP primary was a good thing simply telling themselves what they wanted to hear? That it was different from what the Dems were doing with Hillary, so it must be a good thing?

I think that the future elections will the GOP definitely try to find a unifying voice. I think this starts the day after the election ends this year. I agree with @capt278 saying that Paul Ryan was that unifying voice. I think he has shown the capability to get things done and I think he is well respected by members of both parties. Thats why this election is so frustrating. Everyone knew that coming off the last election that the GOP needed to become more likable. They saw that Obama defeated a very good candidate in Romney in large part because he was very likable. But the GOP failed and failed miserably at its #1 objective which was to become the more likable party going up against arguably the most disliked politician in recent memory. That was the game plan to win this election. Appeal to the young voter who carried Obama into the White House. The Libertarian party has gained great support amongst young people because a lot of young people want to believe in conservative fiscal policy, but like the more liberal social policies. If the GOP could have really hampered down on the conservative ideologies of lowering taxes, strong military, pro-business and took more moderate stances on things such as gay rights and came out against the absolutely asinine bathroom law in NC. Then I think the GOP would have won this election running away. The problem with doing this though is such a large percentage of the GOP voter base cares more about candidates with strong stances on social issues, than they do with candidates with great fiscal policies. Hence why Ted Cruz got a lot of support and John Kasich didn't. Kasich by far was the most moderate of the GOP candidates and Ted Cruz was by the far the furthest to the right.

 

But going back to Paul Ryan I'm not sure he wants the presidency. He had the opportunity to run this year and didn't, and he was hesitant to accept SOTH because he is a huge family man and didn't want this position to affect that relationship.

I find Ryan to be a really interesting character for the next few years. Like you guys, I get the impression he's a reluctant leader, at least as far as his national aspirations go.

 

It will be interesting to see if A) the GOP is able to maintain its House majority and how Ryan (who didn't want the House Leader job to begin with, but felt his party was worth saving) is able to work with that majority, which appears to be very fractured, and B) If Ryan is able to steal away some of McConnell's power as a guy to lead his party back — it doesn't necessarily have to be as POTUS, either. McConnell has been unbelievably quiet the past several months.

I find Ryan to be a really interesting character for the next few years. Like you guys, I get the impression he's a reluctant leader, at least as far as his national aspirations go.

 

It will be interesting to see if A) the GOP is able to maintain its House majority and how Ryan (who didn't want the House Leader job to begin with, but felt his party was worth saving) is able to work with that majority, which appears to be very fractured, and B) If Ryan is able to steal away some of McConnell's power as a guy to lead his party back — it doesn't necessarily have to be as POTUS, either. McConnell has been unbelievably quiet the past several months.

 

 

That's because while you know he hates Trump he is the smartest operator in the business. In a state like KY you don't openly go against him right now. He is sleazy but he is better at elections than just about anyone out there.