Quote (fender @ Feb 1 2017 08:56am)
just the simple fact that the ratio changes from 31-100 to 38-100 when you change the search region to "USA", and not like you did "worldwide" shows you how much more important an issue the fiscal cliff was, how much more direct impact it had, so choosing this as an example to prove how dems didn't make the media report enough on it shows how dishonest you are in your choice and methods. if anything, being at over 30% in popularity, despite having no direct impact on the global economy actually shows how BIG of a deal it really is...
Its not about how big the spike is you nitwit, its about how long the story continued to be in the news, on the horizontal axis. Merrick Garland completely dropped off after the first week of being mentioned and no further interest occurred until the election itself, then only a tiny bump.
The fiscal cliff story dominated news cycles for 5 full months
Quote
also, since you keep ignoring my question about whether it was justified in your opinion to outright block a reasonable candidate like garland for a record breaking amount of time
I'm not arguing tangents. Whether the republicans were in the right or wrong in the first place has no bearing on whether the democrats have intentionally let the nomination drag out to the election.
Quote
your argument about negative perception also falls short. you act like their refusal wouldn't already warrant negative perception and that holding the budget hostage to the detriment of all americans would somehow break some magic threshold that would have forced republicans to buckle.
It would have been negative for both parties, and it would have hurt both of them in the election, hence the dominant strategy was a mutual win-win.
The democrats had a variety of options to explore from legal, rules and pressure strategies. Holding the budget hostage was just one of them. If the democrats cared enough to actually want to get the supreme court to do it, then they would have done the same move the republicans did and soak up that negative publicity. You cannot claim they put any pressure on the republicans when they didn't try
any strategy, not legal arguments, not a court challenge, not obstructionist pressure.
Again, making excuses for why they wouldn't want to do one or more of these doesn't change the fact that they didn't, but could have, which flies in the face of you claiming they applied any pressure.
Quote
if these elections have taught us anything then it is that republican voters especially couldn't give less of a shit about facts, truths, or democratic rules and traditions...
Its the democrats who rigged their primary, or have you forgotten?
The republican candidate won
because the #1 issue that voters cared about was the degeneracy of the american political establishment.
Quote
i will gladly admit that dems could and should have put up even more of a fight, the public SHOULD be more outraged about this as it's despicable, but your argument that dems were just fine with how this went, did not object, and therefore are equally to blame, is outright false.
The dems didn't put up
ANY fight. The story vanished off the news and was never heard from. Nancy Pelosi didn't organize sit-ins to protest the held up appointment. Obama didn't regularly bash the republicans for it.
There was never any organized or sustained blowback to the GOP, and the analytics from google are perfectly evident of that no matter how much you try to handwave them away just because they disagree with your narrative.
Everyone on PARD was around for those 300 days and witnessed the story vanish and get forgotten, I shouldn't need to prove it to you like I did
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.