From the Washington Post: What lies ahead for Trump’s nominees, and how Democrats helped smooth the way

A look at the process Trump's nominees are taking on their - possible - path to office.

- Click here for the article.

The author makes the following point about recent changes to the process:

Most of Trump’s Senate-confirmable nominations are expected to sail through the confirmation process. In the past, the Republican Party’s 52-48 majority would not have secured them enough votes to confirm nominees without some Democratic help. To stop a filibuster, three-fifths of the chamber, or 60 votes, would have been needed to end debate and force a vote.

But Democrats reinterpreted that rule in 2013, saying only a simple majority was required, making it easier to shut down a talkative senator looking to block a confirmation.

That change, dubbed the “nuclear option,” means Democrats have deprived themselves of one of the only methods possible to halt a nomination.

There is no more ability to filibuster appointments.

And to stay up to date with the nominations so far:

- Tracking how many key positions Trump has filled so far.

How Clinton and Trump did it

For summer GOVT 2305 students. Some preliminary info that might help you with your essay. What are commentators telling us about how each won the nominations of their respective parties? Here are a few initial thoughts on the subject. I'll add more as I find them - but feel to look on your own.

- The Fiscal Times: The Strategy That Gave Hillary Clinton the Democratic Nomination.
- The Financial Times: How Trump Won the Nomination.
- Slate: The Process Worked - The Democratic primaries weren’t rigged. Despite their flaws, they produced a nominee with wide support across the party.
- The Atlantic: How the Party Decided on Trump.

From the NYT: Republican Leaders Map a Strategy to Derail Donald Trump

Party insiders have not given up.

- Click here for the article.

Republican leaders adamantly opposed to Donald J. Trump’s candidacy are preparing a 100-day campaign to deny him the presidential nomination, starting with an aggressive battle in Wisconsin’s April 5 primary and extending into the summer, with a delegate-by-delegate lobbying effort that would cast Mr. Trump as a calamitous choice for the general election.

Recognizing that Mr. Trump has seized a formidable advantage in the race, they say that an effort to block him would rely on an array of desperation measures, the political equivalent of guerrilla fighting.

There is no longer room for error or delay, the anti-Trump forces say, and without a flawlessly executed plan of attack, he could well become unstoppable.

But should that effort falter, leading conservatives are prepared to field an independent candidate in the general election, to defend Republican principles and offer traditional conservatives an alternative to Mr. Trump’s hard-edged populism. They described their plans in interviews after Mr. Trump’s victories last Tuesday in Florida and three other states.

The names of a few well-known conservatives have been offered up in recent days as potential third-party standard-bearers, and William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, has circulated a memo to a small number of conservative allies detailing the process by which an independent candidate could get on general-election ballots across the country.

Among the recruits under discussion are Tom Coburn, a former Oklahoma senator who has told associates that he would be open to running, and Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who was suggested as a possible third-party candidate at a meeting of conservative activists on Thursday in Washington.

The Mukasey Nomination

I let the conflict over the Mukasey nomination slip without comment, but wanted to get some links up for posterity. His nomination raised some important constitutional issues, both having to do with the extent of executive power and the ability, and role, of the justice department in restraining him.

The dominant issue was torture, whether we allow it, whether water-boarding is in fact torture and if that meant that we in fact tortured suspects--contrary to custom. Mukasey fudged, which upset activists and led at least one left leaning group in the Democratic Party to call for the removal of Democrats who supported him.

For me, the more interesting part of this dispute was clarifying Congress' role in clarifying torture and making explicitly clear what can and cannot be allowed. That has never been done before, all that had been required was for the president to abide by the Geneva Conventions, but that is apparently not enough anymore. Moves are now underway to make that clear, we'll see if that passes. Here's the legal background. If you've been following the news you know that his nomination barely passed due to this controversy.

The less dominant, though ultimately more important issue had to do with the role of the attorney general, and the justice department overall, in overseeing the executive branch.
Mukasey's background as a judge gave him credibility as a potentially independent force, especially in comparison with his predecessor's background as a presidential adviser. Gonzales' apparent willingness to allow the justice department to be a tool for partisan purposes was his downfall, and is Mukasey's task.

You can link to Senate testimony here and here.

The ranks of the Justice Department are apparently dangerously thin. He'll be there for little more than a year. He has much to do.

McCain, the Minimum Wage, and Race to the White House

Austin raises a point in his comment to the post about filibusters that ought be expanded:

"I would expect a filibuster on the war funding legislation, because even still, many in both parties are so diametrically opposed on that subject. What I didn't expect was one on the minimum wage hike that seems all but a sure thing. And especially from Senator McCain, who seems like a normal guy with a good head on his shoulders. I haven't always agreed with his decisions, but it seemed like he was acting on what he believed, and not just voting along party lines. This seems as if he's just he's trying to win a popularity contest. I can't blame him, considering his failed bid for the party nomination in 2000, and the fact that he is really the only strong prospect for the presidency that the party has right now. But to resist a rise in the minimum wage now? Not only may it hurt his already weakened party's chances for the presidency, but I think it would shake the middle and lower classes' confidence in the Republican's even more. It really demonstrates the dichotomy between the rich and poor to see someone deny people a living wage. If the GOP want to keep their base (what's left of it, at least) the should forget their newly rediscovered "fiscal responsibility" for a moment, and just sit this one out."

Let's assume that McCain is an intelligent, rational person who is taking positions that are poll and focus group tested and are likely to (1) win him the nomination of his party and (2) not hurt his chances of winning the presidency. Now let's try to figure out what that reasoning is.

This applies especially to 2301 since we cover elections, political parties and campaigning.

What's McCain up to?