The weird thing about people still defending the logic behind RBG's decision not to retire is that the result was one of the most predictable, and predicted, developments in American politics. Here's me in 2014. I deserve no special credit here because all this was very obvious!

Apr 19, 2024 · 3:07 PM UTC

10
29
306
Also, what people forget is that RBG *was* trying to game the timing of her retirement. In her view, President Obama plus 55 Democratic senators *were not enough* to confirm the sort of successor she wanted. She wanted to hold out for a bigger, better Democratic majority!
3
1
31
In 2013, well before Trump came on the scene and Dem overconfidence set in, RBG expressed a blasé complacency that a Dem would succeed Obama before "The Democrats do fine in presidential elections."
2
11
In 2014, it was obvious to anyone who understood the Senate geography that Dems were very overextended and their 55-seat majority was highly likely to shrink in the coming years. Indeed they've never come near it again— in the years since they've varied between 46 - 51 seats
1
11
RBG was trying to time her retirement, she just had some very bad assumptions about future elections would go. And they weren't just bad in retrospect — they were obviously bad assumptions at the time. (No one should've had a confident forecast in 2013 re: who'd win in 2016!)
1
1
20
Replying to @awprokop @mattyglesias
Hogwash! No one expected Trump to beat Clinton. It was a 15% chance late in the 2016 election. That colored everything decided at that time, including Obama’s weak campaign to get Garland confirmed. Ur making shit up on Monday morning about how the QB should have acted on Sun
1
No one was asking RBG to retire during Trump's campaign because Dems had already lost the Senate at that point. As I said, the debate over whether she should retire took place in 2013 and 2014, before a Trump candidacy was a gleam in anyone's eye, and while Dems held the Senate
2
Replying to @awprokop @mattyglesias
Of course, she made the correct decision.
Replying to @awprokop
Thank you for saying this. Never underestimate the ability of Dems for unforced errors, like nominating a republican suggested wet noodle in '16 and seeing turn out drop among your best base.
Replying to @awprokop @NavinPokala
It was very obvious. Thanks for saying it anyway.
3
Replying to @awprokop @mattyglesias
Never occurred to me to proffer credit, especially not of the special breed. Rest easy.
Load more