If the Dems ride Mr. K's unpopularity into November they will take the house, from which, they can start looking into some of the right's sketchy practises in time for 2020...

All things being equal, nothing on earth can prevent Trump appointing a right-wing zealot, (although, Trump's sister is a fellow atheist and a judge, I'm sure she'd be able to conjure up a name or two not fed to him by the GOP) other than a full sweep in November. For the democrats it's worth keeping up the moral indignation about Mr. K once confirmed, the GOP's counter argument that the Dems orchestrated the Ford episode will either fade away or otherwise serve as a distraction for the GOP base to remain at home in November, secure in the knowledge that they have their man on the court.

After all poisons come out with the Dems having the power to inaugurate house committee after house committee, it will be 2020, Trump will be reduced to his fanatical base, the GOP will be in tatters, and the Dems can take the senate and the White House... Played logically, it's not that much of a stretch.

LL&P

D: Manchin
R: Collins, Flake, Murkowski, Sasse

Yes the outrage machine runs 24-7 in rightwing world but that has never stopped. Also, while polls and reports keep referencing Repub support they never mention the part about people leaving the Repub party so it's a higher percentage of a smaller number.

None of the Dems I know are the least bit complacent. That's anecdotal so meaningless, but still.

People who are Never-Trumpers are coming out strong AGAINST Kavanaugh - I don't see why left-the-party-over-Trump is going to gain them back by backing a rapist for SCOTUS.

I respectfully disagree. Faux News is called 'the outrage machine' for a reason - because that's what motivates deplorables.

But it's not just them - the Russkies managed to manipulate Bernie supporters into boycotting the 2016 election by stoking their outrage at (supposedly) rigged primaries.

I think the highly charged partisan atmosphere surrounding these midterms was already lighting up the flashing 'Warning' indicator for Democrats, who have been acting (in some cases) as though the midterm shift is already a done deal. It isn't.

We've had Trump on the defensive - forced to insist that everything is hunky-dory when it very obviously isn't. But there's a reason that Republican wanted to have this fight now, rather than after the midterms, during the lame-duck session. They were spoiling for a good battle, because nothing draws a crowd faster than a fist-fight - P.T. Barnum used to hire guys to stage noisy arguments outside of his oddity museum for that express purpose.

If we ignore that reality, we risk being blindsided again, because we were assuming that they were voting FOR republicans rather than AGAINST democrats. We dismiss that notion because it makes no sense, and it doesn't. But that doesn't take into account the crowd gathering around the periphery of the fight, where the real action is.

:}

I think Cab Calloway may have channeled your computer.

I'm fixing to hit it with a Callaway golf club! :p

My connection is acting up lately so I'm guessing either you or CW infected me. ;)

Dems don't need Kav on the court to be motivating - we're motivated. We're not going to stay home if he's blocked.

This! Totally agree with Paula. :)

I hear you. I just disagree on this one. :)

I think Cab Calloway may have channeled your computer.

Dems don't need Kav on the court to be motivating - we're motivated. We're not going to stay home if he's blocked.

It won't get you anywhere, but you'd be right.

You almost (but not quite) have to sympathize with the GOP:

On the one hand, if Kav's nomination fails, it (temporarily) dashes the dreams of conservatives, who have been having semi-erotic fantasies of overturning Roe, the Voting Rights act, affirmative action, and maybe even Miranda. It would be a personal failure for Trump, and a giant disappointment for McConnell, who was probably hoping to cap his career with it. If the GOP, with political control of the whole government couldn't do it now, when could they?

On the other hand, the Kav Nomination has energized their base like no other issue could. The best thing that could happen to their midterm prospects would be for Democrats to succeed at blocking Kavanaugh, sparking outrage, and driving the GOP base to the polls to retaliate.

If Kav wins, that dissipates like morning fog, and they're back to facing the blue tsunami, now given an energy boost by the transparently rigged process. With SCOTUS firmly in hand, even Trump's base might go back to sleep.

What to do? They've tried their best to fumble the ball, and in any other world, Kavenaugh would be toast by now - how many times does Kav have to lie before Joe Manchin grows a pair?

So here's another Orwellian paradigm to add to our long list of unhappy truths in the Trump era: Success is failure.

At least when applied to zombie nominees.

:}

Wish we could count her vote three times. :)

The whole thing has been a sham from the start - the usual suspects once again appear to be caving (Flake, Collins, Murkowski).

People have been leaving the party so Repubs have to do something to regain members. They figure the sexual-predator demographic hasn't been mined and offers possibilities. Look for the recruiting messages: "GOP - where rapists go for career advancement!"

"Trickle up economics is what a well paid working class brings to the table."

I'd love to believe that, but workforce numbers tell me otherwise.

Total USA labor: 150 M
Amazon USA labor: 0.50 M
Walmart USA labor: 2.0 M
Cosco USA labor: 0.14 M

Walmart Amazon and Cosco employ less than 2% of the US labor force. I don't see this stubby tail wagging the dog. Any one company can grease the skids a bit, but greasing the skids doesn't haul the ocean liner up the shipway and into the building yard. There is a first mover problem with any one industry rising all the labor boats.

I think it's a shrewd move on Bezo's part, but it's a local gambit directed against Internet competitors, not a global effort to lift the US economic engine.

There's many 'living wage' programmes ongoing, around the world, to make an informed opinion about raising the minimum wage--better productivity, healthy and stable workforce, job satisfaction, low turnover, to say nothing of adding a massive influx of cash into local economies...

Trickle up economics is what a well paid working class brings to the table. I don't think Ford or Bezos believe/believed that the bulk of their largesse would come home to roost.

It's a shrewd move by Bezos, aimed at the likes of Wallyworld and Costco...

LL&P

The US military services have adopted/adapted a lot of ideas from social capitalism...and have retained more of them than current civilian enterprises. There are a lot of insider military jokes about this.

"Many are drawing parallels with Henry Ford's decision to pay his assembly line workers the unheard-of wage of $5 a day (instead of the more-common $10 per week). If the workers make enough money, Ford reasoned, they would actually be able to buy his cars. If he sold more cars, then he and his company would wind up making more money in the end."

This was not Ford's reasoning for increasing wages.
He increased wages in order to reduce worker turnover. Inexperienced workers slowed down his production line.

Ford was a welfare capitalist, which was a common industrialist strategy in the early 20th century. The idea was that a healthy and happy workforce was more efficient than a downtrodden one. It reduced the temptation for workers to unionize. At a very basic level, it was simply taking good care of your biological tools. It is a lot easier to be benevolent when it increases your profits AND your control of your own enterprise.

IBM, Kodak, National Cash Register, Sears, Standard Oil and US Steel all did pretty much what Henry Ford did, and so did many other companies to a greater or lesser degree. If you drive around the old industrial towns of the East and Midwest you still see the vestiges of social capitalism in parks, libraries, social clubs and planned communities.

Bezos is dipping his toe into a deep pool.

Patrick- 5 and Bezo's gambit is even easier when he takes back with one hand some of what he gave with the other.

But Amazon is making other changes to employees’ compensation to help pay for the new wage floor in its fulfillment centers. Those changes include getting rid of what’s known as the “variable compensation program,” or VCP, which is based on a worker’s attendance and his facility’s production level, and eliminating a stock allotment program for certain employees.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-minimum-wage-hike-compensation-cuts_us_5bb573d2e4b028e1fe3a6ba9

If my business was a leader at introducing automation (especially via robots - and let's not forget Amazon bought Kiva Robotics a few year ago), I'd look at human hourly wages as a competitive advantage that my business model had over my competition. And if I already knew that I was going to be able to cut my total employee to profit ratio due to further automation, I might make the following calculation:

1. My business model is going to be seen as increasingly bad for American workers

2. My total labor costs are going to go down significantly due to automation

3. If I "altruistically" pay $15/hour and increase my own costs, even though the total dollar increase is less than the decrease I'll see due to automation, so while I'm already beating my competition on labor productivity, it will be slightly less

4. I get to look like the good guy

5. and I get to pressure my already less productive competitors to match my minimum wage, putting them at an even greater competitive advantage

6. and make myself look even more of a John Lennon "working class hero"

7. what am I waiting for?

Also, Republican Senators will be pressured on this - why did the Senate kill the bill? Probably not a problem in Alabama where they are still fighting the Civil War, but in Texas we are already seeing Beta O'Rouke give credence to the possibility that Texas might go purple. (The more the right gloat if Cruz holds on, the more you know scared they are.)

For instance, base salary for congress is $175K+benefits - let's conservatively call the total package $250K.

If we tie the annual minimum wage to 1/8th of the median congress person's package, we make everybody happy when congress gives itself a pay hike.