BC DEMOCRATS
Saved by @Christi22657596

Since we’re all about gangs this week, please step into my TED talk about how the Gang of 14 was one of Democrats’ worst strategic mistakes of the past few decades.

The year is 2005. Republicans really, really want to go nuclear to confirm Bush’s judges. Like, really want to.

 Bush, Cheney and Frist were all eager to go nuclear. The floor general for the fight was a young comer named Addison Mitch McConnell. In May, on the Senate floor, McConnell announced that the “Senate is prepared to restore the Senate’s traditions and precedents,” and go nuclear.
To lay the intellectual groundwork for the effort, former Baker counsel and all-around Senate guru Martin Gold penned a law review article dubbing it the “constitutional option.” It’s good! Makes a strong case the Framers would’ve opposed the filibuster 😊 https://t.co/fDTf9Bqhd8
Sorry I started that thread in a Lyft then got to where I was going 😂 ANYWAY, let’s continue
At issue were the nominations of a bunch of hyper-conservative Bush judicial nominees, like William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown. Dems were using the filibuster to block them. If at this point you think to yourself, “huh they’re on the bench today,” you know where this is going.
Into this space stepped the Gang of 14. No one wanted what they were selling - not Republican leaders, not Democratic leaders. They garnered a ton of attention for themselves and were seen as the great saviors of the Senate. But all they did was delay nature taking its course.
Just wait https://t.co/9annbnN1uP
The famed Gang of 14 struck a very stupid deal, whereby Dems retained their right to filibuster, but were only allowed to use it under “extraordinary circumstances.” Dems were very conscientious in how they applied this standard, and Rs basically convinced them no one met it.
Most of the controversial Bush nominees at the heart of the controversy got confirmed, all with fewer than 60 votes. In other words, Bush got most of the judges that he threatened to go nuclear over, without having to go nuclear.

But wait, there’s more…
As I said upthread, all the leaders hated the deal. Reid gave a speech saying Dems already *were* using the “extraordinary circumstances” standard, to no avail. For their part, the Bush WH wasn’t satisfied getting only the judges covered by the deal. They wanted to keep pressing.
The Bush WH sought to put forward judicial nominees who would test the boundaries of the deal, force Democrats to filibuster, and give Republicans an excuse to go nuclear - like they had wanted to do all along. (H/t @hillhulse, read his book on this).
One of the nominees the Bush WH put forward to test the Gang of 14 deal - to see if Democrats would filibuster, and in so doing, give Republicans the excuse to go nuclear they wanted - was a former aide to Ken Starr whose earlier nomination had been blocked by a filibuster…
His name was Brett Kavanaugh.
Deeming that Kavanaugh didn’t meet the “extraordinary circumstances” standard & boxed in by Republicans’ nuclear threat, Dems did not filibuster Kavanaugh and let him be confirmed to the DC Circuit with fewer than 60 votes. As Ashley notes, this laundered much of his record. https://t.co/M25RRzwIi4
Two other nominees did not meet the GO14 “extraordinary circumstances” standard and were therefore not filibustered: John Roberts and, more controversially, Samuel Alito. Roberts probably would’ve been confirmed no matter what, but Alito was confirmed with fewer than 60 votes.
So what did Democrats get out of this Gang of 14 deal, that is remembered so gauzily, perhaps with the “West Wing” theme song playing in the background?

Jack shit.

What did Republicans get? Pretty much all the judicial nominees they wanted.

BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE…
Republicans also got to preserve the filibuster, which Dems had fallen over themselves to enshrine. When Obama won, instead of being able to confirm whomever he wanted on a majority vote because Rs had gone nuclear under Bush, he had to slog for 5 years to get his noms confirmed.
Did Dems realize they’d been played, and quickly go nuclear themselves? Of course not! It took them 5 years to do it, causing Obama to bleed enormous political capital over that time. My friend Cassandra Butts died while waiting 820 days to be confirmed. https://t.co/l4KAtGfNN3
If Dems had just let Republicans go nuclear, Rs would have gotten the same crop of judicial confirmations, and Obama could’ve nominated whomever he wanted to be confirmed with just a majority, in a Senate where he had 60(ish) Dems. This would’ve been a very different dynamic.
Then there’s Garland. How would his nomination have played out differently if Dems had only needed 50 votes to confirm him, in a Senate where they held 46 seats? McConnell made a snap decision to block him because he knew he could hold 14 of his members. But 4? Maybe… but idk.
Coda: after leading the fight to go nuclear in 2005, then flipping 180 degrees under Obama to claim going nuclear would break the Senate, McConnell promptly went nuclear when it served his interests to confirm Gorsuch to the seat he blocked Garland from filling…
Meanwhile, having used his time on the DC circuit (to which he was confirmed as a result of the GO14 deal) to distance himself from his past as a political hatchet man, we also got this guy.
One thing to add: very much a hypothetical, but if Republicans had gone nuclear under Bush, it is *much* easier to see Dems seriously considering going nuclear on legislation under Obama, and perhaps even doing it. The dynamic would've been very different. https://t.co/FcY46XZ83G
I forgot an important point.

Under Obama, did the remaining Republican members of the Gang of 14 reciprocate - did they apply the “extraordinary circumstances” standard as conscientiously as Dems had under Bush, and help confirm key Obama nominees?

Haha, of course not!
Anyhoo, this is why when my fellow, well-meaning Dems ask me if I regret the 2013 nuclear decision, the light drains out of my eyes and I stare into the middle distance.

Literally my only regret is that we did not do it *immediately.*

Dems risk making the same mistake now.
What's the lesson? Dems often have a strong Vizzini-with-the-cups vibe when faced with these kinds of strategic choices. Rs made clear they were going to get their noms, at the cost of nuking the filibuster. Fair enough. When you win, you get what you want, at a cost. Instead...
Dems thought they'd outsmarted Rs, preserving the filibuster. Except they did so on terms that meant they couldn't use it when it mattered, by dint of their own generous application of the "extraordinary circumstances" standard, and the fact that Rs really were ready to go nuke.
Rather than extract a cost from Rs by making them go nuclear - which would hurt, but benefit Dems in the future - they gave Rs everything they wanted AND let them keep the filibuster to use against future Dems. "Never go up against a Sicilian...!" they cried, before keeling over.
The Bush administration and Senate Rs had made the calculation that nuking the filibuster was a price they were perfectly willing to pay to secure their priorities. I can only imagine how giddy they were that Dems gave them what they wanted without forcing them to incur any cost.
Today, some Dems still believe we can have it both ways - get what we want without incurring whatever cost comes from nuking the filibuster. This is Vizzini logic from the other end.

It is worth the cost. Rs knew it in 2005, and they will know it the next time they're in power.
People often ask me what made Reid good at what he did. While Reid is certainly not perfect in all of this, as I alluded to above, he hated the G014 deal and tried to scuttle it. And then he tried to keep the filibuster going against Alito, but couldn't sustain it. But anyway...
Reid was a boxer (cue @RalstonReports). He knew you always have to take a punch to land a punch. Trying to avoid getting punched is silly - that's not the sport, and it's a guaranteed way to lose. You're going to absorb blows. The only question is, can you make yours land harder.

You May Also Like

ashkan soltani
ashkan soltani
@ashk4n
BREAKING: @CommonsCMS @DamianCollins just released previously sealed #Six4Three @Facebook documents:

Some random interesting tidbits:

1) Zuck approves shutting down platform API access for Twitter's when Vine is released #competition


2) Facebook engineered ways to access user's call history w/o alerting users:

Team considered access to call history considered 'high PR risk' but 'growth team will charge ahead'. @Facebook created upgrade path to access data w/o subjecting users to Android permissions dialogue.


3) The above also confirms @kashhill and other's suspicion that call history was used to improve PYMK (People You May Know) suggestions and newsfeed rankings.

4) Docs also shed more light into @dseetharaman's story on @Facebook monitoring users' @Onavo VPN activity to determine what competitors to mimic or acquire in 2013.

https://t.co/PwiRIL3v9x
TECH
Pran Katariya
Pran Katariya
@KatariyaPran
The Straddle is my favorite trade these days. But more often than not, one needs to adjust to make a good return from it. There are many ways to do this depending on your view, psychology and imagination. Will discuss a few that I use

The Straddle is a delta neutral strategy and it is important to keep deltas in check during the course of the Trade and not let them run away from you. Of course Volatility is the elephant in the room- but not going there as that will require a separate discussion

The first and most common method is to go 'inverted.' That is to say to shift the untested side to generate additional Premium and increase the runway to Breakeven. So if you start with a Straddle at 700 and price goes to 740, you can move the PE up to say 720.

How much should you move the untested side? While again this is a matter of skill, experience and artistry, the rule of thumb is to cut deltas by half. Remember, prices will move and you have to allow sufficient room for them to fluctuate

The second method is to shift the entire Straddle in the direction of the move. So if you have a 700 Straddle and Price goes to 740, you can shift the Straddle to 720. If you time this right, it can generally be done at virtually no cost or minimal cost.
ALL , OPTION SELLING , STRADDLE OPTION SELLING
Advertisement
Joey Tawadrous \U0001f1ee\U0001f1ea
Joey Tawadrous 🇮🇪...
@joeytawadrous
1) Core attributes of a promising founder worth following:
- Progress/trajectory over time
- How well they lead a team &
- Make the vision happen
- Most impressed when someone is way ahead of where you thought they would be when you check up/see them a few months later.

2) Indie Makers have such a benefit of being small, fast, nimble workers in comparison to big companies.

We can easily pivot and vastly change a project of ours. We can change as we learn more about our users.

Big companies can take months/years for even the smallest of pivots.

3) Before you find a product market you can pivot your project as many times as necessary until you find something that works.

Then you only have one thing to do: scale, scale, scale.

4) Be obsessed with the little details.
- listen to every single person who uses your product
- reply to every single person who emails you about your product
- ask them what they like and do not like
- iterate your product, make changes, pivot if necessary

5) Paul Graham's (@paulg) name came up with a feeling of great admiration! Naturally! It was Paul who said:

In the early stages of a company just;
- write code
- talk/sell to customers to stress test your idea

Nothing else.
STARTUPS
Robin Berjon
Robin Berjon
@robinberjon
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
TECH
The '60s at 60
The '60s at 60
@the_60s_at_60
"The MAD Primer of Bigots, Extremists and Other Loose Ends," from September 1969.

Seen a couple of these panels make the rounds from time to time, so here's the complete set of 10 (something to amuse and/or offend almost everyone).


Chapter 1: The Super Patriot


Chapter 2: The Ku Klux Klansman


Chapter 3: The American Student


Chapter 4: The Right-Wing Extremist
FUN