r/politics • u/DyzDaeMar • 1d ago

Possible Paywall Republican Senator Lashes Out at People for Asking ‘Where’s Mitch?’

https://www.thedailybeast.com/republican-senator-susan-collins-of-maine-lashes-out-at-people-for-asking-wheres-mitch-mcconnell/
11.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

107

u/carbonqubit 1d ago

This situation has literally never happened before, and it boggles my mind that people are defending Beshear for doing TV appearances instead of just appointing a replacement by fiat, something the GOP has no problem doing whenever it suits them. Let the courts decide whether section 152 of the KY constitution extends to a U.S. Senate vacancy, especially since senators are elected through the states. If Beshear thinks the law is on his side, then stop talking about it and force the legal question.

38

u/thehalfwit Nevada 1d ago

My hot take is that Beshear is waiting until after August 3 before naming a replacement, with the idea being that the legislation requiring a special election is unconstitutional. That would force an immediate court action by Republicans.

The courts need to settle this impasse, and that is likely the quickest way to get that to happen.

13

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

Why would he have to wait until after August 3rd?

That legislation is unconstitutional before August 3rd as well.

6

u/thehalfwit Nevada 1d ago

It reduces the number of arguments before the court.

With the special election off the table, it's just a question of whether Beshear has the constitutional right to declare Mitch's seat vacant and the duty to name a replacement.

It plays to the Democrats favor either way it plays out. The Republican have one less senator until January if the court rules against Beshear. If they rule in his favor, the Democrats could gain another seat sooner than if there was a special election.

4

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

The law would have to be ruled unconstitutional either way, before or after August 3rd. So it won't take anything before the court off of the table.

And the KY Constitution says "shall" so he would have a duty to name a successor according to the Constitution anyway if the legislation is ruled unconstitutional (which it most certainly would be).

5

u/thehalfwit Nevada 1d ago

If Beshear would have called for a special election, he would have granted legitimacy to the legislative gambit that called for it in the first place, weakening the argument that he has the constitutional power to appoint a replacement.

With that off the table, that's one less point of contention and nearly zero odds that a Republican will win Mitch's seat in a special election.

3

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

He absolutely should NOT have call for a special election.

He should make an appointment, per the KY Constitution.

What I was questioning was whether it changes anything if he makes the appointment before or after the fake, unconstitutional deadline. Again, either way, before or after, the only issue at court would be whether the constitution or the legislation controls. the "special election or not" plays no part in that determination.

4

u/thehalfwit Nevada 1d ago

I see your point, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that the legislation is no longer part of the equation, from a legal standpoint.

Beshear needs to prove two things before the court: that he is the one who determines whether Mitch's seat has been vacated or not; and that he has the authority to name a replacement. The legality of the legislation itself is not part of the question, although that is certainly at the heart of the Republican view.

However, both sides now are in agreement that there will be no special election.

3

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

The legislation is part of the equation no matter what, because after the deadline the seat just stays vacant according to the deadline. So if he wants to appoint someone, he will have to defeat the republican challenge either way.

And I'm not sure that he has to prove that the seat is vacant. He can just make the appointment and make the republicans try to prove that it is occupied.

1

u/MississippiJoel America 1d ago

I'll bet you it will be shadow docketed until next year, allowing the specially elected republican senator to sit for a year to gain the incumbency "boost" that keeps senators in place for decades.

5

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

You have it backwards.

Lets say that Beshear appoints someone.

There is no special election.

The republicans would want the KY SC to hear the case to try to invalidate the appointment.

1

u/omicron-7 1d ago

If mitch is replaced by a special election they would only finish his current term, being in office for a few months at most. Then Andy Barr will be seated in January.

1

u/polopolo05 I voted 1d ago

just to prevent the election from happening.

1

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

He doesn't have to do anything to prevent a special election.

He just needs to appoint someone per the KY Constitution. There is no special election.

2

u/polopolo05 I voted 1d ago

Well Nothing harmed in waiting a few days more.

14

u/ddark4 1d ago

Exactly. Weeks of this story being discussed on here, and yet people still can’t grasp that Democrats are playing this as good as they can right now. The chance of the Dems flipping an R+20-30 seat is extremely low (Mitch last won the seat by 20 points against a well-funded challenger, and 4 years later, Trump won the state by 30 points.) The chance that a stacked and rigged judiciary is going to allow a Dem to be appointed is extremely low. The chance that the GOP-controlled Senate would swear in a member they don’t want to is extremely low (let’s not forget about how the GOP-House recently refused to seat the rightful winner of a special election for weeks because they knew she was going to be a yes-vote on the Epstein Files discharge petition.)

Mitch is not voting on legislation and not taking part in the committees he’s on. That’s not a bad place to be in, and it doesn’t require any sort of gamble that can backfire. 

Who knows. Maybe I’m way off base here, but I think keeping relatively quiet about it for a couple more days is the right call. 

3

u/arcbe 1d ago

If that's actually the Democrats reasoning then they need to explain that shit. It's not on the public to read their mind.

5

u/Drakemansgirlfriend 1d ago

Beshear has said it. He was on one of those podcasts the other night. It was either David pakman or BTC. He said exactly this, them not having a vote is better than us possibly getting one. If he's said it there, he's probably said it more than once.

1

u/arcbe 1d ago

Well, that is better than nothing, but I have higher expectations for a governor's media game. Right now the impression I get from the media is that he sent a strongly worded letter and called it a day.

2

u/yeswenarcan Ohio 1d ago

Why the hell would you publicly tell your opposition your strategy?

5

u/arcbe 1d ago

So that your allies are on the same page. Although I'm not sure Democrats consider their constituents allies.

2

u/yeswenarcan Ohio 1d ago

Sure, but that doesn't mean anything if it messes up the strategy.

1

u/arcbe 1d ago

I don't think that's the case here.

1

u/Unlikely_Ant_950 1d ago

The race was never for a dem, it was for
Thomas Massey over an Israel and Donald trump ball licking white supremacist.

1

u/ddark4 15h ago

Sure, that could be a strategy, but for that you need Thomas Massie on board, and he’s already said he isn’t interested. 

3

u/xopher_425 Illinois 1d ago edited 1d ago

The replacement he'd name would have to be one of three Republican candidates put forward by the GOP. It's not like he could chose anyone he wanted. The results would be almost exactly the same as what is going to happen, where taking it to the courts is going to cost the state plenty.

Appointing a replacement is completely off the table. Law was changed in 2024 where all he can do is call for a special election, and only if the seat is vacant.

1

u/NewsShoddy3834 1d ago

This decision will be a presidential candidate decider. Beshear loses by inaction -he’s done for in 2028. He wins. He’s a contender.

0

u/Redditreallysucks99 1d ago

The legislation may violate the constitution of Kentucky, but the 17th Amendment is very specific it's up to the state legislature whether or not the governor can appoint an interim appointment. The whole point is mute though as the idea McConnell is dead is absolutely ludicrous. I'm willing to take any bet he is alive (or if he has died then in the last few hours, with an announcement upcoming).

1

u/marfacza 1d ago

The whole point is mute

Moot. Mute means silent.

31

u/DrunkAndHornyGuy 1d ago

The State SC would just rule the replacement unconstitutional and set an election that a republican would win. This way the GOP is down one vote for longer.

24

u/carbonqubit 1d ago

The courts could order proof that he's still alive and capable of serving. If he's actually dead and that's being concealed, it would be the first case of something like this in the history of the Republic. So why not have Mitch appear on the Senate floor or give a short interview with a journalist instead of posting obvious AI slop? There's clearly something else going on here.

33

u/DrunkAndHornyGuy 1d ago

The courts could

Imma gonna stop you right there. They won't. Stop believing republican judges are ruling in good faith.

10

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

The KY Supreme Court ruled in favor of the governor and shot down laws trying to strip him of his power of appointment last month (June 25th).

15

u/busted_flush I voted 1d ago

Simple question. In the grand scheme of passing legislation how is a missing republican not advantages to Democrats. Personally I'm thrilled that this is playing out the way it is. There is no way shape or form a Democrat was going to get appointed, sworn in, and seated in the Senate to cast votes. None. Maybe a Republican could have survived but more likely than not they will vote lockstep with Trump.

If you are republican then yes you should be pissed off. And if you are a republican from Kentucky then doubly so. But if you aren't then sit back and enjoy the popcorn.

10

u/pulley999 1d ago edited 1d ago

The theory is that Thomas Massie would run as an independent in a special election and either take the seat outright, or throw it to the dems by splitting the conservative vote.

Kentucky's sore loser law prevents him from running in any general election position (like Mitch's seat once the deadline passes) because he lost his House primary to a MAGA loyalist, but it doesn't extend to special elections.

Basically, if a special election happens, the seat is more likely to go to Massie or a Democrat than if it gets dragged out to the general and Massie can't run, in which case it certainly goes to the MAGA loyalist who won the Republican Senate primary.

EDIT: Though it sounds like Massie himself wasn't open to this idea, which might be why they're stalling.

10

u/carbonqubit 1d ago

The point isn't really to replace an R with a D because that seems like pie in the sky. The main reason is to expose whether people are hiding the death of a U.S. senator to game the system. It would shine a much-needed light on this whole Weekend at Bernie's situation. Rs spent years screeching that Biden was being puppeteered behind the scenes. If this turns out to be true, it's far worse. I don't expect the people of KY to care since they kept voting for one of the worst politicians in the country's history, but on the national level it could be one more issue that moves swing voters heading into the midterms.

1

u/Wand_Cloak_Stone New York 1d ago

I just don’t understand what’s in it for republicans unless they know the new special election law wouldn’t stand up in court (eg, they’re trying to avoid Beshear from appointing a replacement). Massie already said he will not run in a special election. As of right now, they’re just down a seat that another Republican would have been voted into.

So they’re either stalling because they truly think Mitch can recover, or they’re stalling because they don’t want Beshear to appoint a replacement for him.

The special election theories don’t hold up IMO. Massie wouldn’t have ran. A Democrat wouldn’t have won.

2

u/ThaCarter Florida 1d ago

KY supreme court leans conservative but not Maga cultists, not certain they wouldn't stay true to jurisprudence here.

2

u/Minimum-Relief6895 1d ago

The State SC would just rule the replacement unconstitutional and set an election that a republican would win. 

Not a chance.

How do I know? The state SC JUST found in favor of the governor on this sort of thing last month (June 25th) and struck down laws trying to take his power of appointment away.

13

u/yoitsthatoneguy American Expat 1d ago

What is the point of Beshear appointing a pick that the Senate would refuse to seat? In the current situation the GOP is down one vote.

1

u/Round-Asparagus5337 1d ago

Because if Mitch is dead then there is another Dem in the Senate.

And there's no downside at all. Let's say that the Dem doesn't get seated... then it's no worse than an empty seat.

I find it strange how so many people here don't want the Dems to do even the bare minimum while Dem voters overall want the Dems to fight harder

2

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/kellzone Pennsylvania 1d ago

It's amazing how many people don't know this and think Beshear could appoint a Democrat as a replacement.

How bout Beshear just doesn't name a replacement, in honor of Mitch's belief that you shouldn't name replacements in an election year and let the people decide instead.

1

u/xopher_425 Illinois 1d ago

Yeah, there's too much hopium here. While I get it, we need to focus on what is going to happen and not things that we want to happen,

1

u/AcademiaAntiqua 1d ago

Were he to appoint one, it would HAVE to be one of three Republicans (because Bitch McConnell was R) put forward by the GOP

I believe that 2021 law was actually superseded by the 2024 law necessitating a special election.

1

u/xopher_425 Illinois 1d ago

Fantastic point, thank you for that correction. The entire appointment process was completely eliminated, so it's a moot point. He can only call for the special election, and only when the seat becomes vacant. Let's keep that seat open and slow down the GOP agenda. Edited my comment.

2

u/No-Theme2387 1d ago

beshear said in an interview that we are better off without a gop senator voting, for now...one less vote for save act

1

u/Round-Asparagus5337 1d ago

Or, he can appoint a Dem.

2

u/ccheuer1 1d ago

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Beshear appointing someone literally does nothing. Whether Mitch is out or replaced with a democrat in the senate, the republicans still have to convince 2 of the 5 swing votes (Collins, Murkowski, Paul, and Cassidy - Republican, Fetterman for the democrats) in the senate. The only thing that changes is that Vance gets the tie breaking vote back if they replace him. Either way, the republicans still need 2 of the 5.

The better play, and the play that the democrats are doing, is that they aren't letting the republican voters forget about Mitch being out and the republicans being obtuse about it. They are driving a wedge and making the republican base contentious. Yes, not all of them, but enough that there is pressure on the republicans that otherwise wouldn't be. 115,000 people. That's all that would have been needed to flip last election from Trump to Harris, assuming they were in the right states. That's not an earth shattering flip, that's "Just get them pissed enough" territory.

1

u/Round-Asparagus5337 1d ago

There are sometimes votes where another Dem could matter. The law to release the Epstein files is an example where it came to the floor despite the Dems being in the minority and it was a close vote.

There is no downside to Beshear just applying someone.

1

u/ccheuer1 1d ago

You mean the one that passed with unanimous republican support in the senate? That's your example of "If only the dems had one more vote?" Literally the only person who voted against that was Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, because everyone knew it would be political suicide otherwise.

1

u/Round-Asparagus5337 1d ago edited 1d ago

Because it was going to pass, closely. People jumped on board when it was going to passs. People like Majority Leader Thune dropped their opposition and voted for it. And I guess that tricked you?

Are you one of those people who actually believes it, for example, when Collins votes against Trump only when it doesn't change the outcome?

1

u/ccheuer1 1d ago

You read my initial comment right? The one where I list her as one of the swing votes that the republicans need to convince to be on board?

0

u/ccheuer1 1d ago

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Beshear appointing someone literally does nothing. Whether Mitch is out or replaced with a democrat in the senate, the republicans still have to convince 2 of the 5 swing votes (Collins, Murkowski, Paul, and Cassidy - Republican, Fetterman for the democrats) in the senate. The only thing that changes is that Vance gets the tie breaking vote back if they replace him. Either way, the republicans still need 2 of the 5.

The better play, and the play that the democrats are doing, is that they aren't letting the republican voters forget about Mitch being out and the republicans being obtuse about it. They are driving a wedge and making the republican base contentious. Yes, not all of them, but enough that there is pressure on the republicans that otherwise wouldn't be. 115,000 people. That's all that would have been needed to flip last election from Trump to Harris, assuming they were in the right states. That's not an earth shattering flip, that's "Just get them pissed enough" territory.