I kinda view this like Obamacare.

The side that gets what they want before the election is at a disadvantage come election time.
The group that just lost is PISSED OFF and ready to vote
The group that just won is taking a victory lap and resting on the laurels

I am fully convinced that the 2010 "Shellacking" would not have happened if Obamacare had not been jammed down the throat of the American people.
In 2012 had Romney not been the WORST CANDIATE EVER the Supreme Court decision to save Obamacare would have titled the tide to the GOP.

Therefore, I think it may be wise to wait. Its a gamble, but a relatively safe one, as a Presidential election is much different than legislative elections.
It allows you to hold the moral high ground which I believe does matter in terms of optics.

Just for the record, the vote needs to occur BEFORE the midterms. Having said that, milk the process for all you can as it relates to firing up the base.

(06-29-2018 09:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I kinda view this like Obamacare.

The side that gets what they want before the election is at a disadvantage come election time.
The group that just lost is PISSED OFF and ready to vote
The group that just won is taking a victory lap and resting on the laurels

I am fully convinced that the 2010 "Shellacking" would not have happened if Obamacare had not been jammed down the throat of the American people.

Therefore, I think it may be wise to wait. Its a gamble, but a relatively safe one, as a Presidential election is much different than legislative elections.
It allows you to hold the moral high ground which I believe does matter in terms of optics.

Couple things..

It's a lifetime appointment. I see the dems as being more discouraged and becoming indifferent rather than getting fired up if the appointment is made before the election.

You're right about the possibility of republicans relaxing too much and enjoying a victory lap, as you are about the 2010 midterms and Obamacare. However, I don't think putting forth a solid nominee and having him/her confirmed before the election would be received the same way. It's not like this would be done in the middle of the night with a majority of voters not wanting it.

The left only cares about moral high ground when it suits their purpose. They can thank Reid for this mess and the republicans should take full advantage of it. We both know exactly what the dems would do if the situation were reversed. The future of the country is too important to gamble on.

(06-29-2018 09:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:30 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  He doesn’t “need” GOP senators at this point since the filibuster was killed, unless he wants to appoint someone either so completely unqualified or unpopular that he’d lose a few GOP members. I can’t see that happening he got Gorsich through, and they’ll quickly get through the new guy before the election just in case.

Disagree. He needs every vote he can get. Never count out McCain and a couple of other "principled" (aka siding with dims) pub senators from stabbing the president in the back.

As long as the person is qualified like Gorsuch none of those are doing anything other than voting him in. Even those that don’t like Trump want as right a leaning court as possible.

I don't trust McCain. No one should.

(06-29-2018 09:47 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Couple things..

It's a lifetime appointment. I see the dems as being more discouraged and becoming indifferent rather than getting fired up if the appointment is made before the election.

Fair point.

But with RBG being 85, they will realize the next one is a MUST HAVE for them

Quote:You're right about the possibility of republicans relaxing too much and enjoying a victory lap, as you are about the 2010 midterms and Obamacare. However, I don't think putting forth a solid nominee and having him/her confirmed before the election would be received the same way. It's not like this would be done in the middle of the night with a majority of voters not wanting it.

The left only cares about moral high ground when it suits their purpose. They can thank Reid for this mess and the republicans should take full advantage of it. We both know exactly what the dems would do if the situation were reversed. The future of the country is too important to gamble on.

Great point. Supreme Court is something that is very risky to gamble with. And while the left can be very hypocritical about the moral high ground, it is still a good thing to have as it takes away a weapon in the political battle.

(06-29-2018 09:27 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  Look at that Senate map for November. Dems have to defend seats in:
- North Dakota
- Missouri
- Indiana
- West VA
- Pennsylvania
- Wisconsin
- Ohio

and try to pick off GOP seats in Tennessee and Arizona

all states that Trump won.


You might as well check off ND and WV as Republican pick ups. Even if Bredesen pulls the upset in TN and a Dem wins Arizona, we're still at 51 GOP seats. It will be more than 51. Stall now, fine. Cant use the "wait until after the election" excuse once the GOP gains seats in November. Trump will get his pick. Deal with it.

Don't be so sure of TN....

Phil Bredesen (D) was a popular mayor of Nashville.
Marsha Blackburn ® borders on RINO.

Personally, I don't like that she's the nominee.

Currently, the polls show this race as a toss-up.

It would only be considered an "upset" given that the seat would flip.

(06-29-2018 10:11 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:47 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Couple things..

It's a lifetime appointment. I see the dems as being more discouraged and becoming indifferent rather than getting fired up if the appointment is made before the election.

Fair point.

But with RBG being 85, they will realize the next one is a MUST HAVE for them

They have no shot at the senate. There are 12 democrat senators who are vulnerable, and their vote against a Trump appointee would make them more vulnerable. So while democrats may get riled up, the issue is that the riled up democrats in NY and CA wont make a difference this go round. And voting no on a Trump appointee would likely make them even more vulnerable in their home states.

They may not have a shot in 2018, but in 2020, if its close they will

(06-29-2018 09:40 AM)solohawks Wrote:  I kinda view this like Obamacare.

The side that gets what they want before the election is at a disadvantage come election time.
The group that just lost is PISSED OFF and ready to vote
The group that just won is taking a victory lap and resting on the laurels

I am fully convinced that the 2010 "Shellacking" would not have happened if Obamacare had not been jammed down the throat of the American people.
In 2012 had Romney not been the WORST CANDIATE EVER the Supreme Court decision to save Obamacare would have titled the tide to the GOP.

Therefore, I think it may be wise to wait. Its a gamble, but a relatively safe one, as a Presidential election is much different than legislative elections.
It allows you to hold the moral high ground which I believe does matter in terms of optics.

I sorta see what you’re saying, but I say no way when you’re dealing with a one of nine position.

You take the money and run.

This alone will give “him” nearly a qtr of the High Court, you don’t play gambling games with that.

(06-29-2018 09:49 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:39 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:30 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:21 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  He doesn’t “need” GOP senators at this point since the filibuster was killed, unless he wants to appoint someone either so completely unqualified or unpopular that he’d lose a few GOP members. I can’t see that happening he got Gorsich through, and they’ll quickly get through the new guy before the election just in case.

Disagree. He needs every vote he can get. Never count out McCain and a couple of other "principled" (aka siding with dims) pub senators from stabbing the president in the back.

As long as the person is qualified like Gorsuch none of those are doing anything other than voting him in. Even those that don’t like Trump want as right a leaning court as possible.

I don't trust McCain. No one should.

Nope, not one bit. How much longer does he even have left here anyways?

Nope... go 'center right' with this. Center socially, right on gun control etc. Cut dem's legs out from underneath them in the coming mid-terms by courting favor with moderates/independents. This would only encourage the rabid left to split the party

(06-29-2018 10:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  They may not have a shot in 2018, but in 2020, if its close they will

Not really. Republicans have a lot of seats up, but they are in extremely safe states. The dems will have to defend one in Alabama.

(06-29-2018 11:25 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 10:55 AM)solohawks Wrote:  They may not have a shot in 2018, but in 2020, if its close they will

Not really. Republicans have a lot of seats up, but they are in extremely safe states. The dems will have to defend one in Alabama.

You would think Corker's seat in TN would be considered safe.

(06-29-2018 09:15 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  The Democrats can make that same argument

I'm not sure this is true. They've been working like crazy to activate the base to combat Trump. How many are left out there still on the fence, but ready to jump now there's a SC nomination coming?

That said, I think the correct Republican strategy is to nominate now.

(06-29-2018 11:23 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nope... go 'center right' with this. Center socially, right on gun control etc. Cut dem's legs out from underneath them in the coming mid-terms by courting favor with moderates/independents. This would only encourage the rabid left to split the party

Agree.

No.

(06-29-2018 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote:  No way, if you are the GOP, you play the thing safe and get the justice in there before midterms. Judging by primary turnout on the left side, it doesn't look like that wave of turnout will be there for them in November.

If Trump waits it will just make the Demons much more apt to come to the voting booths. If the Demons see that he already got his SC judge it will take the wind out of their sails and won't turn out to vote. You have to take out the reason for voting and he has to do it before the midterms...and he has (hopefully) the 51 votes.

I think is 2016 shows you anything it's that basing elections today on what happened in the past is foolish.

And remember that the Merrick Garland deal was supposed to be something that hurt Senate Republicans with independents in the election when in reality it had little effect.

While those of us in here are in tune with the importance of what a Supreme Court Justice believes you have to remember that the people on both sides who post here are fairly in-tune and follow politics fairly close. We are a minority. Most people couldn't name three of the current justices, much less any potential candidates.

Seat the justice now.

I think the safest strategy is to make the incumbents in the red states WV, IN, ND, MT, and MO vote pre-election voting against Trump's pick will make sure Trump campaigns for the GOP challenger every week till election day. Even incumbents in OH, PA, MI, and WI might feel pressure to vote for the nominee.

(06-29-2018 09:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Would it be more beneficial for GOP to take the gamble and make the Supreme Court justice nomination a campaign issue

In red states like AZ, IN, ND, MT, WV, MO, and TN it would really help drive out the base.

In purple states like PA, FL, NV, WI, OH, MI a President Trump push that he "needs" GOP senators or else.....it might really help make the final difference

I think its a safe bet that after the election the GOP will be in a better Senate majority than they are now. Using the SC justice issue as an election issue could really help turn the tide.

It is a very risky gamble though considering we are fresh of the 2016 election which "no one saw coming"

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.