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"

The Democrats can make that same argument

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.

I'd make the senators vote prior to the election, then show the people how those 12 vulnerable democrats voted once again against their wishes. Add that to voting against the tax reform, and voting to keep Obamacare, and it will ensure the end to a majority of them. Unlike the house, which has always looked bad for the republicans until recently, the senate is either going to be bad for the democrats, or extremely bad for the democrats.

(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"

Nothing gins up the conservative base like a good fight over the Supreme Court. This will be a campaign issue in the hopes of energyzing the base and getting them to the polls on election day.

Also count on it being used to pressure dim senators running for re-election in states that Trump won. Do they cater to the national party and vote against the nominee thereby alienating many conservatives who might otherwise support their re-election, or do they take the safer route and support the nominee and get re-elected?

I bet they'll support the nominee.

Absolutely not. Put a solid conservative on the court before September. That will demoralize democrats and keep them from the polls.

Make it a well qualified female conservative on top of that and watch democrats try to figure out how to campaign against her appointment.

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.

Here's the thing. GOP could always jam through the nominee in the lame duck period should the gamble not pay off.

Would set a TERRIBLE precedent, but it's an option

(06-29-2018 09:20 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Absolutely not. Put a solid conservative on the court before September. That will demoralize democrats and keep them from the polls.

Make it a well qualified female conservative on top of that and watch democrats try to figure out how to campaign against her appointment.

To the left, conservative women are as sacred and "off-limits" as conservative blacks. That's to say, they'll go after her with everything they've got, and what they don't have, they'll make up.

Women's rights, glass ceilings, the oppressed black man, yada yada yada. To dims it's all bullspit if you're conservative.

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.

(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.

(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.

Flake, McCain, and Corker would.

(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.

You forgot Montana. It has a Dem senator and a Dem Governor. This is a Senate seat the should be the GOP. Tester is very popular though and it is a Lean D per Real Clear. One way to knock off Tester would be to say with a real life example present: "You have to vote against him to protect the Supreme Court"

(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"

Common mistake thinking you have a permanent majority. Both sides have done that in recent times.

(06-29-2018 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(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"

Common mistake thinking you have a permanent majority. Both sides have done that in recent times.

Absolutely. It could very well turn out to be a disaster

Thought it would be a good topic for discussion though

(06-29-2018 09:20 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(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"

Nothing gins up the conservative base like a good fight over the Supreme Court. This will be a campaign issue in the hopes of energyzing the base and getting them to the polls on election day.

Also count on it being used to pressure dim senators running for re-election in states that Trump won. Do they cater to the national party and vote against the nominee thereby alienating many conservatives who might otherwise support their re-election, or do they take the safer route and support the nominee and get re-elected?

I bet they'll support the nominee.

Ginsburg and Thomas could be gone from the court in the next two years. Take the nominee while you can. Republicans probably gain in the Senate, but there's no guarantee.

(06-29-2018 09:26 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Here's the thing. GOP could always jam through the nominee in the lame duck period should the gamble not pay off.

Would set a TERRIBLE precedent, but it's an option

Why? Put a a solid conservative who's solidly qualified and let the attacks from the left begin. The dialogue today is so acrid that it will most certainly carry over to the hearings. Most Americans are tired of it and believe the far left will do anything to harm the president. And they're right, of course.

The key though will be to make sure there are ZERO skeletons in the nominee's closet because you can bet your left nut the dims will find it. This will be a lynching of epic proportions by the left.

(06-29-2018 09:26 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Here's the thing. GOP could always jam through the nominee in the lame duck period should the gamble not pay off.

Would set a TERRIBLE precedent, but it's an option

Elections have consequences, and you are correct the GOP could do what you are saying and just ram him through lame duck if the gamble doesn’t work. They hold all the cards, and there’s not a damn thing Dems can do. Precedent doesn’t matter anymore. Neither side cares about the idea of retaliation from the other when they eventually regain power, and neither side cares about working with the other on anything.

(06-29-2018 09:26 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-29-2018 09:20 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Absolutely not. Put a solid conservative on the court before September. That will demoralize democrats and keep them from the polls.

Make it a well qualified female conservative on top of that and watch democrats try to figure out how to campaign against her appointment.

To the left, conservative women are as sacred and "off-limits" as conservative blacks. That's to say, they'll go after her with everything they've got, and what they don't have, they'll make up.

Women's rights, glass ceilings, the oppressed black man, yada yada yada. To dims it's all bullspit if you're conservative.

Exactly. Then the GOP campaign ads focus on how nasty the dems are. It will be fuel to the fire and the GOP can use the attacks to bring out the base and maybe a few centrist or left-leaning women will stay home and not vote or even vote R.

(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.