Wouldn't it make more sense for the Republicans...

[Trueblue Texan]

...to take a risk and not fill Ginsburg’s seat until after the election? KNowing there is a seat to immediately fill, requiring a Republican Senate to confirm a Republican appointee....wouldn’t that really motivate their base to vote? If they Rush to confirm the appointee before (and they don’t really have time) The election, the base will relax, not go and vote and Trump will lose and they’ll all go to jail. Thoughts?

[Claustrum]

1. I think so. SC vacancy helped them in 2016.

[FBaggins]

2. Which would you prefer for them to do?

Chances are that’s not the one that they’ll think makes sense.

But the real answer likely varies from race to race.

[JI7]

3. They have 2 months after the election but before new Senate and president

[W_HAMILTON]

4. I'm tired of hearing about "motivating their base to vote."

Their base always votes. They are constantly hyped up on conservative conspiracy theories and are always motivated to vote. Luckily for us, their "base" is smaller in comparison and when we turn out, we win, especially this year where we are being backed up by Independents and even quite a few ex-Republicans.

[Trueblue Texan]

5. There are others that aren't as motivated as the QAnon types.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. The QAnon types are their base now.

The Supreme Court was on the ballot in 2016 and Trump still had a poor showing -- e.g., Romney got more votes than him in Wisconsin -- but they were able to suppress/depress the Democratic vote *just* enough to eke out a win in the electoral college by ~80k votes.

Their base is what it is. They have only doubled down on their already (relatively) small base at the expense of outreach to any other group. Their base will vote, but their """motivated""" base voting isn't enough to beat the coalition that Democrats have created in 2018 and this year.

If we turn out, we will win -- period.

[stillcool]

6. they take what they can, whenever they can..

no, this is something they are salivating over. They don't plan on winning any elections by counting votes, and this Supreme Court Justice will pave the way.

[Trueblue Texan]

9. Yeah, I definitely see this.

[kentuck]

7. Shhhh...

Trump is not that smart.

[Drunken Irishman]

8. If McConnell is convinced Trump is going to lose in November, he'll force a vote.

It's that simple. It's too risky to leave that seat open knowing Biden could come in, the Democrats could win the Senate, and fill it within his first 100 days.

Remember: McConnell had nothing to lose in 2016 by holding the seat open. A Democrat was president. He allows Obama to fill the seat, and they lose a reliably conservative seat for the next 35 years. Even if he lost the Senate and Hillary won - the chances of having a Republican president make that pick outweighed the chances of losing the Senate and the Presidency.

This election is the exact opposite of that in the sense they have nothing to lose if they go full-force with a pick. They get the Supreme Court seat, maybe Trump loses and maybe McConnell loses his majority but at the end of the day, they filled that liberal seat for the next 35 years with a conservative justice.

It's worth the gamble, especially if they do not think Trump is going to win in November. Especially if they don't think Trump will win in November.

McConnell would absolutely give up his majority to reshape the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.

Now ... the question he has to ask himself is if his caucus is willing to potentially give up their seats to gain that one seat?

I think clearly McSally has decided she's going down with the ship.

Collins? Graham? Gardner? That's different. Though, I suspect they'll fall in line too.

[Trueblue Texan]

10. Good reasoning here...

[vapor2]

11. NOTHING has made sense the past 4 yrs

2 words = Merrick Garland

[abqtommy]

13. I agree. Using the words "sense" and "reTHUGS together in a sentence is an oxymoron!