McConnell will not place a name for nomination unless he is certain of outcome

[kentuck]

At this time, he does not have a definite count.

Expect to hear screaming and gnashing of teeth from the Republican caucus over the next few days.

If Trump does not get the immediate vote that he reportedly wants, McConnell probably does not have the votes. It is not automatic.

Several Senators running for re-election are put into very difficult positions if their votes are demanded before the election.

[LakeArenal]

1. Goody.

[mcar]

2. I disagree

IMPOTUS will nominate one of his Federalist cretins and McConnell will do everything possible to get it to the Senate floor for a vote. It will sow anger, chaos and confusion. It will also make their deplorables happy.

While he's doing this, votes will continue to be suppressed and Putin and Facebook will be spreading lies about Biden.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Moscow Mitch actually does work for Vlad Putin

Moscow Mitch actually does work for Putin as do many Republicans in the Senate and House so the question is are they allowed to make independent decisions about anything and the answer is no. They want to continue receiving the money and who knows what Putin has on them

Destroying all rights for everyone but the white wealthy supremacists is what they will do but we will stop them.

[Statistical]

4. Moscow Mitch likely won't hold a vote until after the election ...

that way it can't hurt Republican senators in vulnerable districts.

If you have the ethics of pond scum like Moscow Mitch there is zero reason to NOT wait until after the election and railroad it through in record time.

[kentuck]

6. That makes sense but...

It seems to me to be even more reckless to try to appoint a new Justice with lame ducks.

[Statistical]

7. It is Moscow Mitch. A win is a win. They don't care about anything else.

It was a "reckless" (asshole corrupt fascist) move to block Garland's nomination and that got them a win. Doing this will get them another one.

All Republican care about is the win TODAY. Score the points. Take the win. Whatever happens in the future they will figure out in the future.

[kentuck]

9. There are several more Repubs up for election this time around.

It is a bigger gamble.

[Statistical]

11. It would be after the election. They have already won or lost by the time the vote happens.

Once again how many times do you need to see that Republicans win consistently by taking the win available to them in the moment. They don't navel gaze about what might happen someday. Was blocking Garland a win? Yes. They took it. Is replacing Ginsberg a win? Yes. They will take it.

The next time some other terrible thing is available that is a short term win they will take. The next time they will take it. The next time they will take it. Picking up all the immediate wins when available is how they move the country to the right.

[kentuck]

12. You are correct that Repubs take advantage of the moment...

...without thinking of future consequences.

I think it would be very difficult for them to vote as lame ducks if they lose the election.

[Statistical]

14. Why? Of everyone they have literally nothing to lose.

[kentuck]

15. After they are defeated, they do not have the legitimacy to vote for SC Justice.

I think that would be similar to Trump nominating someone after he loses the election to Biden. It would not be right. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do it but they would need to pay a high price if they pulled such a trick.

[OrlandoDem2]

5. This story has 2 parts. Part 1 is pre-election and part 2 is post election.

I don’t see how they get this done preelection.

We need to steel ourselves for a nasty fight in the lame duck session post election if Trump wins.

We must take the Senate and we must take the WH to have a fighting chance in the lame duck session.

VOLUNTEER AND DONATE VOLUNTEER AND DONATE!!!

[roamer65]

19. Exactly. The lame duck session is the big worry for me.

[ooky]

8. I agree, but unfortunately, this gives their cretins more motivation to go vote

for President Bonespurs, just by bringing this issue into visibility again.

[kentuck]

10. I am not sure of that?

To make Roe v Wade an issue before this election divides their Party and makes them weaker, in my opinion,

[ooky]

13. You could be right. I certainly hope you are.

[SMC22307]

16. You think Roe v. Wade divides Republicans?

Even if it does, evangelical turnout will be massive. Factor in gays and guns and we're hosed, unless we have massive turnout of our own.

[kentuck]

17. I think most polls indicate that "anti-choice" is a losing issue for Republicans.

Many Republican women voters are pro-choice. It is a gamble for them to portray the appointment as doing away with Roe v Wade, in my opinion.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

21. If they are pro-choice, why in the world would they

vote Republican? I know you can't answer that, but such women need to be confronted about that.

The same with women staying in the Catholic Church. By doing so, you are enabling all the worst aspects of the Church. That's likewise true of staying with any organization, secular or religious, that supports anti-woman stands.

[kentuck]

24. Pro-chice does not mean they are pro-abortion.

The same with Democratic women.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

25. No one is pro-abortion.

But if you're pro-choice, you realize that sometimes an abortion is the thing needed.

Forced childbearing is akin to chattel slavery.

And for anyone who doesn't "believe" in abortion, just don't have one. But don't think you can determine such decisions for others.

[SMC22307]

23. They won't come out and say it. They're sneaky. They'll speak in code...

evangelicals will fully understand and suburban white women will get on board because of the candidate's *impressive* credentials. They'll rally around like they did with Brett "I Like Beer" Kavanaugh. Plus, Republican women with health insurance know they'll always have access should they need it -- everyone else can grab a coat hanger.

[roamer65]

18. Gardner from CO votes on a Dump nominee and he's definite toast.

[tritsofme]

20. He is already a dead man walking.

Between facing a popular former governor and the margin Biden is expected to put up in the state, there’s nothing he can do to hang on.

[karynnj]

22. I'm not sure there are many who will be harmed by voting - especially if the nominee, though

conservative, has no ethical baggage.

They are in red or at best, purple states. Many people were likely to vote for them to get conservative judges, even if they had problems with them otherwise. Collins, likely loses election whether she votes yes or no. Gardner is also in a purple state, but it might be more important to hold onto his base than be concerned with the middle, who are tough to predict. In the red states, it might even help the Republicans.

It stinks that they stole the 2016 seat, but they did and the short McConnell explanation is essentially, they did it because they could because they held the Senate. Now, because they eliminated the filibuster, they have the power to win this vote. They will argue that they are doing their Constitutional duty of advise and consent --- ignoring they refused to do that same duty for a year in 2016. However, in a highly partisan environment, they essentially are not concerned with looking consistent. In fact, they will likely argue that they are following their values.