Early signs seem to indicate the GOP’s strategy on the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle will involve pressuring Democrats to support President Trump’s nominee. As seen here and here and here.
That’s the same strategy the party and it allies employed when Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation was at question, though Republicans likely won’t need Democratic votes this time around. And there’s where the move gets interesting from a strategic perspective.
The three Democratic senators who voted for Gorsuch — Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota — could help their chances of re-election in November by supporting Trump’s nominee, undercutting their opponents’ efforts to depict them as partisan obstructionists. And so could vulnerable incumbents like Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Jon Tester, D-Mo., who need votes in states where the president’s approval rating is strong. A vote for the nominee helps them look like true moderates at a time when their opponents need to prove they are the opposite.
In that sense, conservative efforts to pressure Democrats into supporting the nominee, in effect, also pressure Democrats into helping their re-election chances. And at a time when the nominee probably won’t need their votes anyway.
Here’s what McCaskill’s likely opponent Josh Hawley said in a statement released Wednesday afternoon. “I am proud that President Trump chose Neil Gorsuch for the Court last year. Sen. McCaskill ignored her constituents and voted against him. I look forward to another nominee who will defend the Constitution and our way of life.”
Rather than focusing on what McCaskill will do in the future, Hawley’s campaign used the occasion to hammer her for her votes in the past, asserting she “has never once voted in line with Missouri’s wishes on a Supreme Court nominee, and that’s why she must be replaced.” That approach might be an effective way for other Republicans to thread the needle here.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that vulnerable Democrats who vote for the nominee risk depressing turn out among their base, where hardliners would be infuriated by the incumbent’s decision to rubber stamp a Republican president’s replacement to the court’s “swing” vote. That could be dangerous in tight races.
If conservative groups and Republican candidates believe whomever the nominee is deserves to be confirmed, they may not care at all if pressuring Democrats into making the right choice also helps their re-election bids. And that’s commendable. But from a strategic perspective, turning down the volume on Supreme Court talk might actually be best in some of these key races.
