# What is Mitch McConnell's genius? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 23, 2019, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192 "2019-10-23T19:23:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/21 "2019-10-25T16:19:31Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I agree that that was partly Obama’s negligence. There weren’t going to be any mass rallies for Garland. Who, of the sort who might be arsed to participate in a protest of any sort, would have cared all that much about him? > > Now if he’d nominated someone who progressives passionately supported (Elizabeth Warren might’ve been good), that might’ve happened. But he went with a judge that the GOP claimed to be OK with. Oops. Yes, the Democratic voters pretty much have shown that they won’t give 1/10 as much attention to the judiciary as Republican voters do. But Obama should have been screaming bloody murder and other Democrats should have said fuck you we’re shutting down the government until you give Garland a vote. Being willing to stoop lower than your adversary is not a sign of genius. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/22 "2019-10-25T17:22:56Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think this was partly Obama’s and Democrat’s negligence. He should have spent his last year in office shouting bloody murder from his bully pulpit. Democrats should have organized mass rallies at McConnell’s house to protest. Instead, we got “Well they’re gonna fuck us over but what ya gonna do?” Obama saw Garland as a useful stick to beat the GOP with. McConnell, vice versa. If Hillary had won, McConnell would have simply confirmed him in the lame duck session. The impasse suited both sides just fine, both of them could have lived with Garland on the bench, but each would have much preferred someone more inclined to their side. If Obama had really wanted Garland to get a proper look it, he could have forced the issue, by either compelling an adjournment or by summoning an extraordinary session of the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/23 "2019-10-25T17:34:52Z")
His genius is that, as evil a human being as he is, he is still one of the leaders of this nation. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/24 "2019-10-25T18:11:26Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Obama saw Garland as a useful stick to beat the GOP with. McConnell, vice versa. If Hillary had won, McConnell would have simply confirmed him in the lame duck session. > > The impasse suited both sides just fine, both of them could have lived with Garland on the bench, but each would have much preferred someone more inclined to their side. > > If Obama had really wanted Garland to get a proper look it, he could have forced the issue, by either compelling an adjournment or by summoning an extraordinary session of the Senate. Yeah Obama was just as bad as McConnell with his master plan of nominating a centrist then simply urging the senate to do it’s job. It was all part of his scheme to ???, and then profit. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/25 "2019-10-26T18:52:05Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > Yeah Obama was just as bad as McConnell with his master plan of nominating a centrist then simply urging the senate to do it’s job. > It was all part of his scheme to ???, and then profit. Oh for fucks sake grow up. Barack Obama was a consummate politician. He wanted to fill the seat, but if you think for a moment that he didn’t think of or was indifferent to the political advantage that could be had if the Republicans refused hold a hearing, than that’s very silly. It was a win win situation for him, he got someone he nominated if a vote was held, or if it was not he got a very useful stick to beat the opposition with. In an election year.a If it had been a “must seat our preferred guy” fight like the Kavanaugh business became, then yes you can be sure he would have been much more proactive and willing to take steps to ensure a vote. Every damn thing does not have to be zero sum. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2019, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/26 "2019-10-27T04:06:28Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Oh for fucks sake grow up. Barack Obama was a consummate politician. He wanted to fill the seat, but if you think for a moment that he didn’t think of or was indifferent to the political advantage that could be had if the Republicans refused hold a hearing, than that’s very silly. You can throw in ad hominems as much as you want; I don’t think your speculation makes any sense at all, so yeah I guess I’m thinking something “very silly” and need to “grow up”. Obama had the chance to nominate someone to a lifetime position and therefore have part of his legacy being a (somewhat) liberal-leaning supreme court for a generation. Instead, your idea, is that he thought there would be political advantage in giving everyone yet another example of the GOP being unscrupulous. Obama was _so smart_ he knew that the GOP would not follow the rules at all, unfortunately he was also _so stupid_ because the stunt turned out to have no political advantage whatsoever – the base who ignored GOP wrongdoing continued to do so, floating voters continued to float and eventually the GOP filled the seat. So I disagree with you and think in fact it is your idea that is preposterous. Unless you have some evidence to support it, let’s just agree to disagree on that. > [@](#): > > Every damn thing does not have to be zero sum. And every damn thing does not need to be “both sides”. I think “both sides”-ing everything is the real scourge of political analysis in the modern era. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/27 "2019-10-28T20:26:33Z")
Mitch is simply doing as he is ordered to do. When someone gets fed up enough & assassinates him, the GOP leadership in the Senate will continue to do the same. The criminal conspiracy that employs McConnell has complete control of the party now. No one inclined to defect remains. And since the company Election Systems & Software (ES&S) is part of the conspiracy, they can simply ensure that their comrades continue to be a majority of the US Senate. Mitch is no genius. He is merely the present figurehead of a conspiracy that will function exactly the same when he’s gone. They are all the same. Mitch just happened to be the “leader” when certain opportunities arose. He’s not even really in charge. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/28 "2019-10-29T01:32:52Z")
> [@KidCharlemagne](#): > > I always hear about how savvy and competent McConnell is, and was just wondering how so. He has certainly been willing to obliterate norms and resort to underhanded tactics, but a willingness to take the low road doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a sharp operator. I’m not doubting this evaluation of McConnell’s abilities, I’m just wondering when/where he has shown particularly good political maneuvering. Thanks! His “genius” is that he’s willing to take political risks like refusing to consider Merrick Garland. It made Republicans look like assholes and it was unprecedented, but the gamble worked. In the time since, he has turned the senate into a factory for right wing judicial ideologues. McConnell is also one of the few Republicans who has managed to lock horns with Trump in the era of Trumpism and gracefully disengage before getting gored. He didn’t do it by kissing Trump’s ass either; he simply showed the president how they could work together. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/29 "2019-10-29T03:29:20Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > I think \*\*RTFirefly \*\*hit a point, which is that not even Democrats themselves were enthused about Garland, a moderate. If Obama wanted to fire up his base, he could have picked a deep-blue justice to replace Scalia (who still would have stood zero chance of getting past McConnell) but at least the Democrats would have cared about. I’m guess Obama overestimated the American public, in that the obvious duplicity of the Republicans should have angered them, but did not. I’m not sure at what point abandonment of hope counts as wising up, but I’ll agree that Obama did so far too late. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/30 "2019-10-29T10:12:07Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Oh for fucks sake grow up. Barack Obama was a consummate politician. He wanted to fill the seat, but if you think for a moment that he didn’t think of or was indifferent to the political advantage that could be had if the Republicans refused hold a hearing, than that’s very silly. > It was a win win situation for him, he got someone he nominated if a vote was held, or if it was not he got a very useful stick to beat the opposition with. In an election year. I’m not sure I agree. Grant, for the sake of argument, that Garland would’ve lost that Senate vote. (I said ‘for the sake of argument’.) If so, maybe McConnell sees a different win-win to be had by saying they see no point in even bothering to vote: 1. Obama spends tons of political capital getting a Garland vote, saying, in effect, aw, c’mon, guys, at least give him a vote, doesn’t he deserve that much? Why, it doesn’t even matter if you vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’, only that you put it to a vote; all I’m asking is: _just be reasonable!_ I’m making this _a really big deal!_ And, after their initial show of We-See-No-Point-In-Doing-This reluctance, the GOP eventually makes a big show of being reasonable, just like the President said: holding that vote, now that Obama has made such a big deal out of it. Oh, and the vote is ‘no’. -or- 1. Obama spends little political capital trying to get Garland a vote; McConnell says he sees no point in even holding a vote; there’s no vote instead of a ‘no’ vote. _If that’s so,_ then McConnell can say, hey, either way, it’s a ‘no’ result; the question is, how much time and effort does Obama waste trying to get a ‘no’ vote? And if _that’s_ so, then while you can maybe phrase it in terms of Obama gaining political advantage or “a very useful stick”, it seems like it should be phrased in terms of minimizing negatives instead of maximizing positives. (Again, that’s only if we grant that Garland would’ve been voted down. But if you’re right about _Obama_ being “a consummate politician”, then I see why _he’d_ act like it was a choice between #1 and #2: if _he_ grants that Garland ain’t getting a ‘yes’, then a #2 loss is simply less bad than a #1 loss. McConnell’s choice and Obama’s response make sense if, at that point, neither politician really thought there was a third option, where a ‘yes’ on Garland was a possibility worth considering.) ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/31 "2019-10-29T15:03:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’m guess Obama overestimated the American public, in that the obvious duplicity of the Republicans should have angered them, but did not. I’m not sure at what point abandonment of hope counts as wising up, but I’ll agree that Obama did so far too late. This is a fair point, and actually I would give McConnell credit for this. Essentially he saw that many politicians overvalued ‘American decency and belief in democracy’ and he could profit from selling out (deliberately mixing metaphors). That does indeed take a level of smarts, although I still wouldn’t call it “genius” ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/32 "2019-10-29T16:57:26Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > ‘American decency and belief in democracy’ This was a poor choice of words. I don’t mean all, or most, americans are not decent :smack: I’m just saying a high enough proportion of americans either don’t follow politics, only see biased sources or don’t care about political dirty tricks / hypocrisy, that the political price was not too much, and that’s what McConnell realized. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2019, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192/33 "2019-10-29T19:48:51Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > This is a fair point, and actually I would give McConnell credit for this. > Essentially he saw that many politicians overvalued ‘American decency and belief in democracy’ and he could profit from selling out (deliberately mixing metaphors). > That does indeed take a level of smarts, although I still wouldn’t call it “genius” Cunning. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-mitch-mcconnells-genius/842192.md?page=1)