Why would they be “a fanatical fringe”? Why aren’t they “the highly civic minded”?
Not much of a surprise since he’s clinging for his life against a fall battle against Duckworth that he’s expected to lose.
A couple PPP polls out today gave 60/40 support in Ohio and Pennsylvania to the Senate giving hearings to a nominee with an indication that people would vote against a senator obstructing the process. Bad news if you’re named Senator Toomey or Senator Portman.
I misspoke. I did not mean to imply the 36% who voted were all a “fanatical fringe” - I’m one of those “highly civic minded” who vote in midterms. But just because the Democrats stayed home and the rightwing nutjobs had the speedpass at the polling stations doesn’t mean I’m fine with a vacancy in the Supreme Court for eleven months.
Well, it’s all moot until Obama names a name.
<logic fail>
Obama won 65,915,796 votes in 2012.
The US population in 2012 was 314,100,000. Of those, 219 million were eligible voters.
So Obama earned votes from only 21% of the population and only 30% of the eligible voters. Pardon me if I don’t feel like being held hostage by a fanatical fringe.
</logic fail>
Well, if you want to play numbers, the total number of votes (not voters!) received by all winning Senate Republicans in 2014 was 16.04 million. That’s just a smidge over 5% of the country.
21% seems like a damned mandate, especially when that number is unique voters.
So you’ll pardon me if I don’t want to be held hostage by 5% of the country. 
[Not according to McConnell it isn’t:
](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_POLITICS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-02-23-11-38-07)I know Biden’s remarks from 23 years ago are being invoked by Republicans right now as justification for their attitude, to wit:
If this is going to be the new precedent, to not nominate or vote on a nominee as long as “the political season is under way”, that’s going to leave a 2-2.5 year window, isn’t it? I mean, the GOP candidates have been going at it since before last summer, aye?
Also, if this is going to be the way they want to do things, what else should wait until after the next election? Budgets? Passing new laws? Authorization for military force? :dubious:
Good for you. How are you going to make that happen, U.S. Senator Frank?
The voters voted. The U.S. Senate candidates who receive a majority of the vote become/remain U.S. Senators. Regardless of political party affiliation.
If potential Democrat Party voters chose to stay home, that’s their problem. Why, oh why, did the Democrat Party field such boring, uninteresting, unimpressive candidates over the past decades that the even potential Democrat voters didn’t care if they were elected?
Portman is now echoing Mitch McConnell (a bit less pugnaciously, but that’s just who he is): Scalia succession plan becomes key issue in Rob Portman and Ted Strickland's Senate showdown: Ohio Politics Roundup - cleveland.com
No name yet, but the GOP have come to a “consensus” no hearings, no vote
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/270423-gop-judiciary-no-hearing-on-obama-court-nominee
Those who are too smart to vote will be governed by the elected representatives of those who do vote.
You can play “fun with numbers” if it makes you feel better, but it seems you are being held hostage by a fanatical fringe who were uninterested, or unimpressed, by the available candidates and didn’t bother to vote. Approximately 64% of the potential voters chose to allow approx. 36% of the potential voters to chose everyone’s elected representatives.
You can play “the fraction of the voters have spoken” all you like.
President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation and the Senate GOP can stonewall at its peril.
Apparently, it’s the fraction of the voters who have spoken. Their choice. A majority of potential voters may chose not to vote. That’s their choice. Regardless, everyone will be governed by those who are elected by the voters who actually vote.
The DNC/Obama’s choice of nominee may produce an overwhelming number of pro-GOP voters. If the DNC/Obama can find a nominee who wants to run this particular gauntlet.
Or to its benefit.
protip: check the recent polls on the issue from Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Your optimism may be a bit chastened by the results. Might cost you a couple of swing state Senators and possibly much more if they go down this road.
Maybe. I’ve certainly given my opinion on it, it’s a stupid and wrong thing to do. But I doubt it will be a big issue to most voters. They’ll probably get away with it.
But until Obama names a nominee, we won’t know whether that’s a bluff.
I don’t know dude, these numbers are really bad for the Republicans. Just look at the Independents in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Talk about misreading the public. Even Republicans in those two states want them to at least have a hearing. “Republicans in Pennsylvania think 67/27 and in Ohio think 63/32 that the Senate should at least give President Obama’s choice a chance before deciding whether or not to confirm them.”
Are we doing that biased polls thing again, or what? Can’t really be more clear how bad a move this is for them based on these numbers. But if they want to shoot themselves in the foot …
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/02/toomey-portman-hurt-by-supreme-court-stance.html