For
Republicans, the hardline stance against any potential nominee reflects
the interests of leading presidential candidates in energizing the
party’s base by turning the election into a referendum on Obama. But there are risks at the Senate level
that such a tactic could backfire in moderate or Democratic-leaning
states where those same frontrunners are not especially popular,
dragging down the rest of the Republican ticket. In 2016, Republicans
will be defending 24 seats in the Senate, including seven in states
Obama won twice, and congressional GOP leaders have seen internal polling suggesting the Senate majority could be at risk if frontrunners Donald Trump or Ted Cruz become the party’s nominee.
After
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he would not cooperate
in filling the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate Majority PAC — the
super-PAC created in 2011 by allies of top Senate Democrat Harry Reid to
raise unlimited money for Democratic candidates — claimed that the
Republican leader had made his entire caucus “more vulnerable.”
“Mitch
McConnell’s partisan obstructionism isn’t just unprecedented, but it’s
indefensible. His refusal to do his job undermines our country’s
judicial system, and today he just made his entire caucus that much more
vulnerable this November, especially considering voters are already fed
up with dysfunction in Washington,” a spokesman for the group said. “So
much for all that rhetoric about how the ‘majority is working’ under
Republican control.”
Nearly
all of the vulnerable Republican senators up in 2016 have lined up
behind McConnell’s strategy: Rob Portman of Ohio, Kelly Ayotte of New
Hampshire, Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
The one notable exception is Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who assumed
Obama’s Senate seat in 2010 and is widely considered the most endangered
Republican senator of the cycle.
The
GOP senators who are backing McConnell’s stance are counting on a
couple of as yet unproven premises: first, that the number of
conservative voters in their states who will be energized by the
confrontation will outweigh the moderates or independents who may be
alienated by it, and second, that they will all win their races and a
Republican Senate will get to confirm a nominee in 2017. The most
significant downside to blocking Obama now is the possibility that
Democrats would win both the White House and the Senate and ultimately
confirm a more liberal nominee than Obama is likely to choose in the
present circumstances.
No comments:
Post a Comment
mrralphworld@gmail.com