Barrett doomerism is getting a little annoying. Barnes himself has stated that this hypothetical prediction will lead him to drop the GOP and Trump's chances to win Nov. 3...
to 50%. From the guy who gives Trump pretty good odds.
Has there ever been a single event in modern history that sunk a candidate's chances that much? Trump literally saying "Grab them by the pussy," didn't tank him; "Binders full of women" still kept Romney relatively competitive; Obama opposing gay marriage didn't do shit to prevent his electoral landslide.
But let's follow some of the argument Barnes and others present:
1) Barrett will make Collins, Gardner, and other endangered seats targets. This means they'll be more inclined to vote no.
2) By voting no, Trump loses his SC chance, a significant derail on his train.
3) By voting yes, they drive up turnout suburban white women convinced The Handmaiden's Tale is about to begin.
4) Democrats have a trap set up for Barrett, which will delay her nomination.
5) There's no certainty Barrett won't side against Trump on election outcomes.
3 seems like the dumbest argument. These women
already turned out when Trump became "Admitted Rapist #1!" and Hillary Clinton appealed directly to them. There's a point in politics where returns diminish, and 2016 was arguably the returns for suburban women. If anything, having creepy Biden be their icon might
depress women turnout--and turnout is really all that matters.
1, 2, and 4 sound reasonable at first glance... until you remember that Barrett, the expected candidate from the start,
was always the focus of GOP and Democrat plans. What this means is that Trump, McConnell, and others have negotiated with the fairweather senators under the assumption that Barrett would likely be up for nomination. Do you seriously think Trump doesn't remember them panicking over Kavanaugh, so has specifically pressured them to hold steady, anticipate, and counter whatever the Democrats predictably throw at Barrett? The GOP and anyone awake already knows what the Dems are going to
try to do; they'll be easy to counter, since looking at their 2020 efforts so far shows that they're at their stupidest this year.
5 seems absurd, but less so than 3. Sure, Barrett
could backstab Trump... even after getting lectured by him, probably twice, that her first major decision will likely be on deciding a contested election. I doubt he'd place so much faith, to even meet her twice, in someone who hasn't promised to do a faithful, non-partisan study of the election wrought with mail-fraud.
Sure, is Barrett
ideal? Nah, probably not. I'm a Lagoa guy. But the narrative that Lagoa is the only net positive choice here, and that Barrett is a signfiicant net negative, seems artifical. What matters is that Barrett, at least for now, is a
safe, decent enough option. Filling the Supreme Court will not energize the Democratic base enough to actually turn out for a unlikeable candidate; if anything, it will energize them to do something else or riot, since now they can't even campaign on the immediate promise of a new Justice, but on the abstract hope of stacking the court.
After all, I remember, just four years ago, Democrats quitting once Bernie lost. In the absence of a charismatic unitor, the base fractures. Low enough turnout alone will prevent any nightmare scenarios people are expecting from this.
