This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/upshot/if-clintons-chances-are-70-percent-why-is-merrick-garland-still-at-0.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Betting Markets Favor Clinton Over Trump, but G.O.P. Still Stalls Garland If Hillary Clinton Has 70 Percent Chance to Win, Why Is Merrick Garland at 0?
(about 20 hours later)
The Democratic nominee for president has a 70 percent chance to win in November.The Democratic nominee for president has a 70 percent chance to win in November.
That’s according to an aggregator of betting markets, PredictWise, as of midday today.That’s according to an aggregator of betting markets, PredictWise, as of midday today.
The Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a 0 percent chance to receive a Senate hearing before the election this year.The Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland has a 0 percent chance to receive a Senate hearing before the election this year.
That’s according to Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley and just about every other Republican senator who has spoken on the matter.That’s according to Mitch McConnell, Charles Grassley and just about every other Republican senator who has spoken on the matter.
If life is partly about playing the percentages, Republicans, with their blockade against Mr. Garland — a 63-year-old widely viewed as a centrist — seem to be getting the math wrong. If the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Hillary Clinton) wins, Democrats will probably be able to name a more liberal justice and also a younger one who could serve a much longer term. Are Republicans, with Donald Trump set to be their nominee, just feeling lucky?If life is partly about playing the percentages, Republicans, with their blockade against Mr. Garland — a 63-year-old widely viewed as a centrist — seem to be getting the math wrong. If the Democratic nominee (almost certainly Hillary Clinton) wins, Democrats will probably be able to name a more liberal justice and also a younger one who could serve a much longer term. Are Republicans, with Donald Trump set to be their nominee, just feeling lucky?
At the time of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in mid-February, Democrats were given roughly a 60 percent chance to win the presidency, according to prediction markets. Those chances rose (to 71 percent by mid-March) in unison with successes by Mr. Trump, as well as by Ted Cruz, two anti-establishment candidates.At the time of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in mid-February, Democrats were given roughly a 60 percent chance to win the presidency, according to prediction markets. Those chances rose (to 71 percent by mid-March) in unison with successes by Mr. Trump, as well as by Ted Cruz, two anti-establishment candidates.
“As Trump and Cruz knocked down Marco Rubio, the markets went up for the Democratic nominee,” David Rothschild, an economist at Microsoft Research who runs PredictWise, said via email.“As Trump and Cruz knocked down Marco Rubio, the markets went up for the Democratic nominee,” David Rothschild, an economist at Microsoft Research who runs PredictWise, said via email.
Recently, the rise of Mr. Trump has actually decreased the PredictWise probabilities for a Democratic victory, to 70 percent today from 76 percent last week. “The markets view Trump as a much more viable general election candidate than Cruz,” Mr. Rothschild said.Recently, the rise of Mr. Trump has actually decreased the PredictWise probabilities for a Democratic victory, to 70 percent today from 76 percent last week. “The markets view Trump as a much more viable general election candidate than Cruz,” Mr. Rothschild said.
Nevertheless, the Democrats’ chances are “still really high for this time in the cycle,” he said. (The markets are in line with polling that shows Mrs. Clinton with an edge against Mr. Trump.)Nevertheless, the Democrats’ chances are “still really high for this time in the cycle,” he said. (The markets are in line with polling that shows Mrs. Clinton with an edge against Mr. Trump.)
The Senate races in swing states look correspondingly promising for Democrats, with their chances for overall control of the Senate now being listed at 62 percent, from 57 percent a few days ago.The Senate races in swing states look correspondingly promising for Democrats, with their chances for overall control of the Senate now being listed at 62 percent, from 57 percent a few days ago.
President Obama tried to apply pressure to vulnerable G.O.P. senators in swing states this week, holding interviews at the White House with local news stations from some of those states and pressing Mr. Garland’s nomination.President Obama tried to apply pressure to vulnerable G.O.P. senators in swing states this week, holding interviews at the White House with local news stations from some of those states and pressing Mr. Garland’s nomination.
Here’s why Republicans may want to hold their ground (apart from whether it’s the right thing to do):Here’s why Republicans may want to hold their ground (apart from whether it’s the right thing to do):
■ As The Upshot noted in February, a “Supreme Court With Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades.” Republicans don’t even want to think about the potential of such a huge shift on the court, and as long as some hope is alive that a Republican can win the presidency, they don’t have to. In the meantime, they can avoid 5-4 losses this year.■ As The Upshot noted in February, a “Supreme Court With Merrick Garland Would Be the Most Liberal in Decades.” Republicans don’t even want to think about the potential of such a huge shift on the court, and as long as some hope is alive that a Republican can win the presidency, they don’t have to. In the meantime, they can avoid 5-4 losses this year.
■ Republicans have no reason to hold a hearing now if they can hold one immediately after the election should Mrs. Clinton win. Richard Lempert of the Brookings Institution was prescient in foreseeing the selection of Mr. Garland, but added:■ Republicans have no reason to hold a hearing now if they can hold one immediately after the election should Mrs. Clinton win. Richard Lempert of the Brookings Institution was prescient in foreseeing the selection of Mr. Garland, but added:
■ There hasn’t yet been widespread public clamor for a hearing. Or as The New York Post put it: “Sorry, Liberal Media, No One Cares About Merrick Garland.” Michael Walsh of The New York Post wrote:■ There hasn’t yet been widespread public clamor for a hearing. Or as The New York Post put it: “Sorry, Liberal Media, No One Cares About Merrick Garland.” Michael Walsh of The New York Post wrote:
Some Republicans, no doubt worried about future primary fights, are looking over their shoulder at their base, which has felt betrayed on all manner of issues. If Democrats push through a Clinton nominee next year without Republican support, at least Republican senators can’t be blamed.Some Republicans, no doubt worried about future primary fights, are looking over their shoulder at their base, which has felt betrayed on all manner of issues. If Democrats push through a Clinton nominee next year without Republican support, at least Republican senators can’t be blamed.
This week, Mr. McConnell is insisting that he will hold the line. But a day after Mr. Trump’s victory in Indiana, Leon Wolf of the conservative website RedState said Republicans should “confirm Merrick Garland ASAP”:This week, Mr. McConnell is insisting that he will hold the line. But a day after Mr. Trump’s victory in Indiana, Leon Wolf of the conservative website RedState said Republicans should “confirm Merrick Garland ASAP”:
The chances of a vote on Mr. Garland have risen in the last few days in the markets, to roughly 45 percent from 35 percent. “Basically, the markets think there is a very high probability that there is a vote in the lame-duck period” for Mr. Obama, Mr. Rothschild said. “But while Obama says he will leave the nomination, if the Democrats sweep the Senate and presidency, Obama could withdraw the nomination.”The chances of a vote on Mr. Garland have risen in the last few days in the markets, to roughly 45 percent from 35 percent. “Basically, the markets think there is a very high probability that there is a vote in the lame-duck period” for Mr. Obama, Mr. Rothschild said. “But while Obama says he will leave the nomination, if the Democrats sweep the Senate and presidency, Obama could withdraw the nomination.”
By driving such a hard bargain, Republicans may not get a bargain at all. Then again, Republicans have said they might consider blocking a Supreme Court pick next year — even after “voters have their say,” which is the stated reason the G.O.P. is blocking Mr. Garland now. By driving such a hard bargain, Republicans may not get a bargain at all. Then again, Republicans have said they might consider blocking a Supreme Court pick next year — even after “voters have their say,” which is the stated reason the G.O.P. is blocking Mr. Garland in the first place. How does this end?
How will it end? Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has suggested “the single most fantastic thing that could ever happen to resolve the blockade of hysteria that now threatens both the court and the country”: Mr. Garland could simply show up to the Supreme Court to work, with the understanding that the Senate has essentially confirmed him by choosing not to vote against him.
Dahlia Lithwick of Slate has suggested “the single most fantastic thing that could ever happen to resolve the blockade of hysteria that now threatens both the court and the country”: Mr. Garland could simply show up to the Supreme Court to work, with the idea that the Senate has essentially confirmed him by choosing not to vote against him.
It’s hard to put a percentage on that one, but it would be tough to beat for court drama.It’s hard to put a percentage on that one, but it would be tough to beat for court drama.