Andy, by the end there you seemed to have almost embraced a kind of cosmic pessimism that makes tactical questions moot. Nil desperandum. Republicans have managed to have a few political successes over the years even with their flaws, the Democrats’ wiliness, and the media’s bias.

You are right to suggest that we don’t have the kind of precise exit-poll data that would make it possible to speak a bit more confidently about the role of judicial-confirmation fights in recent Senate elections. That’s why I tried to make sense of what evidence we have. I think it is reasonable to view the social issues and the judicial issues as politically intertwined. It is simply the case that the judicial-confirmation issue has what political punch it does, on both sides, because of the way it intersects with the social issues. And it is also the case that a good chunk of the time the social issues come up in the Senate, it’s in the course of the judicial-confirmation wars. Pro-lifers and pro-choicers did use the judicial-confirmation issue to rev up their troops, and, as I said before, it appears that the pro-life/conservative side did so more successfully–and not just in South Dakota. Also, to repeat a comment I made in our last go-round: The fact that Senate Republicans have been far more likely to exploit this issue when trying to get votes suggests that the practical understanding politicians on the stuff they know best–what works for them politically–aligns with my view. (I know from my reporting that President Bush believes that the judicial issue was a major reason the Republicans took back the Senate.)

Finally, a word on the AG/Supreme Court question. I argued that the reason Daschle refused to filibuster Ashcroft in 2001 was that he figured that it would be too politically costly; and the reason that calculation was correct was that the public thinks it important that the job be filled. I argued further that a Supreme Court vacancy would play out similarly–the public would want that position filled. But appellate courts just don’t command the same attention, and can be filibustered at lower cost (but still a real cost). Andy says that the real difference here is involvement in national security: That’s why the public wants the AG spot filled, and it means that the Supreme Court is more like the appellate courts than like the AG slot. All I can say was that nobody pressed the national-security argument hard back in early 2001. But we may find out who’s right about this point fairly soon.