If you think McConnell has a monopoly on hypocrisy I have a bridge to sell you as well. McConnell took both sides of the argument (delay when convenient, expedite when convenient), the democrats opposed him on both occasions. If this was a moral discussion, then both parties are equally guilty of hypocrisy.

Now if you think that political appointments are a moral matter rather than a balance of power within the constitution matter, it's not a bridge that I have to sell you, it's a planet.

I think the problem is that you cannot use one strategy one time, and another the next. If he’d elected to delay like before, nobody would have complained. If he’d not sabotaged the last nomination, nobody would have complained now either.

The democrats would have complained if it was under a democrat president. I don’t believe a single second that this is about principles.

Using hypotheticals to rebut actual history and facts is very 21st century GOP.

His point was that the WH and Senate shouldn't contemplate a SCOTUS nominee in an election year if they are controlled by opposite parties. Not hypocritical as that's not the case this time.

That's the way he's reframing the point now. There was no mention from 2016 that I can find where he mentioned anything about opposite parties: his argument was entirely "it's too close to the election and the next president should be the one who gets to appoint the next Justice."

That's what was given to him in 2016 by the Senate which holds the power of giving or not giving a vote to the WH nominee according to the constitution:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2719115/Senate-SC...

Also:

1. Don't impeach a president in an election year.

2. If dems wanted their adversaries to respect unwritten norms, maybe they should have refrained from baselessly accusing the nominees of gang rape (Justice Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas).

3. A SC Judge vote needs BOTH WH and Senate. That was not the case in 2016 regardless of who said what. That is the case this time. It's the President's prerogative to nominate, and the Senate's prerogative to confirm.

4. This time, it would also most likely be a contested election. So not having a full supreme count will be a disaster.

Btw, I am NOT a fan of McConnell. But this case is very different.