Jefferson: The Musical! It’ll be the next big Broadway hit featuring great songs like “Executive Tyranny” and “A Little Rebellion is a Good Thing.” A lot can happen in a week. Did anyone else notice the Hamiltonian Democrats have suddenly become strict Jeffersonians? One minute, they believed in executive pen-and-phone-ism and congressional rubber-stamp-ism. Now, they believe in strict limits on executive power.

With President Donald Trump set to announce his Supreme Court pick Tuesday, Democrats — the minority party in the Senate — are promising to leave the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat vacant until another Democrat president gets elected.

The Democratic Party should be worried about losing even more working class voters. Instead, they look like they’re worried about losing George Clooney and Madonna.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “If the nominee is out of the mainstream, we will do our best to keep the seat open.” No matter who Trump picks, that person is almost certain to be outside Schumer’s New York, liberal-bubble definition of “mainstream.” Most mainstream media outlets are promising a nasty fight from Democrats.

In order to get an originalist in the mold of Scalia on the court — assuming he can get all 52 Republican votes — Trump will need to find eight Democrat senators to win over. He should start with red state Democratic senators — the ones who can’t afford to scream shrill insults about Trump through a megaphone at liberal protests.

Let’s consider three different versions of President Trump and how each could get his nominee through the Senate:

1.) Trump the Imperial
This is the Trump who has led to more Democrat tears than Abraham Lincoln and the timber industry combined, matched with the same all-agenda, no principle progressives who threw a mass tantrum when Senate Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland — former President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia.

At the time, Gregory Diskant argued in The Washington Post that “It is altogether proper to view a decision by the Senate not to act as a waiver of its right to provide advice and consent.” Not exactly an originalist take on Article III’s advice and consent clause, but a Huffington Post writer found the idea “most intriguing” while a DailyKos writer urged Obama to “go ahead and appoint Merrick Garland.” Even Barbara Streisand agreed with the analysis and urged Obama to defy the Senate and appoint Garland.

[lz_ndn video= 31917160]

I wonder if any of them still believe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the power to waive Senate confirmation. I’m guessing, no. Hypocrisy is the gasoline that fires the cylinders of the progressive engine. If they were forced to hold the same philosophical principles two days in a row, the entire movement would shut down.

But with a smart lawyer like Diskant behind the idea, Trump could always ask McConnell to refuse to hold hearings. Then, based on Diskant’s interpretation of the Constitution, Trump could appoint his nominee without Senate approval.

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

The more feasible version of this option is for McConnell to press the button on the nuclear option, change Senate tradition, and confirm the nominee with a simple majority vote.

Downside: The precedent could very well come back to bite Republicans whenever a Democrat next sits in the Oval Office.

2.) Trump the Dealmaker
This is the real Trump — they guy who wrote “The Art of the Deal.” The guy who starts out asking for the world and then settles for what he actually wanted in the first place.

Eight U.S. senators are Democrats from states that voted for Trump in 2016; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia all have one. These eight senators must walk a very fine line between party loyalty and constituent loyalty.

Trump can easily entice these red state senators to support his nominee by using political currency to give them something that they want. That would be a big double win for these senators. A senator from California or New York will score political points for obstructing the nomination, but red state senators will take political heat for obstructing the pick. A deal with Trump allows them to get something of political value and to score political points back home by going against the party to support Trump’s nominee. They’d be insane to ignore the reality of the states they represent.

In West Virginia, not one of the 55 counties went blue in November. In North Dakota, the other incumbent senator, a Republican, just won re-election with 79 percent of the vote. Trump won Missouri by 19 points, more than double Romney’s margin of victory and almost 200 times McCain’s margin of victory. Trump won Indiana by almost twice as much as Romney — and in 2008, it was blue. Before Trump, Ohio had been blue since 2004, Pennsylvania since 1988, and Wisconsin since 1984.

These states gave Trump a very clear mandate to fill that Supreme Court vacancy, and the liberal zeitgeist that sent these senators to Washington is long gone. Time for these senators to recognize their political reality and vote in favor of Trump’s justice.

Downside: Trump would have to spend political currency in this scenario.

3.) Trump the Steamroller
You remember him from the 2016 election. He coined the terms “Lyin’ Ted” and “Little Marco.” Politicians generally only get one warning to move aside before he flattens them.

If Democrats think they can obstruct Trump’s Supreme Court pick for four years, they are very slow learners. Trying to stop Trump with political pressure and parliamentary procedure is like trying to stop a freight train with an orange traffic cone. If red state Democrats are smart, they’ll refuse to be the cone. To put it in the simplest possible terms, if you represent a red state, you don’t want Trump angry-tweeting at you.

[lz_related_box id=”279720″]

Red states don’t send Democrats to the Senate to be zombies who mindlessly do the bidding of the never-stop-fundraising Democratic Party. Just ask Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Russ Feingold (Wisconsin), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), and Arlen Specter (Pennsylvania). They used to be Democratic senators from 2016 red states. Then they voted for Obamacare. Now they are all former senators who lost re-election to Republicans. And that list doesn’t even include the seven Democrat senators from 2016 red states who didn’t bother to seek re-election after their Obamacare vote.

The Democratic Party should be worried about losing even more working-class voters. Instead, they look like they’re worried about losing George Clooney and Madonna. Steamrolling these red state senators on Twitter would be easy for Trump and beyond damaging for them.

Downside: Eight flat senators.

Eddie Zipperer is an assistant professor of political science at Georgia Military College and a regular LifeZette contributor.