[chipotle_coyote]

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."

[blisseyGo]

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.