Democratic Strategy. What would scientists do?

Scientists play games.

So do gamblers, head coaches, stock traders, Pentagon war strategists, and political leaders.  They want to work out the best strategy for winning in a competition.  Some biologists speculate that all of life--every heartbeat and breath and emotion--is devoted to that very subject: what is the best strategy.

One strategy that works pretty well in a struggle between two approximately evenly matched opponents is "hit back." The strategy has been refined to: "cooperate when one is cooperated with, hit back when one is hit, and don't hit first."   This works better than simply "hit back."   This strategy has a problem, though, because when it is employed by both sides, if one side accidently "hits"--even if it was intended as cooperation but erred in some way or was misinterpreted--then the two opponents would be locked in an endless cycle of hit back, hit back, hit back: nonstop war.   So the further refinement is to hit back most of the time but sometimes not, just to test whether the other side is ready to cooperate and start a cycle of cooperation.   

Democrats have a decision to make.     Republicans "hit" with their decision to deny Obama the ability to appoint a replacement to Judge Scalia in his final 11 months of office.  This set a new standard of hardball partisan warfare.  Do Democrats need to treat that as a "hit"?

Probably, yes.  They need to do it even if they don't really want to, even if they know it prolongs partisan gridlock, a condition that hurts a Democrats more than it hurts Republicans. (Democrats are the party that wants government to work; Republicans are the party that thinks it wants less government except in areas where it wants more government.)

Republicans will consider it weakness if Democrats do not retaliate.  Worse for Democrats is tat Democratic activists will consider it weakness.  It would be possible for Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell to work out an arrangement regarding replacing Ruth Ginsberg whereby they consent to appointment of a liberal moderate or some other backroom balancing deal to end the warfare but Democratic activists will not stand for it.   Therefore, I expect the Gorduch appointment to be a sacrifice.  Gorduch will not get his sixty votes, even though he would otherwise be generally acceptable.

Democrats would lose face.  Democratic senators would face a primary opponent.

Then, of course, Republicans have a choice on how to respond to the Democratic "hit" on Gorduch.  Do they have to "hit back" with the so-called nuclear option?  It would end the filibuster rule for the Senate.  

That would be a self inflicted wound, hurting both a Democrats and Republicans since it would dramatically weaken the power of each individual senator.  Senate rules make senators prima donnas, members with the power to stop everything.  Majority rule would reduce that power.  It would be as if in a tit for tat Cold War retaliation cycle, Boston bombed so Leningrad is bombed so the Soviet Union decides to jam all electronic communication.  Oops.  They use that for their own propaganda purposes.  

Predictions:  Gorduch will not be confirmed, Republicans will not end the filabuster rule, but Republicans will save face by doing some other visible "hit" but one that se-escalates the warfare, for example by ending some oil extraction rules that flagrantly fly in the face of Democrats and their concern about climate change.