WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama moves closer to choosing a Supreme Court nominee, Democrats appear to have settled on a conclusion: His best political play is the least political one.

Rather than lobby him to choose a champion of liberal ideology or a symbolically historic appointment, many in the president's party have come to support his view that he should focus on finding a replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia who has unchallenged legal credentials.

Obama said during a Rose Garden news conference Thursday that Republicans' vow not to even meet with his nominee isn't a factor in his selection and that he wanted to quickly nominate an “eminently qualified” replacement.

“It will then be up to Senate Republicans to decide whether they want to follow the Constitution and abide by the rules of fair play that ultimately undergird our democracy,” Obama said.

His framing of the issue mirrors Senate Democrats' assessment — that Republicans are hurting themselves by refusing to commit to hearings or a vote on the nominee. Democrats predict that voters will view Republicans' stance as a cynical, partisan ploy, particularly if Obama chooses a middle-of-the-road jurist who won bipartisan support on Capitol Hill for a lower court appointment.

“A mainstream nominee with bipartisan appeal is what we need, and that's what the president will do,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Two of the names most often at the top of Democrats' list fit that billing: Merrick Garland, the chief judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit; and Sri Srinivasan, who was confirmed to the same court unanimously by the Senate in 2013.

Paul Watford, a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, also appears to be on the president's short list of potential candidates.

“The president has cast a wide net in considering potential nominees,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday. “The White House has taken seriously the range of suggestions that we have received from senators and other experts.”

Senate Democrats have discussed polling that shows the public opposed to the notion that a Supreme Court seat would be left vacant for an extended period. The Democratic members of the Judiciary Committee met with senior members of the White House vetting team to discuss the process Thursday.

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 48 percent of those surveyed thought the Senate should vote on a replacement while 37 percent thought the seat should be left vacant. Only 28 percent of voters approved of the decision not to hold hearings or vote on the nominee, while 55 percent disapproved.

That's the kind of reaction from voters that Senate Democrats will seize on for fall campaigns.

“There are few federal issues that people even notice. They notice this one,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin. “It is very graphic … (and) voters say ‘that ain't right, that isn't fair, that isn't why these people were elected, and that's a good illustration of why Washington's not working.'?”

On Tuesday, Democrats welcomed to their weekly caucus luncheon Patty Judge, a new candidate recruited to run against Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican who now chairs the Judiciary Committee.

Judge entered the race last week saying she is “the Judge Chuck Grassley can't ignore.”

“We will continue to talk about Sen. Grassley's obstruction of the hearings,” she said. “Iowans believe in doing the job you're assigned to do — whatever that job is.”

During a meeting of the judiciary panel Thursday, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seemed to caution his colleagues about whether their strategy might backfire.

“Assume for a moment (Hillary Clinton) is president,” he said. “I'm telling everybody on my side, she's going to pick somebody probably more liberal than President Obama's going to send over in a few days. And I'm going to vote for that person if I think they're qualified.”

Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said voters respond to the argument that a president who has “ignored the Constitution to achieve his own ends” should not be tipping the balance of the court. But he also warned that Republicans would see political motive in whatever Obama ultimately decides to do.

Lisa Mascaro and Christi Parsons in Washington contributed.

mmemoli@tribune.com