The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I think that DC being a state will be ruled unconstitutional. PR is simple. Up or down vote. Easy peasy if they want it. Not much can be done.
There are arguments that might be compelling to a conservative SCOTUS against a DC statehood without constitutional amendment.
The statehood proposal doesn't include all the territory. It leaves a stub district with a handful of buildings to satisfy the constitutional requirement but the actual people would be part of a state.
I think that DC being a state will be ruled unconstitutional. PR is simple. Up or down vote. Easy peasy if they want it. Not much can be done.
There are arguments that might be compelling to a conservative SCOTUS against a DC statehood without constitutional amendment.
The statehood proposal doesn't include all the territory. It leaves a stub district with a handful of buildings to satisfy the constitutional requirement but the actual people would be part of a state.
Yes, but the problem is that current amendments would give that stub 3 EV
I think that DC being a state will be ruled unconstitutional. PR is simple. Up or down vote. Easy peasy if they want it. Not much can be done.
There are arguments that might be compelling to a conservative SCOTUS against a DC statehood without constitutional amendment.
The statehood proposal doesn't include all the territory. It leaves a stub district with a handful of buildings to satisfy the constitutional requirement but the actual people would be part of a state.
Yes, but the problem is that current amendments would give that stub 3 EV
Which is well within Congress's power to do. tis silly, but I don't see a reading that would prohibit it.
As long as we're wishlisting things and pie-in-the-sky thinking, you know what I'd like to see on the Democrat's priority list?
Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.
It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
As long as we're wishlisting things and pie-in-the-sky thinking, you know what I'd like to see on the Democrat's priority list?
Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.
It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.
Last time I did the math, if we did it at the last apportionment level, we're at something like ~1200 reps in the House.
I think that DC being a state will be ruled unconstitutional. PR is simple. Up or down vote. Easy peasy if they want it. Not much can be done.
There are arguments that might be compelling to a conservative SCOTUS against a DC statehood without constitutional amendment.
The statehood proposal doesn't include all the territory. It leaves a stub district with a handful of buildings to satisfy the constitutional requirement but the actual people would be part of a state.
I believe the argument would be, that the land was granted to DC by Maryland, and would fall under the admissions clause. I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m just saying 5 people determine if we can do it.
I think that DC being a state will be ruled unconstitutional. PR is simple. Up or down vote. Easy peasy if they want it. Not much can be done.
There are arguments that might be compelling to a conservative SCOTUS against a DC statehood without constitutional amendment.
Who would have standing to bring suit?
Anyone who’s status in the district changes, or the state of Maryland (although that’s unlikely). I’m sure there are republicans looking into that right as we speak, and getting the legal team ready to challenge it.
0
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The only reason to kill the filibuster is if you know you're going to get shit done. The Republicans couldn't even get a simple majority for killing the ACA, so McConnell leaving it in place made sense, and with the Democrats getting the House in 2018 killing it then would have been pointless.
So assuming that the Republicans don't get the stupids and actually do filibuster the Democrats getting the committee chairs, Schumer and someone from the executive needs to have a chat with the Democratic caucus and make sure everyone is going to vote yes on basically everything. Not necessarily a rubber stamp of everything that comes out of the House, the Senate can propose and pass changes and whatnot, but I have no interest in seeing the shitshow that would result from killing the filibuster and then having legislation fail on 49-51 votes.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The only reason to kill the filibuster is if you know you're going to get shit done. The Republicans couldn't even get a simple majority for killing the ACA, so McConnell leaving it in place made sense, and with the Democrats getting the House in 2018 killing it then would have been pointless.
So assuming that the Republicans don't get the stupids and actually do filibuster the Democrats getting the committee chairs, Schumer and someone from the executive needs to have a chat with the Democratic caucus and make sure everyone is going to vote yes on basically everything. Not necessarily a rubber stamp of everything that comes out of the House, the Senate can propose and pass changes and whatnot, but I have no interest in seeing the shitshow that would result from killing the filibuster and then having legislation fail on 49-51 votes.
I am curious if the Democrats put forward legislation that is broadly popular in Alaska, Maine, and Utah, if they don't get those Senators on board. I'm not talking the major sticking points (or pork), but things that are generally considered popular that Murkowski/Collins*/Romney might find difficult to oppose.
* That she was re-elected by Mainers still boggles my mind. I'm disappointed. I'm really disappointed. And that troubles me.
Some Senators that are in purplish states are gonna vote against, because they're assholes. Johnson (WI), and Rubio and Scott (FL), but at least you get to put them on the record against popular positions. That's been the problem with the filibuster. These Senators would never need to make an unpopular or difficult vote, because the other 41 Senators in the Republican caucus could cover for them.
Strip the ability to hide behind the filibuster, and you at least make their re-elect harder. Though clearly not impossible, Maine. :huh:
Collins and Murkowski were around and utterly unwinnable back in 2008 for the ACA, so while it's theoretically possible that some legislation might get their votes, I wouldn't hold out any hope that it'll actually happen.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
As long as we're wishlisting things and pie-in-the-sky thinking, you know what I'd like to see on the Democrat's priority list?
Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.
It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.
Last time I did the math, if we did it at the last apportionment level, we're at something like ~1200 reps in the House.
That’s fine we’re a fucking humongous country, only India and China have more people than us, so having a fuckoff huge general assembly makes perfect sense
McConnell is making a play at being co-majority leader, and wants to bind the Democrats in writing that they won't abolish the filibuster now, and then promptly obstruct everything with no way for them to overcome it on a later day.
FFS, Republicans still chair all the committees, this is taking so long.
Part of the problem of course is that the article doesn't actually say what's happening which is that McConnell refuses to respect the results of the election.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
+24
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Part of the problem of course is that the article doesn't actually say what's happening which is that McConnell refuses to respect the results of the election.
Mcconnell's framing is because the House margin shrank, the Senate is even, and Trump's votes grew so much, that the people clearly are trending conservative, and thus the agenda must be toward conservative priorities.
Part of the problem of course is that the article doesn't actually say what's happening which is that McConnell refuses to respect the results of the election.
Not a surprise the media is already moving into protect republican rule mode. Sam Stein was out there claiming Biden lied about their being no covid plan despite there being no plan and the plan he linked to is basically "Come up with a plan" so we're doing this again.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
McConnell is making a play at being co-majority leader, and wants to bind the Democrats in writing that they won't abolish the filibuster now, and then promptly obstruct everything with no way for them to overcome it on a later day.
FFS, Republicans still chair all the committees, this is taking so long.
It’s a negotiation ploy.
However this is how long this stuff normally takes. I it takes a couple of weeks to sort shit out.
Honestly we have ways around the filibuster right now. And a lot of the things we want to do can be put into the omnibus spending bill. That is something we can start crafting language for. And I am absolutely ok with lying. It’s not like they don’t lie to us when convenient.
0
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Did we get promoted to senate aid positions and nobody told me?
Part of the problem of course is that the article doesn't actually say what's happening which is that McConnell refuses to respect the results of the election.
Mcconnell's framing is because the House margin shrank, the Senate is even, and Trump's votes grew so much, that the people clearly are trending conservative, and thus the agenda must be toward conservative priorities.
Trump still lost, the gop lost senate seats and yeah the house shit sucks but eh. Like Democratic senators represent like 20 million people more than republican ones, the electorate is not more conservative.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
The framing is the most optimistic possible spin. It's like saying you should be crowned Super Bowl champions because you only lost by 3 when the spread was 7.5.
Democrats should trust bust the fuck out of shitty corporate media. Teach the fuckers that there are consequences when you ally oneself with anti-democratic forced. Maybe if the fucking swine can't easily coordinate a small cohort to push bullshit like "the republicans aren't the fucking problem, it's the democrats because they aren't letting republicans have 100% of what republicans want even though the oligarch racist, rat fucker party is a minority party.
Anyways, I'd be surprised if the filibuster makes it out unscathed. It might not get outright killed because too many democratic Senators are morons that think this helps them and are too attached to their own fucking power, even when that power proves to essentially be absolutely fucking worthless. McConnell is absolutely fine with the filibuster remaining because his shithead caucus can continue to have their cake and eat it too. In power, they can just blame the democrats for nothing happening because they know their shitty agenda is likely to result in the public rioting. Out of power, they can control the agenda and still blame the democrats for nothing getting done. That said, I doubt even the most ardent supporters of the shitty filibuster in the democratic caucus are keen on the idea of only being able to do stuff when they a free reconciliation bill to play with; especially, as it becomes apparent that the shitty republicans are going to fuck the nation over, so that they can campaign on it being a reason to put them back in power.
If we want to combat the assertion that government action is, in and of itself, bad, then we have to use the government to do things that are good.
The filibuster stands in the way of that. It's a tool that Republicans use so that they can fuck everything up when they win elections and then keep Democrats from doing anything that will help anyone when they're in power.
Just fucking kill the thing. Let Americans see what happens when Republicans pass laws and what happens when Democrats pass laws. Put the lie to Reagan's so-called 9 most terrifying words (which are actually 11 because "I'm" is a contraction of two words GAH) once and for fucking all.
+37
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Democrats should trust bust the fuck out of shitty corporate media. Teach the fuckers that there are consequences when you ally oneself with anti-democratic forced. Maybe if the fucking swine can't easily coordinate a small cohort to push bullshit like "the republicans aren't the fucking problem, it's the democrats because they aren't letting republicans have 100% of what republicans want even though the oligarch racist, rat fucker party is a minority party.
Anyways, I'd be surprised if the filibuster makes it out unscathed. It might not get outright killed because too many democratic Senators are morons that think this helps them and are too attached to their own fucking power, even when that power proves to essentially be absolutely fucking worthless. McConnell is absolutely fine with the filibuster remaining because his shithead caucus can continue to have their cake and eat it too. In power, they can just blame the democrats for nothing happening because they know their shitty agenda is likely to result in the public rioting. Out of power, they can control the agenda and still blame the democrats for nothing getting done. That said, I doubt even the most ardent supporters of the shitty filibuster in the democratic caucus are keen on the idea of only being able to do stuff when they a free reconciliation bill to play with; especially, as it becomes apparent that the shitty republicans are going to fuck the nation over, so that they can campaign on it being a reason to put them back in power.
I actually think the allure of the filibuster is not to keep power, it's to keep power at arm's length. If there's a filibuster, you can go to all your constituents and say "you know that would have been really nice gosh darn filibuster getting in the way again!" You never have to take a stance on anything real and take a tough vote. You can leave all the pies in the sky.
The ideal of the filibuster is it forces cooperation, the reality is that it forces a stagnation of literally anything, the ideal is bullshit and the filibuster should go.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Democrats should trust bust the fuck out of shitty corporate media. Teach the fuckers that there are consequences when you ally oneself with anti-democratic forced. Maybe if the fucking swine can't easily coordinate a small cohort to push bullshit like "the republicans aren't the fucking problem, it's the democrats because they aren't letting republicans have 100% of what republicans want even though the oligarch racist, rat fucker party is a minority party.
Anyways, I'd be surprised if the filibuster makes it out unscathed. It might not get outright killed because too many democratic Senators are morons that think this helps them and are too attached to their own fucking power, even when that power proves to essentially be absolutely fucking worthless. McConnell is absolutely fine with the filibuster remaining because his shithead caucus can continue to have their cake and eat it too. In power, they can just blame the democrats for nothing happening because they know their shitty agenda is likely to result in the public rioting. Out of power, they can control the agenda and still blame the democrats for nothing getting done. That said, I doubt even the most ardent supporters of the shitty filibuster in the democratic caucus are keen on the idea of only being able to do stuff when they a free reconciliation bill to play with; especially, as it becomes apparent that the shitty republicans are going to fuck the nation over, so that they can campaign on it being a reason to put them back in power.
I actually think the allure of the filibuster is not to keep power, it's to keep power at arm's length. If there's a filibuster, you can go to all your constituents and say "you know that would have been really nice gosh darn filibuster getting in the way again!" You never have to take a stance on anything real and take a tough vote. You can leave all the pies in the sky.
Any democrat that believes such a thing is a delusional fool. The media has setup a pretty bullshit double standard. If shit doesn't get done, it's never the republican's fault whether they have power, caused it or both. If shit doesn't get done, it's always the fault of the democrats whether they are responsible or not. Not to mention, all signs point towards the democratic base not being very tolerant of fuck all being done, when their people do control things.
McConnell is calling Senate Dems bluff and forcing the issue, either they have the party discipline to take away his power, or they concede to not doing anything for four years. It's probably a smart move, still high on calls for "unity" is a better time for him to have this confrontation than after however many months of aggravation that might make centrists tired of his shit.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Democrats should trust bust the fuck out of shitty corporate media. Teach the fuckers that there are consequences when you ally oneself with anti-democratic forced. Maybe if the fucking swine can't easily coordinate a small cohort to push bullshit like "the republicans aren't the fucking problem, it's the democrats because they aren't letting republicans have 100% of what republicans want even though the oligarch racist, rat fucker party is a minority party.
Anyways, I'd be surprised if the filibuster makes it out unscathed. It might not get outright killed because too many democratic Senators are morons that think this helps them and are too attached to their own fucking power, even when that power proves to essentially be absolutely fucking worthless. McConnell is absolutely fine with the filibuster remaining because his shithead caucus can continue to have their cake and eat it too. In power, they can just blame the democrats for nothing happening because they know their shitty agenda is likely to result in the public rioting. Out of power, they can control the agenda and still blame the democrats for nothing getting done. That said, I doubt even the most ardent supporters of the shitty filibuster in the democratic caucus are keen on the idea of only being able to do stuff when they a free reconciliation bill to play with; especially, as it becomes apparent that the shitty republicans are going to fuck the nation over, so that they can campaign on it being a reason to put them back in power.
I actually think the allure of the filibuster is not to keep power, it's to keep power at arm's length. If there's a filibuster, you can go to all your constituents and say "you know that would have been really nice gosh darn filibuster getting in the way again!" You never have to take a stance on anything real and take a tough vote. You can leave all the pies in the sky.
Any democrat that believes such a thing is a delusional fool. The media has setup a pretty bullshit double standard. If shit doesn't get done, it's never the republican's fault whether they have power, caused it or both. If shit doesn't get done, it's always the fault of the democrats whether they are responsible or not. Not to mention, all signs point towards the democratic base not being very tolerant of fuck all being done, when their people do control things.
Oh I don't disagree. I think you should try to do things and then live or die based on that. There were a ton of people like Tom Perriello in VA who passed the ACA knowing it would cost him his seat. Some people are in it for themselves though. Whatever it takes to get reelected.
While we're on things I hate, attaching loaded rhetoric like "nuclear option" to dismantling the filibuster is a way to impart a political price to the act which would not exist otherwise. The term was coined by GOP Senate Majority Leader and noted homophobe Trent Lott.
Why are we letting bigots set the terminology? If anything, getting rid of the abomination the filibuster currently is should be called the "nuclear disarmament option" or the "constitutional option" or even just the "reasonable option" since all the filibuster is ever used for is nuking legislation before it has a chance to get voted on. Republicans are blowing up every attempt to help America and then have the gall to refer to the act of taking that option away from them as "nuclear"?
Fuck Republicans and fuck Republican narratives. We are in power now because the people voted Democrats into office. Democrats should govern like it.
If I thought Schumer was an effective majority leader, I would think that him taking the 'get bent' position to McConnell's demand about maintaining the filibuster means that he has already taken the pulse of his caucus and knows he has the support to get it eliminated.
However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.
If I thought Schumer was an effective majority leader, I would think that him taking the 'get bent' position to McConnell's demand about maintaining the filibuster means that he has already taken the pulse of his caucus and knows he has the support to get it eliminated.
However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.
Not to Lucy/football this whole situation but you can tell Schumer has been getting fed up with McConnell's shit for years now and is finally in a position to do something about it.
He still needs to get his whole caucus on board with eliminating the filibuster or it'll just be embarrassing.
+9
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
It's because nuclear option sounds fun. Why did they call it "The Avengers" instead of "a bunch of people in costumes fighting"? Branding and cultural salience and all that matter. The right understands that way better than the left, as we stand here saying "why don't people just vote for all our cool incredibly complicated ideas?"
Medicare for all. Defund the police. Pretty awful sloganeering if you ask me. Most people don't interact with medicare, they don't know what it means or entails. People really don't understand or care for "defund the police." Maybe Democrat ideas don't translate down into pithy sayings like "drain the swamp" but like, they stick in your brain and laypeople can comprehend it intuitively.
0
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
More to the point, the filibuster prevents anything "radical." The senate likes the status quo. Just little changes here and there. Which I get, I don't like things radical at all, but it's been a bit weaponized. And I would like to see it go away, but our majority is too tight right now to get that done. It's not something that we likely could get done until 2022. So we need to focus on the things that are likely to get done, and protecting the house for 2022, number 1 priority. Whatever we can do to protect that we do. If we protect the house, we'll also protect the senate. 2022 has a really good senate map for us. We've got a good shot at 2 seats, a tossup for 1 seat and a not great but still possible shot at another. While we are only risking 1 seat (Georgia) the rest are pretty solid D (I guess New Hampshire is a bit of a risk so maybe 2).
A good showing in 2022 where we have 53 or 54 D senators. We Bring in PR, we try for DC (It may be unconstitutional). We get rid of that filibuster, and we steam forward on the more ambitious policy goals.
More to the point, the filibuster prevents anything "radical." The senate likes the status quo. Just little changes here and there. Which I get, I don't like things radical at all, but it's been a bit weaponized. And I would like to see it go away, but our majority is too tight right now to get that done. It's not something that we likely could get done until 2022. So we need to focus on the things that are likely to get done, and protecting the house for 2022, number 1 priority. Whatever we can do to protect that we do. If we protect the house, we'll also protect the senate. 2022 has a really good senate map for us. We've got a good shot at 2 seats, a tossup for 1 seat and a not great but still possible shot at another. While we are only risking 1 seat (Georgia) the rest are pretty solid D (I guess New Hampshire is a bit of a risk so maybe 2).
A good showing in 2022 where we have 53 or 54 D senators. We Bring in PR, we try for DC (It may be unconstitutional). We get rid of that filibuster, and we steam forward on the more ambitious policy goals.
If the Dems don't deliver results that they can point to they won't be holding anything in 2022. Full stop, the only way to increase their electoral chances is to actually govern and govern well.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If I thought Schumer was an effective majority leader, I would think that him taking the 'get bent' position to McConnell's demand about maintaining the filibuster means that he has already taken the pulse of his caucus and knows he has the support to get it eliminated.
However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.
Not to Lucy/football this whole situation but you can tell Schumer has been getting fed up with McConnell's shit for years now and is finally in a position to do something about it.
He still needs to get his whole caucus on board with eliminating the filibuster or it'll just be embarrassing.
I feel Matthew Yglesias has a decent argument on this, which I saw this morning (initially about confirmations, but applicable to legislation).
If 40 Republicans could block a Biden nominee, there would be intense pressure on the GOP to wield that obstructive power — but since “no” votes would be ineffectual, plenty of Biden’s picks will end up getting more than 10 GOP votes.
My suspicion is you’d see something similar on legislation.
Knowledge that a bill *could* pass 51-50 but that moderate members would gladly compromise on substance for the sake of bipartisan cover would encourage more dealmaking and less obstruction.
I feel he's right on this, and it's an argument that can be expanded to the more moderate members of the caucus that they would still exercise significant power (if not more) with the filibuster gone. Making that argument to Manchin and Sinema would be difficult, but I think ultimately doable. My skepticism of Schumer is what gives me pause.
Yeah if the GOP can't just obstruct on principal they would have to worry about voting against things incredibly popular like more relief/stimulus. That again is what McConnel wants preserved, a way to control his caucus from having to actually campaign on a record. Like running on "filibustered these bills" is hard, but running on "voted against more funding for a pandemic, voted against increased medicare coverage" is easy as pie.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
If I thought Schumer was an effective majority leader, I would think that him taking the 'get bent' position to McConnell's demand about maintaining the filibuster means that he has already taken the pulse of his caucus and knows he has the support to get it eliminated.
However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.
Not to Lucy/football this whole situation but you can tell Schumer has been getting fed up with McConnell's shit for years now and is finally in a position to do something about it.
He still needs to get his whole caucus on board with eliminating the filibuster or it'll just be embarrassing.
I feel Matthew Yglesias has a decent argument on this, which I saw this morning (initially about confirmations, but applicable to legislation).
If 40 Republicans could block a Biden nominee, there would be intense pressure on the GOP to wield that obstructive power — but since “no” votes would be ineffectual, plenty of Biden’s picks will end up getting more than 10 GOP votes.
My suspicion is you’d see something similar on legislation.
Knowledge that a bill *could* pass 51-50 but that moderate members would gladly compromise on substance for the sake of bipartisan cover would encourage more dealmaking and less obstruction.
I feel he's right on this, and it's an argument that can be expanded to the more moderate members of the caucus that they would still exercise significant power (if not more) with the filibuster gone. Making that argument to Manchin and Sinema would be difficult, but I think ultimately doable. My skepticism of Schumer is what gives me pause.
Eliminating the filibuster is step 0, since you can only pass 1 reconciliation bill a year with it in place. I agree that you'd probably see some "moderate" GOP members crossing the aisle if their no votes don't matter and they feel like they're safe from a primary.
After that, earmarks need to make a comeback, because you have obstinate assholes like Manchin who are practically conservatives and are basically the most powerful people in the Senate right now. The only way to get them onboard with the kind of big, liberal legislation we currently need is if they get to fix the roads and make jobs with their votes.
McConnell is calling Senate Dems bluff and forcing the issue, either they have the party discipline to take away his power, or they concede to not doing anything for four years. It's probably a smart move, still high on calls for "unity" is a better time for him to have this confrontation than after however many months of aggravation that might make centrists tired of his shit.
It seems to have already shifted some Senators towards killing the filibuster. This seems like the kind of tactic that's going to make killing the filibuster the most likely. He's fucking with the thing that the people resistant to ending the filibuster actually care about.
Posts
The statehood proposal doesn't include all the territory. It leaves a stub district with a handful of buildings to satisfy the constitutional requirement but the actual people would be part of a state.
McCain looked like he decided to vote no at the last moment and was tormented up until that point. I think he surprised everybody too.
Who would have standing to bring suit?
Yes, but the problem is that current amendments would give that stub 3 EV
Which is well within Congress's power to do. tis silly, but I don't see a reading that would prohibit it.
Adding more reps to the pile. Uncap the 435 and make it something reflective of the fact that we've doubled in population twice since that was put in place.
It's in line with voting reforms. It takes the wind out of a lot of the sails which are currently powering the rightwing tilt of politics. And it makes sense just this year given the redistricting going on.
Last time I did the math, if we did it at the last apportionment level, we're at something like ~1200 reps in the House.
So assuming that the Republicans don't get the stupids and actually do filibuster the Democrats getting the committee chairs, Schumer and someone from the executive needs to have a chat with the Democratic caucus and make sure everyone is going to vote yes on basically everything. Not necessarily a rubber stamp of everything that comes out of the House, the Senate can propose and pass changes and whatnot, but I have no interest in seeing the shitshow that would result from killing the filibuster and then having legislation fail on 49-51 votes.
Collins and Murkowski were around and utterly unwinnable back in 2008 for the ACA, so while it's theoretically possible that some legislation might get their votes, I wouldn't hold out any hope that it'll actually happen.
That’s fine we’re a fucking humongous country, only India and China have more people than us, so having a fuckoff huge general assembly makes perfect sense
...but also pragmatically, anything that gets the majority of votes should pass....
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/22/politics/senate-power-sharing-schumer-mcconnell/index.html
McConnell is making a play at being co-majority leader, and wants to bind the Democrats in writing that they won't abolish the filibuster now, and then promptly obstruct everything with no way for them to overcome it on a later day.
FFS, Republicans still chair all the committees, this is taking so long.
Mcconnell's framing is because the House margin shrank, the Senate is even, and Trump's votes grew so much, that the people clearly are trending conservative, and thus the agenda must be toward conservative priorities.
Not a surprise the media is already moving into protect republican rule mode. Sam Stein was out there claiming Biden lied about their being no covid plan despite there being no plan and the plan he linked to is basically "Come up with a plan" so we're doing this again.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It’s a negotiation ploy.
However this is how long this stuff normally takes. I it takes a couple of weeks to sort shit out.
Honestly we have ways around the filibuster right now. And a lot of the things we want to do can be put into the omnibus spending bill. That is something we can start crafting language for. And I am absolutely ok with lying. It’s not like they don’t lie to us when convenient.
"no, fuck you."
Trump still lost, the gop lost senate seats and yeah the house shit sucks but eh. Like Democratic senators represent like 20 million people more than republican ones, the electorate is not more conservative.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Anyways, I'd be surprised if the filibuster makes it out unscathed. It might not get outright killed because too many democratic Senators are morons that think this helps them and are too attached to their own fucking power, even when that power proves to essentially be absolutely fucking worthless. McConnell is absolutely fine with the filibuster remaining because his shithead caucus can continue to have their cake and eat it too. In power, they can just blame the democrats for nothing happening because they know their shitty agenda is likely to result in the public rioting. Out of power, they can control the agenda and still blame the democrats for nothing getting done. That said, I doubt even the most ardent supporters of the shitty filibuster in the democratic caucus are keen on the idea of only being able to do stuff when they a free reconciliation bill to play with; especially, as it becomes apparent that the shitty republicans are going to fuck the nation over, so that they can campaign on it being a reason to put them back in power.
The filibuster stands in the way of that. It's a tool that Republicans use so that they can fuck everything up when they win elections and then keep Democrats from doing anything that will help anyone when they're in power.
Just fucking kill the thing. Let Americans see what happens when Republicans pass laws and what happens when Democrats pass laws. Put the lie to Reagan's so-called 9 most terrifying words (which are actually 11 because "I'm" is a contraction of two words GAH) once and for fucking all.
I actually think the allure of the filibuster is not to keep power, it's to keep power at arm's length. If there's a filibuster, you can go to all your constituents and say "you know that would have been really nice gosh darn filibuster getting in the way again!" You never have to take a stance on anything real and take a tough vote. You can leave all the pies in the sky.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Any democrat that believes such a thing is a delusional fool. The media has setup a pretty bullshit double standard. If shit doesn't get done, it's never the republican's fault whether they have power, caused it or both. If shit doesn't get done, it's always the fault of the democrats whether they are responsible or not. Not to mention, all signs point towards the democratic base not being very tolerant of fuck all being done, when their people do control things.
Oh I don't disagree. I think you should try to do things and then live or die based on that. There were a ton of people like Tom Perriello in VA who passed the ACA knowing it would cost him his seat. Some people are in it for themselves though. Whatever it takes to get reelected.
Why are we letting bigots set the terminology? If anything, getting rid of the abomination the filibuster currently is should be called the "nuclear disarmament option" or the "constitutional option" or even just the "reasonable option" since all the filibuster is ever used for is nuking legislation before it has a chance to get voted on. Republicans are blowing up every attempt to help America and then have the gall to refer to the act of taking that option away from them as "nuclear"?
Fuck Republicans and fuck Republican narratives. We are in power now because the people voted Democrats into office. Democrats should govern like it.
However, I have also watched Schumer for years, so the above is not an accurate assumption to make, unfortunately.
Not to Lucy/football this whole situation but you can tell Schumer has been getting fed up with McConnell's shit for years now and is finally in a position to do something about it.
He still needs to get his whole caucus on board with eliminating the filibuster or it'll just be embarrassing.
Medicare for all. Defund the police. Pretty awful sloganeering if you ask me. Most people don't interact with medicare, they don't know what it means or entails. People really don't understand or care for "defund the police." Maybe Democrat ideas don't translate down into pithy sayings like "drain the swamp" but like, they stick in your brain and laypeople can comprehend it intuitively.
A good showing in 2022 where we have 53 or 54 D senators. We Bring in PR, we try for DC (It may be unconstitutional). We get rid of that filibuster, and we steam forward on the more ambitious policy goals.
If the Dems don't deliver results that they can point to they won't be holding anything in 2022. Full stop, the only way to increase their electoral chances is to actually govern and govern well.
I feel Matthew Yglesias has a decent argument on this, which I saw this morning (initially about confirmations, but applicable to legislation).
I feel he's right on this, and it's an argument that can be expanded to the more moderate members of the caucus that they would still exercise significant power (if not more) with the filibuster gone. Making that argument to Manchin and Sinema would be difficult, but I think ultimately doable. My skepticism of Schumer is what gives me pause.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Eliminating the filibuster is step 0, since you can only pass 1 reconciliation bill a year with it in place. I agree that you'd probably see some "moderate" GOP members crossing the aisle if their no votes don't matter and they feel like they're safe from a primary.
After that, earmarks need to make a comeback, because you have obstinate assholes like Manchin who are practically conservatives and are basically the most powerful people in the Senate right now. The only way to get them onboard with the kind of big, liberal legislation we currently need is if they get to fix the roads and make jobs with their votes.
It seems to have already shifted some Senators towards killing the filibuster. This seems like the kind of tactic that's going to make killing the filibuster the most likely. He's fucking with the thing that the people resistant to ending the filibuster actually care about.