Just end the filibuster entirely. The "remove it for priorities only" game just turns a short media hit into 2+ year long game of slow bleeding with the media where all other priorities also get gridlocked.
The "remove it for XYZ" thing is too inside baseball. If we get a trifecta just rip the bandaid off and get legislating. Incremental removal penalizes us more outside of the very first media cycle.
No. Remove it for XYZ is the perfect thing because people, including alot of Senators dont want radical change. We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message.
But the truth is - once you set the precedent of getting rid of it for XYZ you essentially have gotten rid of it for everything. Then its just politics - is thing ABC popular enough that you get 50 votes for it to ditch the filibuster.
While I agree about the resistance to change, the filibuster was removed 11 years ago for judicial nominees yet still remains for most everything else so IтАЩm not sure I buy your argument.
Not to mention, doing it the incremental way means not only do Dems have to wait until there is enough urgency to change the rules, they also have to wait until whenever the next trifecta is to enact anything. Even with the problem Senators from WV and AZ Biden could have accomplished a lot more in the first two years of his term without the filibuster.
And I think your comment about the a zero vote majority actually argues for eliminating the filibuster. If you were a Senate candidate in 2026 which would you rather run on? тАЬLook at all we did with a tied Senate, imagine what we could do with a majority,тАЭ or тАЬWe couldnтАЩt accomplish anything because there were only 50 of us, but if we get 52 this session, well, weтАЩll still do jack shit because reasonsтАЭ.
That's what I mean with inside baseball. The only voters that know what the filibuster is are voters that already have their votes locked in. American voters assume that the senate operates in a purely majoritarian fashion. Preserving something that they don't even know exist because we're afraid of their resistance to change is not sound thinking.
If we ditched the filibuster entirely the only hit would be from the media for a single news cycle before they lost interest. Remember, in the past few months we've had:
- A presidential candidate drop out
- A presidential candidate shot once with a second assassination attempt
- Dick Cheney endorse a democrat for president
- A presidential candidate convicted of 34 felonies
With I don't know how many other events that even I've mentally moved on from. All of those disappeared from the media cycle in less than a week. These are major events that would have dominated the news for weeks, months, or the entire election cycle in years past. The filibuster being toasted would be forgotten within a week, and likely before that. It's a boring topic to cover and most people are unaware that it exists and/or how it functions. It doesn't hold a candle to those stories, and those could barely last days in our media environment.
But if we make an exception for subject A, we still take that one week of bad coverage. Then when we add an exception for B in the future, we take that hit again. Then again for C, D, E... And then when republicans gain a trifecta at whatever point in the future, they just kill it outright and the media shrugs and says "you started it" and they pass their full agenda in contrast to how we flagellated ourselves for no actual benefit.
"We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message."
It's a completely winning message. Sure, it's possible to overreach, but in general, getting stuff done when you won the popular vote is exactly what the voters want.
Overreach. Do whatever you can to ensure Republicans can't sweep back into power and keep doing the people's work without obstruction and let the chips fall where they may.
Ensuring voting rights and doing something to prevent the unconstitutional and corrupt actions of the Supreme Court is not overreach. It's essential! You should define which actions are overreach and which are not. DC has certainly waited way too long for statehood! Remember "No taxation without representation"? We all learned that in grade school, right?
DC should be a county in MD frankly, but thats another argument.
The thing is that individually, any of these sounds fine. But if you stack protecting abortion rights with adding states, and expanding the court, and well whats next - why not medicare for all, or expanded gun control, or legalizing drugs, or criminal justice reform, or trans rights.
All of those are things that people who frequent this website would love to see. And with no filibuster there would be no excuse not to get them all done even with a bare majority.
By getting rid of the filibuster for everything at once you are setting yourself up to be seen not only as too liberal (too moderates/low info voters, but also as not liberal enough (by progressives). Its the perfect setup for a midterm wipeout.
Now, you could say that we are likely to face a midterm blowout anyway, so might as well go all in.
But I guess my opinion is - during a presidential campaign its better to focus on abortion specifically given its present importance and cross-partisan nature, rather than opening up the campaign to questions of "will you do this thing that liberals love but moderates maybe arent into" for every topic.
Same thing at the Senate level.
None of this matters if we lose the presidency and the Senate. If ultimately the votes are there to ditch the filibuster completely then it will likely happen. And if they arent - then you didnt open a big can of worms for nothing.
Most of the regulars here are politically sophisticated enough to understand that medicare for all and so forth are not going to get 50 votes in the Senate. Legalizing pot nationwide is super-popular and should be done, and it will get some Republican votes. You'd have to be more specific about other things you believe could get 50 votes in the Senate. You seem to think that a bunch of out-there policies would get unanimous support from the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. I can't understand why you'd think that.
For now she needs to focus the campaign on abortion(after the election is over, then these can come into play; though most likely, none will pass in the short-term)
They need to do it for more than abortion:
1) DC statehood
2) SCT reform
3) John Lewis Voting Rights Act
Just to get warmed up.
Just end the filibuster entirely. The "remove it for priorities only" game just turns a short media hit into 2+ year long game of slow bleeding with the media where all other priorities also get gridlocked.
The "remove it for XYZ" thing is too inside baseball. If we get a trifecta just rip the bandaid off and get legislating. Incremental removal penalizes us more outside of the very first media cycle.
No. Remove it for XYZ is the perfect thing because people, including alot of Senators dont want radical change. We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message.
But the truth is - once you set the precedent of getting rid of it for XYZ you essentially have gotten rid of it for everything. Then its just politics - is thing ABC popular enough that you get 50 votes for it to ditch the filibuster.
While I agree about the resistance to change, the filibuster was removed 11 years ago for judicial nominees yet still remains for most everything else so IтАЩm not sure I buy your argument.
Not to mention, doing it the incremental way means not only do Dems have to wait until there is enough urgency to change the rules, they also have to wait until whenever the next trifecta is to enact anything. Even with the problem Senators from WV and AZ Biden could have accomplished a lot more in the first two years of his term without the filibuster.
And I think your comment about the a zero vote majority actually argues for eliminating the filibuster. If you were a Senate candidate in 2026 which would you rather run on? тАЬLook at all we did with a tied Senate, imagine what we could do with a majority,тАЭ or тАЬWe couldnтАЩt accomplish anything because there were only 50 of us, but if we get 52 this session, well, weтАЩll still do jack shit because reasonsтАЭ.
That's what I mean with inside baseball. The only voters that know what the filibuster is are voters that already have their votes locked in. American voters assume that the senate operates in a purely majoritarian fashion. Preserving something that they don't even know exist because we're afraid of their resistance to change is not sound thinking.
If we ditched the filibuster entirely the only hit would be from the media for a single news cycle before they lost interest. Remember, in the past few months we've had:
- A presidential candidate drop out
- A presidential candidate shot once with a second assassination attempt
- Dick Cheney endorse a democrat for president
- A presidential candidate convicted of 34 felonies
With I don't know how many other events that even I've mentally moved on from. All of those disappeared from the media cycle in less than a week. These are major events that would have dominated the news for weeks, months, or the entire election cycle in years past. The filibuster being toasted would be forgotten within a week, and likely before that. It's a boring topic to cover and most people are unaware that it exists and/or how it functions. It doesn't hold a candle to those stories, and those could barely last days in our media environment.
But if we make an exception for subject A, we still take that one week of bad coverage. Then when we add an exception for B in the future, we take that hit again. Then again for C, D, E... And then when republicans gain a trifecta at whatever point in the future, they just kill it outright and the media shrugs and says "you started it" and they pass their full agenda in contrast to how we flagellated ourselves for no actual benefit.
"We are going to sweep into office with a zero vote majority and reshape the nations courts, voting, even the number of states, is not a winning message."
It's a completely winning message. Sure, it's possible to overreach, but in general, getting stuff done when you won the popular vote is exactly what the voters want.
Overreach. Do whatever you can to ensure Republicans can't sweep back into power and keep doing the people's work without obstruction and let the chips fall where they may.
Ensuring voting rights and doing something to prevent the unconstitutional and corrupt actions of the Supreme Court is not overreach. It's essential! You should define which actions are overreach and which are not. DC has certainly waited way too long for statehood! Remember "No taxation without representation"? We all learned that in grade school, right?
DC should be a county in MD frankly, but thats another argument.
The thing is that individually, any of these sounds fine. But if you stack protecting abortion rights with adding states, and expanding the court, and well whats next - why not medicare for all, or expanded gun control, or legalizing drugs, or criminal justice reform, or trans rights.
All of those are things that people who frequent this website would love to see. And with no filibuster there would be no excuse not to get them all done even with a bare majority.
By getting rid of the filibuster for everything at once you are setting yourself up to be seen not only as too liberal (too moderates/low info voters, but also as not liberal enough (by progressives). Its the perfect setup for a midterm wipeout.
Now, you could say that we are likely to face a midterm blowout anyway, so might as well go all in.
But I guess my opinion is - during a presidential campaign its better to focus on abortion specifically given its present importance and cross-partisan nature, rather than opening up the campaign to questions of "will you do this thing that liberals love but moderates maybe arent into" for every topic.
Same thing at the Senate level.
None of this matters if we lose the presidency and the Senate. If ultimately the votes are there to ditch the filibuster completely then it will likely happen. And if they arent - then you didnt open a big can of worms for nothing.
Most of the regulars here are politically sophisticated enough to understand that medicare for all and so forth are not going to get 50 votes in the Senate. Legalizing pot nationwide is super-popular and should be done, and it will get some Republican votes. You'd have to be more specific about other things you believe could get 50 votes in the Senate. You seem to think that a bunch of out-there policies would get unanimous support from the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. I can't understand why you'd think that.
For now she needs to focus the campaign on abortion(after the election is over, then these can come into play; though most likely, none will pass in the short-term)