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.
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.
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.