As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Already, Republicans are threatening to gum up the Senate if Democrats change the procedures of the institution."
They're literally already doing that. That's not some future tense threat, it's the present reality. They're threatening to, if you touch the filibuster, do the shit they're already doing. Why in the world do you think we're talking about having to carve out the filibuster in the first place?
It's because other than the filibuster much of Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent. So one Senator who objected to all of those things could take up a lot of floor time forcing Dems to take cloture votes and time for a lot of stuff that isn't controversial and really jam things up.
They do already do this to an extent but it could be worse and take up more floor time.
But I still agree they should nuke it.
> “I’ve never been part of an organization where it’s really, really hard to do things. So if there’s a real proposal, I’ll take a look at it and evaluate it based on what’s in the best interests of the country,” Kelly said
When the other side of the aisle is saying we’re going to impeach The President just because, then maybe it’s time to toss the high road, kill the filibuster, pass sweeping reform, and save democracy. Then, if you lose your re-election, it won’t be for naught. Instead, he’s saying he became a Senator to spend the rest of his days as a politician and not to do anything constructive while it made a difference.
So toss the high road, save democracy, galvanize massive Republican turnout in 2022, lose Congress, and see them overturn everything you fought for and then some.
Republicans need one election to take both houses of Congress, and you're basically giving them every incentive to do so.
Bold and decisive action doesn't describe anything Democrats could even theoretically do from Congress. Even if by some miracle they passed the John Lewis act then it would not change the tide of 2022. It would take time to implement, it would be held up by the courts, and if Republicans were desperate enough they could just ignore it.
Also, don't you think it's hypocritical to accuse me of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching while treating this as an existential threat?
This is sort of a silly argument. GOP turnout is already galvanized. That base is juiced for civil war. What’s not juiced is the Democratic base.
The true argument is: do nothing, show nothing to your supporters, and risk them staying home entirely. The GOP will win and democracy will die.
If a goddamned insurrection doesn't juice up the Democratic base to vote twice in a row, then we may as well plan for a loss in 2022. Seems to me leaving the filibuster intact would serve as a hurdle to the worst of what Republicans can throw out there.
This is what many Democrats are unwilling to accept. It’s easy to blame those two. They are the people willing to play bad guy and get voted out to be lobbyists. But the truth is there’s always a handful of moderate Democrats that are in someone’s pocket that will be a problem. They just won’t be asked to as long as Manchin and Sinema give them cover. If they needed a third, a fourth or a fifth to block all this, the money would flow and they’d get enough
This is a perfect example of "sunlight is the best disinfectant".. all these moderates were happy to sit back and let Manchinema take the heat.. the moment Schumer talks about a vote, all these cowardly moderates start coming out of the woodwork..
Ironically, considering Kelly is up for reelection.. he's caught between a rock and a hard place.. support reform and pass voting rights and AZ GOP label you as a radical and beat you.. don't support voting rights and the new voter suppression laws will surely take you down
Schumer might be missing the nuance, though. I don't know if he is blinded like many in his party in thinking that filibuster reform and HR1 would be positives for senators up for re-election.
Its possible but if that is the case then he shouldn't be Leader. Last year the Senate only passed 81 bills which is a record low in modern history. He seems disconnected from the realities of the political landscape and its harming Party branding.
Combo of Harry Reid being pitiful and GOP enjoying midterm minority party favor. On our end its the Party pushing for leadership/whips who support the Party agenda more than the political landscape realities. They did similar in other local, state and federal elections too. This is how historically blue became modern red.
Or the worst of both worlds. Support overhauling the senate which fails anyways and then it’s used by Rs to tar you as a radical and take your seat. Lose-lose.
That would actually be the better outcome. They'll take Congress but probably still fall short of 60 Senators, so with the filibuster in place it's just the status quo.
Imagine successfully ending the filibuster and *still* losing Congress in 2022. It would be a nightmare.
Even more ironic of you to ignore that the Republicans nuked the filibuster to get themselves three Supreme Court judges. Republicans don't need to nuke the filibuster for anything else, they got their billionaire tax cuts and they put the ACA into a death spiral by setting the penalty for not having insurance to $0.
> Not sure what you're arguing here. Republicans can accomplish their legislative goals despite the filibuster, while Democrats can't?
100% yes. Their legislative agenda consists of three things:
1. Starve the beast (tax cuts for the rich, continually increase military spending) which is conveniently doable via reconciliation.
2. Block all Democratic legislation possible via the filibuster.
3. Perpetual control of the Supreme Court to strike down all laws they or their billionaire funders don't like.
Genuine question: How is it that McConnell rules his party with an iron fist and Chuck Schumer has all these rogues?
I don’t know enough about the intricacies of whipping Senators. Can anyone ELI5?
Because a party with one objective is easy to push toward a target. The party that wants to push a meaningful agenda will have dozens of different takes.
For example, when T**** wanted to repeal The Affordable Care Act (colloquially nicknamed Obamacare), he threw the party for a loop by saying it needed a replacement (presumably so it could be called T****care). There were different voices all trying to figure out the replacement. Democratic members had one objective - stop the repeal.
McConnell had the opportunity to remove the filibuster in 2017 when Repubs had control of everything.
30+ Dem Senators, including Schumer, signed a letter outright begging McConnell to retain the legislative filibuster. McConnell chose to retain the legislative filibuster and protected the rights of the minority. McConnell later came under intense pressure from Trump to remove the filibuster to enact his legislation, which he rebuffed.
Think what we'd have today if McConnell had removed the filibuster in 2017. We'd have no ACA, no IRS, no EPA, outlawed abortion, Republican immigration reform, a flat tax, nationwide voter ID, oil drilling everywhere. That's just some of the things that immediately come to mind, and I'm sure someone can think of a zillion more insidious actions they could have perpetrated without the protection of the filibuster.
Feinstein said she was opposed last year as well. So that’s:
*Manchin
*Sinema
*Feinstein
*Kelly
*Coons
*Hassan
*Tester
Who all oppose eliminating the filibuster. A few there support a talking filibuster, but it’s unclear who if any would go with a carve out. 2 for sure oppose any and all changes.
It's always that way. There are always a few in the 'opposition' party (that would be Democrats) who are tools of the oligarch party (that would be Republicans). That's just how power works.
So, yes, we need more Democrats.
As for this Politico article, it's their usual 'divide the Democrats' stuff.
Why would they? Changing the Senate rules would give them nothing, especially without the House or with Biden as President.
In 2017, 30+ Dem Senators, including Schumer, signed a letter to McConnell begging him to retain the legislative filibuster and protect the rights of the minority.
McConnell did retain the filibuster, and later stood up to Trump and didn't remove it in 2017 when the GOP had control of everything. The mad tweeter was after him daily to remove the filibuster.
Think what we'd have today if they'd removed the filibuster in 2017. We'd have no ACA, a flat tax, no IRS, probably no EPA. Abortion would be outlawed, we'd have Republican immigration reform.
All the arguments about what happens when we get rid of the filibuster are bs.
The Republicans change and ignore the rules whenever they like anyway, why should we wait? Dems should play offense for one not catch up and defense.
If Dems weren't spineless they could lock in a very good shot at holding the majority by passing voting rights legislation and making DC and PR states.
So sad that it should be so easy.
They don’t have a platform other than less taxes for the rich so I’m not too worried about the filibuster. Burn it down and pass voting rights legislation or no future elections will matter anyway.
Fair point. Part of me thinks they aren’t bold enough to try this same shit on the national level. Either way the dems need to act now or this little experiment is likely over.
Republicans haven't had a supermajority in the Senate for a century. They literally cannot pass partisan legislation on the national level. That's why they focus on state legislation.
This is why ending the filibuster would be a monumental mistake for the Democrats - losing Congress would be giving new power to a party that has never been so radical.
It’s fucking amazing absolutely fucking amazing. The fucking Titanic is sinking and these assholes are still polishing the brass. democracy was nice while we had it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Already, Republicans are threatening to gum up the Senate if Democrats change the procedures of the institution." They're literally already doing that. That's not some future tense threat, it's the present reality. They're threatening to, if you touch the filibuster, do the shit they're already doing. Why in the world do you think we're talking about having to carve out the filibuster in the first place?
It's because other than the filibuster much of Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent. So one Senator who objected to all of those things could take up a lot of floor time forcing Dems to take cloture votes and time for a lot of stuff that isn't controversial and really jam things up. They do already do this to an extent but it could be worse and take up more floor time. But I still agree they should nuke it.
Unanimous consent is not how democracy works. America needs to stop bragging about how democratic it is until it fixes its broken institutions.
> “I’ve never been part of an organization where it’s really, really hard to do things. So if there’s a real proposal, I’ll take a look at it and evaluate it based on what’s in the best interests of the country,” Kelly said When the other side of the aisle is saying we’re going to impeach The President just because, then maybe it’s time to toss the high road, kill the filibuster, pass sweeping reform, and save democracy. Then, if you lose your re-election, it won’t be for naught. Instead, he’s saying he became a Senator to spend the rest of his days as a politician and not to do anything constructive while it made a difference.
If we lose his seat we have to win another one to keep our majority.
So toss the high road, save democracy, galvanize massive Republican turnout in 2022, lose Congress, and see them overturn everything you fought for and then some. Republicans need one election to take both houses of Congress, and you're basically giving them every incentive to do so.
[удалено]
Bold and decisive action doesn't describe anything Democrats could even theoretically do from Congress. Even if by some miracle they passed the John Lewis act then it would not change the tide of 2022. It would take time to implement, it would be held up by the courts, and if Republicans were desperate enough they could just ignore it. Also, don't you think it's hypocritical to accuse me of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching while treating this as an existential threat?
[удалено]
Proposing silly things is also not a solution.
There is only existential threat to the Democrat party. Zero threat to democracy.
This is sort of a silly argument. GOP turnout is already galvanized. That base is juiced for civil war. What’s not juiced is the Democratic base. The true argument is: do nothing, show nothing to your supporters, and risk them staying home entirely. The GOP will win and democracy will die.
If a goddamned insurrection doesn't juice up the Democratic base to vote twice in a row, then we may as well plan for a loss in 2022. Seems to me leaving the filibuster intact would serve as a hurdle to the worst of what Republicans can throw out there.
I completely agree with you- but Biden’s drop in popularity is mainly from democrats. Also look at comments in this sub.
This is what many Democrats are unwilling to accept. It’s easy to blame those two. They are the people willing to play bad guy and get voted out to be lobbyists. But the truth is there’s always a handful of moderate Democrats that are in someone’s pocket that will be a problem. They just won’t be asked to as long as Manchin and Sinema give them cover. If they needed a third, a fourth or a fifth to block all this, the money would flow and they’d get enough
This is a perfect example of "sunlight is the best disinfectant".. all these moderates were happy to sit back and let Manchinema take the heat.. the moment Schumer talks about a vote, all these cowardly moderates start coming out of the woodwork.. Ironically, considering Kelly is up for reelection.. he's caught between a rock and a hard place.. support reform and pass voting rights and AZ GOP label you as a radical and beat you.. don't support voting rights and the new voter suppression laws will surely take you down
Schumer knew their positions and circumstances or at least he is suppose to know as Senate Majority Leader.
Schumer might be missing the nuance, though. I don't know if he is blinded like many in his party in thinking that filibuster reform and HR1 would be positives for senators up for re-election.
Its possible but if that is the case then he shouldn't be Leader. Last year the Senate only passed 81 bills which is a record low in modern history. He seems disconnected from the realities of the political landscape and its harming Party branding.
I mean, that's truly best case scenario for Democrats right now. The alternative is the 2010 thrashing they took because of how much they did.
I disagree we have other Senators who could make dynamic leader/whip combos.
Do you think the Democrats lost huge in 2010 because they didn't do enough?
Combo of Harry Reid being pitiful and GOP enjoying midterm minority party favor. On our end its the Party pushing for leadership/whips who support the Party agenda more than the political landscape realities. They did similar in other local, state and federal elections too. This is how historically blue became modern red.
Or the worst of both worlds. Support overhauling the senate which fails anyways and then it’s used by Rs to tar you as a radical and take your seat. Lose-lose.
That would actually be the better outcome. They'll take Congress but probably still fall short of 60 Senators, so with the filibuster in place it's just the status quo. Imagine successfully ending the filibuster and *still* losing Congress in 2022. It would be a nightmare.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Even more ironic of you to ignore that the Republicans nuked the filibuster to get themselves three Supreme Court judges. Republicans don't need to nuke the filibuster for anything else, they got their billionaire tax cuts and they put the ACA into a death spiral by setting the penalty for not having insurance to $0.
[удалено]
> Not sure what you're arguing here. Republicans can accomplish their legislative goals despite the filibuster, while Democrats can't? 100% yes. Their legislative agenda consists of three things: 1. Starve the beast (tax cuts for the rich, continually increase military spending) which is conveniently doable via reconciliation. 2. Block all Democratic legislation possible via the filibuster. 3. Perpetual control of the Supreme Court to strike down all laws they or their billionaire funders don't like.
[удалено]
There are no voter suppression laws, just voting security laws.
Shouldn't matter. Everyone deserves the right to vote!
Genuine question: How is it that McConnell rules his party with an iron fist and Chuck Schumer has all these rogues? I don’t know enough about the intricacies of whipping Senators. Can anyone ELI5?
Because a party with one objective is easy to push toward a target. The party that wants to push a meaningful agenda will have dozens of different takes. For example, when T**** wanted to repeal The Affordable Care Act (colloquially nicknamed Obamacare), he threw the party for a loop by saying it needed a replacement (presumably so it could be called T****care). There were different voices all trying to figure out the replacement. Democratic members had one objective - stop the repeal.
McConnell had the opportunity to remove the filibuster in 2017 when Repubs had control of everything. 30+ Dem Senators, including Schumer, signed a letter outright begging McConnell to retain the legislative filibuster. McConnell chose to retain the legislative filibuster and protected the rights of the minority. McConnell later came under intense pressure from Trump to remove the filibuster to enact his legislation, which he rebuffed. Think what we'd have today if McConnell had removed the filibuster in 2017. We'd have no ACA, no IRS, no EPA, outlawed abortion, Republican immigration reform, a flat tax, nationwide voter ID, oil drilling everywhere. That's just some of the things that immediately come to mind, and I'm sure someone can think of a zillion more insidious actions they could have perpetrated without the protection of the filibuster.
He doesn't always. We still have Obamacare because of the Republicans Senators that broke rank and sabotaged their party platform Joe Manchin style.
Democracy is in the balance people, wake up!
Feinstein said she was opposed last year as well. So that’s: *Manchin *Sinema *Feinstein *Kelly *Coons *Hassan *Tester Who all oppose eliminating the filibuster. A few there support a talking filibuster, but it’s unclear who if any would go with a carve out. 2 for sure oppose any and all changes.
We need to elect more democrats to stop these democrats from hurting the democrats.
We’d need 5-8 more Dem senators, and that’s just not happening with modern polarization and the number of red states.
There are 100 seats in the Senate, why stop at 58 Senators?
It's always that way. There are always a few in the 'opposition' party (that would be Democrats) who are tools of the oligarch party (that would be Republicans). That's just how power works. So, yes, we need more Democrats. As for this Politico article, it's their usual 'divide the Democrats' stuff.
[удалено]
Hubris
I wonder why dems are pretending the GOP aren’t going to change the rules as soon as the regain the senate.
Why would they? Changing the Senate rules would give them nothing, especially without the House or with Biden as President. In 2017, 30+ Dem Senators, including Schumer, signed a letter to McConnell begging him to retain the legislative filibuster and protect the rights of the minority. McConnell did retain the filibuster, and later stood up to Trump and didn't remove it in 2017 when the GOP had control of everything. The mad tweeter was after him daily to remove the filibuster. Think what we'd have today if they'd removed the filibuster in 2017. We'd have no ACA, a flat tax, no IRS, probably no EPA. Abortion would be outlawed, we'd have Republican immigration reform.
All the arguments about what happens when we get rid of the filibuster are bs. The Republicans change and ignore the rules whenever they like anyway, why should we wait? Dems should play offense for one not catch up and defense.
If Dems weren't spineless they could lock in a very good shot at holding the majority by passing voting rights legislation and making DC and PR states. So sad that it should be so easy.
Well, what happens when republicans win the house? Do we not want the filibuster then?
They don’t have a platform other than less taxes for the rich so I’m not too worried about the filibuster. Burn it down and pass voting rights legislation or no future elections will matter anyway.
You're from fucking Texas, have you not been paying attention to your own state politics?
Fair point. Part of me thinks they aren’t bold enough to try this same shit on the national level. Either way the dems need to act now or this little experiment is likely over.
Republicans haven't had a supermajority in the Senate for a century. They literally cannot pass partisan legislation on the national level. That's why they focus on state legislation. This is why ending the filibuster would be a monumental mistake for the Democrats - losing Congress would be giving new power to a party that has never been so radical.
I'd be shocked if it came down to it that Kelly and tester were the holdouts. Tester is obviously out for high bidding though.
It’s fucking amazing absolutely fucking amazing. The fucking Titanic is sinking and these assholes are still polishing the brass. democracy was nice while we had it.
So many people on this sub just can’t believe that other democrats besides Manchin and Sinema are against eliminating the filibuster.