Prime content is available to paid members, please join us
Mitch McConnell Caves, Allows the Senate to Organize
Discussion
Join our users to read our prime articles
It seems like this provides incentive for one of two political dynamics in the Senate: 1) a 10-15 member “Blue Dog-like” GOP caucus that votes on a fairly regular basis with the Democrats on procedural matters, allowing legislation to come to the floor. 2) a unified, obstructionist GOP caucus and a series of votes on widely popular and important legislation (e.g., Covid relief, $15 minimum wage, infrastructure) in which (and this is the important part) Manchin and Sinema get everything they want (or don’t want) in the bill, ultimately giving Dems the 50 votes they need to end the filibuster.… Read more »
Great points and I’ll add that much of Biden’s agenda has bi-partisan voter support.
1 – Raise taxes on companies. From Gallup polling 69% say corporations don’t pay enough
2 – Add a public option to Obamacare. Again from Gallup: 69% of Americans favor “a government-administered health plan that would compete with private health insurance plans and be available to all Americans”
3 – Increase infrastructure spending. Quinnipiac University poll puts this idea at 87% approval.
Start with the most popular ideas and dare the republicans to oppose them…
Nice article. I agree with everything except the line at the end about Manchin having it easier to be reelected as a Republican. This is only true if he doesn’t get primaried and in WV he’d be up against some terrible Trump stooge that would easily destroy him. Also, he had much more chance to switch previously and didn’t, so I don’t see why he’d do this. What I believe is that Schumer had the votes if push came to shove. McConnell couldn’t get it in writing which shows his weakness. There are also ways to reform the filibuster or… Read more »
True, voters care about results…which is why the filibuster is a problem. Another of the Senate’s arcane rules (or set of rules) is that nly budget-related items can be done through reconciliation. (This was a huge headache with passing the ACA after Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected to finish his term.)
A lot of the “results” voters are looking for can be done through the budget…but a lot of them can’t.
Does any voter in West Virginia or Montana really care enough about the arcane filibuster to change who they vote for Senator? I doubt it. I doubt that most people care at all. Manchin and Sinema are off the mark if they think anyone cares.
If I were Manchin, I’d be very dubious about switching parties. McConnell can promise him the sun, the moon and the stars but he can’t prevent a challenge from his right. And were that to happen, he’d have zero friends. In this environment, party hopping is dangerous. Of course it’s dangerous to run as a Democrat in a red state but I think that’s by far his better option. I imagine he’ll cast some votes that frustrate us but keep his chairmanship and remain a Democrat.
By this time next year the filibuster will be history. When something popular in AZ and WV can’t get a vote because of it, they’ll get on board with nuking it. And they’ll figure out that being the linchpins for any bill to pass comes with lots of perks.
McConnell is going to do whatever he can to continue destroying this country. Anyone who thinks that McConnell is doing something for the benefit of the country needs to seek immediate psychiatric help, because you’re having clear delusions. So, assume that whatever McConnell is doing, is to benefit the GOP.
The only real solution here is to admit new states and add more Senators to have enough votes to destroy the filibuster. Otherwise it will be obstruction until the GOP regains the Senate and House, so they can continue destroying this country.
Thanks for your comment. The problem with your proposed solution is there aren’t enough potential new states to admit to overcome a filibuster under current Senate rules. Adding four (presumably, though Puerto Rico regularly elects Republican-aligned governors) Democratic senators through the new states of PR and DC only get Democrats to 52% of the Senate. Dems would have to add at least 12(!) new states *and win every new seat* to control 60% of the Senate. (All of this just reinforces that Dems really need to 1) deliver the goods, and 2) move an agenda that attracts more rural and… Read more »
I’m not talking about adding new states to overcome the filibuster. I’m talking about adding new states so there are enough Democratic Senators (51) to vote to do away with the filibuster altogether.