Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

[malchior]

Joe Manchin keeps dropping op-eds about why he is all-in on the GOP destroying our democracy. I'll be 100% unsurprised when he starts voting against Biden judges because the process is too partisan.

[Smoove_B]

"While the GOP is actively trying to limit your ability to vote, I won't engage in partisan politics to protect those rights - using politics to address voting is wrong."

What a giant sack of shit he is.

EDIT: Best take

I’d like to thank @Sen_JoeManchin and @SenatorSinema for their sincere statements that nothing is more important to them than voting rights and that’s why they’re going to do absolutely nothing to protect them.

[Little Raven]

HB 1 never had anything close to 50 votes. Once again, Manchin is serving as the tip of the spear, but there are several Democratic Senators heaving a sigh of relief right now.

[Carpet_pissr]

Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

My first gut reaction to your tirade (which is totally forgivable IMO, given the situation), was almost exactly in line with the replies you saw already:
1. What you are suggesting is a GOP style "dirty tricks" playbook. Not technically illegal, but certainly goes against the "spirit" of the laws and the ideals of the country. Morally distasteful.
2. If we even COULD do what you are proposing (probably not even possible), we would practically become that which we are railing so hard against. I mean, the EXACT same shit you propose is the kind of shit that is and has already happened from the right, and has propelled us along this path to authoritarianism.

I guess the difference between my take and most of the replies I have seen is that some were suggesting that we would lose the country for sure if that were to happen, and I personally think we have already crossed that line and HAVE lost.

We "won" in November, technically, but only technically, in the most superficial way. Won the battle, lost the war and all that. November (and January's) results were similar to..maybe a late war battle/skirmish/encounter that Japan or Germany won against the Allies very late during WWII. Sure, they "won", but they were already losing, or so far down the losing path that it didn't matter (though I'm sure it felt good to them at the time, if they didn't look too far down the road at their future).

So I get your overall idea, and don't disagree with asking the REALLY important question, which is:

IF we have already "lost" (and I think the failed Jan 6 commission vote is a HUGE marker for that argument), and the gears and machination, and system is now and already in place to benefit the GOP (or whatever they have become) to get re-elected and stay in power for decades to come, what are we WILLING to do to prevent that?

Anything? No, that's why you are getting all the pushback. I think your response to that is "yes - whatever it takes".

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

We tried to do it the right way, but it wasn't enough. That's a stupid fairy tale, IMO...and a dangerous idea to teach kids...that "light" always somehow magically beats "dark"...for...reasons? No, sometimes (hell, OFTEN), the good guys lose, and lose hard.

[Drazzil]

Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

Have you ever REALLY considered what an unfettered GOP would do to this country? I'm sure the millions of POC living and working low wage jobs, who will be in for a LOT more suffering when the Republicans are in full command, and the millions of millennials unable to find living wage careers, and the tons of blacks who die to police every year and the continued ratcheted suffering of everyone who could not choose to be born rich and white would respect your high handed stance and refusal to bend towards reality.

If you have loved ones and family then you must do what you can today to protect them, because if you live in the US, some time in the not too distant future the government may get it into it's mind that you or a loved one needs to die. But then it'll be too late.

This is a moot point though, the Dems have already, I think made the agreement with the other side not to fight "too" hard. They will get cushy board seats, tickets out of the country, whatever they want down the line. When the GOP finally takes everything.

[Drazzil]

It's nice to see the Left has people as crazy as Qanon followers.

I agree with science, agree with facts and don't subscribe to (most) conspiracy theories. My views don't really change unless I am presented with the facts, I examine them and find them to be based in reality.

I am not a QANON.

[Drazzil]

Hmmm. Well, Drazzil, you certainly piqued my interest.

My first gut reaction to your tirade (which is totally forgivable IMO, given the situation), was almost exactly in line with the replies you saw already:
1. What you are suggesting is a GOP style "dirty tricks" playbook. Not technically illegal, but certainly goes against the "spirit" of the laws and the ideals of the country. Morally distasteful.
2. If we even COULD do what you are proposing (probably not even possible), we would practically become that which we are railing so hard against. I mean, the EXACT same shit you propose is the kind of shit that is and has already happened from the right, and has propelled us along this path to authoritarianism.

I guess the difference between my take and most of the replies I have seen is that some were suggesting that we would lose the country for sure if that were to happen, and I personally think we have already crossed that line and HAVE lost.

We "won" in November, technically, but only technically, in the most superficial way. Won the battle, lost the war and all that. November (and January's) results were similar to..maybe a late war battle/skirmish/encounter that Japan or Germany won against the Allies very late during WWII. Sure, they "won", but they were already losing, or so far down the losing path that it didn't matter (though I'm sure it felt good to them at the time, if they didn't look too far down the road at their future).

So I get your overall idea, and don't disagree with asking the REALLY important question, which is:

IF we have already "lost" (and I think the failed Jan 6 commission vote is a HUGE marker for that argument), and the gears and machination, and system is now and already in place to benefit the GOP (or whatever they have become) to get re-elected and stay in power for decades to come, what are we WILLING to do to prevent that?

Anything? No, that's why you are getting all the pushback. I think your response to that is "yes - whatever it takes".

So there are limits to what we can and should do, and feel morally comfortable doing. You can go the Machievelli/McConnell route, or you can go the Ghandi/Biden...Rousseau(?) route. Will Machievelli crush Ghandi when it comes to pure power grabs in a failing/failed Democracy? Yeah, probably. But PERSONALLY speaking, I would rather "lose" knowing I tried to do it the right way, with dignity and scruples, than "win" at all costs as you suggest. In a lot of ways, that's the easy way, and one of the biggest reasons I despise everything the modern GOP stands for: They couldn't do things the traditional, and right way and win, so they cheated. They bent the rules. They lied. They did things that had journalist (and many here) clutching their pearls for YEARS, and simply pointing out that it was "unprecedented" (because no one wanted to believe what was REALLY happening).

But even something as big as the fate of the country itself (which let's face it is already an idea on the verge of being too nebulous or ambiguous to really qualify) is not worth losing your soul. I am not looking for moral superiority, or some smug satisfaction that I didn't get in the dirt with the likes of the Giulianis, Gingriches and Stones of the world, either, it's not that. It's just that what you are suggesting is so distasteful to my personal sense of being/worth/whatever you want to call it, that I would refuse to sign on with it unless I was threatened with imminent death of a loved one or something along that scale.

We tried to do it the right way, but it wasn't enough. That's a stupid fairy tale, IMO...and a dangerous idea to teach kids...that "light" always somehow magically beats "dark"...for...reasons? No, sometimes (hell, OFTEN), the good guys lose, and lose hard.

Yeah. This route you propose? Its like kneeling in front of an executioners trench and waiting calmly for someone to come by to put a bullet in your head. It dooms yourself, your family, and hundreds of millions of other Americans to either live in Gilead, or fight a civil war to kill Gilead.

Not that you have any power to change things. This, is really a moot point. The die is already cast. What we do about it though, That's up to you.

[malchior]

HB 1 never had anything close to 50 votes. Once again, Manchin is serving as the tip of the spear, but there are several Democratic Senators heaving a sigh of relief right now.

This is unfortunately only a hypothetical because of the filibuster. I'd like to know so they can answer for their position.

[Carpet_pissr]

That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

[Drazzil]

That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

ROFL!!! ROFLROFLROFL!!!

[Holman]

Yeah. This route you propose? Its like kneeling in front of an executioners trench and waiting calmly for someone to come by to put a bullet in your head. It dooms yourself, your family, and hundreds of millions of other Americans to either live in Gilead, or fight a civil war to kill Gilead.

This is the kind of unrealistic talk that earns you an 11.

The Right doesn't want to be 1940s Germany running a Holocaust on dissidents and designated Others. It wants to be late-1800s America: the rich getting ever richer, workers employed but powerless, foreign policy determined by economics alone, and Christian whites unchallenged as the arbiters of culture and public life. Add to it that everyone will still be well entertained, so revolution will just feel like too much work.

[Little Raven]

This is unfortunately only a hypothetical because of the filibuster. I'd like to know so they can answer for their position.

Which is exactly why they are breathing sighs of relief. If they didn't have the filibuster, you'd have several Democratic Senators who would have to cast very uncomfortable votes. This way, everyone just gets to blame Manchin, who stands to gain electorally.

It's win-win for the Democrats.

[Little Raven]

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

I'm somewhere in the 2-3 territory. Not so much because I think what's going on isn't bad...I just don't think it's new. We're not falling apart at the seams so much as reverting to a pre-Cold War default.

[malchior]

That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Is is alarmism? I have for years felt there should be a 'HandHead in Sand Meter'.

[Skinypupy]

Not so much because I think what's going on isn't bad...I just don't think it's new. We're not falling apart at the seams so much as reverting to a pre-Cold War default.

I'm sure that will be consolation for all the currently disenfranchised or those about to become even moreso.

Whatever happens is probably not going to have a massive impact on my middle aged, hetero, financial stable, white guy day-to-day life. Those who fall in literally any other category in this country run the risk of feeling significant pain due to the voting rights that are being stripped wholesale by the GOP while assholes like Manchin stand idly by and shrug.

Your world might not fall apart at the seams, but I'm not so sure it will be the same for others.

[Drazzil]

Yeah. This route you propose? Its like kneeling in front of an executioners trench and waiting calmly for someone to come by to put a bullet in your head. It dooms yourself, your family, and hundreds of millions of other Americans to either live in Gilead, or fight a civil war to kill Gilead.

This is the kind of unrealistic talk that earns you an 11.

The Right doesn't want to be 1940s Germany running a Holocaust on dissidents and designated Others. It wants to be late-1800s America: the rich getting ever richer, workers employed but powerless, foreign policy determined by economics alone, and Christian whites unchallenged as the arbiters of culture and public life. Add to it that everyone will still be well entertained, so revolution will just feel like too much work.

You think that they ARENT going to have to be 1940's Gerrmany to hold the country in this state?

[malchior]

Not so much because I think what's going on isn't bad...I just don't think it's new. We're not falling apart at the seams so much as reverting to a pre-Cold War default.

I'm sure that will be consolation for all the currently disenfranchised or those about to become even moreso.

Whatever happens is probably not going to have a massive impact on my middle aged, hetero, financial stable, white guy day-to-day life. Those who fall in literally any other category in this country run the risk of feeling significant pain due to the voting rights that are being stripped wholesale by the GOP while assholes like Manchin stand idly by and shrug.

Your world might not fall apart at the seams, but I'm not so sure it will be the same for others.

I also don't get how this is not new. The GOP is setting up to steal elections and has been obstructing Democratic ruling legitimacy for years. Everything that is going on right now is *new* (for the United States). It is however typical in country's that see democratic backsliding which is why the experts are losing their shit right now.

This also exposes people beyond marginalized people to greater risks than they ever thought before. Even us middle-aged white guys. The more nations that fall into this abyss the more danger for everyone across the nation and amongst the community of democracies. This is a dangerous time and I still can't understand how people can't see it when it is happening in plain sight. We saw a violent attack on our Capitol this year! This is why I lose hope because people are normalizing things that should be unimaginable.

[pr0ner]

That's it. We need an OO "Alarmist" meter. Scale of 1 to 10.

Malchior has handily been unseated, and it's not even close (sorry, dude).

Fill in the gaps between with your own username if you think you peg the meter:

Drazzil: 11




Malchior: 9
Me: 8

Is Drazzil really being alarmist, or is he being his typical "I want to watch the country burn" self?

[Carpet_pissr]

Oops, meant to add LR to my Alarm-O-Meter when I made it. You've been a pretty consistent voice of pushback/reason in this ongoing discussion, and I agree with your self-labelled "2" designation.

Drazzil: 11

Malchior: 9
Holman: 8/9?
Me: 8




Lil' Raven: 2


N.B. these aren't value judgements, JUST placing us on a scale as it were, for...enlightenment purposes.

If you have trouble with the word "alarmist", please offer an alternative. I guess it depends on your definition. If you subscribe to the one that harps on "needless" alarm, then I'm out. Totally needed!! (sayeth the alarmist)

alarmism
n. A tendency to create alarms, or to be alarmed needlessly; a state of needless alarm; the condition or practice of an alarmist.
n. the act of giving, or tendency to give, needless warnings.
n. The production of needless alarms.

But this one seems to fit the bill pretty well:

Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat.

In my particular case, it's exaggerated alarm about a VERY real threat. OTOH, if you are facing a very real threat, is the implication that we shouldn't be alarmed? Or maybe just not alarmed in "an exaggerated manner"?! WTF.

If you believe we face a threat that is real, and are alarmed, then I guess we are just arguing about scale. HOW alarmed are you? Excessively? Minimally? Who's measuring that shit?! Apparently me, now, with my handy dandy Alarm-o-Meter(TM)

[Blackhawk]

ROFL!!! ROFLROFLROFL!!!

Is Drazzil the Hamburglar?

[malchior]

If you have trouble with the word "alarmist", please offer an alternative. I guess it depends on your definition. If you subscribe to the one that harps on "needless" alarm, then I'm out. Totally needed!! (sayeth the alarmist

Alarmist has a negative connotation in policy discussions. I pushed back on it lightly because I find it to be a way used by 'very serious people' to act like adults in the room by looking down their nose at people about their 'unseriousness'. There isn't a good single axis value for this IMO anyway. There are too many variables. I think a good metric would be predictive power against the number of alarms. But who wants to deal with that.

But this one seems to fit the bill pretty well:

Alarmism is excessive or exaggerated alarm about a real or imagined threat.

In my particular case, it's exaggerated alarm about a VERY real threat. OTOH, if you are facing a very real threat, is the implication that we shouldn't be alarmed? Or maybe just not alarmed in "an exaggerated manner"?! WTF.

The word 'exaggerated' carries a lot here. Too much perhaps in its lack of precision.

If you believe we face a threat that is real, and are alarmed, then I guess we are just arguing about scale. HOW alarmed are you? Excessively? Minimally? Who's measuring that shit?! Apparently me, now, with my handy dandy Alarm-o-Meter(TM)

This is what I wonder about. What's even harder to quantify is when many of the 'serious folks' start breaking towards recognizing the reality you were predicting and they just remember the "alarmism" instead of the accuracy.

[Kraken]

The alarmist scale should be a thread.

[Little Raven]

I'm sure that will be consolation for all the currently disenfranchised or those about to become even moreso.

I dunno what to tell you, man. The US has not always been a shining example of harmony and grace. And history does not only move in one direction.

Go read about politics prior to WW II. For much of American history, hyper-partisanship has been the norm. If you read Democratic and Republican newspapers from the 1900s, you'd be forgiven for thinking they were describing two completely different countries. It wasn't all that long ago that American companies routinely purchased machine guns for "labor relations." Tammany Hall didn't just stumble into its reputation - it was hard earned and well deserved. January 6th wasn't even the first time a mob has tried to overthrow the government - at least, if you believe MacArthur.

It took the Cold War - an external enemy representing an existential threat - to bring that era to a close, but even that proved temporary. And frankly, even that required a lot of compromises that a lot of us probably wouldn't be comfortable with today. Remember, when we had Cronkite, we also had a tiny number of news sources, all of whom collaborated with the US government on a routine basis. The government could (and frequently did) lie with impunity. Even questioning the motives of government officials was enough to get your life ruined if you weren't careful. I mean, shouldn't it give us pause that so many conservatives want to return to those days?

Politics is the US has generally been a bare-knuckle affair, and it's hard to see how it could be otherwise, when we're so large and so diverse. We just need to keep the head trauma to a minimum.

[malchior]

So all the experts, many of whom are leading historians, hanging off the fire alarm are overreacting and overlooking history?

[Little Raven]

Experts fretting about the end of American democracy isn't new either.

Obviously, you can't get complacent - Democracy is a participatory event, after all. But none of this is new.

[malchior]

Experts fretting about the end of American democracy isn't new either.

Obviously, you can't get complacent - Democracy is a participatory event, after all. But none of this is new.

Sure. There have always been doomsayers and a couple of difficult periods of hyper partisanship. The real question was why shouldn't I believe 100s of experts telling us we are in big trouble? That's the disconnect for me. How are they wrong?

As to newness...I don't buy it. 1/6, the impeachment, and subsequent filibuster of the 1/6 investigation bill are definitely new. Trump's hold on the party after a loss is very, very rare if not new. We're treading all new ground all the time here right now.

[Little Raven]

There have always been doomsayers and a couple of difficult periods of hyper partisanship.

Doomsayers? THAT'S how you categorize Toynbee and Lippmann? But a Washington Post article about "100 experts" is a hill worth dying on?

Believe as you will, Mal. You always do.

[malchior]

There have always been doomsayers and a couple of difficult periods of hyper partisanship.

Doomsayers? THAT'S how you categorize Toynbee and Lippmann? But a Washington Post article about "100 experts" is a hill worth dying on?

Figure of speech on the Doomsayers. There have always been people who've questioned the longevity of a system. Anyway the comment is aimed well beyond the WaPo article. Experts on backsliding have been saying this for years now. People who were talking about our problems in just 2018 are now like, "woah...even we didn't expect it to be this bad!'

In any case, I could even pick up what you were putting down here before 1/6. Afterwards, and as the situation is worsening...this nonchalance doesn't make much sense to me.

[malchior]

Washington Monthly

Joe Manchin is once again playing the role of the Grinch who stole the chance to save democracy. In a op-ed today in the Charleston Mail-Gazette, Manchin reiterated his position that he will not vote to pass a voting rights bill without Republican support, and will not vote to weaken the filibuster.

His stated reason, ironically, is that to do so would be a threat to democracy itself and “tear the nation apart.” The key quote from Manchin’s op-ed is as follows:

Unfortunately, we now are witnessing that the fundamental right to vote has itself become overtly politicized. Today’s debate about how to best protect our right to vote and to hold elections, however, is not about finding common ground, but seeking partisan advantage. Whether it is state laws that seek to needlessly restrict voting or politicians who ignore the need to secure our elections, partisan policymaking won’t instill confidence in our democracy — it will destroy it.

As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.

Many have taken a cynical or materialist approach to analyzing Manchin’s position, speculating about his donors, re-election prospects or potential sinecures. But this is probably overthinking it. Manchin is comfortably wealthy; he doesn’t have donor networks outside the normal for Senators; the GOP is going to come furiously for his seat in conservative West Virginia no matter what he does; and all of blue America is so desperate for his cooperation that he would have no problems securing a comfortably lucrative position in retirement.

Most of those who know Manchin closely indicate that he truly believes what he says: that he is the one saving democracy from collapse by keeping partisanship from tearing the country apart. As he said today on Face the Nation in an interview with CBS’ John Dickerson:

The bottom line is the fundamental purpose of- of our democracy is the freedom of our elections. If we can’t come to an agreement on that, God help us, John. And someone’s got to fight for this. And we’ve got to say, listen, the divided country that we’re in today, the insurrection that we saw on January the 6th, if we don’t try to heal that, if we don’t make every effort and go beyond the call of duty, then what are we and who are we? We’ve been known to go around the world and promote democracy and observe other elections. What kind of credibility do you think we have in doing that today? So I’m going to fight for this and I think the Republicans will fight for this and understand we must come together on a voting rights bill in a bipartisan way. You can’t divide our country further by thinking you’ve given leeway to one or the other.

In the interest of good faith, let us take Manchin at his word and presume that he honestly believes what he says here.

The problem is that this way of thinking about the politics of voting rights is deeply dangerous. It is the logic of appeasement, of caving to the demands of hostage takers and perpetrators of political violence. It literally legitimizes insurrectionists and gives credence to their platform in an effort to placate them.

The right to vote didn’t become “politicized” out of nowhere. Republicans politicized it because they are fundamentally opposed to democracy. There is no negotiating with that position. You cannot heal it by appeasing it.

Democrats aren’t immorally restricting the franchise to tilt the balance of power unjustly in the favor; Republicans are. Democrats aren’t telling lies about who won the last election; Republicans are. Liberal activists didn’t foment a violent insurrection against the United States to prevent the formal certification of an election; conservatives did. The left isn’t in the thrall of vile propaganda networks and social media cults accusing their opponents of intentionally unleashing a pandemic in cooperation with the Chinese, or of running a global Satanic pedophile cabal; the right is. There is no “both sides” to play here, and therefore no compromise to be had.

You can’t heal the problems that created the January 6th insurrection by caving to the demands of those who helped to enable it. In an alternate universe where Republicans were acting in good faith and serious about “securing” our elections, you might see a bipartisan voting rights bill that included anti-gerrymandering reforms and universal voter registration, plus a free national ID card for every citizen for voter verification and stricter transparency over electronic voting machines. But we don’t live in that universe, because Republicans don’t actually care about securing elections. They want to be able to continue to dominate policy and ensure that older white evangelical conservatives remain in total control despite being heavily outnumbered. They’re opposed to democracy itself.

The partisan aggression is entirely one-sided. Asymmetric polarization has been occurring for decades since at least the Gingrich era if not Nixon himself, but the age of Trump has accelerated it to mach speed. Republican state legislatures are moving fast to harden themselves against any form of public accountability, not only suppressing votes but setting themselves up to deny even the possibility of certifying Democratic wins in states that are rapidly turning blue. The Republican Attorney General in Texas just said that if he hadn’t sued to stop mail ballots from being sent out to every voter, Trump would have lost Texas–an open admission that stopping people from voting was essential to Republican victory.

It’s important to note here that Republicans could moderate their policies and positions to try to win a majority of voters. That’s how politics are supposed to work. They just refuse to. They already have enormous institutional advantages in the Senate and in the Electoral College, both of which tilt heavily in their favor. To win a majority of Senate seats and electoral college votes even in under otherwise fair rules, Democrats must already appeal to voters well to the right of the national median. The deck is already stacked heavily in conservatives’ favor even without explicit cheating. gerrymandering or suppression. But they can’t even bring themselves to become moderate enough to win majorities of an R+4 tilted electorate. They insist on permanent rule no matter how much their numbers shrink. At a policy level, they insist on ruling mostly to advantage only their own voters and to make liberals explicitly suffer–and they want to inoculate themselves from electoral backlash after doing it.

[YellowKing]

If only this was simple partisanship. It has moved well beyond "I cheer for my team."

[Zarathud]

It would be different if Sen. Manchin had an idea on how to convince some Republicans to sign on or to honestly participate in compromise.

[malchior]

I can't help but wonder when we start hearing some realization that most if not all of Biden's agenda is in deep trouble without some major and frankly unforeseeable landscape shift.

[Zarathud]

Democrats need to over-perform in the mid-terms by gaining seats, not losing them. We effectively got a tie in 2020 and that’s not enough.

[El Guapo]

Can we send Rand Paul's neighbor over to Manchin's house?

[Little Raven]

Democrats need to over-perform in the mid-terms by gaining seats, not losing them. We effectively got a tie in 2020 and that’s not enough.

This. You don't get radical change with 50 Senators. FDR had 58 when he took office and spent most of his term with 65+. You want FDR style Federal makeovers, you have to deliver FDR style congressional majorities.

[malchior]

Democrats need to over-perform in the mid-terms by gaining seats, not losing them. We effectively got a tie in 2020 and that’s not enough.

They'd have to buck 100 years of results in the face of widesweeping restrictions and gerrymandering. I'll still say that the House almost certainly will fall. The Senate is a crap shoot but they can't get 60 so aiming to keep the majority is the best they'll likely get. Though beating on this drum loudly and often is very important this year. They have to pull out all stops to keep the House and Senate.

[Smoove_B]

Have I been living in an alternate reality this whole time?

McConnell kicks off his weekly presser: “It’s pretty clear the era of bipartisanship is over...”

Calls Paycheck Fairness Act (expected time be filibustered by Senate Rs later today) “essentially a giveaway to plaintiff lawyers in America.”

[El Guapo]

Well, McConnell is right about bipartisanship.

[malchior]

He also is looking to block the John Lewis Voting Rights Act which is Manchin's bipartisan hope.



Edit: the day has moved fast. Infrastructure talks with thr Capito lead GOP group collapsed as well. The cynic in me wonders if Manchin has signaled he won't vote for it without a GOP vote and they will oblige him. Meanwhile Biden will burn even more time with the G20 group.

[malchior]

Another note is that Capito is burning the bridge by flat out lying about negotiating a fair deal (it was a sham) and saying Bifen ended it unilaterally. She was playing the usual game. Invite the Democrat to negotiate against himself and then still pull the ball away to run out the clock.