The Democrat Utopia

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

One thing I don't get with Democrats... what's the plan after getting rid of the filibuster? 

 

Republicans are going to control the chamber from 2024 until the 2040s. Why do pundits insist on nuking the only tool Democrats can use? Granted, most of the GOP agenda can be passed via reconciliation, but still, Ds only hope for the next 2 decades is using the filibuster and using it often. 

 

Ostensibly the Voting Rights Bill would eliminate many of the barriers Republicans are trying to put in front of liberal voters, meaning the Dems will have a shot at controlling congress. 

 

Doesn't matter what the Dems do, though. The Republicans are so much better at pushing their agenda through. They're a far more unified body, even if they're a minority and their policies aren't favored by the electorate. They just have a better machine than the Dems. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Just now, knapplc said:

 

Ostensibly the Voting Rights Bill would eliminate many of the barriers Republicans are trying to put in front of liberal voters, meaning the Dems will have a shot at controlling congress. 

 

Doesn't matter what the Dems do, though. The Republicans are so much better at pushing their agenda through. They're a far more unified body, even if they're a minority and their policies aren't favored by the electorate. They just have a better machine than the Dems. 

They absolutely do. The main problem with Democrats and the filibuster is... the geographic reality of the Senate.

 

Unless they rewrite the constitution to proportionally allocate Senators, these voting rights bills are helpful but don't fix the problem. The Republican bias in the Senate is extreme and unfixable. Why nuke the only tool you will have at your disposal for the next 2 decades?

[RedDenver]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

One thing I don't get with Democrats... what's the plan after getting rid of the filibuster? 

 

Republicans are going to control the chamber from 2024 until the 2040s. Why do pundits insist on nuking the only tool Democrats can use? Granted, most of the GOP agenda can be passed via reconciliation, but still, Ds only hope for the next 2 decades is using the filibuster and using it often. 

What's the plan to prevent the GOP from nuking the filibuster once they have control?

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

What's the plan to prevent the GOP from nuking the filibuster once they have control?

Nothing, but there are good chances in favorable election cycles where they won't need to. If Republicans do well in 2022, they are poised to dominate the Senate in 2024. They could get to 60, although it's unlikely. 

 

But Democrats should probably use the filibuster as much as possible, it's their only hope in the future. They're better served hoping Republicans nuke the filibuster to pass unpopular policy, giving them an opening to win increasingly difficult elections.

 

 

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Nothing, but there are good chances in favorable election cycles where they won't need to. If Republicans do well in 2022, they are poised to dominate the Senate in 2024. They could get to 60, although it's unlikely. 

 

But Democrats should probably use the filibuster as much as possible, it's their only hope in the future. They're better served hoping Republicans nuke the filibuster to pass unpopular policy, giving them an opening to win increasingly difficult elections.

 

 

 

So the Democrats' choice is to nuke the filibuster and pass legislation now, legislation which is quite popular (voting rights, healthcare, infrastructure, etc), and roll with the chances that they may lose House or Senate or both in the future, OR let the Republicans block their agenda when they control the two legislative bodies & the White House, then if/when the Republicans get back in a majority in either chamber, the Dems' agenda is once again kaput. And we know for a fact that McConnell and his ilk will nuke the filibuster at a moment's notice to pass their agenda. 

 

If it's a lose/lose scenario like this for the Dems, they're better off just killing it and ruling as the majority party while they're the majority party. If the country doesn't like it and votes them out... that's democracy, isn't it?

[Dr. Strangelove]

8 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

So the Democrats' choice is to nuke the filibuster and pass legislation now, legislation which is quite popular (voting rights, healthcare, infrastructure, etc), and roll with the chances that they may lose House or Senate or both in the future, OR let the Republicans block their agenda when they control the two legislative bodies & the White House, then if/when the Republicans get back in a majority in either chamber, the Dems' agenda is once again kaput. And we know for a fact that McConnell and his ilk will nuke the filibuster at a moment's notice to pass their agenda. 

 

If it's a lose/lose scenario like this for the Dems, they're better off just killing it and ruling as the majority party while they're the majority party. If the country doesn't like it and votes them out... that's democracy, isn't it?

I think this is an over simplification. Republicans are going to control the Senate for a very long time, probably decades and the filibuster is going to be their best weapon against them. 

 

If Democrats nuke the filibuster today, it's still unlikely they can pass bills with 50 votes. Their coalition is dependent on Sen. Manchin, from a state Trump won by 35 points, Sen. Tester of Montana, another state Trump easily won, and other similar Senators. 

 

Democrats are in a lose-lose scenario, but my opinion would be to play the long game and use the filibuster until Republicans kill it. At that point, hope that they can use that moment to recapture the Senate in a new political alignment. 

[RedDenver]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I think this is an over simplification. Republicans are going to control the Senate for a very long time, probably decades and the filibuster is going to be their best weapon against them. 

 

If Democrats nuke the filibuster today, it's still unlikely they can pass bills with 50 votes. Their coalition is dependent on Sen. Manchin, from a state Trump won by 35 points, Sen. Tester of Montana, another state Trump easily won, and other similar Senators. 

 

Democrats are in a lose-lose scenario, but my opinion would be to play the long game and use the filibuster until Republicans kill it. At that point, hope that they can use that moment to recapture the Senate in a new political alignment. 

You keep assuming the GOP will shrug their shoulders and leave the filibuster in place.

 

Plus purely being obstructionists is not going to win any votes. People hate that Congress can't get anything done. IMO Dems are better off nuking the filibuster, getting some things done, and taking their chances with the voters than getting nothing done now and naively hoping the GOP will be nice to them and keep the filibuster - which is the best case and still just leads to the Dems being nothing more than obstructionists.

[knapplc]

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

Republicans are going to control the Senate for a very long time

 

I think this is the oversimplification.

 

There's no current evidence that would give the Republicans the majority, let alone for "a very long time." Republicans are pushing an unpopular agenda, tied to an unpopular political figure. Toomey is retiring, Johnson is vulnerable, and those are both from states Biden won outright. Biden narrowly lost North Carolina, where Burr is retiring. 

 

Republicans need to flip seats, but the most vulnerable Democrats like Warnock in Georgia and Kelly in Arizona have no true opponents yet. Herschel Walker may run in Georgia, but he has to establish residency first, and overcome the stank of trump. Warnock rode to victory on anti-trump sentiment. I know Walker is a local legend, but that's a lot to overcome. 

 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

One thing I don't get with Democrats... what's the plan after getting rid of the filibuster? 

 

Republicans are going to control the chamber from 2024 until the 2040s. Why do pundits insist on nuking the only tool Democrats can use? Granted, most of the GOP agenda can be passed via reconciliation, but still, Ds only hope for the next 2 decades is using the filibuster and using it often. 

AMEN!!!!

 

Democrats that want this, aren't thinking about what it's going to be like to be the minority without the filibuster.  Republicans have already proven that they aren't any more moral and will put the filibuster back in when they have the chance.

It's idiotic that a party wants to take away one of the few powers a minority has because eventually, they will be the minority again.

 

It's such a short sighted view of the world.

[BigRedBuster]

22 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

You keep assuming the GOP will shrug their shoulders and leave the filibuster in place.

Make THEM be the a$$h@!es that get rid of it.

 

These two parties are hell bent on racing to the bottom.

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Make THEM be the a$$h@!es that get rid of it.

 

These two parties are hell bent on racing to the bottom.

So if the Dems do that, they'll make the GOP get rid of the filibuster but so what? Are voters really going to vote out the GOP because of it? I doubt it.

 

Meanwhile, the Dems will have done nothing and passed no notable legislation, so why would voters vote for them again if they're getting nothing done? IMO the apathy of the Dem base and those independents who might have voted for them will far surpass the number of voters who might not vote for them due to the filibuster. It's also why I think the GOP will nuke the filibuster once they're back in power.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

So if the Dems do that, they'll make the GOP get rid of the filibuster but so what? Are voters really going to vote out the GOP because of it? I doubt it.

 

Meanwhile, the Dems will have done nothing and passed no notable legislation, so why would voters vote for them again if they're getting nothing done? IMO the apathy of the Dem base and those independents who might have voted for them will far surpass the number of voters who might not vote for them due to the filibuster. It's also why I think the GOP will nuke the filibuster once they're back in power.

Nope….still not for a majority taking away what little power the minority has. We will end up with ever wider extreme swings in legislation that I’m not for….either way.  

[RedDenver]

 

[nic]

5 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

So the Democrats' choice is to nuke the filibuster and pass legislation now, legislation which is quite popular (voting rights, healthcare, infrastructure, etc), and roll with the chances that they may lose House or Senate or both in the future, OR let the Republicans block their agenda when they control the two legislative bodies & the White House, then if/when the Republicans get back in a majority in either chamber, the Dems' agenda is once again kaput. And we know for a fact that McConnell and his ilk will nuke the filibuster at a moment's notice to pass their agenda. 

 

If it's a lose/lose scenario like this for the Dems, they're better off just killing it and ruling as the majority party while they're the majority party. If the country doesn't like it and votes them out... that's democracy, isn't it?

The Dems love the filibuster as much as the Republicans. They used it a record amount last year. There are some in the ranks that I think hate it, but most think they need to save it for later. And I do not think the Repubs will nuke it either, because they won’t always be in control. This discussion seems to come up a lot. Is Manchin onboard with killing it? If not, it’s dead. A 50/50 senate is gonna actually have to compromise. I think there is a compromise  on infrastructure out there, and I thought I saw that Obama endorsed Manchin’s election reform bill. 

[knapplc]

2 hours ago, nic said:

And I do not think the Repubs will nuke it

 

LOL