It is damn near impossible to get anything done with a 50/50 Senate.

[dutch508]

kentuck (103,956 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216229075

It is damn near impossible to get anything done with a 50/50 Senate.

Especially when issues like the filibuster and voting rights are more popular with the opposing Party in states like West Virginia and Arizona. Democratic Senators in those states do not gain votes by voting for those issues. They win votes by voting against them. That is the crux of the matter.

Democrats need to have a more workable majority if they wish to change the filibuster and pass the new voting rights legislation. Once they get the majority, they need to use it.

The filibuster is nothing more than a relic from the Jim Crow era and America's racist past. It should be disposed of at first opportunity. It's sort of like the state lines of places like ND, SD, and WY that were drawn to give specific advantage to Republican and corporate interests in the US Senate. It is a part of the systemic racism in this country, from a political vantage point.

 

HariSeldon (192 posts)

1. This is the majority we have

The danger, if we don't use this majority to pass voting rights legislation, is that we might never again be allowed to have a majority, starting with the results of this year's election.

Karma13612 (3,342 posts)

3. I still can't fathom

That not a single solitary Republican Senator will come forward and support sane legislation. I am just heartbroken that we are at this point. That it is purely partisan.

All these Senators are OK with screwing over their constituents because they have to tow the party line instead of voting FOR legislation that will actually HELP their own voters.

If these same voters complained that their Senators have somehow betrayed them (voting against the party line), the politicians should say: They are voting for things that are GOOD for you.

Politicians have no trouble taking away our rights (voting, women’s choice) but heaven forbid they actually help.

cadoman (583 posts)

9. we could probably pull a Murkowski or Romney or Collins over, thing is...

...the kinds of adjustments that would bring them in would likely displease some of our more progressive members. It'd drag the bill a lot closer to the center and thus, mediocrity. But sometimes mediocrity, or a lack of drama and discontent, is welcome (esp. post-drumpf).

It's not gonna be a popular idea, but rather than go all-in on BBB, Biden could try to navigate a path that brought Manchin/Sinema and the anti-drumpf right into the fold (I'm thinking again, Murkowski/Romney/Collins and maybe some others).

At that point, you at least have a block of five or so "center" Senators that can be the point of compromise, and allow us to get a few things done. Use that momentum to hold down the House and Senate for another year and build from there.

The focus on voting rights legislation is a bit overblown and really does a disservice to how well we performed last election. Biden got the most Presidential votes in history, which is a huge accomplishment and a sign of widespread support. Why are we beating ourselves up and acting like we can't get the vote out, when we just got the vote out better than ever in history?  We struggled in the House and Senate, but the fastest way to fix that is legislative victories that appeal to independents, and recruiting good candidates by projecting _confidence_ in the party, instead of despair. Use the recent retirements to recruit young and diverse candidates with energy and broad appeal.

Mad_Machine76 (21,885 posts)

5. This is the only realistic solution

I hope people show up in 2022 to vote Blue and don't sit at home pouting because we have two sh**ty Senators who are veering Republican. If we show up more for Democrats and progressives, we can win more legislative fights.

Star Member brooklynite (74,957 posts)

6. Getting a solid majority won't be easy.

Three Senators are at risk in 2022: Hassan (NH), Warnock (GA) and Cortez-Masto (NV). We have to hold those AND pick up seats in PA, WI, OH, IA, NC, none of which are shoe-ins.

HariSeldon (192 posts)

7. It might not get us the Senate, but...

What if Democratically controlled states pass a law that in-person voting requires proof of vaccination?

Mail in ballots to be available until three days before the election for any not vaxxed. And funny how the voting rights legislation before Congress would disallow that law. If the laws stand, Democrats win a majority in the House. If the national voting rights legislation passes, we get a fair election. Win/win.

 

ChoppinBroccoli (3,508 posts)

8. The Reality Is We Actually Have A 52-48 Senate

And we can't get anything done because 2 Senators with Ds after their names vote with the Rs on all the important issues. We can neutralize them by taking 2 more seats this year. It won't be easy, but it can be done. Portman's seat and Ron Johnson's seat are particularly ripe for a pickup, and I'm sure there are a few more as well

 

[SVPete]

The writers of the USC designed the Senate to make it difficult for populous states to exploit and oppress the less populous. kt's whine is against the Senate's design, poor baby.

[ADsOutburst]

What if Democratically controlled states pass a law that in-person voting requires proof of vaccination?

Hmmm, wouldn't you want the possessor of such a card to have something else to prove that they were the person whose name was on the card? You know, a whaddya-call-it, an... ID???

[freedumb2003b]

Good.  The best thing for the People is when Congress does nothing.

[freedumb2003b]

HariSeldon (192 posts)

7. It might not get us the Senate, but...

What if Democratically controlled states pass a law that in-person voting requires proof of vaccination?

Mail in ballots to be available until three days before the election for any not vaxxed. And funny how the voting rights legislation before Congress would disallow that law. If the laws stand, Democrats win a majority in the House. If the national voting rights legislation passes, we get a fair election. Win/win.

Wait.

Vote requiring ID = racism
Vote requiring VAX passports which requires ID = YAY FOR OUR SIDE!

[DLR Pyro]

They sure do like to play with a stacked deck...

[DefiantSix]

They sure do like to play with a stacked deck...

...full of marked cards. Since Kennedy/Johnson, it's about the only way the leftists can win elections anymore.

 

[Texacon]

You know, I heard a guy on the radio make a very interesting point a couple of months ago.

He said; WHY do the democrats have the majority in the senate?  They shouldn't, the Republicans actually have the majority.

Here's why he said that, there are 49 Democrat senators, 50 Republican senators, and ONE independent senator (Bernie Sanders).

Can someone explain to me why the Democrats are given the majority?

KC

[SVPete]

The Bern votes with the Dems.

[Texacon]

The Bern votes with the Dems.

Voting doesn't matter, to the best of my knowledge.  If that were the case Manchin and Sinema would be R's and Romney would be a D ... instead he's just an L (loser).

KC

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You know, I heard a guy on the radio make a very interesting point a couple of months ago.

He said; WHY do the democrats have the majority in the senate?  They shouldn't, the Republicans actually have the majority.

Here's why he said that, there are 49 Democrat senators, 50 Republican senators, and ONE independent senator (Bernie Sanders).

Can someone explain to me why the Democrats are given the majority?

KC

Because Sanders caucuses with the Dems and the BP is president of the Senate, giving the Dems 51.

Which further underscores the defections on their side.

[Mr Mannn]

I have an idea. Try passing bills without a trillion or more in pork. short sweet and to the point. an entire bill written on one or two pages in a way anyone can read and understand it.

I'm sure there is a name for that, but I call it, "governing Free Men openly and honestly."

[DLR Pyro]

I have an idea. Try passing bills without a trillion or more in pork. short sweet and to the point. an entire bill written on one or two pages in a way anyone can read and understand it and one that doesn't contain easter eggs that years later makes us ask the question, "Who the hell voted for that law or regulation?"

I'm sure there is a name for that, but I call it, "governing Free Men openly and honestly."

added my $0.02

[ADsOutburst]

I have an idea. Try passing bills without a trillion or more in pork. short sweet and to the point. an entire bill written on one or two pages in a way anyone can read and understand it.

I'm sure there is a name for that, but I call it, "governing Free Men openly and honestly."

Or they should try winning more elections. And if they can't do that, they should try not being insane.

[ExGeeEye]

A feature, not a bug.

[Ralph Wiggum]

The filibuster is nothing more than a relic from the Jim Crow era and America's racist past. It should be disposed of at first opportunity. It's sort of like the state lines of places like ND, SD, and WY that were drawn to give specific advantage to Republican and corporate interests in the US Senate. It is a part of the systemic racism in this country, from a political vantage point.

Hypocrisy: 8 Democrats Defended Senate Filibuster for Decades, Research Shows

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Sunday wrote an op-ed seeking to destroy election integrity by terminating the 60 vote filibuster threshold, but a video from the Republican National Committee (RNC) research team revealed eight Democrats have defended the filibuster for decades, including President Biden.

Schumer’s Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled, “Sen. Chuck Schumer Responds on the Filibuster,” suggests January 6 is the reason Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) should break the filibuster by voting with 48 other Democrat senators:

Schumer: They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way you change the rules.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): The legislative filibuster should stay there and I will personally resist efforts to get rid of it.

Sen. Chis Coons (D-DE): I’m committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): That would be the end of the Senate.

Joe Biden: It raises problems that are more damaging than the problem that exists.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game because you do not like the outcome.

Biden: You’re going to throw the entire Congress into chaos and nothing will get done.

Schumer: Change the rules in midstream to wash away 200 years of history.

Biden: Nothing at all will get done.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA): I don’t think that we ought to be coming in willy-nilly and changing the rules.

Durbin: You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.

Schumer: Ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the founding fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): If you don’t have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven’t done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.

Biden: It is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.

Menendez: Partisan power grab that will stomp on the rights of the minority and leave fundamentally changed for the worse.

Durbin: Preserve checks and balances so that no one party can do whatever it wants.

Schumer: It’ll be a doomsday for democracy.

Coons: The one most important rule that requires compromise requires working across the aisle.

Biden: It is a fundamental power grab.

Menendez: I will not stand by when a party drunk with power tries to overturn 200 years of precedent.

Biden: Ending the filibuster is a very dangerous thing to do.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/10/hypocrisy-8-democrats-defended-senate-filibuster-for-decades-research-shows/

[Ptarmigan]

kentuck (103,956 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216229075

It is damn near impossible to get anything done with a 50/50 Senate.

Especially when issues like the filibuster and voting rights are more popular with the opposing Party in states like West Virginia and Arizona. Democratic Senators in those states do not gain votes by voting for those issues. They win votes by voting against them. That is the crux of the matter.

Democrats need to have a more workable majority if they wish to change the filibuster and pass the new voting rights legislation. Once they get the majority, they need to use it.

The filibuster is nothing more than a relic from the Jim Crow era and America's racist past. It should be disposed of at first opportunity. It's sort of like the state lines of places like ND, SD, and WY that were drawn to give specific advantage to Republican and corporate interests in the US Senate. It is a part of the systemic racism in this country, from a political vantage point.

Congress is suppose to have gridlock.

[franksolich]

Can someone explain to me why the Democrats are given the majority?

I don't want to complicate the matter further, but actually the count is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 independents.

The second independent is the junior senator from Maine.

When Congress organizes, all members announce their party preferences.

Both Bertie Sanders and Angus King announced they were joining the Democrats, while keeping their "independent" status.

[Texacon]

Because Sanders caucuses with the Dems and the BP is president of the Senate, giving the Dems 51.

Which further underscores the defections on their side.

I don't want to complicate the matter further, but actually the count is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 independents.

The second independent is the junior senator from Maine.

When Congress organizes, all members announce their party preferences.

Both Bertie Sanders and Angus King announced they were joining the Democrats, while keeping their "independent" status.

Thanks guys.  I knew there was a reason, but I didn't know what it was.

KC

[DLR Pyro]

I don't want to complicate the matter further, but actually the count is 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 independents.

The second independent is the junior senator from Maine.

When Congress organizes, all members announce their party preferences.

Both Bertie Sanders and Angus King announced they were joining the Democrats, while keeping their "independent" status.

that seems chickenshit on the part of the 2 independents.  I assume they are running as independent to give the folks at home the illusion that they aren't aligned with a particular party to get their votes but then when they declare they are siding with the democrats they are acting contrary of what the definition of independent means.

I guess it makes sense to the morons at puzzle palace (the Capitol) but to regular people it defeats the purpose of declaring yourself as an independent.

[ADsOutburst]

It's also really hard to get stuff done with a president as unpopular as Biden.

[67 Rover]

It's also really hard to get stuff done with a president as unpopular as Biden.

Meh, Brandon is at 35% now. He's not unpopular its just that 65% of the people vote against their best interests. 

[SVPete]

Maybe the Dems should stop trying to ram their anti-American ideas down Americans' throats.