Basically this lol. Too bad dems are liberals, who are pussies by nature. Gimme some real lefties who care about improving material circumstance instead of liberals who care about procedure.

Given the huge structural advantage Republicans have in the Senate, it would be extremely foolish by Democrats to abolish the filibuster unless they know that they can add at least two states (say DC and PR) before the 2022 midterms. The median state in the Senate is something like 6 or 8 points to the right of the nation as a whole - in the long run, Democrats have to expect to be in the minority in this chamber far more often than not.

In particular, their Senate majority hinges on a streak of lucky elections: the class which was up in 2006, 2012 and 2018 had three Dem-leaning cycles in a row, leading to this class containing a lot of Dem senators hailing from solidly red turf (e.g. Manchin in WV, Tester in MT, Brown in OH). This class is up in 2024, and given the high turnout and polarization in presidential years, these Dem senators will get annihilated even if it's a neutral or slightly Dem-leaning year. If it's an R-leaning year, Senate Democrats might face a cataclysmic wipeout. So, far and away the most likely scenario is that Democrats lose their Senate majority either in 2022 or 2024 and then dont regain it for a decade or longer - unless they "pack" it by adding states like DC.

The more time they waste debating and maneuvering to get public opinion on board for nuking the filibuster, the less likely it is that the whole admission process for DC (and potentially other new states) drags until after the 2022 midterms, when the GOP is heavily favored to win back the House. The GOP doesnt even need the typical midterm backlash against the incumbent, a repeat of the slightly Dem-leaning environment from 2020 coupled with redistricting would be enough for them to take back the House, which would of course stop admission of DC if it isnt finished by then.



So, the smart play for the Democrats is to either be really ruthless, nuke the filibuster and start the admission process for DC right about NOW, or to leave the filibuster intact. Fooling around and starting all of this in fall or winter would carry gigantic risks for them. It could still work out, yes, but it's more likely that this course of action would hand Republicans a filibuster-free and heavily R-leaning chamber on a silver platter.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 11 2021 05:40pm

I strongly disagree. You're not wrong that the Senate has structural advantages geared towards Republicans. The issue is that the GOP doesn't have any legislation that they want to passed. What do you think the GOP would pass? Voting rights restrictions? Funding cuts? The latter would bite them in the ass. At the end of the day, Democrats NEED to pass legislation to retain power and to court voters whereas Republicans benefit from obstructing.

One reason people vote Republican is because the parties are very similar functionally. Republicans win and... nothing gets done. Democrats win and.... Republicans make sure nothing gets done. Why would they bother thinking about their votes when it's the same no matter what? If Democrats could get things passed with 50 votes, even if it isn't major legislation, it would make people rethink who they vote for. The party that wants to materially improve their conditions and actually govern, or the party that keeps things from getting done?

I strongly disagree with the notion that the Republican party generally has no legislative agenda of its own, so that obstructionism is the essence of what they stand for. By contrast, I believe that the GOP seems to have no agenda in recent years because the party is internally torn on a lot of its core issues. Do they want to double down on their appeal to working-class voters via populist policies, or do they want to win back the educated suburbs? Do they want to cater more to chamber of commerce types or to white grievance politics? On foreign policy, do they want to go back to the neocon vision (Bush doctrine and so on), or do they want to go for full-blown isolationism? On a lot of these internal divides, the bulk of the party's base sits on one side of the fence and the bulk of the party elites/operatives on the other. It's not actually much different on the Democratic side. Essentially, we're living through a period of voter realignment in slow-motion. It will come to an end eventually.

We should also not blow the Trump era out of proportion. Reagan or GWB did pass significant amounts of legislation, so it's not like all GOP administrations are categorically opposed to governing - Trump's term was an outlier in this regard since he personally had neither the connections on Capitol Hill nor the patience to grind out legislation. And he was held back by razor thin margins in the Senate, particularly when we keep in mind that a lot of the GOP senators were emphatically NOT on board with his 2016 platform. Him opting for superficial "wins" rather than putting in the work is a product of his specific personality and the particular moment in time, not a trait we can generalize to all Republicans.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 11 2021 10:12pm

Right. The fact that they are so divided means that they won't benefit from the filibuster being abolished. Dems are more united in their goals; it's just a matter of how much they want to push on the gas.

Like I said, these divisions reflect a specific and fleeting moment in time, during the middle of a silent voter realignment. My original argument was referring to the 2024-2032 timeframe, not the 2010-2020 period. That Republicans dont have an (agreed upon) agenda right now is no guarantee that they also wont have one in four years time.

What policies do you see the Dems as being united towards?

Then don't use the present tense.

I was using the present tense because I was referring to the notion that the GOP is devoid of a positive agenda, independent from the timeframe.
"WWE Obstructionism - Then. Now. Forever."


On top of that, not being unified behind an agenda is different from not having policy goals at all.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Mar 11 2021 10:49pm