A quick reminder. You've probably been hearing a lot about whether Democrats can eliminate the filibuster. Or what can be passed via reconciliation. Or the Byrd Rule. Or whether the Senate parliamentarian's rulings can be overturned by Kamala Harris in her role as president of the Senate.
If you're interested in the details of all these things, fine. If you're not, they all boil down to the same thing: Do Democrats have 50 votes to do what they want to do? That's it. It takes 50 votes (plus Harris) to kill the filibuster. It takes 50 votes to pass even a reconciliation bill. If Harris overrules the parliamentarian on a substantive point, you're left with a bill that still needs 50 votes. And there are exactly 50 Democrats in the Senate. If they lose even a single vote they can't pass anything—and there are at least a couple of Democrats who won't vote for a bill that undermines the parliamentarian.
This means that Democrats don't have 50 votes to kill the filibuster. They also don't have 50 votes to pass a stimulus bill under reconciliation rules unless they satisfy every single member of their caucus. Every. Single. Member.
This explains everything. Forget the details. Democrats need 60 votes for most things, but even for the few exceptions they still need 50 votes and they don't always have them. End of story.
UPDATE: I originally wrote that it takes 50 votes to overrule the parliamentarian. In practice, it takes only 40 votes. The text has been corrected.
Although if they had the 50 votes to kill the filibuster, they wouldn't need 60 votes for anything else.
I get that they don't. But Manchin and Sinema would hold more power if they did it. They could still block legislation. Republicans couldn't.
The whole thing is rather frustrating and makes me more convinced that we need to get rid of the filibuster the first chance we get. (And the electoral college, but that's a much bigger lift.)
It's more than those 2, it's half of all Democratic senators. 2 reconciliations to pass Joe Biden's fiscal plans is all the marching orders he was given. Proggies know Obama supports the deregulation of elections back to state parties, which generally leads to more Populist and not necessarily progressive thinking on social issues. Barry O knows what he is doing. It's a experiment: does the Bryan, Wilson Democrat sell in mostly white states???? Or as They were known later as New Dealer Populism FDR used to stare down the plutocracy.
Kevin's right about all this, of course: at the end of the day it's all about whether Democrats actually have a cohesive majority on various measures, or not. Cloture's not in the constitution, after all. But I do want to highlight this part:
^^^It takes 50 votes to overturn the parliamentarian.^^^
Kevin's not the only one making this claim, but, the Wiki article insists the presiding officer (the VP) can rule against the parliamentarian:
^^^The role of the parliamentary staff is advisory, and the Presiding Officer may overrule the advice of the parliamentarian.^^^
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentarian_of_the_United_States_Senate
I'm not suggesting Kevin's wrong (I'm guessing I'm missing something). But I did want to point out the discrepancy.
Well what did you expect?
the DEMs are the party of progressives - Right? (They represent about 28%)
The DEMs are the party of blacks? They represent about 12% of the population
The DEMs are the party of Hispanics? 18% of the population
The republicans are the party of Trump or whoever is leading them? 100%
The republicans do not care what their constituents want. We have seen story after story regarding this. "Polls show republicans favor the new COVID relief bill". In Congress it's 100% against it. "polls show most Americans and a majority of republicans favor increasing the minimum wage" Congress is 100% against it. "Polls show majority in both parties favor vote by mail". Republican state politicians hell-bent against it.
The big tent party has big tent policies but within THAT BIG TENT you have your various factions wanting "more" or wanting "exceptions" or "something different".
In the republican party it's simple. The people will ACCEPT anything republican politicians do so long as it pisses off democrats. Even if they want what the democrats propose.
"Believe everything your God tells you". Quote from Right Reverend Ronald Reagan. /s
Diversity does not lend itself to leaders marching in lockstep. And with the Senate tied at 50-50? You have to march in lock step - no exceptions. We watched as the republicans did this time after time. Voted as a homogeneous group. The DEMs do not have the political fortitude to do that
“Diversity does not lend itself to leaders marching in lockstep.”
Yeah, that’s a feature, not a bug. It’s a very diverse country; when we take each other’s interests into account, when we don’t ignore the issues of minorities just because we can, we all enjoy a civil society that can get things done, peacefully.
Ken-
Here's the thing - republicans are already doing JUST that - ignoring the minorities. Republicans are the 3rd largest group of voters being INDs and DEMs !!
They are in fact a minority but when it comes to pissing off the D's they suddenly accept that they are not getting what they want legislatively so long as the exact a political price on the opposing party.
DEMs to it to themselves - look at the post below fro jhuntington "put this on Manchin and Sinema and make them own it". THEY Are ignoring the minority wing of the DEM party - the DEM conservatives.
The leader of the Proud Boys made a statement yesterday where he mentioned that Jan 6 was more about politicians ignoring the will of the majority of people back home regardless of party. He's right of course but the elected officials of both parties know better than the people who voted them into office.
The leader of the Proud Boys speaks for nobody except the Proud boys. Why position has he been elected to?
Political fortitude has nothing to do with the challange.
The Democrats have a broader political spectrum than the Republicans at this time.
And are not a neo-Fascist authoritorian adjacent party.
So they have to internally compromise.
As much as the Hard Left wing "dite Progressive" hates the idea, the Center Reps need to serve a different constituency than the AOC Progressives are willing to admit.
And for all the Purity Pony whining, the past four years should have burned into everyone's minds that no, a right leaning Dem Senator like Manchin is not "no better than a Republican" - not in the least - he will support a broad core and enable Biden. Not everything the Lefty Left wants, but will get a broad core agenda forward.
Whereas an R from WV or AZ would strangle this all in the crib.
So everyone should get it into their heads, the other choice is Trumpism and we all spent 4 years learning that can be very bad.
Next round of Trumpism under someone not lazy and incompetent like Trump is gonna be a literal nightmare, so time to maximimize the Possible that helps expand the center.
FM-
Which is exactly why I view the election as a DEM loss. Sure we gained the WH but lost the ability to FUNCTION because within the big tent there's people, just like republicans who CANNOT internally compromise with their own party.
We saw this in the GOP when Collins could be concerned, and Murkowski alarmed but things still got done because they had the cushion of votes. What liberals do is think tactically not strategically. They want Manchin to toe the line even if it means losing the senate in 2022. After years of being hurt by the GOP Senate I guess I can see the underlying emotional reason why they act this way but they need to think down the road to 22 and especially 2024 when the DEMs have the HIGHEST risk of losing senate seats. Angus King(I) and Bernie Sanders (I) are both not running. Feinstein is done as well as a few others. 2022 may show a DEM loss of a seat, maybe two depending upon who the GOP puts up. Here in NC our seat remains GOP unless they find another Madison Cawthorne type person to run. The ONLY hope the DEMs have is Josh Stein our current (D) AG. Florida is deep red. California elected more GOP leaders this last election then any \other time I can remember in recent past.
I don't like this 50-50 set up in an era of non negotiation and partisanship.
Don't like it at all. It gives way too much power to people like Manchin and Murkowski who might swing if given enough fodder for their electorate
'Center Reps need to serve a different constituency'
Serving a constituency, and doing what they want, are two very different things. Progressive policies are popular and beneficial, but I am not ignoring the realities of politics- the truth is, the Democratic candidates face an uphill battle not in the electorate per se, but in the media, particularly propaganda.
Harris, “the presiding officer,” can over rule the parliamentarian. Put this all on Manchin and Sinema and make them own it
Remember Liebermann?? 50 "Democrat" votes are never exactly that. Manchin may be one of the most powerful people in DC for the next two years.... it's depressing.
Harris, “the presiding officer,” can over rule the parliamentarian. Put this ally on Manchin and Sinema and make them own it
They don't have 50 votes + 1 to kill the filibuster. Whether they have 50 votes + 1 to nuke the filibuster from applying to a particular bill is a very different question. I'm hoping that they have those votes to pass their elections reform bill, the For the People Act.
Just saw that the last time the Senate was divided evenly like this the Republicans were in control and when the Parliamentarian ruled against them Trent Lott fired him and installed a more wingnut-friendly Parliamentarian.
No one threatened armed insurrection when it happened.
Yes but elected Republicans care about winning and elected Democrats care about protecting proper procedures. I have absolutely no idea why elected Democrats care so much about procedure since I’ve met maybe 10 people my whole life who care more about procedure than about “getting results” (aka winning). But apparently, Democrats are not going to deviate from protecting procedure above all else, not even helping their own constituents or setting themselves up as more likely to win the next election.
2020 got rid of Trump but was otherwise a net loss. The senate has with, appalling regularity, proved itself to be a dysfunctional institution into the foreseeable future. I see no hope that the Senate will prove to be anything but a useless appendage for the next one or two election cycles - at least.
2020 got rid of Trump but was otherwise a net loss. The senate has, with appalling regularity, proved itself to be a dysfunctional institution into the foreseeable future. I see no hope that the Senate will prove to be anything but a useless appendage for the next one or two election cycles - at least.
A useless appendage doesn't do its damndest to trip your legs up so that you fall on your face....
'And there are exactly 50 Democrats in the Senate. If they lose even a single vote they can't pass anything'
That is far more a comment on the monolithic and corrupt nature of GOP opposition, than anything else....
'And there are exactly 50 Democrats in the Senate. If they lose even a single vote they can't pass anything'
That is far more a comment on the monolithic and corrupt nature of GOP opposition, than anything else....