As long as we're all doom scrolling our days away anyway, here's something else to worry about: We might be about to find out there are worse Republican leaders than Mitch McConnell.
Whatever else you can say about him, McConnell is an institutionalist. He believes in Senate rules, and in particular he believes in the filibuster. But his replacement might not. And his replacement might be majority leader if Republicans win the Senate.
If they also win the House and the presidency, a new majority leader might decide to formalize the end of the filibuster—which currently exists in name only, but does still exist. If that happens, there would no longer be any roadblocks to, say, banning abortion nationwide.
Oh, there might be some. There are a few Republicans who might vote against an extreme abortion ban. And the Supreme Court is a question mark. Alito's opinion in Dobbs gave the states unlimited power to regulate abortion but was a bit cagey about how much power Congress had.
There's also Donald Trump. He obviously couldn't care less about abortion as a moral issue, but politically his message to the Republican base could hardly be clearer: We got rid of Roe v. Wade. States can now do whatever they want. Take the W.
But the base may feel differently, and a Republican Congress would be under enormous pressure to ban abortion nationwide even if Republican leaders know it would be a political disaster. I don't know what odds I'd put on it, but it's hardly inconceivable.
Anyway, this is something to think about in the rare moments when you briefly start feeling slightly optimistic about things. You're welcome.
Formally abolishing the filibuster would make the Senate (somewhat) more democratic. So, that would be a good thing in general.
Also, I don't think that McConnell would avoid a straight majority vote on a national abortion ban out of some fealty to Senate rules or tradition--McConnell's highest achievement was stealing a supreme court seat through simple will to power, after all. He ain't an institutionalist, he's just somebody who's been in Congress forever and knows how to push levers the way he wants.
My ray of hope these days is that a dem house majority might slow down the facists a little. Are you going to burst that bubble , too
A wise person runs all the potential outcomes because none of us can predict the future.
Trump could take the whole enchilada, which would herald a period of massive Republican overreach, leading to their demise (see also, recent UK election). After which, the party will need to regroup and rebrand.
Trump could win but get handed a Dem House and Senate, which would slow things down and provide those checks and balances built into our system.
Biden could win and have to deal with riots and all sorts of insanity, leading to another four years of extreme instability.
At some point, this MAGA craze has to blow itself up and reach an inevitable conclusion, it's really a when and how bad is the damage when it happens.
You miss the possibility that Trump wins and effectively abolish democracy.
Currently, it seems to be the most likely scenario. Certainly what will happen if Trump wins.
I believe this is the case. Trump doesn't care about law any more than he cares about truth. And Vance is cut from the same cloth (and I would expect Vance to serve the remainder of Trump's term because I would not expect Trump to survive 4 years). Congress can pass all the laws it wants, and the SC make all the rulings they want, and Trump/Vance will do as they please and (1) deny it &/or (2) say waddaya gonna do about it? And that's not to mention what would happen in '28 when, if Dems win, Vance or his VP would simply refuse to certify the vote or leave the WH.
I don't know why people underestimate the willingness of these guys just to seize power and use it as they wish, regardless of norms, laws or anything else. Aren't Jan. 6 and the "Pool Shed Papers" enough to show what they are and what they'll do?
" (1) deny it &/or (2) say waddaya gonna do about it?"
... and (3) harass, theaten, jail and kill anybody that really annoys them.
CF Putin for details.
The possibilities you described is exactly why my optimism is virtually non existent. This election is a no win scenario. It's not a question of things getting bad, it's a question of just how bad.
Well this is silly. I'd call defeating Trump a pretty big win at this point, even if the result is the likelihood of a victory for Vance or Haley in 2028 because of how the system tends to work. That's still an extra 4 years to build bulwarks against authoritarianism, to educate the public, and to appoint judges.
A Democratic House and Senate can't slow global climate change if TFG is in the White House issuing executive orders to undo Biden's progress, and vetoing any further climate legislation.
Well, Nazi Germany lasted for 12 years and was in pretty good shape all the way up to approx. the middle of 1944. The Soviet Union lasted for 74 years (1917-1991) before collapsing. The PRC has lasted for 75 years and has been extremely stable ever since Deng's reforms. There's a wide range for "how long can this MAGA craze continue".
It's cute that you think checks & balances are still a thing after the Supreme Court decided they aren't anymore.
when you briefly start feeling slightly optimistic
Maybe then, I'll fade away
And not have to face the facts
I'm pretty sure my optimism won't return for atleast four years. Possibly longer. Trump has turned our politics into more of a sham than it was already. I'm more unsure of a Biden win than I was on Friday.
I'm sure of a Biden loss. Nate Silver has been amazingly accurate for three straight presidential elections. If he puts Biden's chances at 20%, Biden is going to lose because Republicans are high on glue while Democrats are, rightly, resentful that Biden reneged on the deal from 2020.
R "turnout" is guaranteed to rise while D's will fall. Trump's going to win with over 300 EV's and R's will get the West Virginia, Ohio and Montana Senate seats.
Low Democratic turnout is likely to mean that Republicans the House end up with more seats in the next Congress, making Johnson's life easier.
The eventual end result will be that a co-ordinated Russian and Chinese nuclear attack will end the United States' existence as an independent nation, and it will be applauded by other countries because of our shortsighted, piggish ways about the environment.
I was going to comment about Nate Silver being accurate in the past before he decided he was an expert on everything and before he sold his company to Disney. But then I got to the end of this post and saw that it's just blithering idiocy.
(Trump winning means that US foreign policy would become much, much more favorable towards both Russia and China, you could call it a new appeasement, and the risk of a war with either drops. A war with Iran becomes vastly more likely, though.)
I believe many of us are pretty stunned at the moment with t-Rump being shot at by one of his own followers. I think Joe is going to be our deciding factor and it had better happen soon. He honestly needs to step down and give us a chance to push a good replacement.
"McConnell is an institutionalist. He believes in Senate rules, and in particular he believes in the filibuster. "
McConnell believes in Senate rules that favor Republicans. He favors the filibuster because it allows Republicans to block Democratic initiatives. If he had had an agenda beyond confirming judges, cutting taxes, and repealing Obamacare--and the filibuster stood in the way--McConnell would have nuked the filibuster without a second thought.
"And the Supreme Court is a question mark. Alito's opinion in Dobbs gave the states unlimited power to regulate abortion but was a bit cagey about how much power Congress had."
Oh puh-lease, Kevin... the Supreme Wingnuts will give their blessing to any form of national abortion ban imposed by the next Republican Congress/President.
I'm surprised the inevitable repeal of the ACA isn't talked about more. That will hurt so many people
Yes, especially now that so many people have gotten treatments for chronic diseases and disabilities that will no longer be protected from denial of coverage by the ACA's ban on Pre-Existing Condition exclusions.
"He believes in Senate rules,"
muh gawd, is that Merrick Garland's music!
It would almost worth having the GOP win the Senate if it meant getting rid of the filibuster, but the key word is "almost". I do hope that if Trump wins and the GOP takes the Senate, both Kagan and Sotomayer take the opportunity to resign and let Biden appoint 2 40 year old women that Schumer can thoroughly vet in, say, a couple of 15 minute hearings. I don't know how many more pro-corruption justices the country can stand.
lameduck dems could pass legislation giving SCOTUS justices a limited-time $15 million retirement bonus if they retire by Thanksgiving. You might get Thomas with that, esp. if Congres also tossed in a luxury winnebago.
And a life-long service contract for it.
Would need to be more in the ballpark of $100-200 million.
This is such a dumb and politically tone deaf post. Mitch McConnell is an "institutionalist"? Yeah, right. For just one example, ask Merrick Garland. McConnell believes in naked Republican power and naked Republican power alone. Of course he wanted to preserve the filibuster because it overwhelmingly benefits Republicans. There was literally no reason for him to abolish the filibuster (either completely or on a case-by-case basis) during the Drumpf regime because the Republicans literally had no legislative agenda that was constrained by it. Senate Republicans only had three major (or really even minor) items on their agenda in those years and none of them were subject to the filibuster: tax cuts for corporations and the rich (passed by simple majority under reconciliation), ACA repeal (considered under reconciliation but failed to pass on simple majority vote), and confirmation of MAGA/Federalist Society judges which can no longer be filibustered. If Republicans control both the Senate, the House, and the WH, and McConnell remained Majority Leader, he would exempt an abortion ban from the filibuster (while retaining it generally for use against the Democrats) and pass it in a hot second.
And the cherry on top: Kevin states that Sneering Sammy's "cagey" opinion leaves the power of Congress to enact an abortion ban uncertain. Sheeeesh, really? I was born and grew up in Brooklyn (retired in NJ just across the Hudson now). If Kevin thinks there is the slightest chance that Sammy, or any of the five other corrupt MAGA justices, would rule that Congress lacked any such power, I'd like to discuss the sale of a certain bridge with him.
A lot of news people are buying in to the notion that Trump is a changed man who wants to unite the country since the assassination attempt. I think you have a lot of customers for that bridge.
Speaking of the Senate… https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/07/senator-bob-menendez-guilty/
But Governor Murphy of NJ is a Democrat and the NJ legislature is as well. Would they appoint Andy Kim the Democratic Nominee if Menendez steps down?
No idea whom the Governor would appoint, but Menendez best resign.
They would be more likely to appoint a placeholder. It's only a 7-month term at this point.
Federal law making abortions virtually impossible to obtain nationwide would cause havoc for the GOP, and would spell the end of their power in Congress for quite some time. Neither McConnell nor his successor want that. The price of Republican power in the Senate will be, as their base sees it, the sacrifice of millions of innocent "babies."
Abortions are already virtually impossible to obtain in most of the South and a number of Midwestern and Mountain states. If that isn't enough to motivate pro-choice voters to create a blue tsunami in November, I'm not terribly hopeful that a nationwide ban would be enough, either.
I would put good odds on a unified Republican government passing a nationwide ban on abortion. Failing that I think it's all but certain they go for some of all of the following:
1. ban mifepristone
2. use the Comstock Act to ban the mailing of mifepristone
3. prevent interstate travel to obtain an abortion
4. any other scheme they can think of to prevent women from getting abortions
Yes, there will be backlash, but in case you haven't noticed, they don't care. They have figured out how to rig elections to stay in power.
Right. There is no chance that Trump would stand in the way of a Congressionally passed national abortion ban. His new found allegiance to letting the states decide is only a fig leave to keep him from having to fully own up to the chaos they have caused.
"Whatever else you can say about him, McConnell is an institutionalist. He believes in Senate rules"
* sigh *
Yet another pundit has completely forgotten what happened when Obama nominated Garland to the SCOTUS.
That Thing That You Were Worried About At The Time (McConnell refusing to let Obama appoint a justice)? It wasn't a big deal to Kevin Drum.
I guess I'm supposed to believe that a Republican Congress, taking over the Senate and maintaining its majority in the House, along with winning back the white house with the former guy, all after Dobbs, will somehow be disincented from abolishing abortion nationwide because reasons.
ok then.
It was always clear that the GOP would kill the filibuster the moment they have a majority in the Senate. And good riddance. But there will be problems as long as the GOP stays in control, including a national abortion ban
What really blows my mind is Kevin calling McConnell an "institutionalist" who believes in the democratic rules. Pollyanna comes to mind (not the first time but this is particularly crass).
Yes, McConnell's successor will absolutely get rid of the filibuster if the Republicans gain a trifecta. If they don't, there won't be any particular upside to it.
In my darker moments in the last week, I have considered the possibility that the right radicals (they are not conservative in any sense of that word) might have to have some time in power for the American people, particularly voters, to really appreciate how badly they will do for the country, and how out of step they are.
I have not, however, given up hope. Not yet.
Wasn't Aileen Cannon a lame duck appointment?