McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules

[brucejoel99]

Why is the "left" in this country so laughably incompetent and stupid?

No, it's the people who don't know how to read past headlines who are stupid & who would be so laughably incompetent were it not for the people who do know how to read covering for them.

[brucejoel99]

Remember when people laughed at the suggestion that Biden's presidency wouldn't see Democrats coddling and making needless and damaging concessions to Republicans? This is what happens when you allow centrism to take over the party and dismiss any criticism as it as being fringe or damaging to "unity". Congratulations Democrats, you elected four more years of Republican rule.

Please explain to us how an organizing resolution that's not only necessary for the Senate to proceed with doing literally anything but literally benefits the Democrats on balance given the wording thereof is a "coddling," "needless and damaging concession to Republicans" that equates to "four more years of Republican rule." We're all just dying to know how.

[brucejoel99]

Remember when people laughed at the suggestion that Biden's presidency wouldn't see Democrats coddling and making needless and damaging concessions to Republicans? This is what happens when you allow centrism to take over the party and dismiss any criticism as it as being fringe or damaging to "unity". Congratulations Democrats, you elected four more years of Republican rule.

Please explain to us how an organizing resolution that's not only necessary for the Senate to proceed with doing literally anything but literally benefits the Democrats on balance given the wording thereof is a "coddling," "needless and damaging concession to Republicans" that equates to "four more years of Republican rule." We're all just dying to know how.

Explain to me why Democrats should be negotiating ANYTHING with Republicans? Lock them out of say like they did to the Dems for the last decade.

Come back & talk to us when you actually know what an organizing resolution is, because you clearly don't right now. Not only does it merely detail the procedures for committee operations in a 50-50 Senate, but it explicitly says that Schumer will be in control of the agenda. For all intents & purposes, it literally is locking them out.

[brucejoel99]

The D's control what comes to the floor and what doesn't, the schedule, that's all that matters

Drag them, King.

[brucejoel99]

Why is the "left" in this country so laughably incompetent and stupid?

No, it's the people who don't know how to read past headlines who are stupid & who would be so laughably incompetent were it not for the people who do know how to read covering for them.

C'mon now, don't kill the "Nancy and Chuck are complicit in the destruction of America" narrative using facts and logic. That's no fun.

Okay, I confess I didn't read past the headline. I'm not trying to create a narrative here and I've criticized both the left and the center-left for their marketing and governing styles.

Thank you for actually admitting your mistake instead of stubbornly digging in your heels like some other posters. This is the kind of rational, civil discourse of which more is desperately needed today. But yeah, it's quite the misnomer to call it "power-sharing" when literally all it does is make clear that Schumer & the Dems are still in charge of a tied Senate.

[brucejoel99]

Just to elaborate a bit, I do affirm that objecting to Schumer's decision is a completely valid stance. Given the boundaries of a 50-50 Senate and the urgency to pass the organizing resolution, I do see the logic in passing this agreement swiftly and moving forward with other issues. However, I do wish there was a modicum of public pressure on Manchin/Tester/Sinema to eliminate the filibuster for the resolution, if possible.

Well, yeah, it's hypothetically possible but when you have the most anti-filibuster of Senate Democratic aides arguing that it'd be a strategic error when (what he perceives as their inevitably) going nuclear can be timed for maximum impact by saving it for actual policies that actually matter, it's just unrealistic:

https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351361573848309763
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351365991691915264

[brucejoel99]

Cuck Schumer handing the GOP power. WHY???

[snip]

Did you actually read what happened, or did you just read the headline?  It's pretty much confirmed that Porter is in the wrong here this is a nothingburger.

[brucejoel99]

At the start of a session, an organizing resolution needs to be passed that sets the rules. That needs 60 votes. Meaning it needs McConnell's support. So before everyone flips their collective sh**t, know that this result was guaranteed in a 50/50 senate.

AHEM. The answer is right here.

Bullsh**t. The Republicans didn't have these rules when they had Cheney breaking ties to have the majority in early 2001.

Ahem:

The negotiations between Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have been built largely around how the Senate operated the last time the body was split 50-50: When George W. Bush initially became president in 2001. Final details are still being sorted out between the two leaders, sources said, and the two are expected to meet on Tuesday to discuss these issues.

Similar to those rules, set in January 2001, Schumer and McConnell aides are discussing allowing bills and nominations to advance to the Senate floor even if they are tied during committee votes, something that could become common given that each party is expected to have the same number of seats on committees.

Also, here's a rundown on those 2001 rules:

The 2000 elections resulted in a Senate composed of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. An historic agreement, worked out by the party floor leaders, in consultation with their party colleagues, was presented to the Senate ( S.Res. 8 ) on January 5, 2001, and agreed to the same day. The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001. It remained in effect until June of 2001, when Senators reached a new agreement to account for the fact that a Senator had left the Republican party to become an Independent who would caucus with the Democratic party.

This report describes the principal features of this and related agreements which provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business. Also noted is that not all aspects of Senate practice were affected by the powersharing agreement.

[brucejoel99]

How are the committees voting on Biden's cabinet nominees without this? Or does it only matter for legislation?

The nominees who've been voted out of committee thus far have been voted on by large enough bipartisan majorities that the pre-existing partisan margins on said committees were irrelevant to the final vote. That's very unlikely to remain the case for any legislation, which is why an organizing resolution is still a de-facto requirement before actual legislation can proceed.

[brucejoel99]

Frankly I don't see the point of 2001 comparisons. 2001 was a different world. Democrats could probably get some Republicans on board with legislation, and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. Furthermore, we all know McConnell would not be power sharing if Trump was president, whereas the reverse was probably not true of Daschle and Lott. Democrats have the majority and at least two more senators waiting in the wings, that's all that there should be to it.

Procedurally speaking, that's just not true. "Power-sharing" is a misnomer, literally all an organizing resolution provides for are the makeup of committees & for tied committee votes' eligibility to still go to the floor. That would be required in any 50-50 Senate.

[brucejoel99]

I don’t really get what the big deal is here - the partisan composition of committees is always proportional to the partisan composition of the Senate, unless I’m missing something.

McConnell is throwing a fit about muh glorious Senate tradition of the filibuster and using that as an excuse to wring out a few more days of Republican committee chairmanships. I don't think he and Schumer actually disagree in principle on 1:1 committees with tied votes going to the floor.

Yeah, he's just trying (& failing) to get away with "protecting" the filibuster now on something so mundane as an organizing resolution so he doesn't look like the asshole that he'll inevitably look like when he's inevitably forced to try (& still fail) to do it on matters of popular policies like COVID relief, election reform, voting rights, statehood, immigration, health-care, etc.

[brucejoel99]

It's really disheartening how Democrats cave and negotiate on everything. 

It's been 57 hours.

What's the point of voting for them if they don't have their voters backs. 

What's the point of voting for them if we don't even want them to take the necessary step - getting an organizing resolution passed - to have our backs going forward?

Yeah great, lets have "unity" now after Republicans cheated the last 4 years and rammed through a Supreme Court justice.  That's fair, GOP voters get everything they want when their people are in power, but people who vote for the other side get "unity" when they win. 

k

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1352828295750905856

[brucejoel99]

This is a clusterf***.

https://twitter.com/DavidNir/status/1352823820797816833

Surely an impeachment trial will fix that!

... No one said it would?

Well, that seems to be the plan for Monday. There have only been 2 cabinet confirmations and no other bills out of the Senate in the last 2 weeks. If Democrats think that the most important thing now is to have a trial for someone who left office rather than confirming a cabinet, passing a stimulus, or doing something about the pandemic, they're either really stupid or just playing to lose.

So I take it that you just haven't been following the news tonight, right?

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1352762742206300168

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1352828295750905856

Is there a reason not to do so?

For the umpteenth time, yes. Even the most anti-filibuster of Senate Democratic aides knows that invoking the nuclear option on something as boring & mundane as an organizing resolution would be a strategic error when (inevitably) going nuclear can be timed for maximum impact by saving it for actual policies that actually matter & which people actually care about:

https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351361573848309763
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351365991691915264

[brucejoel99]

Another instance of "for the umpteenth time:" no, Manchin won't oppose going nuclear when the time comes. For one thing, not only has he already come out in support of Schumer sticking to his guns on this & not committing to protect the filibuster (which basically tells you all you really need to know: if he's willing to keep the threat of going nuclear in reserve, then he's willing to go nuclear), but he's just not gonna allow Republicans to unilaterally block the Democratic agenda.

What everybody needs to understand about Joe Manchin is that - above all else - he's a reliable Democrat, through-&-through. That's why him switching parties was never, ever in the cards, no matter how often some blue avs (let alone Donald Trump) may have fantasized about it. He truly is our Susan Collins. Yes, he huffs & he puffs about being this moderate Blue Dog who's there to provide a check on the Democratic Party's liberal agenda (after all, he obviously had to if he ever wanted a shot at re-election), but that's all it is: huffing-&-puffing. Not only has he always voted the party-line when his vote has been needed, but he's recently been going so far as to vote the party-line when his vote hasn't even been needed (e.g. convicting Trump, immediately opposing ACB, supporting the 2nd impeachment & the potential removal of Hawley & Cruz, favoring statehood, etc.), certainly a lot more than he ever would've prior to his most recent re-election campaign.

If you truly don't understand at this point that he has zero f**ks left to give because he more-than-likely knows that this is his last Senate term & so he's not worried about having to run ever again, then there's no helping you. You'll truly just have to wait & watch as Manchin most assuredly votes in favor of going nuclear, just like every other supposed "institutionalist" before him (e.g., McCain, Collins, Graham) did too.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1352828295750905856

Is there a reason not to do so?

For the umpteenth time, yes. Even the most anti-filibuster of Senate Democratic aides knows that invoking the nuclear option on something as boring & mundane as an organizing resolution would be a strategic error when (inevitably) going nuclear can be timed for maximum impact by saving it for actual policies that actually matter & which people actually care about:

https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351361573848309763
https://twitter.com/AJentleson/status/1351365991691915264

I’m failing to see what the argument here is?

If you mean the optics are bad, I don’t think there is much in the way of voters who care. You are going to get the news cycle of very serious people getting the vapors no matter when it happens, doing it right out of the gate gives you two years to bury under all the major legislation you can now pass.

Yes, that's the argument: the optics of "evil Chuck Schumer is refusing to protect the sanctity & tradition of the world's most deliberative body" are much worse for Democrats than the infinitely better (& inevitable) optics of "evil Mitch McConnell is refusing to provide the American people with much-needed relief." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this. And even if people like you & I understand what's going on here & don't care because we see through it, there are millions of impressionable, relatively politically-unengaged voters out there who will only hear the aforementioned quotes as articulated by cable TV pundits, & I'd much rather them hear the latter than the former.

If the argument is that Senators aren’t willing to do it now, again the question is why.

Because the optics are bad: see last paragraph.

There is not a single Democrat whose strategic position isn’t massively better off without the filibuster and it’s obvious to even casual observes that Mitch McConnell is going to filibuster everything. Why are you giving him power? From an institutional standpoint, he’s blocking the organizing resolution, if that’s not an indication that this is untenable nothing is.

For the aforementioned reasons, every single Democrat is strategically better off invoking the nuclear option on a popular legislative priority than on a mundane organizing resolution: do the former, the Democrats win the messaging arguments; do the latter, McConnell does. It's that simple. This isn't about refusing to take away McConnell's power; it's about knowing how to do so to our all-around benefit, which is why Schumer is waiting for McConnell to inevitably blink on this, because he'll have to sooner-or-later, once his freshmen start grumbly reminding him that they still don't have committee assignments to wave in front of their constituents.

[brucejoel99]

Another instance of "for the umpteenth time:" no, Manchin won't oppose going nuclear when the time comes. For one thing, not only has he already come out in support of Schumer sticking to his guns on this & not committing to protect the filibuster (which basically tells you all you really need to know: if he's willing to keep the threat of going nuclear in reserve, then he's willing to go nuclear), but he's just not gonna allow Republicans to unilaterally block the Democratic agenda.

What everybody needs to understand about Joe Manchin is that - above all else - he's a reliable Democrat, through-&-through. That's why him switching parties was never, ever in the cards, no matter how often some blue avs (let alone Donald Trump) may have fantasized about it. He truly is our Susan Collins. Yes, he huffs & he puffs about being this moderate Blue Dog who's there to provide a check on the Democratic Party's liberal agenda (after all, he obviously had to if he ever wanted a shot at re-election), but that's all it is: huffing-&-puffing. Not only has he always voted the party-line when his vote has been needed, but he's recently been going so far as to vote the party-line when his vote hasn't even been needed (e.g. convicting Trump, immediately opposing ACB, supporting the 2nd impeachment & the potential removal of Hawley & Cruz, favoring statehood, etc.), certainly a lot more than he ever would've prior to his most recent re-election campaign.

If you truly don't understand at this point that he has zero f**ks left to give because he more-than-likely knows that this is his last Senate term & so he's not worried about having to run ever again, then there's no helping you. You'll truly just have to wait & watch as Manchin most assuredly votes in favor of going nuclear, just like every other supposed "institutionalist" before him (e.g., McCain, Collins, Graham) did too.

The problem with this is that it assumes Manchin is the only vote we need to worry about.

Manchin has never gone against the Democrats when his vote actually mattered, but when his vote doesn't matter he does what he needs to get re-elected (like his voting to confirm Kavanaugh).

There's like seven other people we need to worry about since they live in purple or red states, and then there's institutionalists like Feinstein.

If all other 49 Democrats would vote to nuke it, then I agree Manchin would vote to nuke it as well but it's not a guarantee that we have the other 49.

For most of the others, I think it's just a concern about losing re-election, but Feinstein is a moron who cares more about institutions than progress.

That's not a realistic concern when the likes of Feinstein, Tester, Coons, & King all went nuclear in 2013: if they did it before, then they'll do it again. Moreover, with all of them having voted to do so before, there's also no reason (that's shown itself as of yet, at least) to believe that Schumer wouldn't be able to get Sinema & even Kelly to fall in line at the end of the day too.

[brucejoel99]

Okay this is a negative development if it holds.

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1353734942400897025?s=21

"For now" - Chuck.

[brucejoel99]

Okay this is a negative development if it holds.

https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1353734942400897025?s=21

"For now" - Chuck.

Do you really think that there is any chance the filibuster is changed is any way at all in the next 2 years?

I don't think it, I know it. Every Senator who claims to be an "institutionalist" has their breaking point. Coons did. King did. Feinstein did. McCain did. Sinema will too (& that's assuming that this statement isn't just Manchin-like huffing & puffing).

[brucejoel99]

Rip to DC statehood or any chance at saving America. Congrats Xi, the GOP cancer is now terminal.

Democrats could still put everything in one reconciliation bill, but I wouldn't get too hopeful.

In no possible universe would statehood qualify for the reconciliation process.

[brucejoel99]

Y'all, calm the f**k down. You know the win is Schumer's here, right? Because of the Sinema/Manchin "assurances," maintaining the filibuster is now not permanently codified in the organizing resolution for the remainder of this Congress, & I guaran-damn-tee you that those "assurances" (which I'm really surprised that McConnell honestly bought, because giving up on this is him blinking) are a lot easier to overcome once the Republican conference starts blocking 99% of the Democratic agenda than a codified portion of the organizing resolution, which would require 60 votes to overturn.

[brucejoel99]

Not only has he always voted the party-line when his vote has been needed

Well, uh, this isn't completely true. Gina Haspel confirmation vote. McConnell didn't have enough R yes votes to do it because Flake and Paul were opposed and McCain was absent. Manchin was one of six democrats who voted Aye to give McConnell the votes.

Now, you could argue that Manchin wouldn't have joined the crowd if other Dems weren't on board, or that Schumer wasn't whipping the vote, or it's unimportant, or whatever, but if you're looking for a vote where the parties had opposite positions, McConnell had key R defections, and a few Democrats including Manchin saved him, there you  go.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00101

Uh yeah, that's exactly what I'll point out, because that's exactly what the argument is here. Manchin wasn't the deciding vote, & even if Schumer had his vote, his voting against wouldn't have sunk the nomination. His vote wasn't needed.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/davidnir/status/1353889302330150912?s=21

Not the worst sequence of events. McConnell caved.

I don't understand, does this mean Manchin and Sinema walked back on their promise to not nuke the fillibuster?

No, it means McConnell bought Manchin & Sinema's "super pinky-promise" to not nuke the filibuster, even though there's now nothing whatsoever stopping them from doing so when the time comes.

[brucejoel99]

Yeah, one of two things need to happen.
1) GOP won’t be able to filibuster a lot, because once they do I guarantee Sinema and Manchin stab him in the back and destroy the filibuster. Think I’m wrong? Even if they are moderate, if the GOP blocks things like a $1 minimum wage increase and other low key things they are done.
2) Make the filibuster a talking one.

It's #1. The filibuster is without a shadow of a doubt getting nuked in 2021.