McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 12:21:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules  (Read 17418 times)
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« on: January 22, 2021, 01:59:42 PM »

Schumer should just threaten to pass DC statehood if they don't reach and agreement by Feb 1.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2021, 06:24:36 PM »

McConnell is overplaying his hand. Has he forgotten he is now the minority leader?
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2021, 12:42:02 PM »


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).

Sinema isn't an institutionalist though.  She's just a megalomaniac devoid of any genuine ideological beliefs whose current schtick is branding herself as a ConservaDem at times bordering on the edges of DINO territory.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if she switches parties if the Senate flips in 2022.  I'm not saying she will, only that no one should be surprised if she does.  I worry far more about her deliberately tanking the Democratic policy agenda then I do about Manchin's fake #ModerateHero song and dance routine.  

On the bright side, the fact that she is devoid of any real beliefs beyond "whatever advances Krysten Sinema's political fortunes at the moment is good, everything else be d***ed" means that it means less when she says she's not open to changing her mind than it would with someone like Coons or Angus King.

I’ve long felt the bolded part dating back to 2019 and I’ve been surprised she had been so quiet recently.

FWIW she also is on record for opposing a public option: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/kyrsten-sinema-not-progressive_n_5bdca881e4b09d43e31edfa3

I’d be surprised if she switches parties because one she’s a bisexual atheist and two she regularly attacks the AZ GOP on Twitter. She comes off as a straight shooter moderate hero who virtue signals a lot less than most Dems (which in part explains why she’s somewhat strong electorally) and idk how real it is.

It’s quite interesting because she used to be extremely progressive. It’s hard to tell if she herself changed her views, she adjusted since now she represents a more moderate swing state, or a combination of both. However, with that being said, anyone who would wear a pink wig to the Senate isn’t switching to Republican.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2021, 06:08:50 PM »

Some things to cosnider through all this:

-Democrats only have 50 Senate seats
-Politicians tend to be hypocrites; it happens all the time where politicians say they'll surely vote one way and come up with a reason to change their vote
-McConnel has to be careful not to overplay his hand. The 2022 map isn't all butteflies and rainbows for either side.
-Something has to give sooner or later
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2021, 08:20:59 PM »

I will give it 3 months of the GOP blocking literally everything before Sinema changes her mind.
Why would she?
It’s not like she’s committed to any actual policy goals.


She's definately on the more conservative end of the Democratic caucus, but that doesn't mean she's a Republican or someone who wants Biden to fail, miles from it. The flip is true for people like Murkowski, Romney, and Susan Collins. There are reasonable reasons to be resistant about eliminating the filibuster, and that's a very reasonable position to have, but at the end of the day, we will need to find a way to break out of this deadlock. Just because a Democrat isn't lockstep on every issue doesn't automatically make them a Democracy hater or traitor to the party, and IMO, that sort of view is what will lead to simillar tribalism as to what happened to the GOP in recent years.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,989


« Reply #5 on: January 25, 2021, 08:49:33 PM »

What if Democrats demand that all filibusters be talking filibusters?

Technically, that wouldn't be killing the filibuster.

Originally, it was ended because it started taking too long as more states became admitted to the Union, but I do think this is a reasonable compromise.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 12 queries.