Dianne Feinstein a 'no' on filibuster reform.

[Beet]

In 2009 the Democrats had 60 senators. They couldn't pass a public option. In 2020, if (big if) they win a majority, they won't even be able to muster 51 votes to get rid of the filibuster. Forget the public option, minimum wage, tuition regulation.

Are the modern Democrats the least effective governing party in history?

I mean if it was the Republicans, they would have just done public option through executive order, and dared the Courts to strike it down. And if they did, they would just ignore the order and choose to pay the fine if they were held in contempt.

[Real Texan Politics]

Can someone please primary her?

You don't approve of this? I thought this would be good news to Republicans.

I don't really have an opinion on that, although I do think she's served a little too long.

[Abolish ICE]

Not like it was getting past Manchin, King, or Sinema.

King is the only one who might be any trouble. 

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Feinstein has become more conservative in the last few years, if there is CRT packing,  Ds arent gonna win it on a narrow vote due to Sinema and Manchin, they are gonna win it, if their party controls 52 to 55 seats, a broad consensus to pass filibuster reform

The filibuster reform effort should of been done in 2009 to 2011, when they had 60, butMavericks Specter and McCain who stopped Bush W from pulling the nuclear option when Dems wanted to obstruct Alito, told Dems not to pull trigger. They have died

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Not like it was getting past Manchin, King, or Sinema.

King is the only one who might be any trouble. 

Sinema’s moderate hero dance has been extremely annoying, so who knows if she’ll try to keep it up thinking she has to be a centrist to win re-election (from a term she JUST won).

[SWE]

Democrats hate winning

[7,052,770]

Despite this quote, I suspect that she, along some with a few others, would not actually stand firm on this if it could be demonstrated that the votes were actually there. There's just no way she refuses to become Yes #50 if Schumer can find 49.

[MABA 2020]

Hope this isn't serious, although you should never bet on democrats not being cowards

She should have been given the boot in 2018 anyway

[Del Tachi]

I DiFi, always has been one of my favorite Democratic senators

[Abolish ICE]

I DiFi, always has been one of my favorite Democratic senators

Wow, the fact that you actually thing she’s going to stick to this if the Senate flips and she’s the deciding vote explains a lot about how folks like Collins, Manchin, Bullock, and Jon Tester can win or keep things close by promising to be an “independent voice” or some such nonsense.  The things people believe

I don’t even mean this as an insult or anything, I’m genuinely shocked that you think her word is worth a bucket of spit on this stuff.  Like, do you really think she’d give up chairing Judiciary and become a lifetime pariah in her party over this?  Seriously?

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

I DiFi, always has been one of my favorite Democratic senators

Wow, the fact that you actually thing she’s going to stick to this if the Senate flips and she’s the deciding vote explains a lot about how folks like Collins, Manchin, Bullock, and Jon Tester can win or keep things close by promising to be an “independent voice” or some such nonsense.  The things people believe

I don’t even mean this as an insult or anything, I’m genuinely shocked that you think her word is worth a bucket of spit on this stuff.  Like, do you really think she’d give up chairing Judiciary and become a lifetime pariah in her party over this?  Seriously?

Taking a very broad view, I'd say there are three major kinds of "moderation" in a Senator's records and often only the first is remembered (incorrectly, in my view):

1. The willingness to break with the party line, once that has been decided. DiFi does not do nearly as much of this as Manchin, but it still happens, especially when it comes to areas of bipartisan (usually hawkish) foreign policy/natsec consensus.

2. The making of the party line. The place where most Senators (who wouldn't break the party line) have maximum input is here. Politicians like DiFi do much to kill Democratic ambition when it comes to deciding the caucus' position.

3. The excuse. This one applies more to the Democratic caucus than their opponents; it boils down to caucus leaders justifying their departure's from policies which are favoured within their parties' primary electorates on the basis of a swing-y Senator's political profile. "Schumer doesn't need to back a public option; DiFi and Carper would not vote for it" etc, etc. Leaders can take cover behind their moderates to avoid political issues they are reluctant to grapple with. It's not quite the same thing as 2., because it can happen even in situations where the leaders could get their caucus behind a policy if they were really committed to it.