Why can’t Schumer get Democrats in line the way McConnell can for the GOP?

[Tekken_Guy]

Why can’t Schumer get Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema in line to vote on certain things, but Mitch McConnell is always able to ensure Collins or Murkowski are on his side?

[BlueSwan]

To be fair, McConnell failed to get McCain to abolish Obamacare.

But generally speaking, republicans are just more authoritarian and will bow down to their leader. Democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line.

[DaleCooper]

Part of it stems from the fact that the Democratic Party, to a degree, is still the big-tent party between the two of them, even if to a lesser degree than a decade ago.

[Brittain33]

McConnell didn’t try to pass any major legislation outside of reconciliation and judges.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Part of it stems from the fact that the Democratic Party, to a degree, is still the big-tent party between the two of them, even if to a lesser degree than a decade ago.

Very much this. I could honestly see a Bush cousin running and winning a democratic primary is suburban Texas. By contrast, Anyone who is slightly to the left of trump is in danger of a primary challenge

[ProgressiveModerate]

Several reasons:

1. The Democratic Party actually wants to pass stuff whereas McConnel just wanted justices and some tax cuts, or some very low profile stuff.

2. McConnel had a little bit more room for error in the 6 years he was majority leader

3. The Senate forces Democrats to try to win in redder territory and sometimes that means compromising on key progressive agendas.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Don't forget Obama wanted to nuke the Filibuster in 2009 and Biden opposed it.  It was only until 2013 that Biden as Veep told Reid to nuke the Judicial Filibuster but Biden also was against Recess appointment is Garland in 2016 when Ds wanted to do it, and it backfired, due to Trump getting elected. They were so confident that Hillary was gonna get elected and Kennedy wasn't gonna retire, and he did right before 2018 Midterms

Biden is against Filibuster reform, unless D's keep the House and net 53 seats which includes NC and GA, the Ds can win OH, but we won NC the Gov race in 2020 eventhough Trump won NC by only 150K votes like Johnson only won by 350 K votes

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

1) As folks such as Adam Jentleson have pointed out, we’re still in Act 1 of this fight and we won’t find out how Manchin and Sinema will on this when push comes to shove until Act 3.  There’s still every reason to think that their current position is politically untenable and that nothing is set in stone until the climax of the real fight over nuking/heavily neutering the filibuster (the latter seems far more likely).  

2) Biden hasn’t gotten involved yet, much less gone to the mat for neutering/nuking the filibuster.  When he does, that’s going to be a signal that we’ve entered a new phase of the fight.  By not doing so, he’s essentially telling Manchin and Sinema (along with folks like Jon Tester, Angus King, Chris Coons, Michael Bennet, etc who have signaled that while they don’t like the idea of nuking the filibuster, we’ll have their votes when the time comes).  

3) The Senate Democratic Caucus has been rapidly moving toward nuking/neutering the filibuster.  This year alone, we’ve already seen folks move from being a hard “no” to some version of “I don’t like it, but you’ll have my vote if push comes to shove” (Angus King, Chris Coons, Jon Tester, Michael Bennet, etc) or even from “no” to “yes, it’s time to nuke the filibuster” (Bob Casey, Amy Klobuchar, Dick Durbin, etc).  We’ve been moving in the right direction at a pretty rapid clip.

4) A 50-50 Senate means everyone has leverage and it does make it harder than it would be in, say, a 52-48 Senate to exert pressure on an individual member, lest they switch parties or even just start being as big a pain in the a** as possible out of spite.  

5) Schumer has been keeping his caucus in line.  We’re about to pass a major piece of legislation less than two months after Democrats truly took control of the Senate.  When Manchin tried to wag the dog by lobbying everyone to waste months negotiating a heavily watered down version of the COVID-19 bill, Schumer basically told him to go piss up a rope and made in clear to the WH that a watered-down version was a non-starter (Schumer and Ron Klain have been critical in keeping Biden’s #ModerateHero tendencies in check thus far).  In the end, Manchin fell in line and we got screwed by the parliamentarian rather than by Democratic defections.  

6) It’s a lot easier to put up a united front when you’re in the opposition.  Moreover, the Democrats are a big tent party whereas the GQP, as Yankee once put it, burns its heretics at the stake.  As a result, McConnell has a much easier job than Schumer.  

7) For all the nonsense about the filibuster promoting bipartisanship, it is actually one of the chief obstacles to bipartisan legislation of any sort.  If a Senator knows a bill won’t pass b/c of the filibuster, regardless of what they do, then s/he has no incentive to piss off their party’s base/congressional leadership by crossing party lines to support a bill backed by the other party in exchange for it incorporating some of his or her ideas.  

I mean, if most legislation won’t come to a vote regardless of what any particular Senator does b/c of the filibuster, then compromise of any sort really becomes a high-risk, zero-reward move, regardless of the legislation.  As such, the filibuster is among the most effective tools a Senate Minority Leader has at their disposal for ensuring their members don’t go off the reservation by negotiating with the other side in good-faith or crossing party lines on an important vote in exchange for policy concessions.  Paradoxically, one of the best ways to increase the level of bipartisanship would actually be to nuke the legislative filibuster.  

[Sir Mohamed]

Well, McConnell failed to repeal Obamacare with a 52 seat majority. The reason McConnell got much passed or Trump appointees confirmed is that he was operating with a larger majority in the senate than Schumer is as we speak. He could still win the vote even if 1-2 members voted against him. Dems in the 117th congress just literally need every single vote in their caucus, giving more centrist members a veto power over anything that doesn't have bipartisan support. We just can't afford losing a single member on issues like filibuster nuking or the Covid relief package. If Gideon, Cunningham and one of Ernst or Bullock had won their races, things would be much easier for Schumer.

On a side note, though I admit this could be my personally biased view, is that GOP lawmakers haven't paid a high price for obstruction, even if they are in swing states or districts. Dem lawmakers representing more red areas seem to be punished more if the act like partisan hacks. If Manchin followed the majority of his caucus in 2017-18, he would have been DOA in 2018.

[Del Tachi]

As has been said, McConnell had bigger majorities so he could afford some defections within the GOP caucus. 

[Del Tachi]

Part of it stems from the fact that the Democratic Party, to a degree, is still the big-tent party between the two of them, even if to a lesser degree than a decade ago.

Very much this. I could honestly see a Bush cousin running and winning a democratic primary is suburban Texas. By contrast, Anyone who is slightly to the left of trump is in danger of a primary challenge

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of GOP politics.  Trump himself is in the center/center-left of the GOP; he is not a "free trade, lower spending" movement conservative in the mold of Romney, Rubio, or Kasich.  Being anti-establishment is not a "right-wing" position.  In their response to Trump, Democrats have made the only animating ideological principle of their party strict adherence to the outdated modes and language of a decrepit, East Coast media class that cannot endure in a 21st-century social media environment.

Previous Republican presidents (Reagan and GWB) similarly irked established media with their portrayal of Western/cowboy machismo.  Trump follows this mold.  The way media figures mock Trump (i.e., his boorish personality, irregular and uneducated sounding language, ill-fitted suits, bad hair, love of fast food, etc.) reveal deep insecurity about how such a yokish outsider could breach the hallowed institutions established media consider themselves the gatekeepers of.       

[tjstarling]

Outside of the failed Obamacare repeal, judges, and tax cuts, did the Senate GOP ever try to do anything at all? Not difficult to keep a caucus in line when there isn’t anything being done that would fracture it. Let’s not overrate McConnell’s skills here.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

McConnell doesn't have a Joe Manchin, who is answerable only to his hard-red state and holds the balance of power. The simple fact is that because of Cal Cunningham (and to a lesser extent, Sara Gideon's weak campaign), Schumer has very little power to work with.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

McConnell doesn't have a Joe Manchin, who is answerable only to his hard-red state and holds the balance of power. The simple fact is that because of Cal Cunningham (and to a lesser extent, Sara Gideon's weak campaign), Schumer has very little power to work with.

Sure was a good thing the national party made sure that they didn't have competitive prmaries.

But let's not forget it's two public and probably a few more in private that insist on the McConnell veto

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

McConnell doesn't have a Joe Manchin, who is answerable only to his hard-red state and holds the balance of power. The simple fact is that because of Cal Cunningham (and to a lesser extent, Sara Gideon's weak campaign), Schumer has very little power to work with.

Sure was a good thing the national party made sure that they didn't have competitive prmaries.

But let's not forget it's two public and probably a few more in private that insist on the McConnell veto

I'm not confident that left-wing challengers would have done better than either, but yeah. Collins may have been unbeatable, but Cunningham's personal failings cost the Dems a lot.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

McConnell doesn't have a Joe Manchin, who is answerable only to his hard-red state and holds the balance of power. The simple fact is that because of Cal Cunningham (and to a lesser extent, Sara Gideon's weak campaign), Schumer has very little power to work with.

Sure was a good thing the national party made sure that they didn't have competitive prmaries.

But let's not forget it's two public and probably a few more in private that insist on the McConnell veto

- The national party didn’t interfere in the Maine primary  No one of any significance other than Gideon was even remotely interested in running.  Sometimes you’ve just gotta play the hand you’re dealt and this race was one of those times.  Btw, the random left-wing third party candidate’s total should be added to Gideon’s if you want an accurate picture of how close the race really was given that said third party candidate was literally telling folks to only vote for her if they were also gonna second preference Gideon (IIRC).

- It’s pretty clear, as I’ve explained in other threads, that Cunningham’s campaign had the right strategy and would’ve won if not for having a late-breaking and completely unforeseeable scandal.  Even with that, Cunningham’s awful handling of it, and a state media that spent the rest of the campaign utterly savaging Cunningham, he still came pretty close to eeking out a win.  

[GP270watch]

Schumer has always been an awful negotiator.

[Tekken_Guy]

Bump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Do people here not remember 2017-18 ? Other than tax reform and judges McConnell was unable to get the gop to fall in like for nearly anything else and that was with a larger majority. A lot of it was that the Republicans just didn’t have 50 votes to pass Paul Ryan’s agenda and the bills that could pass the senate wouldn’t pass the house due to freedom caucus

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Part of it stems from the fact that the Democratic Party, to a degree, is still the big-tent party between the two of them, even if to a lesser degree than a decade ago.

Very much this. I could honestly see a Bush cousin running and winning a democratic primary is suburban Texas. By contrast, Anyone who is slightly to the left of trump is in danger of a primary challenge

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of GOP politics.  Trump himself is in the center/center-left of the GOP; he is not a "free trade, lower spending" movement conservative in the mold of Romney, Rubio, or Kasich.  Being anti-establishment is not a "right-wing" position.  In their response to Trump, Democrats have made the only animating ideological principle of their party strict adherence to the outdated modes and language of a decrepit, East Coast media class that cannot endure in a 21st-century social media environment.

Previous Republican presidents (Reagan and GWB) similarly irked established media with their portrayal of Western/cowboy machismo.  Trump follows this mold.  The way media figures mock Trump (i.e., his boorish personality, irregular and uneducated sounding language, ill-fitted suits, bad hair, love of fast food, etc.) reveal deep insecurity about how such a yokish outsider could breach the hallowed institutions established media consider themselves the gatekeepers of.       

I agree that it's a mistake to say "anyone to the left of Trump", but that's because the GOP no longer exists within the classic American political spectrum. The "Republican party" has become an authoritarian cult of personality, and its leader has no coherent ideology, just a vague allegiance to racism and bigotry, plus a handful of pet ideas. The only internal measure of the GOP is loyalty to Trump.

As for the idea that Trump is like Reagan and Bush... As Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." Trump isn't playnig at being an idiot - he is one, something to which hundreds of thousands of Americans could testify, if his "leadership" hadn't killed them.

[Horus]

Do people here not remember 2017-18 ? Other than tax reform and judges McConnell was unable to get the gop to fall in like for nearly anything else and that was with a larger majority. A lot of it was that the Republicans just didn’t have 50 votes to pass Paul Ryan’s agenda and the bills that could pass the senate wouldn’t pass the house due to freedom caucus

OSR is actually right for once. Schumer is obviously sub par but McConnell is overrated in his shrewdness too.

[Pericles]

McConnell doesn't have a Joe Manchin, who is answerable only to his hard-red state and holds the balance of power. The simple fact is that because of Cal Cunningham (and to a lesser extent, Sara Gideon's weak campaign), Schumer has very little power to work with.

Sure was a good thing the national party made sure that they didn't have competitive prmaries.

But let's not forget it's two public and probably a few more in private that insist on the McConnell veto

To be fair, the main reason Cal Cunningham was a weak candidate was because of an unforeseeable scandal. Though Jeff Jackson seemed slightly stronger than a no-scandal Cunningham and maybe Schumer could have worded his pitch better, but NC was just terrible luck (though Democrats were relying on good luck in being up against a weak incumbent in Tillis).

[CookieDamage]

1) As folks such as Adam Jentleson have pointed out, we’re still in Act 1 of this fight and we won’t find out how Manchin and Sinema will on this when push comes to shove until Act 3.  There’s still every reason to think that their current position is politically untenable and that nothing is set in stone until the climax of the real fight over nuking/heavily neutering the filibuster (the latter seems far more likely).  

What act are we in now? 2?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Mcconnell reject Filibuster reform and D's Filibustered ANWR DRILLING in 2005 and Bill Frist didn't get rid of Filibuster, the same with Obama in 2009 he didn't get rid of Fillibuster when he had the chance on DC Statehood in 2009 and on Immigration reform

Both parties didn't try to block Bankruptcy reform and Tarp funding which should of been blocked by D's both were horrible bills by Rs and Biden and Hillary both voted for Bankruptcy Reform and Student Loan reform was cut out of the package

[wbrocks67]

Democrats are also way more likely to eat their own or not agree with their leader. Just look at the numerous senators and house members that have openly criticized Biden/his admin. Not the same with the GOP, they all bowed down to Trump and fell in line.