Kyrsten Sinema, the Dems' Mitt Romney

[BlueK]

We definitely seem to have more tribalism and division in our political discourse. Are we better off tearing down the last structure in place to force some degree of bipartisan legislation? Simple majorities from here on out for any kind of massive structural change? Doesn't strike me as a good idea.

the Senate is 50/50 and the dems can't get at least two of the members to agree with the progressive side on hardly anything. Nothing would pass anyway probably without some cooperation from a few in the middle.

[USUC]

Why should long standing norms and protections be swept aside to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in? The American people sure seem to prefer a split government and not getting a lot done to giving either party a broad majority to get stuff done. In the aggregate, this is what voters want. Maybe when one of the parties actually gets their shit together they will get the majorities they want to actually legislate. I don't want either of these parties ramming their dumb agenda through right now. And frankly, neither do the voters.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why should long standing norms and protections be swept aside to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in? The American people sure seem to prefer a split government and not getting a lot done to giving either party a broad majority to get stuff done. In the aggregate, this is what voters want. Maybe when one of the parties actually gets their shit together they will get the majorities they want to actually legislate. I don't want either of these parties ramming their dumb agenda through right now. And frankly, neither do the voters.

[BlueK]

Why should long standing norms and protections be swept aside to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in? The American people sure seem to prefer a split government and not getting a lot done to giving either party a broad majority to get stuff done. In the aggregate, this is what voters want. Maybe when one of the parties actually gets their shit together they will get the majorities they want to actually legislate. I don't want either of these parties ramming their dumb agenda through right now. And frankly, neither do the voters.

20 years isn't a longstanding norm. I would be fine with going back to the way it used to work.

[USUC]

20 years isn't a longstanding norm. I would be fine with going back to the way it used to work.

At the beginning of the pandemic I read Morris Fiorina's "Unstable Majorities" and it's really changed the way I view this stuff lately. He has been very prescient on the latest election cycles. It's a great read but many of his articles sum up his views as well. This interview is succinct and gets right at what his ideas are:

... the U.S. is experiencing a period of electoral chaos unlike anything since the 19th century. Neither party can win control of our national institutions for any appreciable period of time. Control of the presidency, the Senate and the House keeps flip-flopping because of the overreaching I mentioned above. Leaders of the winning party delude themselves into thinking they have a mandate to implement their program and suffer the consequences in succeeding elections. Republicans lost the House in the 2018 elections, which added to the string of unstable majorities I documented, and it looks very likely now that they will lose the presidency and possibly the Senate, further extending the string of unstable majorities. If so, and the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party dominates the agenda, we would see severe Democratic losses in the 2022 mid-term elections. The bottom line is our problems are not going away and a paralyzed party system is not going to address them.

https://news.stanford.edu/2020/10/26...cal-stalemate/

[Commando]

Why should long standing norms and protections be swept aside to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in? The American people sure seem to prefer a split government and not getting a lot done to giving either party a broad majority to get stuff done. In the aggregate, this is what voters want. Maybe when one of the parties actually gets their shit together they will get the majorities they want to actually legislate. I don't want either of these parties ramming their dumb agenda through right now. And frankly, neither do the voters.

Uh... to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in. The filibuster is nothing more than voting rules the senate agrees to abide by. Now it's hard to get anything done because of the way Mitch McConnell has normalized just blocking every single thing the other side wants to do, the way he bragged about doing to Obama. So who cares about the super-majority when the representatives for a minor part of the populace is quite disproportionately calling all the shots?


And the filibuster wasn't such a sacred, long-standing norm when it came to SCOTUS confirmation, was it? I for one would like some bills to pass, even if they're not popular with people like mealy-mouthed Kyrsten Sinema...

[Goatnapper'96]

Uh... to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in. The filibuster is nothing more than voting rules the senate agrees to abide by. Now it's hard to get anything done because of the way Mitch McConnell has normalized just blocking every single thing the other side wants to do, the way he bragged about doing to Obama. So who cares about the super-majority when the representatives for a minor part of the populace is quite disproportionately calling all the shots?


And the filibuster wasn't such a sacred, long-standing norm when it came to SCOTUS confirmation, was it? I for one would like some bills to pass, even if they're not popular with people like mealy-mouthed Kyrsten Sinema...

If they are unpopular with Sinema, while being popular in the Democratic Caucus, then they probably don't have the votes even if the Senate were functioning on pure democratic majority rules.

[fusnik]

Why should long standing norms and protections be swept aside to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in? The American people sure seem to prefer a split government and not getting a lot done to giving either party a broad majority to get stuff done. In the aggregate, this is what voters want. Maybe when one of the parties actually gets their shit together they will get the majorities they want to actually legislate. I don't want either of these parties ramming their dumb agenda through right now. And frankly, neither do the voters.

Wrong.

A bunch of rural states with outsized power want obstructionist government when the electoral map disfavors them. In a couple years they will go back to passing tax cuts, and jamming through lifetime appointments to SCOTUS on simple majorities.

There’s utility to what Manchin/Sinema are doing and it’s actually kinda nice that they are seeking a broader consensus but like all things, the dems are playing checkers while the GOP waits for a favorable cycle and shackles the electorate with nonsensical tax cuts, bloated budgets and culture warriors up and down the judiciary.

[Moliere]

Uh... to accommodate the hyper partisan moment we find ourselves in. The filibuster is nothing more than voting rules the senate agrees to abide by. Now it's hard to get anything done because of the way Mitch McConnell has normalized just blocking every single thing the other side wants to do, the way he bragged about doing to Obama. So who cares about the super-majority when the representatives for a minor part of the populace is quite disproportionately calling all the shots?


And the filibuster wasn't such a sacred, long-standing norm when it came to SCOTUS confirmation, was it? I for one would like some bills to pass, even if they're not popular with people like mealy-mouthed Kyrsten Sinema...

In 2016 the GOP had control of the house, senate and presidency with Trump running the show. Would you be willing to give them control again without a filibuster in place?

[fusnik]

If they are unpopular with Sinema, while being popular in the Democratic Caucus, then they probably don't have the votes even if the Senate were functioning on pure democratic majority rules.

Sinema and Manchin are taking fire for probably 10 other senators who feel similarly.

Im hoping these initiatives which everyone knew were going to fail, were done to show the AOCs and blue check marks that, there isn’t a path forward with a hyper partisan/hard left leaning agenda.

That’s my hope, dems are awful at politics so I’m laboring under the assumption they forgot that Manchin lives in a Trump +5000 state. Pass 2-3 easy things with bipartisan support, child tax credit, some sort of election law that stops what Trump tried to do, and you have an insanely successful 2 years.

[Commando]

In 2016 the GOP had control of the house, senate and presidency with Trump running the show. Would you be willing to give them control again without a filibuster in place?

So when will the DREAM Act finally pass? Never? I know only 90% of Americans are in favor of it, so it's got quite a steep hill to climb...

[BlueK]

If the GOP flips the Senate, just watch, McConnell will change the rules under the justification that the Dems tried to change them in 2020 and thats good enough. McConnell already has a history of arguing vigorously for a norm only to abandon it as soon as it's to his political advantage. That's why there isn't a Justice Garland and there is a justice who was rammed through even after the election in which the sitting president lost.

[BlueK]

Sinema and Manchin are taking fire for probably 10 other senators who feel similarly.

Im hoping these initiatives which everyone knew were going to fail, were done to show the AOCs and blue check marks that, there isn’t a path forward with a hyper partisan/hard left leaning agenda.

That’s my hope, dems are awful at politics so I’m laboring under the assumption they forgot that Manchin lives in a Trump +5000 state. Pass 2-3 easy things with bipartisan support, child tax credit, some sort of election law that stops what Trump tried to do, and you have an insanely successful 2 years.

There have been some reports that there is some bipartisan discussion going on to come up with a replacement for the electoral count act. Hopefully that's true.

[USUC]

Your argument isn't a good one if your justification is a hypothetical of what you imagine your political enemy might do.

[BlueK]

Your argument isn't a good one if your justification is a hypothetical of what you imagine your political enemy might do.

It's really a prediction, not so much an argument. And for the record, Im a Libertarian. However you're right that Trumpism has really turned me away from the Republicans. But I don't like the dems much either.

My justification was based on my thought around what the Constitution ntended.. The prediction is based on the thought that politicians don't care about much more than being in power.