Senator Schumer made remarks on the Senate floor yesterday afternoon. In those remarks he explained what business he would bring before the Senate this week (emphasis mine):
But tomorrow—tomorrow—the Senate will also take a crucial vote tomorrow on whether to start debate on major voting rights legislation.
I want to say that again. Tomorrow, the Senate will take a vote on whether to start debate on legislation to protect Americans’ voting rights. It is not a vote on any particular policy. It is not a vote on this bill or that bill. It is a vote on whether the Senate should simply debate the issue about voting rights, the crucial issue of voting rights, in this country.
Senator Schumer has now explained to the world what is happening this week. And IT IS NOT a vote on Senate Bill 1, the Senate’s version of The For the People Act.
Stacey Abrams call to action is based on an inaccurate presentation of the strategic environment in the US Senate. You cannot operate effectively based on an inaccurate strategic premise. You cannot achieve your strategic objectives by doing so.
Senate Bill 1 is not going to be debated this week. It is not going to be voted on this week. It is not even going to be brought to the floor of the Senate because of a deal cut between the parties on what happens if a Senate committee should tie on voting out a bill. What is going to be introduced today by Senator Schumer, what he has put on the calendar under his authority as the majority leader who controls the Senate calendar, is a motion to allow the Senate to move to consider – debate and then vote on – Senate Bill 1. Schumer was never going to bring Senate Bill 1 to the floor this week. He was never going to bring Senate Bill 1 up for a vote this week. And he is NEVER GOING TO BRING Senate Bill 1 up for a vote this week.
Recognizing this reality isn’t defeatist. Recognizing this reality is dealing with the reality of the strategic environment as it exists. Not as you would prefer it to be!
Calling your senators to lobby for something that is not happening and is not going to happen isn’t effective political action. It isn’t effective anything.
Calling your Democratic senators to tell them to work on getting Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein to agree to at least reform the filibuster is something that may be effective political action if they can pull it off. If you’re a West Virginian, an Arizonan, or a Californian, calling Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein and telling them that when Senator Schumer’s efforts this week reach their inevitable results, which is that Senate Bill 1 will not be debated let alone voted on, that you expect them to agree to at least reform the filibuster may be effective political action if enough of their constituents make the attempt.
Until or unless Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein commit to at least reforming the filibuster calling to register your support for bills that will never, ever, under any circumstance be debated let alone voted on because there IS NO ONE WEIRD TRICK up Schumer’s sleeve to make that happen absent filibuster reform is a waste of your time and energy and waste of your senator’s staff’s time and energy.
The objective right now is reform of the filibuster. That’s the strategic objective. That means aligning appropriate ways and means to achieve that end. If your ways and means are focused on passing Senate Bill 1 this week, then your ways and means are misaligned with the actual potentially achievable ends.
If filibuster reform is accomplished, then the strategic objective shifts to actually passing Senate Bill 1 or the Manchin compromise or something related. And then focusing your ways and means on voting for one or more of those bills is an appropriate strategy to undertake.
Please feel free to reach out to Senator Schumer and explain to him why what he’s told you will happen this week is wrong because he clearly does not understand what Senator Schumer is actually doing, nor how the Senate rules actually work, nor what he can and cannot do under those rules. His contact information can be found at this link.
Edited to Add:
Senator Schumer actually has a strategy, which is based on a realistic and accurate assessment and understanding of the strategic environment he is operating in. It is, specifically, a strategy to change that strategic environment. It has the following components:
- Very publicly attempt to achieve the 60 vote cloture threshold on today’s and this week’s motions to debate Senate Bill 1, as well as several other bills on this and other important topics.
- Use this very public attempt to force the Senate Republicans to actually take on the record votes opposing even proceeding to debate these bills, let alone vote on them or for them.
- By forcing at least 41 Senate Republicans to vote against proceeding to debate, he is creating a record that can be used against them, or at least attempt to be used against them because you can’t shame the shameless, during the 2022 midterm elections.
- Gauge whether Senator Manchin really will not, as Senator Manchin has publicly stated he will not, vote for Senate Bill 1, the Senate version of The For the People Act.
- By doing so, Senator Schumer is attempting to determine out in public how much of what Senator Manchin has been doing is political gamesmanship and how much of it is sincere, for lack of a better term. That is why the Manchin compromise bill is not part of the motion that Senator Schumer will be bringing to the floor on the several bills that Senator Schumer is asking the Senate for permission to open debate on.
Senator Schumer has a strategy. It is a strategy that is appropriate for and tailored to the actual strategic environment. His ways and means this week is to use the motion to open debate, specifically its failure, to demonstrate to Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Feinstein that it is not possible to even get enough Republican senators to allow debate of these bills on their merits, let alone an actual vote on them. This then allows him to try to achieve his real and immediate strategic objective, which is reforming the filibuster so these bills can actually be debated and then voted on, rather than just prevented from ever actually coming to the Senate floor for any action. If, and only if, he is able to achieve this strategic objective will he move on to his ultimate strategic objective, which is passing Senate Bill 1, or the Manchin compromise bill, or other related bills.
Senator Schumer has told us what his strategy is. He has told us what the strategic objective is. If you’re going to engage in political action this week you can either help him do so or you can do something else. The former might be effective. The latter will not.
Open thread!
Mary G
Have been calling and writing postcards to Senators Feinstein and Padilla for a couple of weeks now. The lines are never busy and the interns happy to chat. Not a good sign, and I don’t know what else to do besides increase my donation to Marc Elias’s Democracy Docket. He has won so many lawsuits and is now rightly focused on this:
cain
This is so goddam frustrating. We can actually fix this country – but we’re stuck with a few assholes who I can’t seem to fathom what is going on in their heads.
cain
@Mary G: I hope we can fix some of this through the courts. I fear in the end, we’ll need to do our own insurrection or country wide strikes.
kindness
I’ve held my nose and voted for DiFi each time except the first time when I was still in fantasy world regarding what kind of Senator she’d be. I’ve voted for her in the General because she is still way better than the foaming at the mouth Republicans that go up against her. I’ve voted against DiFi in the primaries ever since that first run. It’s time to retire Diane. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
ian
This part did not make a lot of sense to me. Obviously Schumer gets that he is debating cloture, not the actual bill itself. The words of his you quote explain that too.
Adam L Silverman
For those who have already read this, I have added this update to the bottom of the original post:
E.
Okay you win.
Cameron
What a strange world. Even though the current administration has called out China and Russia as adversaries, it probably has more tools to defend our governmental system from them than it does to defend it from the Republican Party. Republicans have made no secret of their actions and don’t appear to pay any price. And there are a hell of a lot of them.
SiubhanDuinne
Question for you, Adam:
My bold.
Adam, given your extensive background in political science and the nuances of Congressional voting, do you think there is any value in letting Senate staffers know how we feel? Even if the bill (S. 1) isn’t coming to the floor this week, every call to our Senators’ offices registers with them, and may provide the kinds of numbers they need to either support their position or give them a moment’s pause, yes?
IOW, I’m not seeing the harm in a barrage of phoning right now. At best it might shift the needle, and at worst it won’t matter one way or another.
Adam L Silverman
@ian: Last night when I did a different version of this post without the reference to Schumer’s remarks as I hadn’t seen them yet, 40 of our commenters and one front pager explained to me, repeatedly, until I wrote something very intemperate in response and then just pulled the entire post and deleted it forever, that I am wrong, I am misrepresenting what is happening this week, that what I have delineated above, now using Schumer’s own words, is wrong and not what Schumer is doing, and that we should all just do what Stacey Abrams told us to do.
So since I don’t know what I’m talking about and clearly based on yesterday’s response Schumer also doesn’t know what he’s talking about, rather than telling me this again and again in the comments, just take it straight to Schumer.
Omnes Omnibus
Calling your Senators and saying that S.B.1 is important to you and you want them to do everything in their power to pass it is a perfectly valid call to make. Everyone does not have to grasp the step by step details of the sausage making to tell their Senator that they want bratwurst.
2liberal
I live in the PHX-burbs so have been pestering Sinema’s office lately about exempting voting rights from the flilbuster.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Omnes Omnibus: Well put.
Adam L Silverman
@SiubhanDuinne: There’s is no harm in a barrage of calls. But what you tell the staffers has to be tailored to what is actually happening: which is that you expect your senators to support reforming, if not eliminating, the filibuster so that they can actually debate and then pass SB1, the Manchin compromise, or something else related and equivalent. And that once the filibuster is at least reformed, you expect them to vote the right way on the actual bills once Schumer is able to bring them to the floor.
If you just call and say you expect them to support SB 1 this week, that’s nice, but SB 1 isn’t going to even be introduced this week, so there’s nothing for them to actually support. What is being introduced is a preferential motion of the majority leader to allow for debate to be opened on SB 1 and several other related and unrelated bills.
Jerzy Russian
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes, exactly. Call and demand that the Senate take action on that bill.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Bratwurst IS NOT ON THE MENU!
eclare
@Omnes Omnibus: Agreed.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Well put is ALSO NOT ON THE MENU!
Adam L Silverman
@eclare: AGREED IS DEFINITELY NOT ON THE MENU!!!!
We do have falafel.
Adam L Silverman
@Jerzy Russian: There is no bill to take action on. That’s the point. The only thing to take action on this week is the motion to open debate that would allow the Senate to take action on the bill. If that fails, and it will, then the point is to take action on reforming the filibuster. Until or unless that happens THERE IS NO BILL TO TAKE ACTION ON!
germy
Here’s a reader comment I saw over at LGM:
Is this true? Did Schumer recruit Sinema?
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: Adam, you’re getting tied up in the details of sausage making, it’s a problem here. You’re right on what Schumer is doing, but you’re looking at several trees and missing the forest as far as regular folk are concerned.
Adam L Silverman
@germy: He did.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: No, I’m looking at the entire environment so that an effective strategic approach can be created.
dr. bloor
@?BillinGlendaleCA:
Is there something about “regular folk” that prevents or excludes them from being given accurate information about why they should be calling their senators?
Jerzy Russian
@Adam L Silverman: In this context “take action” includes getting the damn bill to the floor so that it can be voted on.
germy
“I make a motion that we make a motion.”
germy
Think of all the things we could accomplish if 90% of Democrats’ time wasn’t spent trying to work around the crazies across the aisle. Think of what Democrats could pass if they weren’t so busy trying to undo the damage of the past four years.
ian
@Adam L Silverman:
Wouldn’t that have been a lot less confusing to say?
Ian
Thanks for this info, Adam. I just called Senator Feinstein’s office and got through after 5 minutes; I told the staffer that I wanted to urge Senator Feinstein to reconsider her opposition to filibuster reform, given what’s going to happen with the voting rights bill this week.
Steve in the ATL
@cain:
LOL–the Roberts/Taney 2 court?
Woodrow/asim
Seconding — and yes, I know you’re correct, Adam. And yet, as someone who did not jump on said dogpile because I didn’t read comments on your other piece, I will underline that this is a very frustrating way to discuss a critical process, from the layperson POV that reads this blog.
I hope you don’t take this as rejecting the truth of your commentary. I’ve re-posted your articles from you before, and look forward to doing so, again, because you have insight into a lot of systems, esp. military, that is incredibly valuable.
It’s mostly that, in working to ensure everyone agrees with you, you risk this dialogue losing the point, which should be to ensure the readership here (and those wandering by) has clear directions and guidance on how to engage this critical issue. A correction is one thing; a back/forth on who’s right seems to generate more heat than light.
Again, Adam — I’m not criticizing the rightness of what you’re saying. Just saying it might be a consideration to map (or coordinate with others) your efforts to ensure everyone understands to how we can actually correct what Abrams and others have given as direction.
I hope this makes sense.
germy
Michael Cohen (trump’s fixer) predicted over a year ago the former guy wouldn’t accept defeat. He’d yell about a fraudulent election, etc.
So we’re all being held hostage by a madman, and a mad party.
Cheryl Rofer
I think it’s helpful to target the filibuster issue at the senators who are problems in that respect, and it’s a good thing if you’re calling another senator’s office. But I also think that senators and aides who get phonecalls supporting SB 1 can figure out they need to nuke the filibuster first.
IOW, Adam’s clarification is helpful, but senators’ offices get all kinds of phonecalls, and I suspect they make their way through the static.
Cameron
@germy: Trump is cover for them. This is where the Republican Party has been headed for a while. It’s a pretty easy agenda to remember: pay the rich, fuck the poor, appoint wingnut judges. And – of course! – pwn the libtards.
germy
germy
@Cameron:
Yes, the GOP has been heading in this direction for decades.
Kathleen
@Omnes Omnibus: Excellent and helpful point.
cain
@Adam L Silverman:
But warm and fuzzies are on the menu, yes? YES? I WILL TELL THEM I WANT WARM FUZZIES! Maybe tell them that they need to issue a code red while I’m at it.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: There is a related point here: by making this about SB1/The For the People Act, when this week’s efforts comes to their inevitable conclusion, which they will, it will leave the vast majority of Americans with the impression that the Senate Democratic majority could NOT pass The For the People Act. And this will be demoralizing. Which is what McConnell wants and why he has weaponized the filibuster the way he has.
One of the key ways of revolutionary political warfare is to demoralize one’s opponents by breaking public institutions so they cannot deliver any public goods at all to the citizenry. This has been a key component of McConnell’s strategy for over a decade and it works every single time because most Americans don’t understand how the Senate works and most of the politics reporters who cover DC really do a terrible job explaining how it works if they even try. So all it looks like – over and over and over and over again – is that the Democrats can never, ever deliver on anything they promise. And this demoralizes the Democrats base, as well as Democratic leaning independents in specific and Americans in general who then believe that the US government is useless in regard to doing anything to positively effect and improve their lives. This is why ever GOP governor other than Maryland and Massachusetts has cancelled or is in the process of cancelling the expanded unemployment insurance. The Biden administration did a great job promoting it was coming. And now every one who was expecting it in a GOP run state is not going to get it. And the effect will be that Biden and the Democrats promised it was coming and it never arrived.
What you are proposing only plays into demoralization. I’m trying to prevent it.
cain
@germy: as long as it is not loose motion
cain
@Steve in the ATL:
::smirk smirk:: I know, I know.. but we are still adding more liberal fed – there is that. But who knows? Maybe they will surprise us?
Adam L Silverman
@cain: If you eat all your vegetables including the lima beans…
Suzanne
@germy: Ruben Gallego has no shot in a general election in Arizona. He is awesome. He will not win statewide.
Cathie from Canada
I get the impression that Schumer is now getting the entire Senate Democratic Caucus to say to the American people: “I know you think you understand what you think I said. But I wonder if you realize that what I said is not what I meant.”
And he expects Americans to understand what is happening.
There are many many days when I really miss Harry Reid, and this is one of them
piratedan
well since I am a constituent for Senator wanna-be-iconoclast, fasionista division, I did call her local office and went straight to voice mail. I did make sure to mention that in her public ads she supports the bill, I asked her to back said positions with deeds, not op-eds.
cain
@Adam L Silverman:
This is a good response – and did not consider it in this light. It just shows what a clever asshole McConnell is.
We really need a strong grassroots campaign that can have local conversations about this. Hard to do that though with all the other bullshit that gets spread around by right wing noise machine.
That said I do feel demoralized when shit people like Sinema and DiFi are doing their best to help McConnell along with his mad schemes.
Suzanne
@piratedan: Sinema’s office sucks. I NEVER, not ONE TIME, got through to a person there.
cain
@Adam L Silverman: eww.. well I probably could do something with the lima beans.. little salt, a little pepper, a little ajwain..etc.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: Great explanation, wrong conclusion. There is absolutely no harm in calling your Senator as advocating for SB1. Isn’t the motion to proceed for SB1? You are correct, this has an intended audience of maybe 10 Democratic Senators, but calling in support of the underlying legislation is not wasted effort.
cain
@Suzanne: We should make attack ads where we point out that she doesn’t even provide good services.
Another Scott
Repost:
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
piratedan
@Suzanne: Stanton likely has a better demographic profile (meaning, he’s white) no doubt. However, at this point, with how pissed off people in the state are about the ninja-recall process, if this stays in the memory banks (always a question) there could be a significant backlash and what I hear when I am out and about on the local boards is that PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY, worse, they’re beginning to be embarrassed by the dumpster fire. If that seething turns into ballots, even Gallego could like like a good candidate, his military background could be offsetting depending upon how the dark money is played.
satby
With the supine media we’ve had, that’s certainly been true. But the last few years have seen a party evolve that a lot of people realize actively aided an insurrection and botched a pandemic for profit. I think the blame may fall closer to the culprits responsible this time.
piratedan
@cain: as a FYI, the first ad dropped this week regarding her intransigence about the filibuster and promoted calling her ass to the carpet to get her on board with her own professed positions on SR-1. It ran during Wheel of Fortune (the vaunted 1830 slot where ads are expensive and reach a LOT of eyes) down here in Tucson, so it reached a good many of the 40+ demo.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: This has happened every single time since January 2009. It is the right example and the right conclusion.
Mary G
At some point it all comes down to voters learning the real issues and who is on their side and who isn’t.
It’s very discouraging to see millennial influencers, TikTok videos of women making hideous food, and starlets I have never heard of with millions of followers and views while Schumer’s tweet @germy: posted has a whopping 1.9k.
I think Schumer is playing this well with a good healthy righteous rage and pithy attacks on both TFG and Moscow Mitch. But he has to get heard. I hope President Obama, who has that huge social media following that no other Democrat does, (save maybe AOC) gets involved ASAP.
Suzanne
@piratedan: Stanton is a good candidate, I think. He was a good mayor.
TBH, I prefer Ruben Gallego, by a lot. But super-progressive dude from a majority-minority district DOES NOT WIN THE STATE. Gallego and Grijalva win their districts because those were the two VRA districts in AZ.
I wish more people from outside AZ would remember that Sinema wins because she is good at playing the whole state. She appeals to a lot of people. She sucks, but that is because the electorate sucks. There is not a long list of Dems who have won statewide there. The ones that have are not progressive. So why does anyone think that nominating someone MORE progressive will be successful?!?
Another Scott
(via LOLGOP)
Cheers,
Scott.
UncleEbeneezer
Every call I have made to Feinstein, on any issue ends with “even if it means eliminating the filibuster to do so. We can’t let the filibuster stop progress on this crucial issue.”
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: It is wonderful that they are calling for its passage. Unfortunately, it is not up for actual consideration, debate, or a vote this week. Or any week soon.
lowtechcyclist
Same question I had yesterday, Adam: what’s Schumer’s special sauce that forces 41 Repubs to vote against cloture on the Motion to Proceed?
Are the rules on cloture votes different for ending debate on motions like that, than they are on cloture votes to end debate on the actual bill? Because we know the latter fails even if the vote is 59-1 in favor of ending debate.
Citizen Alan
@germy:
I have told the few GOPers I’m still on speaking terms with (all Never Trumpers) that Shitgibbon is the logical and completely foreseeable result of everything the GOP has been doing since 1964.
cain
@piratedan: I’m glad that the the state apparatus is trying to put pressure on her. She does need to understand that a lot is at stake – it’s not even about the Dem party – it’s about our nation and the complete breakdown of institutions.
Suzanne
@cain: The mistake progressives and liberals make is thinking that Sinema would ever count for anything other than putting one person on the D side of the list when determining which party has the majority. I voted for her solely for that reason. Ergo, I am not surprised at all by her antics.
Adam L Silverman
@lowtechcyclist: Schumer needs 60 yes votes to proceed to debate and a simple majority vote after debate ends. That means to prevent moving forward to debate and a simple majority vote after debate ends, at least 40 Republicans, provided Schumer holds his entire caucus and all the Democrats/Independents that caucus with the Democrats vote to proceed, to vote not to proceed. If he could pick off 10 Republicans, which he can’t, he could proceed. So if you subtract 60 from 100 you get 40. The 41 is
just one vote of insurancewhat’s needed for the GOP in their attempts to prevent moving forward by ensuring that Schumer can get no more than 59 votes to proceed.Usually what has happened since January 2009, is that the Republican minority leader sends a formal notice to the Democratic majority leader that at least 41 Republicans will vote against the motion to proceed. At that point, what usually happens is that the Democratic majority leader just never brings the motion to debate up for a vote and moves on. In this case Schumer is going to bring the motion to debate up, they will then debate debating, and then they will vote. And my understanding is Schumer is going to make it a recorded roll call vote. At which point point at least 41, if not all 50, Senate Republicans will vote against proceeding and the motion will fail. But they will have done this on the record out in public this time, not via a letter.
Slightly edited for numerical clarity.
piratedan
@Adam L Silverman: and while it’s symbolic (mostly), symbols and deeds matter. Before, no votes were taken and no soap boxes were deployed, and those bills slipped into the morass of not even being worth reporting and the “both sides” narrative gets another jump and is perpetuated ad nauseum.
I get why this is different and while its inside baseball to the public at large, those of us who are the professed political junkies in our respective circles can stand here and affirm that yes there was a vote and yes, those bastards in the GOP essentially stated that they don’t believe that early and easy access to the ballot box is something that needs to be enshrined into law, unlike the need to own a semi-automatic weapon (pew-pew-pew).
and if we’re accused of bringing a edged weapon to a gunfight, at least this one takes the guise of a crossbow bolt.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman: Snideness isn’t becoming.
Was Schumer wrong in his tweet yesterday?
Cheers,
Scott.
planetjanet
@Omnes Omnibus: Excellent description of the situation.
Tazj
According to NPR, everything is over because of Sinema’s and Manchin’s belief in maintaining the filibuster. Both sides complain when they’re not in the majority. Nothing more will pass in Biden’s agenda. Now it comes down to messaging in the midterms which of course Republicans have a huge advantage in but maybe the Democrats have a shred of hope if they can convince people that the Republicans stymied their plans.
This was the analysis from the head of ABC’s politics department. Sorry, I didn’t catch his name just his job description. Sadly, I assume that this person gets plenty of money for his job. I should just listen to more music in my car.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Adam L Silverman: WRONG, what you’re seeking to do is change media reporting on what happened, whether you call in support of SB1 or for filibuster reform makes no difference. The media narrative won’t change either way.
geg6
@Mary G:
He did exactly that over the weekend. A video or something. I admit I didn’t click the link as I don’t need the encouragement.
Ruckus
@cain:
It’s not just a few.
Everyone has an asshole, it’s just that many have their’s located in the front of their face, at the wrong end of the digestive system, which of course is completely ass backwards from normal human anatomy and rather than sprout words, they sprout bullshit. We call them republicans. In my lifetime we used to call them crazy uncle Saul and crazy aunt Dena but really just lumping them all in one political party seems to be more realistic these days.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: Is the vote planned for this week part of the process of getting the Bill passed? Yes. Beyond that we are in danger of getting into clip v. magazine territory. An avalanche of pro-S.B.1 calls is a good thing.
James E Powell
@Omnes Omnibus:
Exactly. It is not a waste of the staff’s time, it’s their fucking job to learn what their state’s voters are concerned about and communicate that to their bosses. Sometimes the senators & reps need to be shaken out of their routines by unexpectedly massive communications from their voters.
Not to be presumptive – there are some impressive people here – but we aren’t the kind of people who can get a senator to return our phone calls. We can only get through to them with tsunamis of calls & letters.
I’ve also been thinking that street protests might also be effective. There is a widespread belief that Republicans’ voter suppression & partisan gerrymandering are politics as usual, both sides, some say, dog bites man, who really cares, blah blah blah.
Maybe a public demonstration on the order of the Women’s March might change perceptions.
Adam L Silverman
@Another Scott: Schumer’s aide who handles his social media account stepped all over Schumer’s message. Which I quoted in the post from the actual transcript that Schumer’s comm’s director posted on the Senate website.
dww44
@SiubhanDuinne:
On last night’s RMS show, Ezra Levin of Indivisible provided a good and optimistic take on the strategy. He absolutely believes that it is local pressure on local politicians, particularly over the 4th of July break, that has the potential to move the needle toward getting the conserva Dems on board with revising the filibuster rules. So, call I will, even though our Senators, are definitely for S 1. I do think that Warnock could be particularly effective on moving this needle. I will also look around for an Indivisible event. to participate in. We don’t win if we don’t really work for it. In this case the work is definitely necessary.
Adam L Silverman
@?BillinGlendaleCA: No, I am not trying to change media reporting. I’m trying to change how the Democrats themselves describe what they’re doing, so it is in line with reality, and therefore drives appropriate strategy. In order to prevent demoralization.
Ruckus
@kindness:
I vote for her in the same vein as you do, better than anyone who ran against her.
But. And it’s a big, firm, round but.
It was time to retire her back in 2012. Then again back in 2018. And it is now even more important, if only as she seems to be declining mentally. But she is DiFi and she has been a decent senator in the past so no real dems ran against her. But her time has arrived. We all get there at sooner or later and few of us have all that past propping us up but here she is. I have no idea what can be done sooner than her next election in 2024 but something has to give. She seems to no longer be able to represent the state she works for.
Another Scott
@Adam L Silverman: I take that as a yes.
Similarly, the 900 political scientists don’t know what is going on in the Senate today either.
Good to know.
(groucho-roll-eyes.gif)
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
This is powerful.
James E Powell
@dww44:
I completely agree with this.
Cameron
My senators are Rubio and Scott. I’m more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to convince either of them to support Schumer.
Almost Retired
OK, called Feinstein’s office, and got through rather quickly. I didn’t realize she was a wobbler on this, but I shouldn’t have been surprised where the Senate’s preeminent Lindsey-hugger stands on the issue. As per Adam’s suggestion, with which I agree, I focused solely on filibuster reform, so as not to dilute my message. I can always call back to kvetch about other stuff later, because she’ll be taking many kvetch-worthy positions in the future.
Betty Cracker
If there was a phone campaign to “demand that senators invoke cloture so that critical voting rights legislation can proceed to a vote” in the senate, most people wouldn’t know what that meant, so I get why Abrams, Schumer, et al., phrase it differently.
But is it true that urging people to support bills that never come up for a vote demoralizes the public? I’m not convinced that’s the case. People are mad and think the senate is worse than useless because popular legislation that has majority support doesn’t get done. I don’t think people care which mechanism the shitty hacks use to ether it all that much.
Maybe there’s a silver lining to having the Biden agenda’s fate in the hands of shitty institutionalists: it’s a civic education.
billcinsd
@Adam L Silverman: How is opening debate on the bill, not part of taking action on the bill?
Hildebrand
@Omnes Omnibus: Bingo.
Sometimes our resident strategist/tacticians over-complicate the issue. Wielding Occam’s Razor is a good thing in this case – encourage people to make phone calls to the people who need to hear from their constituents about voting rights. That’s it. When we articulate the one thing we absolutely want, those taking the calls understand exactly what we are asking for – if we get into the weeds of process, then they have no idea what we really want.
Our elected representatives get to figure out how to make it happen – that’s their job.
When constituents get wrapped around the axle of how said elected officials get there ? That is when disillusionment bites deep – because we lose sight of the goal and start worrying about every little process fight, backroom machination, or compromise.
So, tell the folks taking your call that you want the whole show when it comes to voting rights (knowing in your heart that you won’t get everything – because even little kids understand they don’t get everything they want) and let them figure out how to get most of that done.
Because the other thing we know is that we were never going to get everything all at once anyway. No one in their right mind thought that we would get the whole enchilada in one go. So, let’s get what we can, live to fight another day, and go right back to it the day after. You don’t eat the whole elephant in one gulp, you have to do it a bite at a time.
We are adult enough to know that this is how it works – because that is how life works.
Feckless
Neither of my senators have anything on their websites about voting rights. nothing. Both are safe Democratic seats.
But unless I use the magic words to make sure that I had the issue and the bill and the motion and the committee correct I should just stfu?
Schumer should have brought this vote four months ago. The Democratic leadership is whistling past the graveyard, collecting their pay and doing nothing, slowly.
There are dozens of reasons to be screaming at the Democratic “leadership”. If more people called them to express their disgust even though it’s not the appropriate week or bill or cloture vote we might actually be able to save our democracy.
SFAW
Eeyore.
Pied.
[Yes, I’m kidding.]
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Feckless:
I think it’s next week that the checks start to go out that will cut child poverty in half, massive unemployment and stimulus support has gone out but.. yeah, doing nothing. Slowly.
Ruckus
@Cheryl Rofer:
Is static the best tactic though?
They get so many calls that it seems to me that ones that are direct and to the point would work better. And yes I’ve had to deal with congress people before and had a contact person at the office who knew me by the sound of my voice.
But direct needs require direct action. And we don’t get that with static.
Ruckus
@germy:
I contend that conservatives have always been heading in this direction, since the founding. There are a number of things in the Constitution that suggest this very strongly.
WaterGirl
@Feckless:
I would say ‘no’, most definitely do not shut the fuck up.
The person answering your phone call isn’t going to take down the nuance of what you are saying – they are most assuredly going to turn it into at tick mark in a column – For or Against
Make sure they understand that you want the voting bill passed – whatever it takes. Tell them it’s your #1 thing.
billcinsd
@kindness: you do know that because of the jungle primary, her opponent in the General was Kevin De Leon, a Democrat
James E Powell
@Feckless:
I’ve done my share of criticism of my party – it’s what Democrats do – but you are way off here. Our party’s DC leadership hasn’t taken any time off since before the inauguration. And Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer are our best top three since the Johnson administration at knowing what can be done and how to do it.
Cheryl Rofer
@Ruckus:
I never said it was. Only used the word to illustrate that folks in the senators’ offices can read “Support SB 1” to include getting rid of the filibuster.
And Uncle Joe isn’t even using the somewhat technical “SB 1.”
Ruckus
@Mary G:
I don’t think he can.
I also think President Obama could help, but I also think his voice would be taken wrongly by many and would undermine President Biden. I wish and hope I’m wrong but my gut says I’m not.
germy
Cheryl Rofer
FWIW –
Cheryl Rofer
I should add that the Sahil Kapur tweet is consistent with Adam’s reading of Schumer’s strategy, which I agree with. I’m just easier on how the public can express support for SB 1.
germy
Bruuuuce
From the movie 1776:
Then again, Hopkins wasn’t a Republican, especially a Republican Senator, who are the very definition of cowards
Ruckus
@Cheryl Rofer:
I think we have two different messages here. The first is us, zeroing in on the real issue, the filibuster, which is about as undemocratic as it gets and the second is that we need laws that protect democracy, especially as we are not a true democracy but a representative democracy, while the senate has chosen to make itself even less representative with the filibuster, especially since one person doesn’t even have to stand up and talk about their issue, or any absolute bullshit they wish to. What is supposed to be a representative democracy is nothing of the sort. Money is what runs the senate and the senate can stop any federal law it likes. That is not and never will be true representation. It’s time to actually get there in this country. Over 200 yrs of faking a representative government, to the point that it has become without directly addressing that, will not change it.
dww44
@Bruuuuce: Yes, present day Republicans in high elected positions, state wide and nationally are political cowards, with GOP Senators topping the list. We truly live in a plutocracy foisted onto us by dark money, big business, and the craven Chamber of Commerce. The GOP won’t get us out of this. We will have to do it ourselves and fix the system to make it less possible for them to do this in the future.
Adam L Silverman
@billcinsd: Because they are not opening debate on the bill. The motion that is being debated now is over whether they can open debate on the bill. The Senate version of The For the People Act is not being debated. It is not under consideration. What is being debated, what is under consideration is a motion about process.
cckids
Expanded unemployment insurance has been going on for months, even in GOP-run states. Those governors are ending it early, and being very loud & proud that they are doing it against the Dem’s wishes. I don’t see that as Dem’s “promised it was coming and it never arrived”.
Adam L Silverman
@Cheryl Rofer: @Cheryl Rofer: Good.
Gravenstone
@germy: Always remember “I voted for it before I voted against it.”
Adam L Silverman
@germy: Also good.
Gravenstone
CNN having a blaring headline a bit ago to the effect that “Voting Rights Reform is DOOMED” isn’t helping the situation either. Way to go media, in jumping right to the succor of Republicans by reinforcing that sense of failure and helplessness.
Adam L Silverman
@cckids: It has been available, but has not necessarily gone out. Almost none of it has gone out in Florida, because Rick Scott broke the state’s unemployment insurance system and process to make it almost impossible to access it. And while DeSantis initially groused about this as a problem he inherited, he ultimately decided it was a good thing and left it broken.
The same thing exists in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and a number of other Republican states. State unemployment systems designed to deny benefits, including the temporary expansions, with the governors of those states now turning off the expansions that their systems were already designed to make it almost impossible to get.
Bruuuuce
@dww44: Which is why I am glad to see some Democrats beginning to play a longer game, where it’s possible to expose GQP cowardice in the media, loudly and clearly, in one-syllable words that even self-described independent voters can understand.
SWMBO
Some of this shit started with the unholy alliance of evangelicals and conservatives. Focus on the Family, Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, and other conservative, evangelical leaders started getting their folks out to protest phone bank. Forty years ago. They had an issue with something, they started a phone tree calling others to make sure their side was heard. Over and Over and Over. They called about abortion, tv ads warping young minds, welfare reform, social security, anything that tickled that hair up their ass. And they called over and over. Every damn time the phone tree was activated, they called. We are just now starting to put out the call for our side to be heard. The bills we want that are pending have a majority of support in this country. But that doesn’t translate into calls like the opposition does. We need someone to put out the word that this is the target. We want guaranteed voting rights and for our votes to count. If all the Congress hears is “STOP VOTER FRAUD!!” guess how the vote will go? It’s our turn to be heard. FDR said he agreed with everything the people who came to talk to him about what needed to be done, “now go make me do it.” We have the chance to be the change we want to be. Obama said he couldn’t do it alone. He needed us to believe in ourselves and make our own changes. I’m in.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: It is part of the process. One cannot from here to there without this step. You aren’t wrong, but you are, imo*, needlessly complicating the discussion.
*Which you are free to dismiss because I am a pseudonymous commenter on the Internet without a PhD in political science.
rp
@Adam L Silverman: that’s a distinction without a difference.
Adam L Silverman
@Gravenstone: And that’s why I’m adamantly, no pun intended, banging this drum! Right now the Republicans have a two to one advantage in messaging. Their messaging and the fact that the news media uses their framing for their reporting versus what is actually happening and what the Democrats are trying to communicate.
cckids
@Adam L Silverman: Ah. Jesus, what assholes. Still, they are so so loud about how they’re responsible for ending unemployment, only the entirely checked-out will blame Biden. That includes way too many people, I agree, but there isn’t anything to be done about them, AFAIK.
Adam L Silverman
@cckids: The people who need the help most and don’t have time to stay super informed will blame Biden. He made the promise. He made a lot of noise that help was coming. If it never arrives, he’s going to be blamed. It’s a GOP twofer: immiseration and demoralization.
janesays
@kindness: Did you vote for her in 2018? Her opponent in the general election that year was a Democrat (Kevin de León), and it is probable that her opponent in the 2024 general election (should she choose to run again, God help us all) will also be a Democrat, because of CA’s jungle primary system.
rikyrah
Top adviser to Dem megadonor privately blasts party’s prioritization of voting rights bill
The party was wasting precious time and capital on an item that can’t pass, argued Reid Hoffman’s right hand man.
By ALEX THOMPSON
06/22/2021 02:39 PM EDT
The top political adviser to one of the Democratic Party’s biggest donors privately urged fellow Democrats last week to abandon the push around federal voting rights legislation in favor of legislative items with better chances of passage.
Dmitri Mehlhorn, a key confidant to Democratic funder Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, made the case to advisers to other Democratic megadonors that the attention being placed by activists and lawmakers on the For the People Act was setting the party up for failure, according to people involved in the discussions and emails obtained by POLITICO.
Specifically, Mehlhorn said people working on the legislation — which would give the federal government much more control over elections, change campaign finance laws, and reduce voter ID requirements — were “dragging me and my country off a cliff.” He suggested he would “counter mobilize” against their efforts to build support for the bill in and out of Congress.
Mehlhorn’s emails are perhaps the first and most vivid indication of a strategic fissure within the Democratic ranks over how much to emphasize voting rights legislation. From President Joe Biden on down, lawmakers and activists have framed the debate as existential for the future of democratic governance, arguing that the failure to move a bill (let alone prioritize one) would irrevocably harm the country.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/22/democratic-megadonor-adviser-blasts-voting-rights-bill-495519
Quiltingfool
I just saw this Trae Crowder video on Twitter. It’s good.
https://twitter.com/traecrowder/status/1407383196380004358?s=20
AxelFoley
Obama’s got far more social media following than AOC. And he’s already involved. He and AG Holder had a phone conference with their All On The Line supporters and are engaged in dealing with this.
Chris Johnson
Your menu is NOT ON THE MENU. ;)
So here’s the problem: our government is such a twisted mess that it’s impossible to run on the actual, reality, things that are going on. So it becomes elaborate kabuki charades for the purpose of turning out a mass of dim voters, orchestrated by cynical bastards with a sense of how things will play in Peoria.
The Republicans were masters of this craft, for decades.
WERE.
I’m more confident in the Dems now that I can see they’re preparing to play this kind of hardball. They are preparing to play hardball and call all the Republicans goddamn terrorists… WHICH THEY ARE, and that part is not cynical. What is cynical is that they must pretend not to know this… because they need the Republicans to act a certain way in order to capitalize on the inevitable result.
At this point WE do not drink our own kool-aid but the Republicans absolutely do. They used to be cynical, but now they are overtaken by true believers and are losing access to the same ‘dim masses in Peoria’ that they must continue to hold. This was never about beating the Republicans in some clever procedural way. This is about holding the line, with what we’ve got, like it’s a war (which it is), and blowing the Republicans the FUCK out in the next election. Voter suppression or no voter suppression. (as if there hasn’t been 100% full tilt voter suppression this whole time… and we still overwhelmed Trump in an UNfair election that was being tilted in Trump’s favor by every possible means).
Want to help? Get Democrats vaccinated, keep an army of lawyers on alert, and yes: make noises that will make sense to an unpolitical person, even when the truth is a hell of a lot more complicated than the story.
Because the real story here is ‘INSURRECTIONISTS’. If they’re painted as helpless they will just fester and regroup. We are going to watch them ‘show their power’ specifically in the service of taking VOTING away from AMERICANS.
Please proceed, Governor.
prostratedragon
My compliments to the photographer in the first post.
Cameron
@rikyrah: Somehow, the admonitions of a ‘megadonor’s’ toady leave me singularly unmoved.
lowtechcyclist
@Adam L Silverman:
My point is that they don’t have to vote against cloture. All they have to do is not give the Dems those last 10 ‘aye’ votes. They don’t even need to be present to do that; they could all join Ted Cruz in Cancun for the day, or simply hang out in the cloakroom while the voting proceeds.
Am I wrong on this? Do they actually have to vote ‘nay’ to keep the Dems from ending debate on the motion and moving to debate on the bill? I’m still not seeing that special sauce; so far you’re just asserting that at least 40 of them have got to be present and vote against cloture on the motion. Where does it say that this is so?
ETA: What I’m saying is that there could be 59 ‘aye’ votes, 1 ‘nay’, and 40 no-shows on the cloture vote for the motion to proceed, and the ‘ayes’ would lose. Am I wrong?
laura
I spoke with a staffer in DiFi’s San Francisco office urging her to reconsider her statement about not believing democracy is in jeopardy- that states are actively restricting the fundamental right to vote. I urged our Senator to vote in favor of the process to bring the matter to the floor for debate – even if it means eliminating or modifying the filibuster. I urged support for the Biden administration on voter protections, infrastructure and that allowing McConnell to control the Senate from the minority is antidemocratic.
The staffer did share that lots of calls are coming in and that they are predominantly in favor of filibuster reform and S1. I said I’d try not to be a pest, but I’ll be calling on the regular as this is a matter of vital importance.
Geminid
@rikyrah: It’s an interesting take. I don’t neccesarily dismiss it just because it comes from a megadonor’s strategist, but I don’t neccesarily buy it either. Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer have finite legislative time and political capital. But they know this, and I trust their judgement to decide when and how to spend it.
The downside to framing S.B.1 as the existential issue is worth examining, though. I guess it really depends on how we handle the outcome. If it does not pass, will people say “we’re doomed” and give up? I sure won’t.
planetjanet
@Another Scott:
Fair Fight will connect you to your Senator’s offices if you dial 888-453-3211. I called Senators Warner and Kaine. The staffer for Warner was very friendly. Let them know we are here and we are watching. I let them both know I have been a long time supporter and trust them to fight for this, but I wanted them to hear my voice.
We don’t just fight when we know we will win. I am going to fight.
Arclite
Schumer should pass it at 3AM on a voice vote.
Another Scott
@planetjanet: Thanks.
I used their web forms on May 11 to give my views on the need to pass S1, to convince their colleagues of the same, and to “do what you can to pass this vital legislation” to protect voting rights.
Cheers,
Scott.