Josh Marshall at TPM and others have speculated that Democrats could buck the midterm trend by officially making the election a referendum on abortion rights. Democrats could say, “Help us hold the House and elect X more Democratic senators in November 2022, and we will eliminate the filibuster on a vote to protect abortion rights in January 2023.”
The problem is, we don’t know exactly how many additional Democrats we need to accomplish this. We’ve known for months it has to be at least two to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant, but are other Dem / Dem-caucusing independent senators hiding behind the two known obstructionists? TPM created a tally sheet using educated guesses, and it looks like the number is four.
According to the tally, Senators Mark Warner and Angus King are likely hold-outs. The tally cites comments from Warner indicating that voting rights is the only filibuster carve-out he supports. King argues that with the filibuster gone, Republicans could turn around and ban abortion when they regain power, saying “today’s annoying obstruction is tomorrow’s priceless shield.”
King is correct to note that with the filibuster gone, Republicans would reverse legislation Dems enact. But that might be a good thing because Republican policies (like banning abortion) are unpopular. A policy whipsaw in a filibuster-free U.S. Senate might have the added benefit of vaporizing the Dems’ “branding” problem by making it clear what each party stands for, even for people who pay zero attention to politics.
Democrats have used the filibuster to block terrible Republican policies, but the fact is, the filibuster protects Republicans and obstructs Democrats most of the time. The senate map gets worse for Democrats after 2022, so if the party is going to test a transactional proposal to voters on abortion rights, now would be the time to start rolling that out after getting an official count.
Open thread.
Old School
Democrats can’t do popular things because Republicans might do unpopular things.
Paul in KY
I just wish they’d go back to the old filibuster rules where you had to actually stand there and read the phone book, with a catheter. That would be so much better than this BS ‘Oh yeah, we’d filibuster that. Sure we would…’.
Fair Economist
Warner or King might have trouble being the key holdout against a filibuster carveout for Roe or gun control. Warner in particular would get staggering pressure.
Also, assuming we have control of Congress in 2023-4, Sinema will be facing a ferocious primary challenge. She will have to be more reasonable to avoid a historically humiliating defeat.
Every vote counts. Four would be super awesome, but even 1 or two would make a huge difference.
Betty Cracker
@Paul in KY: I don’t think we have enough votes to change the rules.
Baud
The filibuster is like caucuses: an anti-democratic anachronism that needs to go. We shouldn’t be relying on anti-democratic means to protect good policies.
gene108
Trying to overturn the ACA contributed Republicans losing the House, in 2018.
People like what they have.
Democrats should go big. Give people things that benefit them, then dare Republicans to repeal it.
In Trump’s first two years, a Republican controlled Congress did not do anything than pass an unpopular tax cut for rich fuckwads, and fail to repeal the ACA.
They have no clear agenda anymore, other than cut taxes for the rich. Congressional Republicans have been content to leave the hatchet work of destroying America to the courts, with some help from solidly Republican states.
I’d be curious if those spineless Republican Congress creeps would actually want to work, let alone do the heavy lifting of gutting potentially popular programs Americans will come to enjoy.
Edit: The only thing Republicans would do other than cut taxes is probably gut environmental laws and work place safety laws.
PaulB
We could also have filibuster rules that require that those filibustering actually have to be present. Right now, those in favor have to muster 60 votes while those opposed don’t have to do a damn thing other than have one person there to filibuster. Make them actually muster the 41 votes in opposition.
I like another suggestion I’ve heard over at TPM, that of making the bar lower for passage as times goes on. It allows those opposed to make their point, to delay final passage, to muster public support, but not to block into perpetuity.
And yeah, I get it that Republicans can do terrible things with the filibuster gone. The ACA would be gone if there were no filibuster, for example, but the point about Republicans ultimately having to own their votes is a valid one.
Personally, I’m in favor of all of these “radical” ideas: 13 Supreme Court Justices, statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., an increase in the number of Representatives, the abandonment of the Electoral College, and the removal of the filibuster. These would go a long way toward leveling the playing field and making government actually work again. I’d willingly pay the price of also making it easier to pass legislation I don’t like.
Betty Cracker
@Fair Economist: You’re right that any addition is preferable to none and that one or two senate votes might make a difference via pressure. But you can’t really run on that.
Surly Duff
This is just a variation on the BS peddled by Manchin and Sinema.
The “priceless shield” is illusory. As soon as the GOP gets 51 votes, it’s gone. Everyone knows that.
Geminid
@Surly Duff: You sound very sure that Collins and Murkowski would vote to end the filibuster. I’m not so certain myself, and I have my doubts about Romney too.
kindness
We need all of them. Every single one, Senator & Congress. My hope is we get so may Senators, that Manchin switches party & get’s his ass handed to him in the ’24 primary
@Fair Economist: That ship has sailed. Kyrsten will not win her primary in ’24 either and it’s all her own fault.
MisterForkbeard
@gene108:
I don’t think this is quite true. Their agenda is pretty clearly “white male Christian supremacy and owning the libs” and they campaign pretty openly on it.
Paul in KY
@Betty Cracker: I guess our side also likes this easy peasy filibuster stuff.
catclub
also make immigration worse.
robmassing
The filibuster prevents the majority from keeping its promises, but they still get the blame because your typical voter doesn’t know or care about the senate rules. Eliminating the filibuster would mean that the majority enacts the policies it ran on, and if the voters don’t like the result, they can vote in the other party. This is known as “democracy.” I don’t know why our illustrious senators don’t get that.
catclub
The plan at the top: Run on preserving abortion and voting rights, sounds similar to the GOP Contract
withon America. I am not sure how many votes that got them.HinTN
@kindness: Yep, she’s just angling for the representative “liberal” st the wingnut welfare trough.
feebog
Ranked in order of likely to win:
Fetterman, PA- polling looks good and Oz is a terrible candidate.
Barnes, WI- three out of the four major Dem candidates outpoll Johnson. Barnes is pulling ahead and is the most likely candidate to face Johnson in November.
Beasley, NC- this race continues to fly under the radar, but Beasley is polling within 3 to 5 points of Budd. and led by 4 in another recent poll. This is a race where the abortion issue will make a huge difference.
Ryan, OH- Ryan is out polling by a little and out raising Vance by a lot. This is going to be a very close race.
Demmings, FL- Demmings is closing the gap, but very slowly. Demmings is outraising Rubio, a good sign.
catclub
Which is also the theory that the majority knows what they want, and should get it good and hard.
HinTN
@robmassing:
Because they’re mostly fossils and high on their own supply.
Miss Bianca
@robmassing: Because the Senate itself is, and always has been, an anti-democratic institution.
Anonymous At Work
@Geminid: The GOP doesn’t need to undo the filibuster to get what it wants. Massive tax cuts via budget reconciliation “requiring” subsequent budget cuts to social welfare programs only takes 50+1 votes. Appointing judges that will rule Democrats unconstitutional only takes 50+1 votes as well, and the Federalist Society has a ton of hot-house flowers in thinktanks and corporate lobbying firms trained and eager for appointments.
Besides, Sinema, Manchin, Collins, Romney, etc. are all the LAST Senators to get rid of teh filibuster because it enables them to avoid hard votes. Unless their party has 60 Senators, 218 House-critters, and hte Presidency (plus 5+ on Supreme Court), Suzy “Gaslighter” Collins can be “concerned” and vote against her party, no damage done. Sinema can co-sponsor legislation to do things that she doesn’t want to pass because there aren’t enough votes for the filibuster. In short, it allows “moderates” to play the part on TV without having to act the part in teh Senate.
Betty Cracker
@Paul in KY: I think you’re right. Everyone who supports it gets something out of it. Republicans can thwart passage of popular legislation from Democrats — or at least water it down to the extent that it doesn’t help Dems much. Manchin gets to be the center of attention and protect his and his donors’ fossil fuel interests. Sinema gets to play prima donna and make sure no one raises her donors’ taxes. I’m not sure what King or Warner’s angle is, but I’m confident they have one.
Mike in NC
@gene108: I believe that White Supremacy has replaced Tax Cuts for the Rich as the #1 GOP priority.
Gin & Tonic
Here’s “renowned” “scientist” Steven Pinker proving that he knows nothing about war or international affairs:
James E Powell
@Mike in NC:
White supremacy leads the rhetoric because they aren’t going to campaign on “rich people’s taxes are too high!” Tax cuts will always be what they do.
jeepers
You gotta be hopelessly naive if you don’t think the gop will just go around the filibuster whenever it suits them. They won’t eliminate it, just vote to ignore it on any bill they want to pass. This way it stays in place as a hopeless obstacle to dems.
Geminid
@Betty Cracker: That TPM tally sheet of educated guesses sounds somewhat arbitrary to me. I can think of half a dozen more Democrats who would be reluctant to end the filibuster entirely. There will have to be legislation of critical importance that cannot be passed otherwise to get them off of the fence. Even then a carvout may suffice.
Leto
Saw this over the weekend and basically just thought, “It took you this long to understand this? Are you that fucking dense?”
Texas Tribune: “We failed”: Gay Republicans who fought for acceptance in Texas GOP see little progress
Gay Republicans who have fought for acceptance within the Texas GOP over the past three decades told The Texas Tribune progress has been excruciatingly slow. Many of them have left the party, even as the number of Log Cabin Republicans in Texas continues to grow.
I thought this was especially salient:
So since 1989 you haven’t been given a booth, but you’ve witnessed the absolute batshit crazy continue to be given space and you still wonder why they don’t want you? Like… idk. Even after decades of clubbings to the head, they’re still, “Well maybe this time they’ll like me/us. Maybe this time…”
jeepers
@Gin & Tonic:
What is the problem with Pinker’s idea?
James E Powell
@feebog:
Nice list. I’d put Ryan ahead of Beasley. I give Demmings no chance at all. I believe Florida is lost to us for the next three cycles at least.
Paul in KY
@Betty Cracker: It definitely enables one to avoid hard votes.
James E Powell
@Gin & Tonic:
Pinker giving us his bong-smoke policy advice.
Alison Rose 💙🌻💛
@feebog: Demmings would be my damn hero if she yeets Rubio out of there.
Mike in NC
@Leto: Somebody needs to tell Log Cabin Republicans in Texas about this fellow in Florida named Ron DeSantis and his agenda.
Old School
@Gin & Tonic:
Clicking through, the opinion column is written by Oscar Arias and Jonathan Granoff. Pinker is just sharing it.
But since Pinker has comments turned off on his tweet, what do you see as the problem with the suggestion?
Roger Moore
That’s true, but the bigger issue is he’s wrong to assume the Democrats can preserve the filibuster indefinitely by unilaterally refusing to get rid of it. I’m deeply skeptical the Republicans will keep it around if the Democrats use it to block their key legislative goals.
Betty Cracker
@Geminid: The tally sheet is for likely votes to carve out the filibuster for abortion rights only, not eliminating the filibuster altogether. There are different classifications of senators, e.g., people who are on record supporting a filibuster carveout for abortion rights, people who are on record for filibuster reform and abortion rights (likely yesses), people whose views on each issue aren’t 100% clear but are likely yesses due to other past statements, etc. The sheet provides links to quotes that back up the classification. It’s not an official count and doesn’t purport to be, but I wouldn’t call it arbitrary.
Paul in KY
@Leto: Democrats are so declasse…
Cameron
@Gin & Tonic: I think this article has a lot more realistic ideas on how to approach negotiations. You have to know what they want and you want and what you can live with before you start announcing solutions.
https://asiatimes.com/2022/07/the-bottom-lines-for-peace-in-ukraine/
Leto
@Mike in NC: Nah, too obvious. Obviously, his plan won’t translate to the entire country… why is the leopard continuing to eat my face?!?!?!
Roger Moore
@PaulB:
No, it wouldn’t. At the very least, the Republicans couldn’t muster the 50 votes they needed to get rid of it using reconciliation.
Roger Moore
@gene108:
You forgot repealing the VRA.
Leto
@Cameron: not sure how you approach negotiations with an actor that doesn’t believe you should exist at all, and are doing everything in their power to remove you from this Earth. Same as conservatives in this country wrt women, BIPOC, LGBTQ, etc…
Percysowner
Well, J.D. Vance is apparently running a terrible campaignInside the GOP Freakout Over J.D. Vance’s Senate Campaign THE INVISIBLE MAN and John Fetterman trolling the HELL out of Dr. Oz, we might have a chance to pick up those seats. I’m not holding my breath, but it looks like the GOP voters made sub-optimal choices in both state.
Geminid
@Betty Cracker: Ah, I did not “read the bloody post!” carefully.
I thought Warner had signaled support for a carveout for abortion legislation, but I guess I misremembered. I don’t know why he wouldn’t, though. He backed one for voting rights. So did King I think. The issue won’t be pushed until there are 50 votes for the substantive legislation, so I guess we’re most likely not going to find out until the next Congress.
gvg
@Betty Cracker: At the beginning of a session is when they set rules and 50+VP is enough. Once they set them, the rules are what they set…unless they agree to change them in an emergency with 50+1 which is what every agreed on “carve out” has been.
lowtechcyclist
The GOP would certainly get rid of the filibuster anytime it thought it benefited them. But Anonymous at Work is correct that they’ll just come up with workarounds and limited exceptions, leaving it in place to keep Dems from doing anything useful when we win.
What leaving the filibuster in place does, is keep the Dems from doing anything useful. And so we don’t get big stuff through Congress that we can run on, and elections become about image rather than substance. And the GOP is much better at the image racket than we are, especially with a compliant media that doesn’t think substance and policy are worth their attention.
I’d ask Angus King, “in the past 15 years, exactly what has the filibuster kept the GOP from doing?” That’s the period since Mitch first became GOP leader. It’s true that the GOP has only controlled both houses of Congress and the White House for two of those years (2017-2018), but that’s part of the point: chances for us to pass big legislation are rare, and so are chances for them to repeal it. But the one time they had unified control, what did the filibuster keep them from doing? Nothing! Even the ACA was preserved by a straight majority vote in the Senate.
The other thing I’d ask him about is global warming. We have to act on that, and soon. If we don’t pass anything, we’re screwed no matter what they do. We have to pass legislation in order to give kids today a future that isn’t ultimately a hellscape. Maybe the GOP will repeal it, but at least there’s a chance if we pass it. There’s no chance if we don’t.
geg6
We’re doing our best to make PA give us at least +1. So glad that Bob Casey is not a chip off the old block.
prostratedragon
@Gin & Tonic: I’m sure Putin would happily retire to his dacha with that win.
Gin & Tonic
@Old School: Well, aside from the fact that France and Britain, with their own nuclear weapons, might have an issue with unilaterally denuclearizing; or that this would leave the one power with demonstrated offensive warfare intentions in Europe in possession of nuclear weapons while its opponent has none; or that one side of this war has broken *every* agreement that it has signed in the last 28 years, some within hours of signing them? Yeah, otherwise a really great idea.
Fair Economist
@kindness: I agree Sinema won’t win her primary. But I don’t think she knows that. She tries to pretend to support reproductive rights on media; in a hot campaign I don’t think she’d dare to be the vote blocking anything wildly popular.
Baud
@Gin & Tonic:
How come when the U.S. wrongly invades countries, we don’t see a lot of think pieces on how people should appease us?
gvg
@HinTN: Because it wasn’t that way for decades. Congress worked out compromises and voters didn’t primary them over it so things worked. People and Congress still have a lot of misconceptions about the way things work. The biggest is that by holding firm, they can get everything they want, because everyone is convinced that most people want exactly the same thing they do.
Geminid
@Percysowner: Vance and Oz won their primaries with only 33% pluralities. The choice of weak candidates could be attributed to a certain stable genius whose endorsements dragged Vance and Oz across the finish line. An astute Ohio commenter thought that Mike Gibbons would be Ryan’s toughest opponent. I think that David McCormick would have had a chance against Fetterman, whereas I think that Oz is destined to be Yellow Brick Roadkill.
JoyceH
Hey, did anyone else see the CNN special Deep In The Pockets Of Texas? It explained something I’d never understood – how the Texas legislature can continue to pass wildly crackpot legislation that large majorities of Texans disapprove of. Turns out that, due to incredibly lax campaign financing laws, the legislature is pretty much bought and paid for by two far-right billionaires who are Christian dominionists. These guys own a bunch of legislators who vote based on what Wilks and Dunn want, and if they deviate enough from the script, they lose their funding and the billionaires fund a primary challenger.
And it seems like to most of Texas, this is new information. The report interviewed people to see who had ever heard of these billionaires, and it was pretty much nobody in the ‘regular folks’ category.
So my question is – now that this information is available, will it matter? Will it irk voters that their own legislators are ignoring their wishes to side with a crackpot billionaire? I’m wondering if the mere act of taking the funds can be turned into a net negative – I think that’s happened in a lot of places with the NRA; the NRA has become so toxic that being known to have taken their money does you more harm that the good the money does for you. One of these guys has the goal of destroying public education so it can be replaced by publicly funding Christian academies – I’d think a lot of parents might object to that.
Gin & Tonic
@Cameron:
Complete horseshit. Colonialism, once again.
Ukraine decides what is acceptable and what is not.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
So I just got a wild hair up my ass and looked up something that’s kinda off topic, but not really – the Carter/Ford EV count from 1976.
It was extraordinarily close. Carter was running against an unelected incumbent who came into the job after varying scandals forced the resignation of both his vice-presidential and presidential predecessors; an incumbent whose previous election involved winning a district that consisted of two counties in Michigan (Mike Royko had some blistering thoughts on that). A number of high GOP functionaries who would have been helpful in any election staff were disgraced, and some went to jail.
Some of those plague us even today.
And yet, after all that, with a neophyte candidate that pardoned Nixon’s conduct and the overwhelming miasma of scandal, American voters nearly returned that faction to power (plus, that map was insane – Carter would have been destroyed in a landslide today).
The main problem that I see is the median white American voter. I don’t know the answer to that – what I do know is that no amount of more robust progressive messaging is going to help move that cohort of white voters because they are consistently awful and only swing in times of grave economic crisis.
And no, white women are not going to come save us because of abortion, not in large enough numbers. There are always blacks, and CRT, and global inflation lies available to bring them back to the fold.
Ken
Same cause, wasn’t it? Listening to TFG’s endorsement, I mean.
VOR
Manchin and Sinema are ok blocking the entire rest of their caucus because they don’t think there are any consequences. Republicans fall in line so I doubt any single Republican Senator would obstruct the entire rest of their caucus. They are too afraid of losing their primary, too afraid of their base. McCain was able to vote on the ACA to block his caucus, I don’t see any of those 3 having that sort of spine.
Baud
@gvg:
I think our side has fallen for that idea. Do you think right-wingers really think “liberal Democrats really want what we want”? That seems less obvious to me, although I do think they tell themselves that we are the ones who are victims of propaganda.
Fair Economist
@Betty Cracker: I think we could run on “Every Democratic vote makes your life better.” It’s really obvious here in CA. Thr bigger our majority, the better our legislation.
Cameron
@Gin & Tonic: I don’t think his intention is to leave Ukraine out – what he’s getting at is that the Russians probably (almost certainly) want things from America that only America can agree to. Obviously any decision has to be made with Ukraine; it’s the country in which this illegal war is taking place, after all.
gene108
@Surly Duff:
Why would Republicans do that?
They know their agenda is incredibly unpopular. This is why they’ve spent decades reshaping the courts to do their dirty work.
The filibuster protects Republicans from actually having to enact whatever cock-a-mamy ideas their base and right-wing media demand. Congressional Republicans don’t need a platform, now. They don’t need to have any policy ideas, good or bad. They can just point to the filibuster and say there’s nothing we can do, so they can clock out early and attend fancy dinners paid for by lobbyists.
Gin & Tonic
@Cameron:
Try this: I want you dead, your house burned down and to kidnap your children, as I have stated publicly many times. You, presumably, want to live in your house with your kids. Let’s negotiate.
ian
@Baud: I remember a lot of those takes in 2003/2004. I googled this very topic and found a guardian puff piece written by none other than John Bolton from 2013 still claiming this.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/26/iraq-war-was-justified
There are always people willing to defend imperial power. It is simply different people when regarding different powers.
Baud
@ian:
Yeah, that makes sense.
Alison Rose 💙🌻💛
@Gin & Tonic: I literally laughed out loud. YEAH SURE THAT WILL TOTALLY WORK. Brilliant.
Betty Cracker
@gvg: Right, but after a lot of talk, Manchin has proved unwilling to change the filibuster rules to enforce a talking filibuster or require the minority be present, etc., so that’s a dead letter for the current congress. Also, I don’t think we’ve had a filibuster carve-out that passed legislation this term, have we?
Gin & Tonic
@Cameron:
I have read the entire article, and leaving Ukraine out is *exactly* what he does. His sub-hed is “What can the West live with?” Not, of course, “What can Ukraine live with?” He ignores Ukraine’s interests and sovereignty completely.
I have no more time for bad-faith arguments today, sorry. Used it all up.
trollhattan
@Fair Economist: Two more years of Sinema is going to feel like two decades.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@Gin & Tonic:
Russia’s combat deaths since February are at about 60% of American losses over the entirety of our Vietnam involvement. That summer of ‘69 Life Magazine photo montage was when we were at 36000 dead.
Thats going to impact Russian society in ways that won’t be publicly known for a while yet.
I’m wondering what happens in 2023, when they’ve been spelled from Crimea and Eastern contested regions. Does VVP wind up deposed and delivered to The Hague? Does he wind up dead? What about Russian reparations to Ukraine?
Lacuna Synecdoche
@gene108:
And vote for judges who will do the dirty work for them, like overturning Roe.
geg6
@Gin & Tonic:
Yup. Similar to all the arguments out there about abortion that completely leave the actual women out of the conversation. Paternalism at its worst.
JoyceH
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
What I can’t help wondering is – what will be the impact of the Russian soldiers returning to Russia with reports on how the average Ukrainian lives? I think a substantial part of their military is drawn from the hinterlands where the standard of living is nowhere near as good as the cities are, which would be barbaric compared to the average Ukrainian. Won’t those guys start asking, hey if Putin is so great, how come we don’t have these nice things?
schrodingers_cat
Manchin is this cycle’s Claire McCaskill. Purity Progressives used to incessantly whine about her, she lost and she was replaced by Hawley. These are the same people who will also lecture that Ds need to contest every seat. The Ds that can win red or purple seats are going to be closer to McCaskill and Manchin than BS or any of the Squad members.
Manchin is the only D that can win that Senate seat. Any WV Republican is going to be 100 times worse than Manchin. Without Manchin Biden doesn’t get the judicial appointments and Mitch McConnell is still the majority leader. Also, Manchin has voted with the Ds more often than the progressive darlings of the Squad have.
The Moar You Know
They will anyway, because “state’s rights” to them only means the right to have legal slaves. So we might as well go on record as doing the right thing.
Baud
@geg6:
Maybe I just haven’t seen it, but has there been any reporting on the effect the state bans have been having on women, beyond that 10 year old in Ohio. It seems like there was a lot of interest in her, and then nothing.
schrodingers_cat
@Baud: I saw interviews with a woman who didn’t get appropriate care of a miscarriage and lost a lot of blood because of the delay.
Betty Cracker
@Fair Economist: The theory behind the proposal to codify Roe is that messages like “every Democratic vote makes your life better” are too amorphous to be effective and that you need to answer voters’ “what’s in it for me?” question in specific terms. It’s just a theory, but I find it somewhat convincing.
Leto
@JoyceH: I think that article falls in line with this other CNN article: An ‘imposter Christianity’ is threatening American democracy ; which idk if this is the first time that’s happened. I’m thinking of the Southern Baptists during the run up to/after the Civil War, as well as other sects of Christianity that espoused slavery was acceptable, and that anything less than owning people was an affront to God. And that “enlightening the savages” was a divine purpose. And women…
gene108
@Mike in NC:
Businesses aren’t in this for the culture war revolution, they’re in it for the money. If the conservative culture war hurts the bottom line, they’ll look for other places that are better for business
Baud
@schrodingers_cat: Thanks. The story hasn’t popped up in my small window into the media.
JoyceH
@Baud:
You just haven’t seen it – CNN gave repeated coverage of the woman who carried a dead fetus for two weeks because doctors in Texas wouldn’t do a D&C to remove it. This woman WANTED a baby, and now she and her husband are discussing moving out of Texas to somewhere they can try again safely. There have been numerous reports of women not being treated for miscarriages, women refused birth control, women whose prescriptions for lupus have been denied because they are also prescribed for medical abortions. A woman currently on a ventilator because doctors wouldn’t intervene in her miscarriage until her life was undeniably in danger. I’ve seen a flood of horror stories, and the news media has been on it.
trollhattan
@JoyceH: IIUC a large fraction of Russian volunteers are from poor, remote regions where they already know they’re poor with no hope of joining Russia’s wealthier classes. What I don’t know is whether the wealthier classes are also immune to conscription, due to being to pay their way out of that sort of inconvenience.
Baud
@JoyceH:
That’s good to hear.* I don’t know if it’ll get through to voters, but at least the information is out there.
*The reporting of the atrocities, not the atrocities themselves, of course.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@JoyceH:
I remember seeing a lot of those intercepted calls a couple of months ago. The wives sent shopping lists, and the mothers recommended brutality.
billcinsd
@Roger Moore: and a National ban on abortion
Leto
@JoyceH:
You can always ask this of US conservatives over the past 40 years wrt to Republicans they elect. They won’t ask because they don’t care. It’s a chance to put “those people” in their place. Their life is in no way better, in fact is demonstrably worse, but hey… they’re getting a chance to put those people in their “proper” place so it’s all good to them.
Also dovetailing with that CNN report: Trump says ‘Americans kneel to God, and God alone’ as support for Christian nationalism grows among Republicans
The Moar You Know
@JoyceH: asked and answered, as the lawyers say. Putin blames everything on America and a conspiracy of the EU. You think the GOP knows how to play the politics of victimization? My, they have nothing on Putin. He has sold this to his nation and they believe him. Wholly.
Josie
@Gin & Tonic:
Exactly. I can’t fathom how anyone who is watching what is going on cannot understand the dynamics here.
Wapiti
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: Wow. And since Russia today has about 70% of what the US population was in 1970 (140M vs. 200M), their per capita losses are approaching ours for the entire war.
Kent
Worrying about Republican legislation in the face of no filibuster is a fool’s errand. The last major legislative policy proposal the Republicans tried to implement was Bush’s privatization of Social Security and that was nearly two decades ago.
The Republicans have already gamed the system so that their three major policy issues can no longer be filibustered:
Judges: No longer any filibuster at any level including SCOTUS.
Tax cuts: Haven’t been subject to the filibuster since Byrd invented “reconciliation” out of thin air in 1980.
De-regulation: Under the Congressional Review Act passed by Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1996, the GOP can repeal any regulation with a simple 51 vote majority and prevent it from ever coming up again.
That is frankly 95% of the GOP agenda right there. They aren’t the party that is trying to pass new legislation. That is the Democrats. They are the party that is trying to use the courts to invalidate existing legislation. Why bother trying to do things like repeal the clean air act when SCOTUS will neuter it for you for free. That is the GOP way of doing business. They don’t even fucking know how to legislate anymore.
So all this hand-wringing about what sort of legislation the GOP might pass if the filibuster goes is entirely misplaced and counter-productive. Better we live in a society in which the winning party can actually implement its policy proposals.
NotMax
@JoyceH
“How You Gonna Keep Them Down on the Farm After They’ve Seen
Par-eeKharkiv?”;)
James E Powell
@Leto:
After what Republicans did in 2004 & pretty much everything since, I don’t understand why an organization like the Log Cabin Republicans even exists.
Maybe they barely exist? Do we have any idea how many members or how much money they donate or some other measure of their significance? Is it a large organization or is it the vanity project of a handful of rich people?
Leto
Law professor humiliates Josh Hawley during Senate committee hearing; “Is this how you run your classroom?” Hawley whined. “Yes,” the annoyed professor responded. “You should come. You’d learn a lot.”
Hawley being a transphobic piece of shit, University of California law professor Khiara Bridges not having any of that.
Kent
Wishful thinking on the part of rich white gay guys who’s self-identity is more rich, white, and male rather than gay.
piratedan
worst case scenario for the GOP, the economy does not go into the toilet, gas prices continue to drop as supply chain issues slowly get resolved, which leaves the GOP with “immigration” and culture war bullshit to run on. More people working and paying attention as J6 grinds on and more political shoes drop with the DOJ levelling indictments. The SCOTUS goes out and removes the protections for same sex marriage AND contraception.
the GOP stands on the beach screaming into the blue tsunami, giving the wave the finger.
Baud
@piratedan:
That almost certainly can’t happen before the November elections because of timing of opinions, even taking the shadow docket into account.
Leto
@James E Powell: Honestly I don’t know any of that info, because frankly I had forgotten about them until just recently. I wondered, “What are those people up to?” but never really investigated because I have better things to do with my life. But then that article popped up on Imgur and I was like… oh, ok. I don’t see how they keep members (which per the article they don’t), other than self-loathing people who can get their kinks fulfilled in less harmful ways. They believe their white privilege will keep them safe, but they’re continually finding out… nope.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@jeepers: Haven’t read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been answered, but my strong impression is that Putin really wants Ukraine as part of Russia and won’t give up on that dream until it he is beaten like a rug, or deposed from power, whichever comes first. Getting rid of missiles is a nothing burger compared to getting Ukraine as part of Russia.
Baud
@A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan):
Also, why would NATO/EU give up their nuclear missiles to save Ukraine? How are they better off?
jnfr
@Old School:
Can’t argue with that.
Amir Khalid
@Cameron:
What does Russia want that would be proper or wise to let it have? Sovereignty over any part of Ukraine? A free pass to ignore international norms and jeopardise global security?
HELL NO.
lowtechcyclist
@Gin & Tonic:
Rotating tag line!
billcinsd
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: It wasn’t that close 297-240 in the EC. Ohio was very close, but mostly the close states went to Ford. The big difference was Carter won the evangelicals, who left because Carter’s DoJ kept prosecuting Bob Jones Uni
Alison Rose 💙🌻💛
@Baud: Yeah, considering those nations don’t want to even get involved directly in the war (which I understand, even if I have emotional frustration with it), I cannot see how anyone thinks they would all be willing to take such a drastic step.
But really…anytime someone thinks they’ve come up with some terrific solution which is essentially “Do X thing and then Putin will be satisfied and stop the war” when “X” is NOT “Just give Ukraine to Putin”, I really want to ask them for precisely how long they’ve had their heads buried in the sand. As Adam has said, nothing will satisfy Putin except 1) controlling the entirety of Ukraine, or 2) completely destroying it.
Ksmiami
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: we give Ukraine the impounded Russian money and assets we are holding as a first step once they’ve won.
Miss Bianca
@James E Powell: I read that article and wondered, “why the hell would anyone identify as a Log Cabin Republican”?
How many “Log Cabin” lesbians are there, I wonder? How many queer POC identify as “Log Cabin Republicans”? I’m betting almost none. Unless I’m much mistaken, looks like everyone they interviewed was a white guy.
ETA: And I don’t know why it seems to come as such a hell of a shock to these guys that a party that’s so determined to snuff out the rights of *everyone* who isn’t a white Christian cis-het dude might be hostile to them as well.
Geminid
@James E Powell: Log Cabin Republicans grew out of an effort to oppose a California ballot initiative to prohibit gay people from teaching in the public schools, in the 1970s I think. They got Ronald Reagan to publically oppose the measure and it failed. They had some national presence in the party into this century but I think the organization today is just a remnant.
topclimber
@Kent: I do believe that 51% rules is subject to a Presidential veto. As would any crap the GQP passed if we had no filibuster.
Takeaway: keep electing Dem Presidents.
justawriter
20 more Democratic Senators would be better
Somebody get on that, OK?
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@Baud: Exactly. And of course, Ukraine should obviously have the last word on what terms the negotiations agree on. My impression is that there is very little room for negotiation (see Gin&Tonic’s pithy summation above).
catclub
I agree. Susan Collins in Maine was also outfundraised and won in a walk.
lowtechcyclist
@schrodingers_cat:
Well, she used to whine about the whole damned party. “I’m not like all those other Democrats.” Like it or not, when conservaDems run on a platform of “the rest of the party sucks,” it doesn’t do much good for the party as a whole. It just feeds the GOP narrative that the Dems in general are really a bunch of socialists who want to outlaw Christianity and pay Those People not to work, but she’s the special exception.
This is news?
You keep saying this. But Manchin is the one who plays head games with the rest of the party for months on two iterations of BBB, gets more or less what he said he wanted, then kills it. And apparently had Biden thinking they had a deal involving BBB and the infrastructure bill, and left Biden (and the rest of us) holding the bag on that one.
What significant legislation have the Squad killed? What matters is, are you there when the party needs your vote? Sure, Manchin has been there for the party on appointments, but not BBB and climate change, not voting rights. Tell me how the Squad’s been worse than that.
Old School
@Gin & Tonic:
No argument with the ability to trust Putin, but the proposal is to remove U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe and Turkey. France and the U.K. wouldn’t be disarming.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@Alison Rose 💙🌻💛: Exactly. You put it much better than I did below!
germy shoemangler
@lowtechcyclist:
Yes, the original comment sounded like more of the usual bullshit.
James E Powell
@A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan):
I agree with you but wonder if it is much more than Putin’s dream. Do Russian people generally believe Ukraine belongs to them in some form or another?
Geminid
@VOR: Murkowski, Collins, and Romney voted to impeach Trump, Romney twice. So they’ve been willing to break ranks before. I’m not sure the filibuster would be a make or break primary issue for them. If Murkowski wins this November she won’t have a primary until 2028 anyway.
But I guess if you accept the narrative that all Republicans are driven by an insatiable appetite for evil, the three’s support for ending the filibuster is an open and shut case.
topclimber
@Old School: I read the proposal and thought it did a disservice to anyone trying to craft a workable peace agreement. Ignoring the Ukrainian voice in such a deal is beyond stupid.
topclimber
@lowtechcyclist: You also don’t technically vote against Biden when you blow up a bill before it reaches the Senate floor.
On the other hand, both McCaskill and Manchin have last names that start with the letter M. So totally the same.
CaseyL
@justawriter: Sure! Just have aliens abduct all the yts from Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, South and North Dakota, Montana, South and North Carolina and, um…. everyone but John Cole’s friends and family from W Virginia.
And there ya go. 20 more Democratic Senators!
James E Powell
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
I see the same problem and I can’t say that I know the answer but I do believe that persistent targeted messages can reach some white voters, particularly the younger ones who do not appear to have the same triggers on race & sexuality that older voters do.
Democrats have the more popular policies. Take the top three. Here’s the message “Democrats are for these, Republicans are not” and pound it relentlessly.
zhena gogolia
@Gin & Tonic: Oh my fucking Gawd
Kent
Well yes, no legislation passes without the House, Senate, AND Presidency. That has always been the case. The people hand-wringing about abolishing the filibuster are looking forward to some future Republican trifecta.
James E Powell
@lowtechcyclist:
Exactly. And it isn’t just his votes. He makes a big public display of his contempt for President Biden specifically & Democrats generally. It’s not like he’s trying to get deals & horse trading. He’s just an asshole. The only remedy is to elect more Democratic senators.
Ohio Mom
@Gin & Tonic: Years ago, in either a bookstore or a library, I saw a new Steven Pinker book that looked interesting; I was only vaguely aware of him at that point.
I performed my acid test for all psychology and human development books: I turned to the index and looked for autism. Flipping to those pages, reading what he had to say about autusm, I quickly shut the book and put it back.
He had cherry-picked some debateable trivia about autism to support one of his arguments. Now I happened to think that autism has a lot to bring to the philosophical discussion about what it is possible for human beings to know but Pinker missed that completely. All he succeeded in doing was spreading the sort of misinformation that harms autistics.
Haven’t bothered with since.
geg6
@Baud:
No, I haven’t seen it either. Only in Dem/liberal spaces. All MSM coverage seems focused on political effects, mostly on white men in both parties. Not, of course, on the medical tragedies, risk of death and loss of all bodily autonomy and civil rights for the actual people involved. It’s infuriating.
zhena gogolia
@Leto: Hawl-ass Hawley. What a douche.
topclimber
@James E Powell: Jan. 6 demonstrated that we are dealing in first principles now.
The filibuster is an anti-democratic relic that is not in the Constitution (it already has the anti-democratic Senate). Either we fight for a truer Democracy or we hang on by our fingernails, hoping the GQP lets us use things like the filibuster to keep an ever-shrinking group of rights from vanishing just a little bit longer.
NotMax
@topclimber
Both the House and the Senate set their own rules (as unequivocally granted by the Constitution*). Rules are not legislation and therefore not subject to executive veto.
*Article 1, Section 5:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
Gin & Tonic
@James E Powell: Yes.
topclimber
@NotMax: But they set those rules by majority vote, which is why the filibuster can be undone by same. You are right, the veto has nothing to do with it.
I suppose you are saying that the filibuster is not technically undemocratic. It just functions that way. I believe that is called a distinction without a difference.
zhena gogolia
RIP Paul Sorvino.
NotMax
@topclimber
I am saying nothing one way or another involving the filibuster, just squelching any supposition bringing the veto into the mix.
Gin & Tonic
@Old School: OK, I have read the The Hill article. As with the other article referenced in this thread, it ignores Ukraine’s interests and sovereignty entirely, and is based completely on magical-fairy-dust thinking.
There was an agreement, under the umbrella of the NPT, signed in 1994. Ukraine (along with Belarus and Kazakhstan) surrendered all their nuclear weapons, and the Russian Federation agreed to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in then-current borders, and to refrain from the threats or use of force against Ukraine. Why would signing another agreement change anything?
Russia’s aim is the elimination of Ukrainians as a people and Ukraine as a nation. This is not an aim that is susceptible to negotiation.
SteverinoCT
https://youtu.be/UgqVCJpRqWQ
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
@Leto:
It’s not so hard to understand. Log Cabin Republicans are mostly urban, white, affluent gay men. They are frequently misogynists. Racism isn’t uncommon. They are out in corporate America and golf with their fellow Republicans. The only time their gayness is rubbed in their faces is when they interact with the other part of the GOP coalition. Then it is a bit of a shock to get reminded that big chunks of the base think they are icky abominations.
SteverinoCT
@NotMax:
Beat me to it.
BlueGuitarist
@schrodingers_cat:
538 data have squad voting 94.4% with Biden, Manchin 90.
Doesn’t include things that don’t come to a vote because Manchin opposes.
You’re right we won’t get better than Manchin from WV.
As BC says, we need more D senators, also DC statehood
respectfully
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/house/
MikefromArlington
Could motivate the otherwise un-motivatable 18-25 yr olds enough to tip the vote to the dems.
give them and others a reason to go vote. Sometimes all it takes is one issue
pacts
Todaʏ, I went to the beaϲһ front with my kids.
I found a sea shell and ɡave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She placed the shell tߋ her ear and screamеd.
There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched heг ear.
She never wants to go ƅack! LoL І know this is completelʏ off topic
Ƅut I had to tell someone!
Ohio Mom
@MikefromArlington: Protecting reproductive and LGBQT+ rights probably are more compelling issues to the youngs.
catclub
@MikefromArlington:
Could you give an example of when this has happened? I cannot think of any where the news reports are along the lines of “young voters turned out like crazy to vote in this election over this issue”
catclub
@pacts:
Now take her to see “The Wrath of Khan”! That scene is memorable for me.
Ohio Mom
@pacts: I’ve had a few things blow up in my face like that, including the time the not-even-knee-deep wave knocked Ohio Toodler down. Sometimes —not all the time — I was forgiven.
WeimarGerman
We cannot undo the harm the GOP has done to democracy by removing the filibuster for any single issue. I’m all for lying to as many Senators as it takes to have a procedural vote to undo the filibuster for Women’s Healthcare or Voting Rights or whatever, but as soon as that’s passed then push through all the necessary reforms to gut the GOP’s hold on power: End Citizens United, statehood for DC and PR, Voting Rights, Women’s Healthcare, 13 Justices, 500 members in the House; whatever else can be slammed through.
That way there would be no boomerang GOP legislation because they could never get close to a majority.
J R in WV
@PaulB:
The abandonment of the electoral college takes a constitutional amendment. Everything else is doable by legislation. Or by changing Senate rules, which only takes votes in the Senate.
J R in WV
@jeepers:
Besides the fact that it’s both stupid and betrays most of our NATO allies, you mean? The French AND the British both have their own Nuclear force, which we cannot “withdraw!”
RevRick
Eliminating the filibuster would make Congress more like a parliamentary system, and fears of what Republicans might do should they gain control notwithstanding, the evidence of Western Europe suggests it might not be so bad. While conservative parties could negate whatever liberal/left ones enacted they hesitated to do so. For instance, in the UK, Labour under Aneurin Bevan created the NHS. And when the Conservatives under Churchill regained power, they didn’t dismantle it. Of course, we have the complication of needing a trifecta in Congress and the Presidency .
Geminid
@Ohio Mom: Process issues like filibuster reform take up a lot of bandwidth for political junkies like those on this blog. Rightly or wrongly, less politically engaged people respond more to substantive issues like marriage equality and voting rights.
I don’t see this as a problem, though. Democratic Senate candidates are on the right side of public opinion on these and other issues like gun safety and climate change, and Republican candidates have lined up on the wrong side. Democrats are going to fight their campaigns on an individual basis. Tim Ryan will tell voters “I want to fight for the interests of people like you, and Vance wants to represent rich people and bigots.” He’s not going to say, “if you elect me and then three other states elect Democrats we can get a filibuster carveout for reproductive rights!” That’s for Josh Marshall and other political junkies to argue.
Omnes Omnibus
@Cameron: Ukraine is the only country that can decide if it is willing to accept the end of hostilities without Russia having fully withdrawn. They have indicated that something like that is not on the cards. Russia can end hostilities by withdrawing completely. No one else can make the war end. No negotiations, no pressure can do do it.
Asking Ukraine to end the war due to negotiations to which they were not one of the two primary parties is wrong-headed and, moreover, pointless.
PJ
@Cameron: Russia wants to eliminate Ukraine as a nation, annex all of its territory, and kill the population or turn them into “Russians”. Why would the US (or Europe) want to help them with that goal by removing their nuclear weapons? Why would Ukrainians ever agree to it?
J R in WV
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg:
Can’t know about Putin’s survival — but Russia cannot afford to pay adequate reparations to Ukraine, not even close. I don’t think they can’t afford to keep prosecuting the war very much longer, actually.
Both the fatalities and the expense of the ammunition will overwhelm them. What do you do when your army is 40% DEAD???
Geminid
@PaulB: DC statehood may be an instructive case for this Congress’s Senate dynamics. H.R. 51, the Washington D.C. Admission Act was passed again by the House. Yet it has not been brought to a vote in the Senate.
Why is this? One reason is that the terrible twosome of Manchin and Sinema would block it. I think also that candidates for reelection like Maggie Hassan (NH), Catherine Cortez-Masto (NV), and Mark Kelly (AZ) might not want to take that vote and the Democratic leadership of the House and the Senate don’t want to make them.
J R in WV
@Leto:
Wife was raised in the American Baptist Church, as opposed to the Southern Baptists. In fact, we were married in that church. No kneeling whatsoever, pretty sure no kneeling in the Southern Baptists either.
Trump is woefully ignorant of Christian religious practices in the US if he thinks people are kneeling in Church. Catholics and Episcopal members only! Fucker!
ETA: Not complaining about you, Leto, at all. Just the other folks who are wrong…
J R in WV
The Republicans want to end Social Security, which means all the younger folks will have to support their parents and grandparents into their old age. Even if this just means buying more at the grocery and doubling up kids in bedrooms, think the Rs will go for that??
I think even Rs want to retire someday and Social Security is a big part of that plan!!!
schrodingers_cat
@BlueGuitarist: Progressives voting against progress.
Agreed with the we need more Ds in the senate.
topclimber
@NotMax:
@SteverinoCT:
If you guys have any sense you are long gone from this thread. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but if you are arguing the the CRA of 1996 is not subject to a veto, that would be wrong.
Otherwise I am not sure what you are getting at.
Gvg
@Baud: they think they are the majority and that there are a lot fewer of us than there really are. Mind you, we read statistics favorably too, but they are in the just make it up based on their own feelings, their own gut….that is part of why they think there “must” be fraud in any election”they” lose.
topclimber
@topclimber: ETA for posterity: any repeal of a final reg under CRA of 1996 is subject to a veto.
Gvg
@Betty Cracker: no. Manchin is actually not willing to do anything for voting rights, or abortion or even infrastructure. It’s not the filibuster IMO. That’s his excuse. He is lying about his principles. He is just barely a democrat. I forget why, but I think there were reasons. Anyway, he is doing what he really is.
We need more democrats elected so we can actually get enough votes. Requiring a unanimous vote for every single thing is impossible.
Gvg
@schrodingers_cat: I don’t recall McCascal lying so much nor the air of corruption. The complaints against her were somewhat different. Also, that was a decade ago and we are all 10 years more cynical, burned and worried. The stakes seem higher after an actual coup attempt in our own country.
There go two miscreants
(deleted)
schrodingers_cat
@Gvg: The Dem Senate majority had many conservative Ds, when ACA passed McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu etc. Purple or red state Ds are not going to vote like Ds from blue states, if they do they won’t be reelected. I say better a flawed D than an R.
NotMax
@toppclimber
The CRA (note that A stands for Act, meaning legislation) has exactly ZERO to do with the organizational rules of Congressional operation.
Sheesh.