Why Schumer picked a filibuster fight he couldn't win

[FBaggins]

Subtitle - The Democratic leader, who'd used the Senate's 60-vote margin to his advantage in the past, took his time — and peeled off dozens of skeptics.

Chuck Schumer doesn’t typically lead his caucus into losing votes that divide Democrats. He made an exception for election reform. The Senate majority leader has run a 50-50 Senate for a year now, longer than anyone else. The whole time, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin have consistently communicated to Schumer that he wouldn’t get their votes to weaken the filibuster, no matter the underlying issue. But his decision to force the vote on the caucus anyway — and get 48 Democrats on the record for a unilateral rules change dubbed "the nuclear option" — will go down as one of Schumer’s riskiest moves as leader.

The New Yorker was a defender and wielder of the filibuster while serving as minority leader during Donald Trump's presidency. But Democrats’ year of work on writing elections and voting legislation — and GOP opposition to an effort designed to undo state-level ballot restrictions — turned Schumer into a proponent of scrapping the Senate's 60-vote threshold, at least for this bill.

He and most of his members have endorsed what they see as a limited change to chamber rules. Even so, Schumer has set the table for a future majority with a slightly bigger margin, whether it's Democratic or Republican, to follow through where he fell short and perhaps go further.

Schumer gave Manchin months of space to work on a compromise elections bill, despite activists pushing him to move quicker. The leader's insistence on a vote that will split his caucus has only trained more ire on the West Virginian and Sinema of Arizona, whom he needs to execute the rest of President Joe Biden’s agenda. Yet Schumer says he had no choice.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/19/schumer-filibuster-fight-he-couldnt-win-527428

They didn't just "see it as a limited change to chamber rules" - it was a limited change. Schumer's actual proposal was for this bill only. It wasn't even a permanent "carve out" on any voting rights legislation. It was just for the pending legislation that came over from the House.

[Budi]

1. Interesting. Is there a link to the story?

[FBaggins]

3. Sorry. Got lost in my formatting edits

Added

[hedda_foil]

2. Link?

[mitch96]

5. At this point I think he wants it on the Congressional record how the repukes vote and see

their position on voting rights...
m

[RAB910]

6. Senators don't have gerrymandered districts

Republicans voting against voting rights, will play well in election commercials and debates

[FBaggins]

7. Which races will it help?

It almost certainly hurts us in three states that are up for grabs this year. It might've helped in PA, but whoever they nominate to replace Toomey isn't in the senate now. Maybe it hurts Rubio a little, but that's looking like a less competitive race.

There just aren't many incumbent Republicans running in competitive races this year.

[LetsGoBiden]

8. It is an embarrassment

It is an embarrassment I cannot believe they would bring a vote like that we all knew how everybody was gonna vote the only thing It did was make our party look weak and hurt down ballot races and Biden as well the only good thing is if we can get the media to quit bashing Biden America has a short term memory at least for the presidential race the midterms are going to be a struggle beyond struggles me and my wife vote a straight Democratic ticket sometimes we even get the choice of two good Democratic representatives to choose from I’m trying to get as many people to do the same but it will be a struggle and I’m in Nebraska I’m surrounded by conservative crazies