Good morning wise ones.... Question about the US Senate

[mysteryowl]

So, when Warnock wins in Georgia, we will have 51 in the Senate. Is that enough to override Manchin and his obstruction?

[2naSalit]

1. One of the two.

[mysteryowl]

5. Was Sinema as bad as Manchin?

I know she blocked bills, but I thought it was not as bad as Manchin.

[2naSalit]

8. I think they are equally obstructive.

Doesn't, from my perspective, appear tht either is worse or better than the other when it comes to holding things up for shithead compromises.

A 51 majority brings us to 49+ the VP if both aren't backing a Bill, which would cause it to fail, still.

[uponit7771]

14. +1

[sop]

20. Sinema may look at the election results in Arizona and reconsider her obstructionist tendencies.

Sinema stands a better chance of being primaried and losing in Arizona than Manchin does in W.Va.

[in2herbs]

23. Enema can't be trusted and after this election she's got to know the writing is on the

wall for her time in Congress. However, since she has no shame, she could change parties, become an R, and then announce her resignation from Congress. Being an R would give AZ Gov. Douchbag the opportunity to appoint an R to fill in till an election, messing with the Ds majority.

IMO as an opportunist Enema was aligned with the R party because she believed that they would be a permanent majority in Congress after this election and she was only interested in herself.

Go Gallego in 2024!!

[Bucky]

33. Arizona definitely wants moderate senators

Sinema might not be a liberal anymore, but she sure as heck ain't practicing moderation in anything she does.

[in2herbs]

36. I don't consider Rep. Gallego in AZ to be a moderate and he garnered over 70% of the vote

in his district.

If most of the population wanted their legislators to be moderate the turn out based on the overturning of Roe would never have occurred.

[DLCWIdem]

28. I agree.

Now a threat of primaring her will hold weight and she might mind her p's and q's. She is up for reelect in 2 years

[Celerity]

31. She is even worse than Manchin on the filibuster, she wants a 60 vote threshold for ALL Senate biz

She also is worse than Manchin on tax increases on the wealthy and corporate America.

[Bucky]

34. There will *still* be a near 60% threshold for the Democrats even if the filibuster is removt

Republicans need a much smaller national base to control the Senate since they dominate the states with smaller populations. It's not quite 60/40, it's closer to 54/46. Of course the logistics of swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, & (by the grace of semi-fascist self-immolation) Georgia, plus occasional abberations in Maine & Montana, make this impossible to calculate exactly

This link is a good read on the mathematics involved in the small state bias

[hlthe2b]

2. Well, the filibuster is still at issue.

[mysteryowl]

3. Could you say more about this?

[hlthe2b]

7. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. Thus, any Dems that break from a 51 unanimous pack

will make getting an R caucus that stands together impossible to break. Say that there is some movement on the R'side and we have 10 R's who agree on something with the D's on something--say something "financial" or "Fossil Fuel-related" and thus near and dear to Manchin's heart... Well, he's going to wield power then certainly for changes/weakening or withdrawal of any such legislation. So, too could any Dem who disagrees, certainly, but generally, they will at least allow a vote, which a filibuster blocks. And Manchin/Sinema have uniquely shown their willingness to be an obstacle to their own party.

[mysteryowl]

9. Thanks for explaining.

We still need more of a majority than to override Manchin.

We also no longer will be counting on VP Harris's vote, of which we knew how she would vote.

[hlthe2b]

11. We need to dispense with the filibuster, IMO. Problem solved, even if future problems could emerge.

[mysteryowl]

12. Sounds like that is the best way to go.

The current filibuster rules don't help anyone anyway.
They don't debate, they just block with the current situation.

[Bettie]

27. The Filibuster helps people like Manchin and Sinema

and even Republicans, because they can say they are "for" things that help people while never having to go on record as supporting them.

So, they can tell various audiences..."I was for that, but the filibuster" and another audience "I am against that! Definitely! And we're gonna keep it from ever coming to the floor!" on the same issue.

It's a weasel refuge. They never have to go on record so they can say whatever they please.

[in2herbs]

24. How many votes to pass legislation? (I don't know.) But, if it only takes 50 votes to

pass (certain) legislation why can the Ds amend or create new legislation? This process would seem to be able to by-pass the filibuster. Additionally, Congress has amended or created new or existing legislation as a work-around to a bad USSC opinion in the past. So amending or creating a new or existing legislation specific to correct a bad USSC decision would not stand in the way of progress.

[hlthe2b]

25. Dems can do anything they want if they actually can bring something to a vote. If a Senator

ANY Senator puts up a filibuster that they can't break, it is never going to get a vote. Obviously, not all legislation is filibustered and thus Dems have been able to pass things on party-line vote. And, there are very very limited carve-outs that preclude a filibuster that Dems have taken advantage of (reconciliation), but most issues can not be included in that.

https://budget.house.gov/resources/fact-sheets/budget-reconciliation-basics

[vlyons]

4. Depends on if the filibuster rule continues

60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster, but the filibuster is not in the constitution. It's just a senate rule, and rules can be changed.

[mysteryowl]

6. Oh, Yep, that's right.

[honest.abe]

10. If the R's take the House it probably wont matter.

No significant legislation will happen.

[mysteryowl]

13. But, at least they will block the almost certain impeachment of Prez Biden.

Impeachment is what Jordan talks about.

I guess it also matters for placing judges and any new or renewed cabinet members.

[honest.abe]

15. Right. The Senate will approve judges and other key appointments.

But that would happen as long as we have the majority.. 50 or 51 would not matter. Manchin and Sinema have not blocked any Biden judges or other appointments... so far.

[mysteryowl]

16. good

[oswaldactedalone]

17. Won't block the impeachment

However, Biden would remain president since there’s no way the Senate would vote to remove.

[mysteryowl]

18. Okay, but that is a nice protection for our President.

[Chainfire]

30. Of course a house majority will impeach Biden. I predict that they will do it three times.

Then they can claim that Biden, not Trump, is the worst president in history...

[onenote]

32. I predict you're wrong.

If the R's have a slim margin, which seems likely, they'll have committees hold all sorts of investigations, but they won't actually hold any votes on impeaching Biden.

[Chainfire]

29. Agreed, we will be in for two years of gridlock and the hateful energy it supports.

[cachukis]

19. Me thinks that Sinema, in particular, has to recognize the voters.

She has her bank, for sure, but the insistence that democracy and women's rights are part of the Democratic Party mantra has to make her think wisely. If she chooses the money over being part of the women's exhibition of national strength, then she'll go her own way.

[lees1975]

21. Sinema needs to look at the reality

that she could successfully be primaried by a Democrat who could win the seat. Get with the party, be the vote that breaks the filibuster and let the Dems move forward, or realize you're done.

[mysteryowl]

22. Or... she can realize, along with her voters, she is not actually a D.

[moonscape]

26. It will speed up judicial appointments

by having majority on committees vs the slowing down due to 50/50 power sharing.

[Bucky]

35. We need to fix the Senate to really fix democracy

It won't happen, but leaving 1/10th of the country's population in California represented by 2% of the Senate is screwing the country out of a true republican form of government.

We don't need a perfect one-person-one-vote like the House provides, but 20 western states with 8% of the population getting 20x the voice in the Senate as the 10% of the population that lives in California is an insult.

Republicans should support this. If California got even 6 new senators, they'd probably pick up 2 or 3 new votes in the Senate.