An Optimistic Column
Today seems like a good day to write an optimistic column. I was inspired to do so by reading a different optimistic column, in today's New York Times (to give full credit for my outburst of rosy-tinted cheerfulness). The article, by Jonathan Alter, is titled: "What If Democrats Win The White House And Congress On Tuesday?" It does begin by admitting that this all may be a "pipe dream," but it lays out what Kamala Harris and a Democratic Congress (with control of both houses) might be able to accomplish.
The article is fairly comprehensive, pointing out an incoming Harris administration could protect President Joe Biden's legacy from being dismantled by Republicans, as well as passing new laws on immigration and tax fairness, while appointing plenty of liberal judges to the federal bench. It points out that all the Trump tax cuts are going to expire next year, which will set up a huge battle over reshaping the tax code, which could include things like expanding the Child Tax Credit as well as adding things like paid family leave and paid home health care.
But one of the main stumbling blocks to getting much of anything done in Washington these days is the Senate's filibuster. Next year, the two main Democratic opponents of reforming the filibuster will be gone (Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema). Even so, as the article points out, "the votes aren't there" to eliminate the filibuster entirely. Some Democratic senators weren't nearly as vocal about their opposition to entirely jettisoning the filibuster as Sinema and Manchin were, but they do exist.
What impressed me about the article is that it didn't just end the discussion there. I have long advocated for one particular change to the filibuster that could allow for two rather large issues to be addressed, assuming Democrats do manage to wind up with control of both houses: voting rights and abortion rights. To achieve this, only one specific change to the filibuster would be necessary -- disallowing the use of a filibuster on bills which deal with basic constitutional rights. Here's how the author put it:
But there's a little-known fact that Senator Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, and other Democrats emphasize: The Senate has been tinkering with the filibuster for decades. More than 150 times in the last half century, senators have carved out exceptions on a range of matters from arms sales to bills about accidents in space.
So why not on matters of great consequence? [Vice President Kamala] Harris has said she would push to suspend the filibuster to enact the provisions of Roe v. Wade into federal law, under the theory that constitutional rights should not require a supermajority of 60 votes just to be openly debated on the floor of the Senate. In 2022, the House narrowly approved an expansive bill to allow abortion after viability if doctors thought it was medically necessary. The bill went nowhere in the Senate, and this year many Democrats have made it clear that they are satisfied with restoring the rules of Roe without moving further left on abortion.
[Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer made news at the Democratic convention in Chicago when he said that if his party holds the Senate, he would move to suspend the filibuster to approve landmark legislation on voting rights and free and fair elections.
The Freedom to Vote Act is cosponsored by nearly every Senate Democrat in this Congress and probably the next. In combination with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, it would revive the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act and add far-reaching new standards for federal elections. The Lewis Act passed in the House when Democrats controlled it. It's not too much to say that the "new birth of freedom" (to use [President Abraham] Lincoln's words) contained in the bill would transform federal elections.
Just to remind everyone: the filibuster is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. The Constitution does lay out several instances where a supermajority vote is necessary (convicting an impeached official in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote, for instance), but whether bills should be debated on the floor or not is not one of them. That is merely a Senate rule -- and the rules can be changed at any time by the majority party. This is usually done at the very start of a two-year session, so early in January Schumer could just include the change in the rules package he puts before the Senate, and if Democrats won the vote then the filibuster would be changed just like that.
The tricky part would be how to word such a change. The biggest carve-out that currently exists is on budget matters -- budget "reconciliation" bills cannot be filibustered. But what is allowable and what is not under this exception can be contentious. The Senate parliamentarian weighs in with an opinion, and normally the party in control abides by his or her decision. But this is not actually a veto -- the Senate as a whole can vote to ignore the parliamentarian's ruling and include contentious items in a reconciliation bill anyway (although it is rare for this to happen).
Creating a carve-out from the filibuster for constitutional issues would mean subjecting individual bills to the parliamentarian's scrutiny in the same fashion. Which is why it would have to be worded very carefully. What does constitute (pun intended) a legitimately constitutional issue, after all?
Voting rights would be the most obvious, since there are more constitutional amendments dealing with voting rights than any other subject -- it is clearly a key constitutional right, to put this another way. Bodily autonomy (the right to an abortion) is also seen as a constitutional issue by many Democrats, obviously. But what about a bill on gun safety regulations? This would actually be restricting a constitutional right (the Second Amendment), so would that qualify as well? And what would Republicans -- assuming they win back control of the Senate and keep the new rule -- decide qualifies as a constitutional issue? The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are incredibly broad, after all, and could be used to limit the federal government's powers in all sorts of ways.
It could wind up being a slippery slope, as well. Once Republicans are back in control, they may decide to just do away with the filibuster altogether, which would make the minority party in the Senate just as powerless as it is in the House of Representatives.
But that's a risk worth taking, as far as I am concerned. The filibuster has been so shamelessly abused in the past two decades that is has outlived whatever usefulness it once had. Filibustering (or requiring a "cloture vote") used to be incredibly rare. Now it happens on just about every bill that doesn't merely rename a post office somewhere. Filibusters also used to require 67 votes (two-thirds) to overcome, but this was changed to only 60 in the last major filibuster reform. Once again: the filibuster is not actually in the Constitution. It can be tinkered with or redefined or even fully jettisoned at any time. And a very good argument can be made that the filibuster is an absolute affront to the way the Founding Fathers set up America's governmental structure. Using the filibuster used to be a rare event. Now it is completely commonplace and this has made getting any meaningful legislation through the Senate nearly impossible. It has ground the legislative process almost to a halt. It is a rare day indeed when the Senate passes anything meaningful without using the budget reconciliation process, in fact. But this shouldn't be the case -- that's not how our government was designed to operate.
The argument against removing the filibuster is that when either party controls both chambers of Congress it will run roughshod over the wishes of the minority party. It will become the "tyranny of the majority" that Alexis de Tocqueville warned of in his seminal Democracy In America. But majority rule is indeed the way things are supposed to operate in our democracy, and the Senate itself creates minority overrepresentation already by its foundational design (two senators for each state, no matter how big or small).
Sure, one party or the other may go overboard in a filibuster-free Senate. They may pass sweeping laws that the other party hates. But beyond partisanship, the real test of those laws would be how the public felt about them. If a party overreached too far, then it would have to answer for it at the next election. What might have seemed a popular idea (to the majority party in power) might wind up being incredibly unpopular when enacted -- so unpopular it created a whole lot of "single-issue voters" who would work hard to vote out the party who passed the unpopular legislation. Laws on contentious issues may even swing back and forth every few years, depending on who is currently in control. But this is how things are theoretically supposed to work in a democracy.
Let's say (optimistically) that the Democrats gain full power next week. Say they change the filibuster rules so they can pass voting rights bills and a bill which restores all the rights in Roe. Then at some future point, Republicans gain back control. Will they risk their new majority to overturn rights that are wildly popular? They might tinker around the edges, but it's doubtful they'd launch a full-on effort to repeal the entire law. If they did, they might quickly wind up becoming the minority party once again.
If Democrats do manage to score a trifecta and wind up in control of the Oval Office and both houses of Congress, Kamala Harris wouldn't actually have any real power to change the filibuster (which is another thing most articles on the subject leave out). The decision to even make the attempt would fall to Chuck Schumer and the other Democratic senators. Tim Walz might get a vote, if the Senate is perfectly tied, since the vice president would cast the tie-breaking vote, but Harris wouldn't have any part in it at all (other than pressuring Schumer to make the change).
Codifying Roe and passing the two voting rights bills would not only change the basic law, it would also preclude the states from incrementally attacking these rights with laws that don't outright limit whether a person can vote or get an abortion, but instead make it a whole lot more difficult to do so (for no other reason than to discourage the activity in certain groups). To me, that is a valuable thing to work towards, since states run by Republicans have been chipping away at these rights over decades. In one fell swoop, we could get rid of all these hurdles. Which would be a very good thing, in my opinion.
The stakes are high, in other words. High enough to tinker with the filibuster rules. And high enough to risk the slippery slope of the filibuster eventually disappearing into the annals of history altogether. So yes, if the (seemingly) wildly-optimistic outcome of next week's election puts Democrats in charge in Congress and the White House, I would say it is time to make such a change. The alternative is the continuation of the absolute gridlock on all non-budgetary items that exists now. Which would severely limit what an incoming Harris administration could ever hope to accomplish, even with full control of Congress.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
@ Dishonorably Discharged Druggie Luser Who CAN'T Legally Claim He's A Veteran...
Question: Who posted this on 9 November 2022?
Question: WHO claimed that Basement Biden was "sharp" and could not only successfully run a 2024 campaign, but would actually WIN against President Donald Trump???
That would be ALL of you ignorant morons..
Question #2..
WHO claimed that Basement Biden was a senile and dementia riddled old fool and "wouldn't even be able to FINISH the campaign"??
Uh... That would be me..
So, in the annals of "blatantly MORONIC and UTTERLY WRONG CALLS"....
You Demon'rats take the prize in the here and now...
:eyeroll:
And let's not forget, Dishonorably Discharged Druggie Luser Who CAN'T Claim He's A Veteran...
You were offer'ed an honorably truce and a cessation of hostilities..
But, of course, you have no concept of honor...
And here we are... :eyeroll:
Today seems like a good day to write an optimistic column.
Oh, com'on CW!!
Ya have been writing NOTHING *BUT* optimistic columns for the past year!! :D
But that's a risk worth taking, as far as I am concerned.
And Harry Reid felt that getting rid of Judicial Filibusters was ALSO a "risk worth taking."
Do you agree with that reasoning?? With the ascension of a 6-3 Super Conservative Majority in the SCOTUS, do YOU think Harry Reid's "risk" was "worth taking"?? :D
What IS it about you Democrats that you simply CANNOT see past your own immediate agenda??
That is why Democrats ALWAYS lose and ALWAYS step on their wee-wees... They simply can't see past the immediate STICK IT TO THE GOP AND THE COUNTRY and totally ignore the long term consequences..
In our (you and me) long almost TWO DECADE association, Democrats have *ALWAYS* shot themselves in the foot by ignoring the long-term ramifications and the immediate quickie satisfaction..
The filibuster has been so shamelessly abused in the past two decades that is has outlived whatever usefulness it once had.
FAR more abused BY Democrats than by Republicans...
But majority rule is indeed the way things are supposed to operate in our democracy, and the Senate itself creates minority overrepresentation already by its foundational design (two senators for each state, no matter how big or small).
Fine.. Once President Trump wins the Trifecta and owns all the branches of the government (Judiciary, Legislative, Executive) let's re-visit how anxious ya are to get rid of the filibuster...
Mmmmmm, Kay???
I would say it is time to make such a change.
OK... Fair enough...
When President Trump has a FIRM control of ALL levers of government and a clear and unequivocally MANDATE from the American people (more on that in the next comment), we can re-visit the issue and see if you are STILL so gung-hop to get rid of the filibuster...
Fair enough??
You still called it wrong. And have done so many times with the same bravado...
It just occurred to me..
Why doesn't anyone want to talk about Basement Biden's/Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Harris' "DEPLORABLES" moment???
:D
Ahhhhh Yes, I can see why ya'all don't want to mention it.. :D
@Bashi Troll
You still called it wrong.
Yea.. I called it wrong 2 years ago..
And YA'LL had called Basement Biden's senility and dementia-riddled LOSING wrong for the last year...
So, in the annals of wrong calls, you morons are the clear winner... :eyeroll:
Let's look at the current state of the race based on early voting totals. :D
Let me remind ya'all that, in the past, Early Voting Totals have always favored Demon'rats by a LARGE margin..
In Nevada & Arizona, two states that have front row seats to Basement Biden's and Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Harris' gross and perverse mismanagement of the US Southern Border..
Republicans hold a 33K+ lead over Democrats in early vote totals..
"These results are unheard of at this point in any other presidential cycle and there is absolutely ZERO good news in the figures for Democrats."
-Jon Ralston, EDITOR Nevada Independent.
It's even WORSE for Demon'rats in Arizona..
In AZ, Republican early vote totals are 42% that utterly destroys Demon'rat 35% early vote totals.. And, when you add the 23% early vote totals from Independents and NPAs (which are overwhelmingly voting for President Trump) then Demon'rats and their meager 35% are massively overmatched by Republican/Independent 58% early vote totals..
So, it's a forgone conclusion that Demon'rats can kiss Nevada and Arizona good bye...
Let's take a look at North Carolina...
As Hurricane Helene ravaged western NC, prime President Trump country, many were concerned that this would allow Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Harris to claim North Carolina.. It's a logical and rational thought. These people have had their homes destroyed and their lives completely upended..
But those who would have that concern would be completely wrong..
A record-destroying almost 3 MILLION early ballots have been cast in this inarguably TRUMP COUNTRY area... This FEMA-Designated Disaster area saw a FIVE PERCENT INCREASE in early voting ballots compared to 2020...
AMAZING.. And ya'all just HAVE to know that likely ALL of those 3 MILLION early votes are President Trump votes..
Some voters interviews said that they would gladly crawl over broken glass to vote for President Trump..
This type of voter intensity is common amongst President Trump voters in ALL areas..
Hurricane Helene struck Georgia has also seen a surge in early voting.. ALL going all in for President Trump.
So, Demon'rats can kiss North Carolina and Georgia good bye...
Now, let's travel to Pennsylvania.
Basement Biden had a 4 point lead in PA in 2020 at this same point in time..
President Trump has a small but significant lead in PA in the here and now..
And what ELSE is happening in PA??
PA Dem Senator Fetterman stated that President Trump's lead in PA is "astonishing". According to Fetterman, President Trump's lead in PA is "real"...
And the OTHER PA DEM Senator, Bob Casey, has thrown Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Harris under the bus and has fully and completely jumped on the President Trump train..
So... Demon'rats can kiss Pennsylvania goodbye...
Now let's travel to Michigan...
In MI, President Trump has 46% Arab American support, compared to Token DEI Hire Headboard Has Been Harris's 42% support..
Black and hispanic support for President Trump in MI has reached HISTORIC margins never before seen in MI...
Moving to Southeast Florida, Miami-Dade which is notoriously a pro-Demon'rat area, Republicans enjoy a THIRTY THOUSAND early voter lead... :D
What's all this mean???
It means I am about to make the boldest prediction to date...
Next comment.. :D
Given all the facts of the previous comment, I am going to go out on a limb...
An EXTREMELY incompetent and disliked incumbent.. Massive economic upheaval with Americans suffering under an increasingly punishing economy..
A Presidential race that is neck and neck... Well within the margin of error...
Am I describing the 2024 Presidential Race??
Nope...
I am describing the 1980 election between Jimmy Carter and Saint Ronald Reagan..
Are we seeing that election playing out again??
Yes, given all the FACTS, I believe we are..
For those of you too young (and stoopid) to remember, the results of the 1980 came as a shock to pundits and pollsters alike..
Americans, completely fed up with the incompetence of the Demon'rat Jimmy Carter (sound familiar??) over-whelming gave Saint Ronald Reagan a CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL and INARGUABLE mandate with an Electoral College win of 489 Electoral Votes for Saint Ronald Reagan and a meager, yet undeserved 49 Electoral Votes for the incompetent and America hating Jimmy Carter...
So, there you have it Weigantian Troll, Weigantian Demon'rats and Weigantian Democrats...
President Trump is going to enjoy a very similar landslide mandate election that was the 1980 Presidential Election..
You heard it here first.. :D
Yea, yea, yea... The Weigantian trolls are going to bust a gut...
"Laugh it up, Fuzzball(s)"
-Han Solo
Ya'all morons ALSO busted a gut and claimed that not only Basement Biden was not senile and dementia riddled, not only was Basement Biden capable of being POTUS for another 4 years... Ya'all claimed that senile and dementia riddled Basement Biden would actually BEAT President Trump in the election..
And *I* said that ya'all were full of kaa-kaa and that Basement Biden wouldn't even FINISH THE ELECTION!!!
And what happened???
President Trump killed Basement Biden with ONE DEBATE!!!
So, laugh it up, progtards…
We'll see who is factually accurate and who is left holding their dicks in their hands in about 5 days... :D
"DEPLORABLES" moment
You mean Biden's moment? Who cares. Remind us of all the nasty things Trump has said about the left. Remind us of all the bad names Vance has called the left, not to mention telling Americans we need to “stop getting so offended at every little thing,” Remind us of all the names you have called the left. It would be high grade hypocrisy for you to do anything other than complement Biden effusively and pledge your respect.
Yea.. I called it wrong 2 years ago..
Don't sell yourself short, you have missed considerably more than just two years ago.
Who cares.
Funny.. That's EXACTLY what ya'all said about Hillary's DEPLORABLE moment..
Remind me again. How did that work out for ya'all?? :D
The mere fact that CW is avoiding the topic like the plague indicates on how serious it is.. :D
Simply re-enforces the FACT that President Trump is going to be your next POTUS..
:D
Duty calls once again..
I'll have more facts for ya'all tomorrow.. :D
Meh. It was a gaff and at the end of the day it was more of a "no you are", than an original insult. Beyond the Trump comedian losing the Puerto Rican vote (8% of the Pennsylvania vote by the way), Trump has called immigrants garbage, Harris supporters garbage. Then pulled a self own by cosplaying as a sanitation worker. It all smells of desperation.
Speaking of desperation, why is Trump and Musk already trying to pull the cheat card? If they are so far ahead in the polls as your bravado would suggest, wouldn't that mean your guys are doing the cheating? I mean we all know they are but I would not expect them to admit it so openly...
donald probably lost a little ground in the exchange, seeing as it was biden and not harris who made the reply (and immediately changed course when he realized he hadn't said what he'd intended to). will either comment move the needle enough to affect the outcome of the whole election? doubtful.
Probably the only thing that might move the needle at this point is Musk agreeing that he intends to crash the economy and Trump also agreeing but saying nobody will feel it. Ya, sure dude. Cutting 1/3 of federal budget/jobs is going to be felt hard and is not going to be rebuilt till long after the mid-terms. These PayPal mafia techno-libertarian accelerationism wanna-be Oligarchs are really set to screw things up.
Glad tidings, Fellow Travelers!
In 2020 Democrats dominated early (and mail in) voting while Republicans dominated Election Day in person voting, thanks to Trump’s sentiments combined with Dems taking COVID more seriously.** As many states don’t start counting all those (Dem) votes until Election Day Trump’s early lead evaporated as the counting progressed. This was the “blue shift.”
This year Repugs are pushing early voting “Bank your vote” and Covid has receded so Dems are deferring to closer to on Election Day. So Repugs are a greater share of the 61m votes already canst, no doubt.
But women are out voting men 55% - 45%! So unless all those Repug female voters are flooding in to vote against their own reproductive rights (spoiler alert: no) I am THRILLED with these early numbers.
I’m not worried about Kamala and the House. The Senate I am concerned about.
**Fun fact: red counties experienced 50% more COVID related extra deaths than blue counties. A black man in a blue state has a higher life expectancy than a white guy in a red state.
President Trump is going to enjoy a very similar landslide mandate election that was the 1980 Presidential Election..
You heard it here first.. :D
This is hysterical tinfoil hat wearing, retread mainlined the "cultural heroin" batshit crazy lunacy, and I'll even be nice and provide the moronic orange Kool-Aid drinking foolish troll a ginormous hint as to why:
3 DC
3 Vermont
10 Maryland
11 Massachusetts
3 Hawaii
54 California
1 Maine District 1
12 Washington
7 Connecticut
28 New York
4 Rhode Island
3 Delaware
19 Illinois
14 New Jersey
8 Oregon
10 Colorado
Above is a list of Electoral College Votes and states/districts that Harris should easily win by double digits (from approximately +84 to +11).
Obviously, Harris is going to win multiple other states; however, I have listed only those she is likely to win by double digits (10 points or more).
Do the math... add the ECVs.
Now subtract out the ECVs of the states you believe Trump has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
Now check your math and realize the troll is prattling on and on about a "landslide" that already isn't mathematically possible. Yes, Trump could obviously win, but there is no chance whatsoever he can win in a "landslide."
The troll is (again) being played for a sucker by the right-wingnut talking heads who promise a landslide every two years and cause the gullible rubes to look like a collection of high school dropouts.
You would think after all this time being lied to by the right-wing bullshit artists, the troll might clue in to the fact Trump and the talking heads think the MAGAts are stupid because they fall for the gaslighting bullshit every time and then gleefully regurgitate it like verbal diarrhea.
FUN FACT: That "47" on Trump's hat is pretty much his uppermost ceiling to date.
MtnCaddy
13
But women are out voting men 55% - 45%! So unless all those Repug female voters are flooding in to vote against their own reproductive rights (spoiler alert: no) I am THRILLED with these early numbers.
That "gender gap" is looking wicked in 2024; don't be surprised if not a single pollster had a 10-point gender gap factored into their calculations and therefore underestimated the Harris vote. You should also not be surprised if the amount of Republicans voting for Democrats was also underestimated by pollsters. I would wager the Independent vote will also favor Harris.
Women are going to decide this election. :)
I’ll go to my grave believing that Joe would have won reelection against TFG, but I’m entirely pleased by Kamala rising to the occasion as she has. I hope she gets Frat Boy, Alito and Thomas retired or else she packs the court.
AND the ten million Boomers who have croaked since 2020 has been replaced by Gen Zers who skew heavily Democratic.
AND recall that Joe and the Dems had the best incumbent party midterms since…Ronald Reagan’s best midterms. You know, forty years ago.
Trumpism will be smashed and the party formerly known as Republican will splinter between the full-on fascist deplorables and the fascist-lite real Conservatives.
Gonna hate to see all that talent at the Lincoln Project go back to serving the dark side.