A few quick thoughts on this: it's fine. If Dems control the floor and gavels, and ties in committees advance bills or nominations to the floor, those are the powers that come with majority control. Lacking clear majorities on committees might test party unity, but seldomly.
https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1351292296864514049
"Power-sharing" is an overstatement. The functional reality of the Senate will not be noticeably different under this than it'd be if Democrats had a bigger majority. The only significant difference is that committees will be evenly divided, but if ties go to Dems, that's fine.
How this works: the Senate has to approve an organizing resolution that sets committee sizes and membership. Under current Senate rules, that resolution needs 60 votes to pass. There's, er, some debate about whether the Senate should go nuclear to abolish the 60-vote threshold...
The Senate must (and I think will) abolish the 60-vote threshold in the short-to-medium term. But even I think it's unrealistic to go nuclear on the organizing resolution for two main reasons: First, the functional difference in the Senate's daily operation is not major (^^^).
Second, the votes will be there for reforming the filibuster if (or rather when) it becomes clear that Republican obstruction is blocking major Democratic priorities. I believe that is inevitable sooner rather than later. But it's not going to happen on the organizing resolution.
Yes. You could argue Dems didn't improve on that deal. But you still need 60 and Rs are more entrenched than ever. As I said upthread, I'm 110% for getting rid of the 60 vote threshold and happy to push leadership. But that's just not happening here.
https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1351364748412145667?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
