LOL, this is a complete bluff. McConnell has spent years tinkering with Senate rules to ensure Republicans can pass any part of their agenda they want in ways that aren't subject to the legislative filibuster. That's why he's so scared of it going away.
To be clear: a Republican Senate without a legislative filibuster could do all sorts of horrible things. But nothing they can't do already through controlling other parts of government.
What McConnell is really afraid of is that a functional Democratic Senate will dismantle the backroom structures the GOP created to go around Congress for its agenda. That they'll overturn conservative court rulings, reform agencies they've taken over, undo voting restrictions.
And yes, a later Republican Senate can undo all these things. But it would force them to make unpopular votes. The whole point of creating these workarounds to Congress is so they don't have to take the blame when their policies hurt people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Because redistricting is coming up soon, I'd like to issue a reminder for lay people: "gerrymandering" does not mean "the districts look weird."
If you want an easy way to tell if a map is a gerrymander, overlay the map on top of a map of the state's large cities and check how often cities are arbitrarily chopped up or grouped with unrelated cities.
Both Democratic and Republican gerrymanders tend to do this.
Republican gerrymanders will group together unrelated small cities and chop up larger cities so most districts containing them are rural.
Democratic gerrymanders will group together unrelated rural areas and chop up larger rural areas so most districts containing them are urban.
Hot take: general elections should be more democratic, but primaries should be less democratic.
What I mean is this: we should have a system that allows there to be way more than two parties — ranked choice voting or proportional representation — but those parties' should decide their platforms and nominations at the leadership level, with little or no input from voters.
This would ensure voters have the widest range of options possible, but it would also give political parties greater power to course-correct their leadership and agenda when the voting public rejects them.
Let's be clear. Mitch McConnell doesn't just want to protect the legislative filibuster because he's in the minority. He wants to protect it because it asymmetrically blocks Democrats from passing their agenda, but not Republicans.
Think about it.
Democrats' agenda actually requires legislation. Expanding health care. Creating green jobs. Campaign finance reform. Full voting rights for all. You have to pass a bill in the Senate for all of these.
On the other hand, nothing Republicans want to do requires legislation.
Cut taxes on the rich? That can go in the budget.
Repeal regulations? Executive agencies can do that.
Roll back women's rights, voting rights, gun control? That's what judges are for.
All the other Blights had some sort of attack or defensive trait that would have made it impossible for the champion to beat them. But I don't see why Revali should have been at a disadvantage to Windblight.
Mipha couldn't beat Waterblight Ganon because she had no ranged attacks to get it on the ceiling.
Daruk couldn't beat Fireblight because he didn't have bombs to block the second phase.
Urbosa couldn't beat Thunderblight because she had no magnesis to redirect the lightning.
But Revali has no obvious weakness to be exploited by Windblight's attack pattern.
He could have dodged the wind blasts and his Great Eagle Bow should have been ideal to stun and counter from a distance.
Controversial take: lower, not higher, taxes are a sign of authoritarianism.
When a country has low taxes, that tends to mean the state directly owns an industry that produces most of its revenue.
Which means the majority of the people aren't even needed to keep the state running and therefore their opinions — and rights — are irrelevant.
Governments with higher taxes, OTOH, own less of the overall economy and are therefore more dependent on their people — and their people's civic consent — to operate.
I don't think Trump is the only one who could do it. However, I think that Republicans fundamentally don't understand what it was about the Trump formula that worked, so they are unlikely to replicate his appeal anytime soon.
Trump's formula is entirely about personality, not policy. He was vague and flexible on his political beliefs.
What made Trump work was, he was an angry idiot that every angry idiot in America could see themselves in.
Trump spent his life watching the same right-wing anger porn that all his fans did.
So when he spoke, yes mainly about race but also about all kinds of random uninformed conspiracy theories, millions of low-frequency voters thought, FINALLY someone who GETS what I'm mad about.