Share this page!

Andrew Prokop Profile picture
Twitter logo
8 Mar, 10 tweets, 3 min read
"Talking filibuster" rules change intuitively feels right to a lot of people, but I doubt it would practically play out in the way its adherents hope
The devil's in the details, I guess, but if doing "shifts" are allowed it would be easy for the 50 Rs to trade off shifts on a talking filibuster. And they'd get laudatory coverage on Fox and conservative media outlets for doing so.
"Require 40 votes to block a bill, not 60 to advance a bill" is similarly unimpressive. There are 50 Republicans! They will manage to do that easily.
Overall the idea that Republican senators will fold and quit obstructing if their lives are made slightly more difficult just doesn't track.

In fact the nuclear option necessary for any change will guarantee they're all fired up about future obstruction.
I understand why frustrated liberals are searching for the "next best thing" with full filibuster abolition off the table for now, but I don't really think there is a second-best thing. Senators would adapt to the new rules and if the rules allow them to still obstruct, they will
Okay, this is a good nomination for second-best thing. Would be far superior to the bizarre, arcane budget reconciliation restrictions

Slumber parties on the Senate floor!

Not so sure about the last bit. Majorities tend to get the blame for government dysfunction. Also they tend to have other stuff they want to use the Senate for (confirming judges, nominees, etc.) Many Rs would be happy to block all that indefinitely

.@jbview: "The Senate switched from talking filibusters to the current silent version because it’s better for the majority party. Bringing back talking filibusters to punish the minority gets it backward."
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
"Change the rules so as to call surprise votes in hopes members of the legislature physically can't be there" doesn't seem like a great new norm to set.

In contrast setting a 51-vote requirement to advance legislation would be a very normal thing to do.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Andrew Prokop

Andrew Prokop Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @awprokop

Andrew Prokop Profile picture
12 Feb
Collins/Murkowski question to Trump’s team: “Exactly when did President Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol? What specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to the end and when did he take them? Please be as detailed as possible.”
Trump attorney blusters, gives a non-answer. Cites Trump's tweets only. Says the real issue is that the House hasn't investigated this enough (?)
The answer to the "what was Trump doing" question from reporting or secondhand sources seems to be — he was watching it all on TV. He was happy that it was happening. He resisted urgings from staff to condemn the mob.

washingtonpost.com/politics/trump…

vox.com/2021/1/8/22220…
Read 8 tweets
Andrew Prokop Profile picture
10 Feb
The cherry-picking to suggest the Capitol rioters were mostly well-off doesn't seem to have held up

washingtonpost.com/business/2021/…
Where are the excuses? Their behavior was inexcusable. But there was a popular narrative on here based on a few examples that they were mostly rich, which seems inaccurate.

This does not of course mean that the rioters were all desperately poor either. There was a mix of people with different backgrounds, some well-off, a substantial amount seem to have had significant money troubles.
Read 4 tweets
Andrew Prokop Profile picture
5 Feb
So at the heart of the Summers op-ed is the political assumption that if you spend a ton on stimulus now then inevitably deficit mania will kick in and Congress will get cold feet on doing anything more, killing the rest of Biden's agenda.

washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
In 2009 this sort of is what happened. Progressives often frame the stimulus mistake as going "too small." But at the time there was an assumption in the White House that if they needed more stimulus later, they could go back and get it from Congress. That proved untrue.

But...
Congress is different now. In '09 the constraint was a caucus of deficit-worrying Democrats + Republicans.

There are few D deficit worriers left, and hardly anyone expects GOP support for Biden's agenda. A second bill will be reconciliation again.
Read 5 tweets
Andrew Prokop Profile picture
26 Jan
This is Manchin's ultimate trump card against any pressure Dems might bring to bear on him. He really does have the sole power to throw control of the Senate back to Republicans.

Jim Jeffords did this during our last 50-50 Senate in '01, flipping R to D

Jeffords ditched the GOP in '01 because he was unhappy with how the Bush Admin was treating him.

Another hugely consequential R to D Senate switch, Specter in '09, occurred because of pressure from the right. Specter's switch gave Dems 60 votes and allowed Obamacare to pass
Oh I certainly don't think he's anywhere close to doing it. But that's in part because Dem leaders have done well tending to his interests. And they're not doing stuff like threatening his gavel or using hardball tactics on him like some on here want

Read 5 tweets
Andrew Prokop Profile picture
25 Jan
Senate Dems were never going to just kill the filibuster as part of an aggressive power grab to open the year. If they're going to do it (and I don't know if they will), they need a pretext.

So the real question is what will happen months down the road.
The question is: what is something that Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Joe Biden all really, really want to become law, for which Republican obstruction would be outrageous enough to justify nuking the filibuster? Does such a thing exist?
It is possible they find such a thing. It is also possible that Manchin, Sinema, and yes, Biden, are more comfortable seeing the vast majority of liberal priorities bottled up by the filibuster. That there's nothing they want so badly as to change the rules to get it.
Read 6 tweets
Andrew Prokop Profile picture
22 Jan
Schumer on Senate floor re: organizing resolution: "Leader McConnell’s proposal is unacceptable and it won’t be accepted. And the Republican leader knew that when he first proposed it."
Schumer said all he wants is the same agreement for the last 50-50 Senate in '01, and that McConnell's making an "extraneous demand" to put "constraints on the majority."

Says in addition to higher-profile nuclear option uses McConnell used it last Congress to speed nominations
McConnell argues that "there wasn't a need" in 2001 to reaffirm the basic rules, because it was "safely assumed" that no majority would break them.

That assumption was not so safe — Republican senators became fixated on the idea just two years later.

adn.com/nation-world/a…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @awprokop has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @awprokop!

Read all threads by @awprokop