Dems should pay close attention to the elation they're feeling after passing the ARP combined with the off-balance defensiveness Republicans are showing. We should draw these threads together and ask: what happens if we just keep passing popular policies on a majority-vote basis?
One thing that might happen is, voters will start associating Dems with popular policies. Instead of explaining that we passed some muddle of a bill because we had to sacrifice good policy to secure a laughably small number of GOP votes, we can say we passed the popular thing!
Another thing that might happen is that some Rs might tire of being on the wrong side of very popular things. It's one thing when McConnell holds everyone together to defeat a big bill - that's a net gain for Rs. But what's the gain from voting against a bill that polls at 75%?
It's quite possible that the way to pass the bills America needs AND restore bipartisanship is for the majority to put popular things on the floor, make clear they're going to pass, and invite anyone who wants to be part of the success or have any influence on the policy to join.
Here's the thing: maybe the forces of polarization are simply too strong, and Rs stay in their corner. So then what? Dems have the popular policies all to themselves. And instead of just talking about them, as they had to do under the filibuster, they actually get to *pass* them.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Adam Jentleson 🎈

Adam Jentleson 🎈 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 @AJentleson

4 Mar
Play it out: Republicans regain control of the WH and Congress. There's a bill they want to pass that has 50+ votes in the Senate but not 60. Does anyone really think that McConnell will let Dems filibuster it and just throw up his hands? Or will he nuke the filibuster himself?
Not an idle wager. Preserving the filibuster now in the hopes of using it later means giving up on issues like voting rights which are necessary to save our democracy. Is it worth sacrificing issues of that importance in the hopes that McConnell will let Dems keep the filibuster?
A few answers to this. First, wait and find out! Dems would quite literally be betting the fate of our democracy on the *hope* that McConnell decides to let Dems keep the filibuster. Giving up on voting rights while crossing your fingers that he keeps it is perhaps shortsighted.
Read 6 tweets
4 Mar
Folks whose response to filibuster reform is "but Manchin" must not remember 2013. When Obama took office, we were, conservatively, 20+ votes shy of reform. We got there in 2013. To be just a few votes shy this early, facing even more extreme obstruction, is a good place to be.
We are light years ahead of where I thought we'd be by now. I'll probably do a longer thread on this at some point, but on an issue like this, you look at how many layers of opposition you have to work through within the caucus - is it a 7-layer Ajax shield, or nah? On this...
... we've got elite consensus congealing, permission structure forming (with folks like David Brooks who Biden reads giving the green light) and senators like Coons and Tester who would have formed one of those layers of resistance already showing movement. Pretty darn good!
Read 5 tweets
19 Feb
This is an exciting agenda but using reconciliation again instead of taking it straight to the floor could be a big strategic mistake. Reconciliation lets Republicans off the hook, shifting attention from their obstruction to inter-party fights over what conforms to its rules...
By using reconciliation, you concede at the outset that Republicans will block the bill, cutting them out of the political narrative. The process takes weeks or months, during which time the narrative will be "Dems in disarray" as they argue over what should go in the package.
The antagonist becomes the Parliamentarian, not Republicans. Republicans get to sit on the sideline and take pot shots. Assembling a package of the size contemplated is a monumental task, which will be much harder without the centripetal unifying force of GOP obstruction.
Read 7 tweets
9 Feb
This is a microcosm. What makes Manchin’s position awkward and I think ultimately unsustainable is that in most instances he will be arguing to give people less help and do less good for our democracy than Biden and his fellow Dems - many of whom are up in 2022 - want to do.
It would be one thing if Manchin’s stand could leverage a bipartisan deal instead of a Dem-only version. But as we’re seeing on covid relief, getting 10 Rs is a fantasy. So it comes down to doing a Dem-only version or nothing at all. Biden and 2022 Dems can’t accept the latter.
I think this is key. I’m a Manchin defender because he has the highest WAR of any Senate Dem (Tester is arguably tied). While I can’t speak for him and would never presume to know his heart, from past experience I believe he does care about Biden’s success & keeping the majority.
Read 5 tweets
6 Feb
Quick PSA on reconciliation: the Senate Parliamentarian is likely to strike out many key provisions that will be found not to comply with reconciliation’s strict rules. This is largely out of Dems’ control and not at all the same as Dems intentionally slimming down the bill.
Reconciliation is governed by strict rules that determine what can and cannot be processed along its fast track. For policies that push the limits, Dems argue their case before the Senate Parliamentarian, like arguing before a judge. Ultimately it’s the Parliamentarian’s call.
A lot of the pieces that have been written about what can and cannot pass under reconciliation are heavy on theory. Theoretically, many things can pass but those theories may not survive contact with parliamentary reality. Worth a try, but don’t be surprised when they get struck.
Read 5 tweets
23 Jan
Biden clearly should not do #1. The problem with #2 is that reconciliation delays the inevitable and creates a tiered system where issues that happen to be ineligible - like civil rights and democracy reform - are relegated to second-class status and left to die by filibuster.
This👇is the danger. By using reconciliation you’re conceding the point that major legislation deserves to pass by majority vote, but only certain kinds for arbitrary reasons. Plus the process itself is opaque and ugly. You risk laying a logistical & political trap for yourself.
All the “here’s what you can do through reconciliation” takes are correct but also look through the wrong end of the telescope. Any of the items mentioned, or a small number of them, would be relatively easy. But putting them all together in one leadership-driven mega package...
Read 16 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!