I wrote about Democratic debates over the policy and strategy of HR 1 / S1, the For the People Act.

Separately, @mattyglesias has written a critique of the bill today.

When I asked about redistricting I was told that the politics of it are extremely fraught among House Ds and considering their small majority, a broader overhaul is just too difficult

The current bill does contain substantial redistricting reforms, but there's a line of thinking that it doesn't go far enough.

Usually the constraint on what passes Congress is the Senate. For redistricting it's the House — their jobs are at stake

Once you consider that, a "redistricting-reform only" bill may well be far more difficult to get through the House than a big mega-bill that combats vote suppression and that Ds might be hesitant to vote against. The former would create too many losers among current incumbents.
Should've clarified that this (and any scenario on how HR 1 can pass) assumes a Senate rules change exempting it from the filibuster.

In the absence of that, both a mega-voting bill and a redistricting bill would end up the same way: filibustered

• • •

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!


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

21 Mar
This piece is illustrative of our confused discussion over the "talking filibuster."

Under that system, the author writes, the majority "could win."

But how does the majority win? By getting a supermajority for cloture — the same way they can win today!

I promise you, if the Senate can line up 71 votes, they can overcome today's filibusters! This was not a feature somehow unique to the "talking" system.

The supermajority threshold to advance legislation is what matters. Not the spectacle.
What "talking filibuster" proponents are really hoping for is that, by making the filibuster more "painful" to use, they will turn back the clock to when it was much more rarely used.

I think this is a total misunderstanding of current partisan dynamics.
Read 6 tweets
17 Mar
Suggests that Manchin's version of a "talking filibuster" change would be inconsequential. 60-vote threshold is what matters.
Basically there are various ideas of what a "talking filibuster" rules change would look like.

But if at the end of the talking you still need 60 votes to advance legislation then Democrats still can't advance legislation.

Dunno exactly how it would be structured but Manchin doesn't seem to be inclined toward the "Trojan horse to let Dems slip stuff through with a majority" version of the talking filibuster.

He seems to be saying "make 'em talk but Ds still need 60."

Read 6 tweets
15 Mar
The GA election call most people think of is the Raffensperger call which broke (with accurate audio) 1/3. Capitol-storming was 1/6. The incorrectly-quoted (deservingly corrected) story was on 1/9 about a separate GA call. Didn't really shape narrative

The report on the Trump/Raffensperger call, with audio, was a bombshell and shaped the narrative. It was totally accurate.

The (now-corrected) 1/9 report on Trump's call with another GA official was more of a follow-up. Oh, he did a similar thing in this other call too.
Trump was indeed doing a similar thing in this separate call, but the exact quotes the Post's source (a state official) attributed to Trump were wrong.

Substantively, "find the fraud" vs. find "dishonesty" in Fulton seems immaterial. "National hero" seems more off.
Read 8 tweets
12 Mar
Let's go through the filibuster state of play:

1) Dem opposition to reform may be broader than Manchin and Sinema. But many you'd expect to be skeptics are on board or open. And if you win over Manchin and Sinema, you've probably won over everybody else

2) Historical path to reform is clear. Get the majority convinced that the minority is abusing powers, so they're outraged enough to go nuclear.

Put another way: find a specific issue for which a GOP filibuster will motivate/pressure Manchin and Sinema to back a rules change
3) It is currently unclear what the filibustered bill that would motivate Manchin and Sinema to flip is — or whether it even exists.

Voting rights, labor rights, government funding + debt ceiling are all possibilities. But, not yet clear whether they'd be moved.
Read 5 tweets
8 Mar
"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.
Read 10 tweets
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.


Read 8 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!