McConnell on a 1/6 commission will be telling about how subservient he feels he must be to Trump at this point.
McConnell was furious about 1/6, his wife quit the Cabinet, and "sources" talked a big game about consequences for Trump.

In the end he voted against conviction, saying it's because he doesn't think he can convict a former president.
Lately, McConnell has avoided Liz Cheney-ing, and has fully embraced the "GOP must unite and look forward so we can win in 2022" mindset.

But if he wants to put at least one obstacle in the way of Trump coming back in 2024, the commission could be a way to do that.
Like a good party leader, McConnell is said to be following his senators lately. There was dissension in the ranks about his anti-Trump criticism after 1/6 and that helped spur him to back down.

But he could likely find 9 R senators to back a commission if he wanted to.
The problem of course is that the commission's findings will surely reflect poorly on Trump, and Republicans believe that that will hurt them electorally. And usually on these types of things, the pragmatic / cynical / calculating side of McConnell wins out.

• • •

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

11 May
Per @Catalist_US, it's tempting to generalize, but:

-32% of Biden's voters were non-college whites

-46% of white college grads voted for Trump

vox.com/2021/5/10/2242…
Punditry shorthand is Biden won because of nonwhite voters and white college grads. Not the whole story. His coalition was:
-39% voters of color
-29% white college grads
-32% non-college whites

That is, he got more actual votes from non-college whites than college whites.
That's because, well, there are lots of white people in the USA, and lots of them vote. White share of the electorate has been shrinking but is still quite high (72% of 2020 voters).

Non-college whites were 44% of the electorate.

vox.com/2021/5/10/2242…
Read 4 tweets
11 May
In 2002, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill passed the Senate with 60 votes — 11 R, 49 D.

Polarization (both in Congress and around this issue) has intensified since. Very hard to imagine bipartisan campaign finance reform happening again.

senate.gov/legislative/LI…
McConnell (speaking now against the For the People Act) was the preeminent opponent of the McCain-Feingold bill. This was before he was GOP leader. His name was on the (mostly) failed Supreme Court challenge to it.

oyez.org/cases/2003/02-…
Of the 11 Republicans who voted for McCain-Feingold in 2002, just 1 is still in the Senate — Susan Collins. She has said she opposes the For the People Act in its current form cnn.com/2021/03/22/pol…
Read 4 tweets
6 May
A revealing analogy. Dems like to fantasize that if they just fight hard enough the GOP will go down to some final defeat.

But 2010-2020 has shown that the party isn't going anywhere. The US is stuck with it. We're locked in here with them.
The 2020 election crisis shows us both how dangerous elements in the GOP are, and how the party has *not* yet been fully captured by them.

In another crisis it'll be important to have more people who will act like Raffensperger, and fewer like Hawley.

vox.com/22230929/trump…
Yup, this is the risk. It's already happening. And that's why I've become so pessimistic about a Republican speaking out with a bold principled stance achieves. If the entirely predictable outcome is that they'll soon be replaced by a hardcore Trumpist...

Read 4 tweets
27 Apr
NEW: I profiled Joe Manchin. I cover his 4-decade career, and his improbable rise to become Democrats’ key 50th senator.

I interviewed him about the filibuster, HR1, the minimum wage, whether he’d ever switch parties, and more. Some highlights: vox.com/22339531/manch…
On Manchin's op-ed saying there's no circumstance under which he'll eliminate the filibuster:

“The op-ed was as clear as it could be... If you want to argue about it for two years, then you’re going to waste a lot of your energy and your time.”
Manchin on HR1/S1: “How in the world could you, with the tension we have right now, allow a voting bill to restructure the voting of America on a partisan line?”

He insists it will just feed more distrust in the system and "anarchy" like Jan 6 — "I'm not going to be part of it"
Read 13 tweets
6 Apr
I wrote about Democratic debates over the policy and strategy of HR 1 / S1, the For the People Act.

vox.com/22346812/votin…
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

slowboring.com/p/georgia-elec…
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

vox.com/22346812/votin…
Read 5 tweets
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!

politico.com/news/magazine/…
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

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!

:(