Share this page!

Nate Cohn Profile picture
Twitter logo
10 Jun, 4 tweets, 1 min read
If you're looking for a strategy that might heighten the contradictions of the filibuster for Manchin, this style of proposal--laws that mandate supermajorities/bipartisanship where only majorities are needed today--is a clever route
thebulwark.com/dont-cry-for-h…
In this proposal, the threshold for overturning an electoral slate would increase to a supermajority--though one could choose 60 votes, to make the tension obvious. Today, a vote to overturn a presidential election wouldn't be subject to a filibuster, and only require 50 votes
Another example might be to subject state election laws passed without bipartisan support--say, at least 20% of all major parties, to again align with the filibuster--to VRA preclearance and new standards for partisan fairness
I don't see Manchin giving up on the filibuster so easily, of course. But for progressives, these kind of laws could highlight how inaction leads to more partisan outcomes, rather than encourage bipartisanship in election administration

• • •

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

Keep Current with Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn 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 @Nate_Cohn

Nate Cohn Profile picture
11 Jun
I think this is a tough question, and I think the responses reflect it!
But I thought it'd be fun to weigh-in on the question that I'm more qualified to address, and that's whether West Virginia is Southern politically.
To me, the short answer is 'no'
One test is Civil War politics. For a century, post-civil war politics were defined by Civil War loyalties. WV is a state defined by its Civil War loyalty.
As a consequence WV was not part of the solid South. It voted GOP in all but one election from 1896-1928, for ex.
For fun, here's a map of the 1916 election (still some missing data on cleaning this up, but good enough).
WV even voted GOP in this election, the best Dem showing from the Civil War to 1932.
The contours of the Solid South are clear enough Image
Read 19 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
9 Jun
GOP isn't willing to give Ds anything close to what progressives would want or what Ds could do on their own without the filibuster
But it's hard to think of anything like this happening back in 2009 or 2011, and I'd read something grappling with that nytimes.com/2021/06/08/us/…
Speculating, I can imagine four plausible explanations (not endorsing any):
--GOP opposition to Biden isn't nearly as deep as Obama, allowing some level of bipartisanship
--GOP laissez faire mores were routed by COVID/Trump, allowing deficit spending without angering base
--Senate GOP feels an instinct to demonstrate that the system works, given Trump and the filibuster threat
--GOP was always willing to give on infrastructure/competitiveness and Obama didn't properly test it
Read 4 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
8 Jun
I think this is worth a read, though I'll take this as an opportunity to note that the focus on Congress as the site of election subversion doesn't seem quite right to me
nytimes.com/2021/06/08/opi…
As Ross notes, we're still pretty far from the point where the House/Senate seem likely to just vote to overturn an election on a pretextual basis, even if the GOP gains a majority. There are too many Republicans who just don't seem poised to go along with it.
In 2020, there were just 7 Senate votes to overturn PA.
Opposition to 1/6 commission got 35 votes--a way, way easier vote than overturning an election result.
That's not to say it's a-ok, but I don't see the case that we're close to a congressional majority for subversion
Read 7 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
6 Jun
It's probably 5 months too late for something to have a chance of passage, but it's interesting to mull what a bipartisan election bill might have looked like (or perhaps might still).
I can think of two models (and no, don't take any to be likely)
One model is something like a grand bargain, where both sides get something they want out of a deal.
Today's politics are not remotely conducive to grand bargains, but on the merits there's obviously an opening.
It would require both sides to swallow things they don't like, ofc. On the progressive side, they'd probably need to be thinking about how to give ground on mail absentee or photo identification requirements.
Read 13 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
5 Jun
This is one of the clearest summaries of one of the more interesting critiques of the NYT call for a narrower, targeted and viable HR1.
But to me, it's very hard to read the reporting on HR1 and think it's the right interpretation of the politics here
At first, it's easy to see why you could think of HR1 as a broad bill that's the basis for a negotiation that eventually gets to something viable--like Biden starting off at $2 trillion on something in hopes of $1 trillion. In this view, narrowing is a premature concession.
But if you read the articles about HR1 in Congress, it's fairly clear that it's not on track to even serve this limited purpose.
It's basically DOA, and it is not poised to serve as the basis for serious negotiations.
It's more like the Green New Deal than a $2 tn infra. offer
Read 12 tweets
Nate Cohn Profile picture
3 Jun
A successful act of election subversion would be legal by definition--while an illegal act of subversion would basically be a coup--so you can't prohibit it as such.
But it seems to me that there are several categories of subversion and possible remedies
One is certification: could partisan officials find a pretextual basis to ignore election results, like un- or poorly- evidenced fraud or theft allegations, whether it's about Diabold in Ohio '04 or Trump's claims in '20?
Second is tabulation: could partisan officials disqualify ballots on a pretextual basis, like matched lists or allegations about Fulton County? (This is sort of like decertification, but here subversion effects the tabulated count)
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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Nate_Cohn has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Nate_Cohn!

Read all threads by @Nate_Cohn

:(