It’s worth reflecting on how much ink was spilled over the last few months about how S1 didn’t have 50 votes, and how lots of Dems had reservations beyond Manchin & Sinema. Yet when the vote was called and it was time for senators to go on record, lo and behold! S1 got 50 votes.
Everyone always has complaints. The tricky part is separating the showstoppers from secondary complaints and people just jockeying for position. Worth recalling the DADT repeal vote in 2010 which Reid brought up over the objections of the bill’s own sponsors. Yet, It passed!
Right, but this is the point. I don’t recall reading any stories about how Endless Frontiers was dead because some senators wanted changes and amendments to the bill. This is how it works (as you know): you get on the bill, make changes if you can, then see where thing stand.
https://twitter.com/thorningmichael/status/1407700018761506820
This is partly process votes becoming substantive votes. But it’s also folks asking & focusing on the wrong Qs. The core Q at each step is whether the bill has the votes to be viable at that stage of the process. Does it have the votes to clear the next step? is all that matters.
It’s also worth recalling that when the ACA came to the floor in November of 2009 it had the public option in it. The public option came out *on the floor.* Senators demanding and getting major changes is standard. All that matters is whether the bill is viable at each stage.
This is further complicated because with filibuster reform in the mix, storylines become bifurcated: does a bill have 50 versus does it have 60. But on S1, the idea that it didn’t even have 50 because a major undercurrent. And that was just wrong.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
