Read on Twitter
Why is defeating the Previous Question on a rule so much more powerful/dangerous than defeating the rule?
The answer is that defeating a rule is *negative* agenda setting, while defeating the PQ is *positive* agenda setting. 1/
The answer is that defeating a rule is *negative* agenda setting, while defeating the PQ is *positive* agenda setting. 1/
When you defeat a rule, the leaders who brought the rule cannot set the agenda. But that's the end; you block them from doing something, but that's it. They go back to the side rooms and try to figure out what to do next. 2/
When you defeat the PQ on a rule, you block a *vote* on the rule and leave it live on the floor, open to amendment. You can then propose an amendment to it, and if your coalition that defeated the PQ holds together, you can pass your amendment.
In effect, YOU set the agenda. 3/
In effect, YOU set the agenda. 3/
This is why it terrifies leaders so much more than a rule defeat, and why it's truly a declaration of war against the leadership. You aren't just saying no to their agenda, you are seeking to substitute *your* agenda. 4/
Basically, here's the simple moderate floor defection chart in order of how much it roils leadership:
Vote against their bill <<<<<<Vote against their rule<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Defeat their PQ
Vote against their bill <<<<<<Vote against their rule<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Defeat their PQ
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
