• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?

Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?



Doing away with the filibuster could give the Democrats a short-term advantage but be poisonous long term.



First an example of short-term Democratic thinking. The Democrats led by ex-senate Majority Leader Harry Reid precedence setting use of the nuclear option. Yes, it gave the Democrats a big short-term political advantage until they lost the senate. Long term, that short term political advantage lead to a Republican advantage as the GOP used the nuclear option to confirm Kavanaugh and Barrett to the SCOTUS. Without the nuclear option, the 60-vote cloture rule would have been in force, neither would have been confirmed. So, the democrats and ex-majority leader Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting first use of the nuclear option led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett’s confirmation giving the SCOTUS a conservative ideological bent.



Back to the filibuster, I noticed that states no longer divide their senators of having one a piece from each party as most did in the past. Red states are most likely to have two Republican senators, blue states, two democratic ones. This is especially true in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra-high partisanship. With the closeness of the house and a 50-50 split senate, completely doing away with the filibuster no doubt would benefit the Democrats as they hold the presidency and control the senate today. But what about the future?



In today’s political era, let’s look at the prospects of the senate. There are 23 states Trump won by 5 points or more vs. 19 won by Biden by 5 points or more. With the polarization trend continuing chances are those 23 states won by Trump will soon have 46 GOP senators vs the 38 senators from states Biden won by 5 points or more. This leaves just 8, shall we call battleground states which could send either one senator from each party, two from one party or two from the other. For my purposes here, let’s say these final 8 states split their senators, one each from each party. That brings the total to 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats. Of course things happen and change, one party or the other can make voters mad at them, I’m talking independents where one party or the other can pick up the majority of those senators from the battleground states. To gain control if our modern era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra-high partisanship continues, the Democrats would have to win both senate seats from 5 of those battleground states where the parties are fairly evenly split to reach 51. A real possibility, but one with the odds against it. It would be just as possible for the GOP to win 2 senators from 5 of the battleground states.



What the numbers tell me is for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster, they may do away with the minority party protection that they will want and need in the future. Short term thinking vs. long term thinking. Schumer has stated on numerous occasions that utilizing the nuclear option was one of his and the Democrats biggest mistakes. Which is understandable since it led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett becoming members of the SCOTUS. It should also be noted that Reid has no regrets over his precedence setting first use.



I’m just playing with numbers here, but the above is what the numbers are telling me.
 
Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?



Doing away with the filibuster could give the Democrats a short-term advantage but be poisonous long term.



First an example of short-term Democratic thinking. The Democrats led by ex-senate Majority Leader Harry Reid precedence setting use of the nuclear option. Yes, it gave the Democrats a big short-term political advantage until they lost the senate. Long term, that short term political advantage lead to a Republican advantage as the GOP used the nuclear option to confirm Kavanaugh and Barrett to the SCOTUS. Without the nuclear option, the 60-vote cloture rule would have been in force, neither would have been confirmed. So, the democrats and ex-majority leader Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting first use of the nuclear option led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett’s confirmation giving the SCOTUS a conservative ideological bent.



Back to the filibuster, I noticed that states no longer divide their senators of having one a piece from each party as most did in the past. Red states are most likely to have two Republican senators, blue states, two democratic ones. This is especially true in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra-high partisanship. With the closeness of the house and a 50-50 split senate, completely doing away with the filibuster no doubt would benefit the Democrats as they hold the presidency and control the senate today. But what about the future?



In today’s political era, let’s look at the prospects of the senate. There are 23 states Trump won by 5 points or more vs. 19 won by Biden by 5 points or more. With the polarization trend continuing chances are those 23 states won by Trump will soon have 46 GOP senators vs the 38 senators from states Biden won by 5 points or more. This leaves just 8, shall we call battleground states which could send either one senator from each party, two from one party or two from the other. For my purposes here, let’s say these final 8 states split their senators, one each from each party. That brings the total to 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats. Of course things happen and change, one party or the other can make voters mad at them, I’m talking independents where one party or the other can pick up the majority of those senators from the battleground states. To gain control if our modern era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra-high partisanship continues, the Democrats would have to win both senate seats from 5 of those battleground states where the parties are fairly evenly split to reach 51. A real possibility, but one with the odds against it. It would be just as possible for the GOP to win 2 senators from 5 of the battleground states.



What the numbers tell me is for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster, they may do away with the minority party protection that they will want and need in the future. Short term thinking vs. long term thinking. Schumer has stated on numerous occasions that utilizing the nuclear option was one of his and the Democrats biggest mistakes. Which is understandable since it led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett becoming members of the SCOTUS. It should also be noted that Reid has no regrets over his precedence setting first use.



I’m just playing with numbers here, but the above is what the numbers are telling me.
Democrats have a thinking problem in general.
 
The Dems problem is the same as the rest of the country: we have essentially one party acting in good faith. The GOP is now a white nationalist shithole with Fox News contributors who generate votes by stoking their base’s victomhood over everything.

Approaching anything right now within the traditional lens of politics is a waste of time. GOP is off the rails.
 
The Dems problem is the same as the rest of the country: we have essentially one party acting in good faith. The GOP is now a white nationalist shithole with Fox News contributors who generate votes by stoking their base’s victomhood over everything.

Approaching anything right now within the traditional lens of politics is a waste of time. GOP is off the rails.
with Trump as the party's head, I'd say you're right about the GOP being off the rails. Now as a non-partisan, a swing voter, I've come to the conclusion that all three cable news networks are nothing more than propaganda wings for whichever party they support or back. There, I have to disagree. That's a problem with most of the media today, they've taken sides in our political battles. Which has led to distrust of the media as a whole. No more straight news, no more reporting the news fully, accurately and fair. It's all done with the intent of keeping their viewership happy by giving them the news in the manner, slanted in the way they want to receive or hear the news.

Americans Remain Distrustful of Mass Media​



and

  • 56% of Americans agree with the statement that "Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations."
  • 58% think that "most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.


I wager to say, most of this distrust has been brought about by cable news where Fox is nothing more than the propaganda wing of the GOP while MSNBC and CNN are the propaganda wings of the democratic Party.

While Democrats trust the media, 73%, Republicans distrust the media, 10% do. They're very partisan. I think one needs to look at how independents view this and not either major party with all their partisanship and biases. 36% of all independents, the less to non-partisans, the non-affiliated, trust the media to report the news fully, fairly and accurately. Why, they see how the news is spun, slanted etc. in favor of either whichever news network supports.
 
Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?



Doing away with the filibuster could give the Democrats a short-term advantage but be poisonous long term.



First an example of short-term Democratic thinking. The Democrats led by ex-senate Majority Leader Harry Reid precedence setting use of the nuclear option. Yes, it gave the Democrats a big short-term political advantage until they lost the senate. Long term, that short term political advantage lead to a Republican advantage as the GOP used the nuclear option to confirm Kavanaugh and Barrett to the SCOTUS. Without the nuclear option, the 60-vote cloture rule would have been in force, neither would have been confirmed. So, the democrats and ex-majority leader Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting first use of the nuclear option led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett’s confirmation giving the SCOTUS a conservative ideological bent.



Back to the filibuster, I noticed that states no longer divide their senators of having one a piece from each party as most did in the past. Red states are most likely to have two Republican senators, blue states, two democratic ones. This is especially true in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra-high partisanship. With the closeness of the house and a 50-50 split senate, completely doing away with the filibuster no doubt would benefit the Democrats as they hold the presidency and control the senate today. But what about the future?



In today’s political era, let’s look at the prospects of the senate. There are 23 states Trump won by 5 points or more vs. 19 won by Biden by 5 points or more. With the polarization trend continuing chances are those 23 states won by Trump will soon have 46 GOP senators vs the 38 senators from states Biden won by 5 points or more. This leaves just 8, shall we call battleground states which could send either one senator from each party, two from one party or two from the other. For my purposes here, let’s say these final 8 states split their senators, one each from each party. That brings the total to 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats. Of course things happen and change, one party or the other can make voters mad at them, I’m talking independents where one party or the other can pick up the majority of those senators from the battleground states. To gain control if our modern era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra-high partisanship continues, the Democrats would have to win both senate seats from 5 of those battleground states where the parties are fairly evenly split to reach 51. A real possibility, but one with the odds against it. It would be just as possible for the GOP to win 2 senators from 5 of the battleground states.



What the numbers tell me is for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster, they may do away with the minority party protection that they will want and need in the future. Short term thinking vs. long term thinking. Schumer has stated on numerous occasions that utilizing the nuclear option was one of his and the Democrats biggest mistakes. Which is understandable since it led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett becoming members of the SCOTUS. It should also be noted that Reid has no regrets over his precedence setting first use.



I’m just playing with numbers here, but the above is what the numbers are telling me.

I have no problem ditching the filibuster. If there's a leadership flip, then good - it shows the other guys have better ideas. Having no filibuster would allow the easier implementation of policy, allowing Congress to be more attentive & reactive to the electorate. I support that. I couldn't care less if good policy come from those with a 'R' or a 'D' by their name, as long as it comes!
 
I have no problem ditching the filibuster. If there's a leadership flip, then good - it shows the other guys have better ideas. Having no filibuster would allow the easier implementation of policy, allowing Congress to be more attentive & reactive to the electorate. I support that. I couldn't care less if good policy come from those with a 'R' or a 'D' by their name, as long as it comes!
For an old timer like me, it's hard to see an advantage, except short term to which ever party is in power in doing away with the filibuster. Now you hit on a good point, a change in leadership. The filibuster wasn't a problem until recently, Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole would work together, they respected each other, they would compromise, play the game of give and take. They knew that each party's goal was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the path to get there was a bit different. There was none of this opposing party being this nation's number one enemy. Go back from 2000, you'll see the straight party line vote was very rare if it existed at all. Not like now.

So why the change, Reid and then Schumer took over from Daschle, McConnell from Lott. Party firsters is what I call them. Party first and foremost, party always. Each has forgot the nation, forgot this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and a bunch of folks who don't give an owl's hoot about politics. They place the R and or the D way above the big A, America. They only worry about their base forgetting the other 70% of America.

the filibuster isn't the problem, it's the mindset of today's political party leaders. It's the mindset that Democrats will automatically oppose and Republican proposal or idea, Republicans automatically oppose any and all thing Democratic. No thought on the merits of the proposal or idea or possible solution, just who proposed it.

Filibuster or no filibuster, that isn't about to change the two major parties mindset. In the long term, the long run, doing away with the filibuster will hurt the Democrats more than it helped them. The trend is to each state having two senators from the same party. with the appointment and confirmation of Kavanaugh and Barrett, that doing away with filibuster would in the long term hurt them. We'd never have those two on the SCOTUS if Reid hadn't utilized the nuclear option for a short term gain. Although, I suppose one can't blame him, all elected officials only look toward the next election and not the future or what may happen after the election.
 
For an old timer like me, it's hard to see an advantage, except short term to which ever party is in power in doing away with the filibuster. Now you hit on a good point, a change in leadership. The filibuster wasn't a problem until recently, Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole would work together, they respected each other, they would compromise, play the game of give and take. They knew that each party's goal was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the path to get there was a bit different. There was none of this opposing party being this nation's number one enemy. Go back from 2000, you'll see the straight party line vote was very rare if it existed at all. Not like now.

So why the change, Reid and then Schumer took over from Daschle, McConnell from Lott. Party firsters is what I call them. Party first and foremost, party always. Each has forgot the nation, forgot this country is made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and a bunch of folks who don't give an owl's hoot about politics. They place the R and or the D way above the big A, America. They only worry about their base forgetting the other 70% of America.

the filibuster isn't the problem, it's the mindset of today's political party leaders. It's the mindset that Democrats will automatically oppose and Republican proposal or idea, Republicans automatically oppose any and all thing Democratic. No thought on the merits of the proposal or idea or possible solution, just who proposed it.

Filibuster or no filibuster, that isn't about to change the two major parties mindset. In the long term, the long run, doing away with the filibuster will hurt the Democrats more than it helped them. The trend is to each state having two senators from the same party. with the appointment and confirmation of Kavanaugh and Barrett, that doing away with filibuster would in the long term hurt them. We'd never have those two on the SCOTUS if Reid hadn't utilized the nuclear option for a short term gain. Although, I suppose one can't blame him, all elected officials only look toward the next election and not the future or what may happen after the election.

I did earlier privately dwell upon the Senate "Geographical Effect". I see you picked-up on it, too. It's a natural advntage for a more rural party. The Dems disadvantage is they're largely packed in cities, with all the really large cities, save for Chi-town & Houston, on the coasts.
 
I did earlier privately dwell upon the Senate "Geographical Effect". I see you picked-up on it, too. It's a natural advntage for a more rural party. The Dems disadvantage is they're largely packed in cities, with all the really large cities, save for Chi-town & Houston, on the coasts.
I went back looking, Between 1960-1990 we had between 15-20 states that sent one Republican and one Democratic senator to Washington. Today there are but six states. Once the Democrat retires in Montana and West Virginia, chances are overwhelming those two states will join the rest with 2 Republican senators. That leaves Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maine as the only states sending one senator from each party. Ohio is trending Republican, at least light red. It will probably when Brown leaves, also send two GOP senators. Maine seems slightly blue along with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but the GOP has made inwards in those two states not thought possible for 30 years.

I would place this trend to a state now having two senators from the same party on today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship.
 
Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?



Doing away with the filibuster could give the Democrats a short-term advantage but be poisonous long term.



First an example of short-term Democratic thinking. The Democrats led by ex-senate Majority Leader Harry Reid precedence setting use of the nuclear option. Yes, it gave the Democrats a big short-term political advantage until they lost the senate. Long term, that short term political advantage lead to a Republican advantage as the GOP used the nuclear option to confirm Kavanaugh and Barrett to the SCOTUS. Without the nuclear option, the 60-vote cloture rule would have been in force, neither would have been confirmed. So, the democrats and ex-majority leader Senator Harry Reid’s precedence setting first use of the nuclear option led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett’s confirmation giving the SCOTUS a conservative ideological bent.



Back to the filibuster, I noticed that states no longer divide their senators of having one a piece from each party as most did in the past. Red states are most likely to have two Republican senators, blue states, two democratic ones. This is especially true in today’s modern political era of polarization, the great divide and the mega, ultra-high partisanship. With the closeness of the house and a 50-50 split senate, completely doing away with the filibuster no doubt would benefit the Democrats as they hold the presidency and control the senate today. But what about the future?



In today’s political era, let’s look at the prospects of the senate. There are 23 states Trump won by 5 points or more vs. 19 won by Biden by 5 points or more. With the polarization trend continuing chances are those 23 states won by Trump will soon have 46 GOP senators vs the 38 senators from states Biden won by 5 points or more. This leaves just 8, shall we call battleground states which could send either one senator from each party, two from one party or two from the other. For my purposes here, let’s say these final 8 states split their senators, one each from each party. That brings the total to 54 Republicans, 46 Democrats. Of course things happen and change, one party or the other can make voters mad at them, I’m talking independents where one party or the other can pick up the majority of those senators from the battleground states. To gain control if our modern era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra-high partisanship continues, the Democrats would have to win both senate seats from 5 of those battleground states where the parties are fairly evenly split to reach 51. A real possibility, but one with the odds against it. It would be just as possible for the GOP to win 2 senators from 5 of the battleground states.



What the numbers tell me is for the Democrats doing away with the filibuster, they may do away with the minority party protection that they will want and need in the future. Short term thinking vs. long term thinking. Schumer has stated on numerous occasions that utilizing the nuclear option was one of his and the Democrats biggest mistakes. Which is understandable since it led directly to Kavanaugh and Barrett becoming members of the SCOTUS. It should also be noted that Reid has no regrets over his precedence setting first use.



I’m just playing with numbers here, but the above is what the numbers are telling me.
You've been repeating the "they're gonna git you back!" argument ad nauseam for nearly a year now, and it has changed precisely zero minds, which leaves you with two possible explanations:

1) We're incredibly stupid and your argument is just too arcane for us to comprehend.
2) There's a component to the broader argument that you aren't getting.

I know it's #2, because it's been explained to you countless times and you instantly revert to your same re-used argument like Groundhog Day.
 
After seeing Republican behavior since the mid/ate-90s, but especially since it started looking like Obama might win his first term, I fail to see how "you can't do that or else the Republicans are going to take revenge" can have any weight. They will use anything the Democrats do or talk about as a stated excuse, but they would do those things anyway.

Sorta like Garland-Barrett. They cited something Biden (I think?) said 40 years ago - 40 years! - about how ruling on SCOTUS nominations should work as justification for refusing to vote for nearly 11 months, just so they could steal the seat. Can't do it in an election year, they said. Them's the rules. Dems' fault because Biden. (And earlier, the business about citing Reid as an excuse when Reid was actually responding to their own refusal to move on nominations, so they could stack the judiciary).

Then they see an opening just before the end of Trump's term and what do they do? Make up more bullshit about how they don't have to follow their own rule, and they put Barrett on.



Every time the Democrats go high, the Republicans kick them in the nads.
Every time the Republicans can take something by force, they take it.
It's been obstruct obstruct obstruct ever since that black guy won, and it's going to be obstruct obstruct obstruct again.

This is what happens when a party appeals to the rich part of the base with tax cuts and everyone else with "**** the liberals". If the Democrats are to have any chance they need to fight as hard as they can and take the case to the people.



Otherwise the results of obstruction will be painted as evidence that Democrats are "do nothing", and then the Republicans will just do whatever they can do anyway. Hell, at this point, they're probably going to expand the court if the Democrats do not, and then cite Democrats' talk about the possibility of doing it as justification. Just like the slimey approach to nabbing Garland's seat.

Gloves off. How much worse can it get? The base already stormed the Capitol to try to flip an election and install the loser. I'm supposed to accept that they care about norms and, because they do, so to do the people they put in congress?
 
You've been repeating the "they're gonna git you back!" argument ad nauseam for nearly a year now, and it has changed precisely zero minds, which leaves you with two possible explanations:

1) We're incredibly stupid and your argument is just too arcane for us to comprehend.
2) There's a component to the broader argument that you aren't getting.

I know it's #2, because it's been explained to you countless times and you instantly revert to your same re-used argument like Groundhog Day.
Anything is possible. But how'd it all work out for you? Who had the last laugh? Who has two folks sitting on the SCOTUS that never would have been seated if not for the first use, precedence setting use of the nuclear option. I'll let what happen speak for itself. I need not say more.
 
Eliminate the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may. Elections are supposed to have consequences and the minority party should not wield such power.
 
Anything is possible. But how'd it all work out for you? Who had the last laugh? Who has two folks sitting on the SCOTUS that never would have been seated if not for the first use, precedence setting use of the nuclear option. I'll let what happen speak for itself. I need not say more.
Who says the last laugh has been had?
 
I went back looking, Between 1960-1990 we had between 15-20 states that sent one Republican and one Democratic senator to Washington. Today there are but six states. Once the Democrat retires in Montana and West Virginia, chances are overwhelming those two states will join the rest with 2 Republican senators. That leaves Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Maine as the only states sending one senator from each party. Ohio is trending Republican, at least light red. It will probably when Brown leaves, also send two GOP senators. Maine seems slightly blue along with Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but the GOP has made inwards in those two states not thought possible for 30 years.

I would place this trend to a state now having two senators from the same party on today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship.
Excellent post! I couldn't agree more with your analysis.

And yes, it seems, from a political strategy perspective, the Dems would be best to leave the filibuster in place. The only advantage politically, might be if they thought their legislation could sway political opinion resulting in changes at the voting box, or if their legislation could assist freindly vote casting at the box.
 
I have no problem ditching the filibuster. If there's a leadership flip, then good - it shows the other guys have better ideas. Having no filibuster would allow the easier implementation of policy, allowing Congress to be more attentive & reactive to the electorate. I support that. I couldn't care less if good policy come from those with a 'R' or a 'D' by their name, as long as it comes!
It's not good ideas that are the issue, it's the runaway bad ideas.
 
You've been repeating the "they're gonna git you back!" argument ad nauseam for nearly a year now, and it has changed precisely zero minds, which leaves you with two possible explanations:

1) We're incredibly stupid and your argument is just too arcane for us to comprehend.
2) There's a component to the broader argument that you aren't getting.

I know it's #2, because it's been explained to you countless times and you instantly revert to your same re-used argument like Groundhog Day.

Consider Perotista's analysis in post #9 (his reply to me), which appears pretty solid - to me.

BTW, what were the reasons for dumping the filibuster, that you alluded to in your post?
 
It's not good ideas that are the issue, it's the runaway bad ideas.
Well, yeah I can see that. If you believe the Senate is there to put the brakes on the House, than I can agree with your opinion here.
 
I
It's not good ideas that are the issue, it's the runaway bad ideas.
If you think the bad ideas are coming from the left (which I assume you believe based on your posting history) then it’s incumbent on you to make that argument. But since every single one of Biden’s policies enjoy majority support, then you’ve lost those arguments. So either Democrats’ ideas are bad and you’ve failed to be persuasive in that regard, or you’re wrong that their ideas are bad.

But it’s not right to stop those ideas from moving forward just because you’re wrong or un-persuasive.
 
Well, yeah I can see that. If you believe the Senate is there to put the brakes on the House, than I can agree with your opinion here.
The entire government is kinda designed to put the breaks on each other. Things have improved over time, blowing up the checks and balances can make it so things can go sideways real quick.
 
I

If you think the bad ideas are coming from the left (which I assume you believe based on your posting history) then it’s incumbent on you to make that argument. But since every single one of Biden’s policies enjoy majority support, then you’ve lost those arguments. So either Democrats’ ideas are bad and you’ve failed to be persuasive in that regard, or you’re wrong that their ideas are bad.

But it’s not right to stop those ideas from moving forward just because you’re wrong or un-persuasive.
The statement was non-partisan.
 
The entire government is kinda designed to put the breaks on each other. Things have improved over time, blowing up the checks and balances can make it so things can go sideways real quick.

In general, the House, representing the people, spawns all types of creative ideas & legislation. The Senate, representing the states' interest, is there to slow the House down & stop any nonsense! That's the way I heard it, as a kid.
 
The filibuster is an artificial appendage. If the Founding Fathers had deemed it optimal to require 60 votes to pass legislation in the US Senate, they would have arranged it that way.

McConnell has openly stated that "100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration." Obstructionism at its best and political cynicism at its worst.

Just do away with the filibuster altogether and let the chips fall where they may.
 
In general, the House, representing the people, spawns all types of creative ideas & legislation. The Senate, representing the states' interest, is there to slow the House down & stop any nonsense! That's the way I heard it, as a kid.
And the President can veto and the Supreme Court can toss laws. I'll also add that that was the Senate's traditional job, but that's not quite the same anymore since the 17th Amendment. Not the Senate and the House play similar roles. The Senate just has more procedural things to keep it from just being another House. Removing the filibuster would likely put the nail in the coffin on that change and us just having two chambers that are exactly the same.
 
Who says the last laugh has been had?
You're probably right about that. who knows in this modern era of our politics of polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship. where party triumphs everything to include the nation.

It's strange how partisans think. If you're talking about adding justices to the SCOTUS, sure that can be done using the nuclear option. Add 4 and when the Republicans regain the presidency and the senate, they'll add six, etc. Escalation. Do away with the filibuster, it helps the democrats perhaps until 2022 election is over. It may even help them until 2024 and beyond. But if one looks at the numbers and the trend of the states going to 2 senators from the same party instead of the historical one from each. All one has to do is the math to know sooner or later there very well could be a Republican lock on the senate. That is if this modern political era continues which I think it will as there is no end in sight of it ceases anytime soon.
 
Back
Top Bottom