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.

 

[Luther]

Independents had departed Trump way before the Pandemic. If anything, the pandemic just reinforced their departure. Numbers 2016, independents went for Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party against Trump and Clinton. That's still 54% of all independents voting against Trump, Clinton's 42% plus the 12% who voted against both. 2018, independents voted for democratic congressional candidates 54-42. In 2020, independents voted for Biden 54-41. Strange how that 54% keeps coming up. The fact is approximately 54% of all independents didn't like Trump from the beginning. This doesn't have a thing to do with the culture wars, but it does show one's party champion as being the weak link in those culture wars.

For your information, independents in Nov 2020, Trump received 41% of their vote, Republican congressional candidate received 48.1% of the independents vote, Republican senate candidates 51.4% of the independents vote. Seems a lot of independents voted Biden, then Republican down ballot. It's hard for me to see independents coming back to the Republican Party as long as Trump is the head or face of it. Time will tell. Perhaps the culture wars are lost, but if so, Trump sped up that loss, he didn't even slow it down.

You're too hung up on Dem's, pubs and independents

Our political system is broken starting with our very citizenry

 

[Chomsky]

If ya can't win change the rules. Dems used filibuster over 300 times last year whats up with that?

Hey, I get that. But the rules are the Constitution, and everything else is subject to change and allowed under the Constitution. The fillibuster has been changed multiple times since the turn-of the millennium, and that was by both parties. This would be one more change to it.

Personally, I'd like them to instate the old 'talking' requirement.

 

[Perotista]

You're too hung up on Dem's, pubs and independents

Our political system is broken starting with our very citizenry

In today's modern political era of Polarization, the great divide and mega, ultra high partisanship, I totally agree. We have a system where on average 45% of all Americans don't vote in a presidential election, throw in over 60% who don't vote in the midterms and much high percentage won't vote in local elections.

The people basically have handled over who govern the country, their state and local community to a few political active participants. Usually ideologues from either side. Yes broken in the sense that both parties try everything within their power to get their base out to vote, but fail to even attempt to try to attract anyone outside of their base. They also govern in according to their base's wishes totally ignoring around 70% of the rest of the country which this nation is composed of.

So yes, our political system is broken. Especially in today's modern political era. Today, We're actually being ruled by the money elite with our elected officials their pawns. 14 billion dollars was spent on the presidential election in 2020.

2020 election to cost $14 billion, blowing away spending records

The total cost of the 2020 election will nearly reach an unprecedented $14 billion, making it the most expensive election in history by far.

www.opensecrets.org

Even the voters are nothing but pawns in our political system. Pawns to be influenced to vote certain ways by money and the constant barrage of political ads.

 

[nota bene]

So yes, our political system is broken. Especially in today's modern political era. Today, We're actually being ruled by the money elite with our elected officials their pawns. 14 billion dollars was spent on the presidential election in 2020.

2020 election to cost $14 billion, blowing away spending records

The total cost of the 2020 election will nearly reach an unprecedented $14 billion, making it the most expensive election in history by far.

www.opensecrets.org

Obscene, isn't it?

 

[Perotista]

Obscene, isn't it?

To say the least. What was really obscene as the runoff here in Georgia that just over 4 weeks well over a billion dollars was spent on political advertisement leading up to the 5 Jan senate runoff between just 4 candidates. I got so sick and tired of all the negative political ads, I turned off TV for the final 3 weeks and didn't turn it back on until the day after the runoff.

Can you imagine over a billion dollars being spent on two senate races on TV political ads, all negative in one state over less than a single month? Now that was totally obscene. 14 billion spread over all 50 states from 1 Sep through 3 Nov was bad enough. Try over a billion in less than a single month in just one state. Horrible.

 

[nota bene]

To say the least. What was really obscene as the runoff here in Georgia that just over 4 weeks well over a billion dollars was spent on political advertisement leading up to the 5 Jan senate runoff between just 4 candidates. I got so sick and tired of all the negative political ads, I turned off TV for the final 3 weeks and didn't turn it back on until the day after the runoff.

Can you imagine over a billion dollars being spent on two senate races on TV political ads, all negative in one state over less than a single month? Now that was totally obscene. 14 billion spread over all 50 states from 1 Sep through 3 Nov was bad enough. Try over a billion in less than a single month in just one state. Horrible.

It's madness, Pero. Any ideas on how to stop it?

 

[Perotista]

It's madness, Pero. Any ideas on how to stop it?

No, none. As long as money is equated to be free speech, no ideas whatsoever. What this amounts to is the moneyed elite, be they corporations, wall street firms, special interests, lobbyist, mega money donors, etc. are buying our elected officials. Since 1960 and including 1960, the presidential candidate that raised and spent the most money won with the long exception of 2016 when Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 million.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He won the election, but lost the money race. Trump raised half the money that Clinton raised throughout the cycle. Here’s how it was spent in the last days.

www.bloomberg.com

2020 was no exception, Biden raised and spent 1.624 billion to Trump's 1.088 billion. Jorgensen the Libertarian candidate was in third place raising and spending less than 3 million dollars at 2.93 million. Let's face it, we have the best government that money can buy.

I've always been against public financing of campaigns, but perhaps it's time to open up that can of worms. It'll never happen though, not as long a money is considered speech.

 

[nota bene]

No, none. As long as money is equated to be free speech, no ideas whatsoever. What this amounts to is the moneyed elite, be they corporations, wall street firms, special interests, lobbyist, mega money donors, etc. are buying our elected officials. Since 1960 and including 1960, the presidential candidate that raised and spent the most money won with the long exception of 2016 when Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion to Trump's 646.8 million.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He won the election, but lost the money race. Trump raised half the money that Clinton raised throughout the cycle. Here’s how it was spent in the last days.

www.bloomberg.com

2020 was no exception, Biden raised and spent 1.624 billion to Trump's 1.088 billion. Jorgensen the Libertarian candidate was in third place raising and spending less than 3 million dollars at 2.93 million. Let's face it, we have the best government that money can buy.

I've always been against public financing of campaigns, but perhaps it's time to open up that can of worms. It'll never happen though, not as long a money is considered speech.

I agree; we're buying those we elect. Terrible. Okay, my knee is already jerking about federal anything, but what if a federal cap for election expenses could be mandated (and adjusted for inflation if needed)?

 

[Perotista]

I agree; we're buying those we elect. Terrible. Okay, my knee is already jerking about federal anything, but what if a federal cap for election expenses could be mandated (and adjusted for inflation if needed)?

You're running into the first amendment. Money equals speech. Money buys TV and Radio ads, it pays for propaganda political mail, it pays the campaign organization and the two major parties.

I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if these candidates told us what they stood for, what they hoped to achieve, what vision they have for us, what were possible solutions to our problems, etc. But they don't. All they do is run negative ads telling us their opponent is a scumbag who killed 45 people at the age of 12. You don't hear one word of substance. Just how evil their opponent is.

Let's face it, when our two major parties run their propagandist political ads, they're putting Joseph Goebbels to shame. Goebbels would be mighty proud of them, he'd probably sign up to take lessons from them.

 

[nota bene]

You're running into the first amendment. Money equals speech. Money buys TV and Radio ads, it pays for propaganda political mail, it pays the campaign organization and the two major parties.

I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if these candidates told us what they stood for, what they hoped to achieve, what vision they have for us, what were possible solutions to our problems, etc. But they don't. All they do is run negative ads telling us their opponent is a scumbag who killed 45 people at the age of 12. You don't hear one word of substance. Just how evil their opponent is.

Let's face it, when our two major parties run their propagandist political ads, they're putting Joseph Goebbels to shame. Goebbels would be mighty proud of them, he'd probably sign up to take lessons from them.

I remember the days when there were platforms with actual planks and when a choice wasn't based on "I'm not the other guy."

 

[Perotista]

I remember the days when there were platforms with actual planks and when a choice wasn't based on "I'm not the other guy."

LOL, yeah, me too. I voted for Biden mainly because he wasn't Trump. Now I've always like Biden, especially as a senator and as VP. At Biden's age, I figured he'd be pushed way too far left by the Democratic congress, which could come back to haunt the dems in 2022. A Joe Biden 20 years younger wouldn't let that happen and he'd be the moderate Democrat most everyone else thought they were getting. I voted for Johnson, mainly because he wasn't Trump nor Hillary Clinton which both disgusted me to no end. I think the last presidential candidate I actually wanted to win and become president was John McCain.

I don't think Obama was a bad president, I was very comfortable with him being president. I was very uncomfortable with Trump. Actually Trump was the only president I was uncomfortable in my lifetime and I was born right after WWII. I'm comfortable with Biden, I just wish he was 20 years younger so he'd be governing for all of America instead of just the progressive wing of the democratic party. Even so, I'm glad Biden is president.

One must remember that one never gets the candidate who portrays himself to be on the campaign trail once he wins and takes office. That is a political fact of life.

 

[American]

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.

Wow, talk about being blinded by your own partisanship. Your second sentence is completely asinine and unsubstantiated. "White" nationalism is a pejorative to mean something akin to Nazism; well take a look at your party's desire to silence ALL opposition, and incorporate Nazi-like indoctrination propaganda like Critical Race Theory into the education system. There is a direct parallel between that theory and the Hitler Youth Movement approach to turning children into political pawns against one (white) race.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Wow, talk about being blinded by your own partisanship. Your second sentence is completely asinine and unsubstantiated. "White" nationalism is a pejorative to mean something akin to Nazism; well take a look at your party's desire to silence ALL opposition, and incorporate Nazi-like indoctrination propaganda like Critical Race Theory into the education system. There is a direct parallel between that theory and the Hitler Youth Movement approach to turning children into political pawns against one (white) race.

“We aren’t white nationalists!” says the guy floating a conspiracy theory that white people are under siege due to folks learning about slavery.

 

[eohrnberger]

Wow, talk about being blinded by your own partisanship. Your second sentence is completely asinine and unsubstantiated. "White" nationalism is a pejorative to mean something akin to Nazism; well take a look at your party's desire to silence ALL opposition, and incorporate Nazi-like indoctrination propaganda like Critical Race Theory into the education system. There is a direct parallel between that theory and the Hitler Youth Movement approach to turning children into political pawns against one (white) race.

I'd add the Stasi in East Germany to that list of 'turning children into political pawns', in that case it was turning their parents and other family members into the government for speaking or thinking anything that wasn't strictly aligned with the state's ideology.

 

[American]

“We aren’t white nationalists!” says the guy floating a conspiracy theory that white people are under siege due to folks learning about slavery.

Really? Where am I floating that theory?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Really? Where am I floating that theory?

If you can’t be bothered to read you own posts, why should I give it another look?

 

[Cardinal]

It's madness, Pero. Any ideas on how to stop it?

I do I do I do! Eliminate the filibuster and pass HR1 which shuts down dark money contributions to candidates.

 

[MrWonka]

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.

It's a possibility, but the other side of the coin is this. The programs we want to pass are in fact very popular with the majority of Americans and if show the American people that we can actually get things done that may very well help us win the next elections. Combine that with the fact that baby boomers are dying off and young people are overwhelmingly liberal and while it's a concern it could actually work out well.

The other thing is that if we can get many of these policies in-acted it will be very difficult for Republicans to eliminate them. As with Medicare, Social Security and the ACA, change was difficult because of Republican scare tactics, but once the programs were in place and people got used to the support for these programs grew significantly.

While it is true that Republicans sadly have a numbers advantage for the Senate liberals do still have an advantage in the house and the presidency. It's not a lock by any means, but Republicans have only one the popular vote 1 time in the last 30 years. Furthermore, one of the bills Democrats would pass if they eliminated the filibuster is election reform that would make it way easier for people to vote. Way harder for Republicans to block minorities from voting. Potentially bring an end to partisan gerrymandering and end the Electoral College.

 

[Perotista]

It's a possibility, but the other side of the coin is this. The programs we want to pass are in fact very popular with the majority of Americans and if show the American people that we can actually get things done that may very well help us win the next elections. Combine that with the fact that baby boomers are dying off and young people are overwhelmingly liberal and while it's a concern it could actually work out well.

The other thing is that if we can get many of these policies in-acted it will be very difficult for Republicans to eliminate them. As with Medicare, Social Security and the ACA, change was difficult because of Republican scare tactics, but once the programs were in place and people got used to the support for these programs grew significantly.

While it is true that Republicans sadly have a numbers advantage for the Senate liberals do still have an advantage in the house and the presidency. It's not a lock by any means, but Republicans have only one the popular vote 1 time in the last 30 years. Furthermore, one of the bills Democrats would pass if they eliminated the filibuster is election reform that would make it way easier for people to vote. Way harder for Republicans to block minorities from voting. Potentially bring an end to partisan gerrymandering and end the Electoral College.

I understand that thinking. You know I head this demographic thing going back to the 1960's. Now something happens as folks get older. Perhaps they become less idealistic. I have results based on age going back to 1972. 18-29 year old's have voted democratic in every election with the exception of 1984, Reagan's landslide win over Mondale and in 1988.

Now 45-64 year old's have voted republican every election since 1972 with the exception of 1992 and 1996 as have those over 64, exceptions were 1992, 1996 and 2000. What this tells me is those young ones voting Democratic in 1972/76 etc, were now voting republican once they turned 40 or older. I don't know the reason why or the cause, but this is the trend. Younger one's vote Democratic, older one's vote Republican. In order to keep accomplishing this trend, some young voters as they turn older switch their voting habits.

Another interesting number is that those with a High School education or less have voted Democratic until 2004 when they went for Bush, then for Obama twice, then in 2016 and 2020 when they went for Trump. College grads has been steadily Republican until 2008 when they went for Obama, but for Romney in 2012, then for Clinton and Biden in 2016 and 2020.

Perhaps there is some trends changing, only time will tell.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[911Sparky]

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.

I've posted on several threads that eliminating the filibuster is a bad idea, because when the party you favor is out of power the laws passed by the previous legislature can be easily
reversed, much like executive orders. However, during the last couple months of watching R's stopping everything Biden proposes from moving forward, I have changed my mind.
It seems the only goal is to prevent Biden from "getting a win" in preparation for the next election. So let's put pressure on Manchin and Sinema and get rid of it, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Visbek]

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

Not really, no.

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

Or, it could be beneficial. The Senate was not supposed to require a supermajority to pass legislation.

 

[Perotista]

Not really, no.


Or, it could be beneficial. The Senate was not supposed to require a supermajority to pass legislation.

The filibuster has been around since at least 1837 with no means to cut off debate until 1917 which the senate adopted the 2/3rds rule for cloture or what would be 67 senators. In 1975 it was modified down to 60.

U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture

www.senate.gov

Early years - in 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806, after he left office.[10] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[10] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mr Person]

The filibuster has been around since at least 1837 with no means to cut off debate until 1917 which the senate adopted the 2/3rds rule for cloture or what would be 67 senators. In 1975 it was modified down to 60.

U.S. Senate: About Filibusters and Cloture

www.senate.gov

Early years - in 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question (by simple majority vote), which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated, which was done in 1806, after he left office.[10] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[10] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became theoretically possible.

Filibuster in the United States Senate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Indeed a tradition, not necessarily intended at framing.

I see nothing to be gained in tradition for its sake. It served a(n arguably) better purpose at times, but not in times of sustained deep partisan rancor like the last, say, 15 years. Not that things were ever quite right after Gingrich's "permanent republican majority" business took root.....


The real question is whether getting rid of it would lead to chaos as normality. Not just new executives changing agencies top-down, but the nation's laws flapping in the political winds X% more than they already do. I have to doubt that such a state would persist long. Imagine what would have happened if the GOP got rid of Obamacare in 2017 in the 2018, 2020, etc elections. They'd have ripped health insurance from a whole bunch of people who maybe didn't know they needed it before, but having had it feel more than a little different now.

I suspect they would have paid dearly and then some. I suspect both parties would learn the lesson: you can change things more easily, but make damn sure you want to.

 

[Perotista]

Indeed a tradition, not necessarily intended at framing.

I see nothing to be gained in tradition for its sake. It served a(n arguably) better purpose at times, but not in times of sustained deep partisan rancor like the last, say, 15 years. Not that things were ever quite right after Gingrich's "permanent republican majority" business took root.....


The real question is whether getting rid of it would lead to chaos as normality. Not just new executives changing agencies top-down, but the nation's laws flapping in the political winds X% more than they already do. I have to doubt that such a state would persist long. Imagine what would have happened if the GOP got rid of Obamacare in 2017 in the 2018, 2020, etc elections. They'd have ripped health insurance from a whole bunch of people who maybe didn't know they needed it before, but having had it feel more than a little different now.

I suspect they would have paid dearly and then some. I suspect both parties would learn the lesson: you can change things more easily, but make damn sure you want to.

I don't think the problem is the filibuster itself. It's this modern political era we've entered into as you alluded to. The polarization, the great divide along with the mega, ultra high partisanship. Where Democrats automatically oppose any Republican proposals and vice versa, Republicans automatically opposing anything and everything Democratic. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole would work together, compromise. They respected each other and both parties respected the other. Both knew that each party's goal was a secure, free and prosperous America, only the paths to accomplish that differed a bit. Today, each major party views the other as this nation's number one enemy, more of an enemy than Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, terrorist, you name it.

Maybe the filibuster has no use in today's modern political era as it has become automatic on almost everything. No thought as to the merits of the proposal is given, just who proposed it. Previous leaders in previous eras would have never thought of, dream of using the nuclear option or even eliminating the filibuster. In the senate, this all started with Reid, McConnell and now Schumer. Schumer has stated being the first to use the nuclear option, setting the precedence was the biggest mistake he and his fellow Democrats made. However Reid stands by his decision with no regrets whatsoever. Perhaps the difference is Reid is retired, Schumer still active. But ending the filibuster is Schumer's decision.

Chaos, certainly possible. We have that with EO's. They can be revoked, repealed, changed by any new president. Without the filibuster, the same would hold true for legislation. It could lead to real jerks left, then right. Would eliminating the filibuster do that? I don't know, but certainly possible. Yes, I'm sure without the filibuster, the ACA would have been repealed, probably the first order of business days after Trump took office.

I've long been against eliminating the filibuster mainly because it gives legislation passed by previous congresses and signed into law by previous presidents some stability which like EO's, wouldn't be there without it. But in the modern political era, I'm not sure if the filibuster hasn't outlived it usefulness. I'm not fully convinced of that, but I wouldn't oppose it elimination. Perhaps some chaos would be good, knock some sense into our elected officials heads that this country is made up of more than just their political party's base. It's made up of Republicans, Democrats, independents and those who don't give a coyote's hoot at all about politics.

I do have the gut feeling that eliminating the filibuster will come back and bite the Democrats big time in the butt. Just like the first use, precedence setting use of the nuclear option. We wouldn't have Kavanaugh or Barrett on the SCOTUS without Reid and his first use. It would have taken 60 votes for cloture which would have never occurred. On reflection, that might not have been the case, McConnell may have used it first if Reid hadn't to get those two seated on the SCOTUS. The elimination of the filibuster falls into this same category, at least I think so. If one side doesn't get rid of it, the other will when it suits their political purpose and needs. I would rather see the filibuster maintained, but I also realize that in our modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the mega, ultra high partisanship and the need to oppose any and all things of the other party, perhaps it does need to go.