• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,381
Reaction score
12,558
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
Then the GOP's love of the filibuster is justified. Apparently it's protected them from pursuing an agenda of taking away tens of millions of Americans' health care, which would be the end of the GOP as a viable political party.

Not sure it's really healthy to have a political party hanging around on the implicit promise it'll never get to do the things it wants to, though.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
18,710
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Then the GOP's love of the filibuster is justified. Apparently it's protected them from pursuing an agenda of taking away tens of millions of Americans' health care, which would be the end of the GOP as a viable political party.

Not sure it's really healthy to have a political party hanging around on the implicit promise it'll never get to do the things it wants to, though.
Obamacare has been a hot potato ever since it was passed. It was really disliked all through the Obama era. It hovered at around 40% approval/50% disapproval.


It took Trump to make it popular. Today it is at 48.3 approval/40.7% disapproval. But yes, when Obama was president, he was the one who stopped the ACA's repeal, then the filibuster stopped it during Trump's first two years. Without the filibuster, the ACA would be ancient history by this time. Trump's problem, the GOP problem is they had nothing to replace it with. The promise of something better never materialized. That promise was hogwash anyway.

You could point to the ACA when it was very unpopular as leading to the loss of 63 seats in the House, 2010 and the GOP capturing the senate in 2014, possibly Trump's election in 2016 when only 40% approved of the ACA while 49% disapproved. Then to his demise in 2020 when the ACA had became popular. That's probably a stretch, but I have no doubts that ever since it was passed, the ACA influence some voters to either vote for Democrats or Republicans, Trump or not.

It's like I said earlier, the filibuster has provide some stability of certain legislation passed. It has stopped us from being jerked first left, then right. Without it, I think there'll be a whole lot of jerking in the future. But in today's modern political era of polarization, the great divide, the mega, ultra high partisanship, the automatic opposition to any and everything of the other party, perhaps it is time to end it. Let's jerk back and forth a few times, then perhaps some common sense will return to our politics. But I'm not hopeful.
 

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
8,951
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Am surprised the Dems don't push to put Trump back on Facebook. Trump's continual whining and false accusations benefit the Dems more than the Reps.

The bigger question is what happens to the Republican Party when Trump dies? There will be a major power grab to lead the party and without a crystal ball I don't think anyone can guess.

The problem is much bigger than just Donald Trump. There are many on the right who are more than happy, and able, to take on Trump's mantle: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc...

The presence of the internet and cable has allowed a very divergent culture to arise in America: and it does not like the idea of democracy, science, or the ideals of the enlightenment upon which the founding fathers created this country.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
18,710
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The problem is much bigger than just Donald Trump. There are many on the right who are more than happy, and able, to take on Trump's mantle: Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc...

The presence of the internet and cable has allowed a very divergent culture to arise in America: and it does not like the idea of democracy, science, or the ideals of the enlightenment upon which the founding fathers created this country.
In every ideological and even religious battles, you'll always have those who try to force their views, ideology, religion by force if they think that's the only way to achieve their goals. Normally, these people are few in number. But the possibility of growth always exists. I would say what we have here today is Trump and his followers continuing to try to overturn a legitimate, official, fair election only because their candidate lost. Trump in my opinion doesn't have a political ideology, his history shows he switched party 7 times and each time more or less, adopted the political philosophy of the party he switched to. He's been all over the place ideological wise. This isn't as simple as left vs right or conservative vs. liberal, republican vs. democrat.. It's the ability of one man to persuade others to follow him even though politically, he stands for nothing. Trump does have the ability to make his followers think he stands for their conservative values when he really only stands for himself.

Lifelong conservatives who stand for real conservative values has been attacked and basically banish by him of they oppose the man. This is dangerous, that I agree. Trump has the ability to make his followers think he's fighting for their values, he's not. But they're blinded by the spell bound aura he exhibits where Trump doesn't have to stand for anything. I would say it's the unlimited search, quest for power, this isn't ideological. Although Trump has had the ability to make it seems as it is.

I'd estimate at least 30% of America are die hard Trump supporters. That's a lot, but they can't win by themselves. They must have help. That help they can get through what I call swing voters, independents. Right now a majority of independents oppose Trump. Without going into detail, what Trump has to do is win enough of them over. That is possible, not that these folks would be voting for Trump, no they wouldn't. But they could be voting against the democrats, their candidates, their ideals, their agenda, their philosophy without knowing their anti vote is in reality a vote for Trump and his non-ideology, for him regaining power.

This is just how I see things today. My sole opinion.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
15,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Republicans are trying to take this country back to a very bad place and voting rights have not been under this type of assault since the Jim Crow era. We're supposed to make it easier for people to vote. Republicans call themselves the 'party of Lincoln' but they aren't doing anything that's consistent with the ideologies of Lincoln.

Democrats are too uncomfortable with the acquisition and use of power and they need to get over that. Democrats have power in the Senate, and they need to use that now but not in the same way that republicans have used to entrench themselves and protect themselves in minority rule. Democrats have the majority of the people in this country supporting them and they need to use that power of the people to make sure that they put in place systems that will withstand attacks like the republicans are presently doing. Democrats have to get comfortable with the use of power.

Attacks are greater and more intense and the republican party is very comfortable with the notion that they are going to be a minority party in terms of populous support but will have majority power. We are on the verge of a political apartheid system in this country. Where a minority without populous support but because of gerrymandering because of voter suppression and the way our constitution has broken off our system in regard to the Senate and electoral college. There's a whole range of ways in way a minority party can dictate to the majority the policies of this nations and the direction of the foreign policies of this nation. We have got to fight. This is what is at stake. Our democracy is what is at stake right now.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
18,710
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Republicans are trying to take this country back to a very bad place and voting rights have not been under this type of assault since the Jim Crow era. We're supposed to make it easier for people to vote. Republicans call themselves the 'party of Lincoln' but they aren't doing anything that's consistent with the ideologies of Lincoln.

Democrats are too uncomfortable with the acquisition and use of power and they need to get over that. Democrats have power in the Senate, and they need to use that now but not in the same way that republicans have used to entrench themselves and protect themselves in minority rule. Democrats have the majority of the people in this country supporting them and they need to use that power of the people to make sure that they put in place systems that will withstand attacks like the republicans are presently doing. Democrats have to get comfortable with the use of power.

Attacks are greater and more intense and the republican party is very comfortable with the notion that they are going to be a minority party in terms of populous support but will have majority power. We are on the verge of a political apartheid system in this country. Where a minority without populous support but because of gerrymandering because of voter suppression and the way our constitution has broken off our system in regard to the Senate and electoral college. There's a whole range of ways in way a minority party can dictate to the majority the policies of this nations and the direction of the foreign policies of this nation. We have got to fight. This is what is at stake. Our democracy is what is at stake right now.
Popular support is determined by swing voters which are very finicky and they do swing from party to party at times. It all depends on who they're angry at. If Gallup is to be believed 33% of Americans identify themselves with the Democratic Party, 29% with the Republican Party with 35% being swing voters or independents. Since neither party is close to the 50% plus one vote, both need to attract independents or swing voters.

It's very true, at least in my opinion that Trump has been a god sent for the Democrats. Independents went Democratic in 2018 54-42 enabling them to pick up 44 seats in the house. They went for Biden 54-41 in 2020 letting him win by 7 plus million votes. But they split their ticket down ballot, voting Democratic congressional candidates 50-48. That enabled the GOP to pick up 13 house seats while Biden was winning by 7 plus million.

But in 2016 Independents voted for Trump 46-42 with 12% voting third party, against both Clinton and Trump. In congressional election independents voted Republican 51-47 letting the GOP to keep control of the house. 2014 independents voted 54-42 for Republican congressional candidates, Republicans remained in control. 2012 independents voted for Romney by a 51-48 margin, close to a wash. Obama won anyway as the democrats had the larger base. All the Democrats have to do is keep the independent vote close, they don't have to win it. Republicans, the smaller of the two major parties must win independents or lose the election. . Independents voted 50-49 for Republican congressional candidates letting the GOP keep control.

2010 independents voted 56-37 Republican over Democratic congressional candidate enabling the Republicans to gain 63 seats. Now in 2008 008 independents voted for Obama by a 52-44 margin over McCain. Independents voted 52-45 for Democratic congressional candidates which enabled the Democrats to keep control.

The above is a short history of how independents effect an election. If independents become angry at the party in power, they'll vote big for the out of power party. Independents were angry at the party in power in 1994 giving control of congress to the Republicans, after 40 straight years of House control by the Democrats. Independents became angry at Republicans in 2006 and reversed control of congress to the Democrats. 2010, independents angry at the Democrats gave the house to the Republicans and the senate in 2014. 2016 was an election between two candidate most independents didn't want neither one to become their next president.

I suppose the bottom line is popular support only last as long as swing voters, independents don't become angry at the party in power. Now there's no doubt independents dislike Trump. Which is one reason I think Biden has remained very popular, Biden isn't Trump and that's enough for now. But no one knows if it will be in the future.
 

dncc

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
966
Reaction score
395
Yeah, it may be time to just scrub the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may.

Either that or make it to where the Senate basically shuts down during a filibuster. Nothing else is considered. There is no "off the shelf" place to put a filibustered bill. It stops everything.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
78,787
Reaction score
58,160
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, it may be time to just scrub the filibuster and let the chips fall where they may.

Either that or make it to where the Senate basically shuts down during a filibuster. Nothing else is considered. There is no "off the shelf" place to put a filibustered bill. It stops everything.
What pushed you, if not completely into, then at least closer to Team Eliminate Filibuster? The last time you and I discussed this you mocked me relentlessly for having that position.
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,411
Reaction score
8,893
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?
Just an in-general thinking issue, which leads to both short term and long term problems.
 

HumblePi

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
23,906
Reaction score
15,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Despite Mitch McConnell's warnings about getting rid of the filibuster and how Republicans would use it to their advantage if the power swings back to the republicans, I say screw you Mitch McConnell. They do that now already. Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland to even being allowed a hearing, 'because it was too close to an election'. It was eleven months before the election. Yet, Mitch McConnell pushed through Amy Coney Barrett when it was so close to the 2020 election that mail in and absentee ballots were already flooding into polling places.

As soon as Joe Biden was sworn into office, Mitch McConnell made another outrageous statement; "I'm 100% focused on stopping Biden's administration." This is an elected government official and he was elected to do the job of supporting good bills for the welfare of this country. Who the hell made him king? What does Mitch McConnell do other than put roadblocks in the path of moving this country forward? Republicans have all but completely halted Senate business. Now is not the time to even try to be working with republican leaders they have proved themselves to be nothing less than the party of traitors..

Taking the mentality of this republican leadership into consideration, I'm 100% for getting rid of the filibuster but if they can't get rid of it they should definitely reform it like get rid of the 60 vote threshold or changing it to like 55 votes.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
18,710
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Despite Mitch McConnell's warnings about getting rid of the filibuster and how Republicans would use it to their advantage if the power swings back to the republicans, I say screw you Mitch McConnell. They do that now already. Mitch McConnell blocked Merrick Garland to even being allowed a hearing, 'because it was too close to an election'. It was eleven months before the election. Yet, Mitch McConnell pushed through Amy Coney Barrett when it was so close to the 2020 election that mail in and absentee ballots were already flooding into polling places.

As soon as Joe Biden was sworn into office, Mitch McConnell made another outrageous statement; "I'm 100% focused on stopping Biden's administration." This is an elected government official and he was elected to do the job of supporting good bills for the welfare of this country. Who the hell made him king? What does Mitch McConnell do other than put roadblocks in the path of moving this country forward? Republicans have all but completely halted Senate business. Now is not the time to even try to be working with republican leaders they have proved themselves to be nothing less than the party of traitors..

Taking the mentality of this republican leadership into consideration, I'm 100% for getting rid of the filibuster but if they can't get rid of it they should definitely reform it like get rid of the 60 vote threshold or changing it to like 55 votes.
 

Perotista

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
25,987
Reaction score
18,710
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
A lot of what's going on today is the result of today's modern political era we've entered into. The polarization, the great divide, the mega, ultra partisanship. What a lot of folks don't remember was Schumer's statement back in 2007, a whole year and a half prior to the end of Bush's presidency that the democratic controlled senate at that time wouldn't confirm any of Bush's SCOTUS nominees in his last year if a vacancy occurred. No vacancy occurred. McConnell is a revengeful type person, I'm sure his not allowing a vote on Garland was political payback for Schumer's statement. Never mind that McConnell had more than enough votes, the Republicans had 54 senators to deny and defeat Garland if McConnell allowed a vote on him. I thought it was stupid he didn't, every nominee deserves a vote regardless of the office.

I'm positive that if we had the senate leaders of the past, like Lott and Daschle, Mitchell and Dole, there would have been a vote. Even with 54 GOP senators, I think Garland would have been confirmed. Mainly because those leaders were from a previous political era. An era when both parties respected each other. When both parties knew the goal of each party was a secure, free and prosperous America. Only the path to get there was a bit different. Today, each major party considers the other as this nation's number one enemy.


In fact when the senate was tied 50-50 after the 2000 election, Lott and Daschle agreed on a power sharing agreement. The committees were evenly split between Republicans and democrats. Daschle would be majority leader until 20 Jan, Lott after. Nothing like that would ever happen today. Take a look at it, it's very interesting. It's something that should have happened today. But ultra partisanship reigns.


We now live in an era, our modern political era where the R and the D has become much more important than the big A, America. The sad thing about this is I don't see it changing anytime soon. As for the filibuster, do away with it. Perhaps jerking this country to the far left one election and then having her jerked to the far right the next and back left again, will help get us out of this modern political era. The filibuster had in the past provided a steadying influence, preventing those jerks. Without out it, if the president and congress is of the same party, they can repeal any and all legislation of the previous president and congress and pass their own. Then when the other party returns to power, they have the power to repeal any and all legislation from the previous administration and congress and pass their own. Legislation will become just like executive orders, any new president can repeal, revoke and change EO's from any previous president. Legislation will become the same. easily repealed and changed. But just maybe, just maybe being jerked back and forth is what this country needs to pound some common sense into our elected leaders. Nothing else has worked.
 

American

Bier Meister
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
89,327
Reaction score
28,282
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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.
Yeah, sure! :rolleyes: With the Democratic Party condoning BLM/Antifa riots and destruction, the teaching of CRT (Communism) in our schools, we definitely know who's off the rails.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
23,711
Reaction score
11,905
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yeah, sure! :rolleyes: With the Democratic Party condoning BLM/Antifa riots and destruction, the teaching of CRT (Communism) in our schools, we definitely know who's off the rails.

This is all just Breitbart Mad Libs.
 
Top Bottom