• 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?

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.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law
www.realclearpolitics.com

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Perotista said:
Do the Democrats have a short term vs. long term thinking problem?
Click to expand...
Just an in-general thinking issue, which leads to both short term and long term problems.
 
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.
 
 
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.

Voters See Each Other as America’s Enemy

U.S. voters now regard each other as a bigger enemy than Russia or North Korea and just as dangerous as China.
www.rasmussenreports.com

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.
 
Yeah, sure! 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.
 
American said:
Yeah, sure! 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.
Click to expand...

This is all just Breitbart Mad Libs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…