2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024

[CallMeTyler]

What a brave stance, Joe.

 

[CFordUNC]

Lolol Manchin was never ever going to endorse Harris, and most likely wasn’t going to vote for her, anyway. Fuck off into retirement and obscurity, old man.

Lmao at the notion that the fucking filibuster is the “Holy Grail of democracy.” FOH man.

 

[superrific]

Lmao at the notion that the fucking filibuster is the “Holy Grail of democracy.” FOH man.

IDK. Just look at all the democratic systems out in the world that have a 60% vote threshold to make new laws.

 

[superrific]

What kind of coffee does he drink?

Or ham or potatoes. I can't remember the last time I paid the same price for ham and potatoes. That he's got them at the same price (both before and after) is hilarious. Who thinks that those two things cost the same?

 

[Calheel]

Lolol Manchin was never ever going to endorse Harris, and most likely wasn’t going to vote for her, anyway. Fuck off into retirement and obscurity, old man.

Lmao at the notion that the fucking filibuster is the “Holy Grail of democracy.” FOH man.

Manchin was responsible for getting a lot of democratic policies made into law and a lot of democratic judges appointed to the bench. Everyone of those 51/50 votes had Manchin to thank. Considering the alternative to Manchin from W.Va, Democrats were hugely fortunate to have him in the senate.

A bad Democrat is worth more than a good Republican in such an evenly divided and tribal senate.

 

[uncgriff]

I would be fine with the filibuster if the Senate actually represented America more fairly.

The 49 GOP senators represent 150 million Americans while the 51 Democratic senators represent 204 million.

Land over people simply has to be fixed somehow. A vote in wyoming is worth a hell of a lot more than a vote in California and that is just not right. Particularly when California pays for all the red states.

 

[CFordUNC]

IDK. Just look at all the democratic systems out in the world that have a 60% vote threshold to make new laws.

Yeah. It’s just frustrating that the Constitution includes so many other checks and balances as it stands, yet the minority party still has veto power over widely supported legislation. Seems unnecessary at best and obstructive at worst, which is why most U.S. states and most other Democratic countries do not allow their legislators to filibuster.

 

[Paine]

What a clown.

 

[CFordUNC]

Manchin was responsible for getting a lot of democratic policies made into law and a lot of democratic judges appointed to the bench. Everyone of those 51/50 votes had Manchin to thank. Considering the alternative to Manchin from W.Va, Democrats were hugely fortunate to have him in the senate.

A bad Democrat is worth more than a good Republican in such an evenly divided and tribal senate.

Fair points, for sure.

 

[rodoheel]

As usual Manchin and his backwards take on the filibuster can get effed. The filibuster is the main cause of complete Congressional inertia on most major issues. it's what enables obstructionism, rather than compromise, as the primary strategy of a minority party in the Senate. It doesn't encourage people to work together; it encourages the minority to hold the majority hostage. it's an anachronism that is contrary to the basic principles of representative democracy that the founders intended.

 

[altmin]

Well I guess Harris can finally give up her life long goal of getting WV's electoral college votes, because that was likely before this and what not.

 

[rodoheel]

IDK. Just look at all the democratic systems out in the world that have a 60% vote threshold to make new laws.

OK but we don't. And leaving aside the issue of which makes more sense as a vote threshold for legislation, 50% or 60%, having a 60% threshold for taking a vote and a 50% threshold for something passing is idiotic. No sane person thinks the Senate, or Congress as a whole, functions well at the moment. it is a system designed to get nothing done; one that prevents us from passing legislation meant to address difficult issues facing the country. And now that the administrative state is getting dismantled, that's going to be an even bigger issue.

 

[superrific]

OK but we don't. And leaving aside the issue of which makes more sense as a vote threshold for legislation, 50% or 60%, having a 60% threshold for taking a vote and a 50% threshold for something passing is idiotic. No sane person thinks the Senate, or Congress as a whole, functions well at the moment. it is a system designed to get nothing done; one that prevents us from passing legislation meant to address difficult issues facing the country. And now that the administrative state is getting dismantled, that's going to be an even bigger issue.

I was being sarcastic. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who despises the filibuster more than I do. As much, maybe, but I'm pretty sure my filibuster hate is at the maximum, or close at least.

And I'm not aware of ANY democratic systems that have a higher threshold than 50%+1, except as to special votes like constitutional amendments and the like. The 60% threshold is, to my knowledge, unique to the U.S. Senate (and perhaps some states that have aped it).

The easiest way to demolish Manchin's argument, though, is to point to reconciliation. If the filibuster is so great, why did the Senate have to make an exception for the most important stuff it does?

 

[rodoheel]

I was being sarcastic. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who despises the filibuster more than I do. As much, maybe, but I'm pretty sure my filibuster hate is at the maximum, or close at least.

And I'm not aware of ANY democratic systems that have a higher threshold than 50%+1, except as to special votes like constitutional amendments and the like. The 60% threshold is, to my knowledge, unique to the U.S. Senate (and perhaps some states that have aped it).

The easiest way to demolish Manchin's argument, though, is to point to reconciliation. If the filibuster is so great, why did the Senate have to make an exception for the most important stuff it does?

Gotcha - sorry, I didn't detect the sarcasm.

 

[Ddseddse]

A bad Democrat is worth more than a good Republican in such an evenly divided and tribal senate.

The Manchin examples are more numerous, but credit where credit is due, we shouldn't forget this...



ETA: I think this may be as literal an example of "The exception proves the rule" as you'll every find, though.

 

[superrific]

The Manchin examples are more numerous, but credit where credit is due, we shouldn't forget this...



ETA: I think this may be as literal an example of "The exception proves the rule" as you'll every find, though.

That example always makes me cringe. McCain's objection wasn't to the substance of the bill. He didn't like the way it was pushed through the Senate. In particular, he didn't like that his committee had been excluded. And the fact that Trump insulted him probably didn't help matters. But it was not a principled stand.

If you want to give credit, give it to Murkowski and Collins who both voted no from the outset.

 

[uncgriff]

I would be fine with the filibuster if the Senate actually represented America more fairly.

The 49 GOP senator represent 150 million Americans while the 51 Democratic senators represent 204 million.

Land over people simply has to be fixed somehow. A vote in wyoming is worth a hell of a lot more than a vote in California and that is just not right. Particularly when California pays for all the red states.

Here is the graphical representation. One white Wyoming vote compared to other states.

Add the filibuster on top of this there is no wonder why our politics is the way it is.

 

[gregh1]

Here is the graphical representation. One white Wyoming vote compared to other states.

Add the filibuster on top of this there is no wonder why our politics is the way it is.

minority rule

 

[superrific]

I would be fine with the filibuster if the Senate actually represented America more fairly.

It's still a bad idea no matter what. It's based on the fiction that the Senate is some great deliberative body. Maybe that was true at one point (again, doubtful), but that time was fairly long ago.

I would be less opposed to the filibuster if it was used only to block monumental changes without more than bare consensus. You know, the way it used to be deployed -- for exceptional circumstances only. Give the minority party one filibuster per year.

One of its worst effects is the way it clouds responsibility in our environment. To those of us who follow politics, we understand that there's not really a Senate majority without 60 votes. But you constantly hear American voters saying things like, "the Dems had control for two whole years and they did nothing with it." Well, they had a majority but they didn't have control. Explaining that to people who don't follow politics is excruciating. In fact, even explaining it to people who do follow politics can be maddening. I can't count the number of times I've had to remind my mother that stuff doesn't get done because it takes 60 votes, except for reconciliation.

 

[uncgriff]

It's still a bad idea no matter what. It's based on the fiction that the Senate is some great deliberative body. Maybe that was true at one point (again, doubtful), but that time was fairly long ago.

I would be less opposed to the filibuster if it was used only to block monumental changes without more than bare consensus. You know, the way it used to be deployed -- for exceptional circumstances only. Give the minority party one filibuster per year.

One of its worst effects is the way it clouds responsibility in our environment. To those of us who follow politics, we understand that there's not really a Senate majority without 60 votes. But you constantly hear American voters saying things like, "the Dems had control for two whole years and they did nothing with it." Well, they had a majority but they didn't have control. Explaining that to people who don't follow politics is excruciating. In fact, even explaining it to people who do follow politics can be maddening. I can't count the number of times I've had to remind my mother that stuff doesn't get done because it takes 60 votes, except for reconciliation.

agree. just pointing out that even a 50/50 vote already greatly skews toward the GOP because of the senate representation problem.