Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders Thinks 48 Senators Make a Majority

The Senate's leading progressive seems to misunderstand the basic math of American democracy.

|

There are 100 members of the United States Senate.

Unlike in the House, where a simple majority rules everything, the math can get a little complicated in the Senate. There's that pesky cloture rule that effectively means you need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster for a lot of things. Other times, a mere 50–50 tie is good enough—as long as you've got the vice president on your side to cast the tie-breaking vote.

But the one thing that you can never, ever do is pass legislation with 48 senators in support and 52 votes against. Because, again, there are 100 members of the United States Senate.

These are basic facts with which a longtime member of the country's most prestigious legislative body should be well familiar. So when Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), a member of the Senate since 2007, suggests that "two people" are somehow preventing 48 others from getting what they want, he's not only demonstrating a lack of basic math skills (which, given Sanders' role as the head of the Budget Committee, might explain a lot about America's fiscal situation).

He's also saying that he doesn't quite understand how this whole democracy thing works. And even that wouldn't be so bad if Sanders were a college professor or a plumber, but it is at least a little bit unsettling because Sanders happens to be one of the people that some Americans have chosen to represent them in a democratic form of government.

Yet Sanders keeps saying this. He tweeted it last week:

And he said it again on Wednesday afternoon, this time accusing "two senators" of trying to "sabotage" a bill that 48 others want.

In each case, the "two people" standing athwart Sanders' warped version of democracy are Sens. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.). They have publically balked at the idea of supporting a $3.5 trillion spending binge due to concerns about the size of America's national debt and the disconnect between how much the government spends and how much it collects in tax revenue.

If Manchin and Sinema cannot be convinced to vote for the package, however, it would not be two senators preventing 48 others from passing the reconciliation bill. It would be 52 senators opposing what 48 want.

Sanders probably knows this, of course. But the continued attempts to frame opposition to the reconciliation bill as some sort of anti-democratic plot against the rightful majority is revealing on a few different levels.

For one, it says something about how the progressive wing of the Democratic Party—for which Sanders is an apt avatar—views its ascendant position within the party and Congress and a whole. It is true that progressives have not had this much influence over policy making in Washington in decades, and they're using the opportunity to push a bill that would permanently expand the power and cost of the federal government in all sorts of ways. President Joe Biden, who has never been much of a progressive but also doesn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, has compared the reconciliation bill to the New Deal and the Great Society, the last two Democratic-led major expansions of the entitlement state.

The progressives' message is clear: Get in, loser, we're going shopping. Or, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) put it earlier this week:

Manchin and Sinema are stuck in progressives' craw because they won't go along with the plan. Even ending the filibuster wouldn't solve this problem.

It is really that simple. Manchin's and Sinema's votes are just as legitimate and valuable as those of every other lawmaker in Congress, but they've had the audacity to suggest that maybe someone should be worried about the utterly unsustainable trajectory of the national debt. For that, they must be exposed. Not only as anti-Democratic but even anti-democratic, as MSNBC's Ari Melber suggested:

Those numbers are supposed to shock you, but just do the math. There are 100 senators, remember. Sure, not each one represents exactly 1 percent of the population, but 0.5 percent and 2.1 percent are not wildly disproportionate figures. If anything, Melber is saying that Sinema represents more people than the average senator should. For that matter, Sanders represents significantly fewer people than either Manchin or Sinema, but somehow his vote is never considered illegitimate simply because he represents the country's second-least-populous state.

If progressives have a problem with the fundamental structure of the Senate—and some of them certainly do—then that's an entirely different argument. It's true that the Senate is somewhat undemocratic by design. It is structured differently from the more proportional House of Representatives in order to serve as a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" of popularly elected governments, as James Madison put it.

Would a more parliamentary-style system pass the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill? Who knows. But arguing that the Senate's very structure is part of the problem is tantamount to arguing that progressives' preferred policies are unworkable in the American democratic system. Weird flex, you guys.

And, of course, even in a different system it would still be true that 48 percent of a legislative body cannot make law against the will of 52 percent.

Back when Democrats were talking a lot about blowing up the filibuster earlier this year, they were also saying a lot of (sometimes quite valuable things) about the importance of protecting American democracy from an increasingly illiberal political right. That's good and necessary. If one of America's major political parties is going to be taken over by populists who undermine elections and elevate authoritarians, then the country is in dire need of a counterbalancing party that will defend democracy for the sake of democracy.

That's why some of what Sanders and other progressives are doing right now is so disheartening. Some right-wing windbags might fantasize about doing away with America's representative government, but Sanders is the one literally proposing that an actual piece of legislation should be able to be passed by 48 senators over the objections of 52 others. That's just not a majority.

No, that's not to say that Sanders and his progressive allies are the greater threat to American democracy. The roiling authoritarianism on the right is a deeper, more profound concern. But if Democrats are going to be the party that defends liberal institutions, they should not be dismissing the basic math of democracy—not even rhetorically. This should be an easy bar to clear!

There are 100 members of the United States Senate. Forty-eight don't get to run the show.

NEXT: Court 'Won't Sanction One More Day' of Texas Abortion Law

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Aren’t 210 House members ALSO not a majority? Pretty sure 218 makes a majority, no?

    1. That’s different. No threat of someone filibustering the minority who is getting screwed over. If a minority can’t make the rules, what good is democracy.

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.ghj Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

        Just visit this website now…… READ MORE

  2. He’s right according to leftist arithmetic.

    1. It’s amazing how many reason articles could be scrapped and just rewritten simply in 2 sentences.

      “Democrats are authoritarian and retarded. But we’ve still got TDS.”

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.VGr simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now……

        Click & Chang your Life _______foxlineblog.Com

      2. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

        So I started………………

        Click & Chang your Life ._________foxlineblog.Com

    2. Those tweets and their replies explain so much about the Democrat Party’s economic fantasies. They’re also so unutterably stupid as to make me want to gouge my eyes out with a spork in hopes of never reading anything that fucktarded ever again.

  3. Socialists Bad at Math: Film at 11

    1. They’ve won so many elections with their counting methodology that I don’t think you can qualify them as bad at math.

    2. Nah, they just plan on stuffing the ballot or having dead senators votefor it to make up the difference needed.

  4. Senator Sanders, open up your third house on Lake Champlain to the disenfranchised. We’ll call it Weekend at Bernie’s 3.

    1. If you make a funny joke but no one is around to hear it because you live in a rural shithole did you even make it?

      1. Only defeated, narcissistic misfits who desperately depend on the attention of others would come up with such a question. Carry on. Your frustration and crankiness about the decisions of legitimate senators will continue to amuse the rest of us. Your impotent, motherless whining is indeed delicious.

  5. So glad to hear you defending democracy – let’s vote on whether or not you should be beaten to death with a crowbar and we’ll hope you get 50%+1 of the vote.

    1. I will not vote for using a crowbar. Those are valuable, cost real money, and his thick skull would probably bend it.

      1. But if you vote for a different method then you’ll split the beating vote and he’ll get away without a beating! Is that what you want?

        1. I think we should do what Congress does, vote for the beating and then let an unelected bureaucracy fill in all those pesky details.

      2. I can volunteer to provide a crowbar at no cost to the public.

  6. Isn’t really 52 Senators standing in the way of 48?

    Must be that socialist math.

    1. No, it’s more like 48 senators standing in the way of 52 senators, if we’re going with that framing.

    2. Republicans have no right to exist in his mind and are just ignored.

      It’s called inclusivity and diversity when you marginalize wrong-think

    3. And those 50 Repubs don’t represent anyone by MSNBC math

      1. I just read a tweet about Manchin and Sinema stating that they are 2 people getting in the way of what 330 million people want. Because apparently literally everyone in America is a democrat in some people’s minds, despite the fact that if that were so this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.

        And these people are allowed to vote.

    4. This is what you get when you elect retards.

    5. But their feelz are very strong. This is how totalitarians always justify their murder and oppression.

      1. Says the guy who wants to kill over half the voters in this country because they didn’t vote for his guy.

        1. Isn’t it the Biden Administration that wants to lock all unvaccinated persons in re-education/concentration camps? (Ahh now I understand why it’s called concentration camp, you have to concentrate to be learn…)

        2. Flag for the scumbag asshole!

  7. No, that’s not to say that Sanders and his progressive allies are the greater threat to American democracy. The roiling authoritarianism on the right is a deeper, more profound concern.

    At this point, it’s just about impossible to make the case that a magazine that would publish this is libertarian. We live in a time when the government is pushing a vaccine mandate that threatens to deprive millions of their livelihoods, when the Justice Department is sic’ing the FBI on parents who dare to petition local school boards for redress of grievances, and protesters are rotting in solitary confinement without even so much as charges being leveled. All of this is being instituted by a left-of-center government. The same left-of-center government that has announced it wants to do away with protections against majoritarian overreach (e.g. the Electoral College, the filibuster) and pack our government with new states and additional SCOTUS seats. And yet, somehow, for Reason, the authoritarian threat to American democracy is coming from the right. Because they’re skeptical of a vote in which ballot security was at a historic low and ballot acceptance was at a historic high. In an article in which a prominent left-of-center politician is asserting that a 48% minority represents the unquestionable will of the people.

    This goes beyond the usual “both sides” nonsense. At this point, to take Reason’s position, you have to be actively cheering for the authoritarians.

    1. Boehm is a fucking clown. Has always been.

      1. He’s a real Boehn-head, for sure.

      2. It obviously takes very little intelligence or talent to get hired for his job.

    2. Right? There’s actual elected members of the government who are speaking about how they want to force people to do certain things and don’t care about liberty. On the other hand, you have some right-wing twitter trolls who say edgy things about doing away with democracy, plus one poll-question where the results are being framed by an uncharitable interpretation.

      The latter is clearly the greater threat to America, right?

    3. Well said, but Trump was the boogey man that got in their heads. You would think they like Trump because he was an outsider. Nope.

      1. Got in their heads and apparently ate their brains, because they certainly don’t have one left *now*.

    4. Boehm’s blind spot here is almost a parody here. He links to JD Vance- one guy- riffing about seizing assets in a theoretical conversation.

      Meanwhile the left is ACTUALLY doing the things you talked about- in addition to Obama prosecuting whistleblowers in his government, and tapping the phones of congress, reporters and his political opponents. They repeatedly lied on FISA warrants to engage in this surveilance. All while slow-rolling investigations into Hillary Clinton, and Epstein and Nassar, because it might impede the Authority of the left.

      The idea that a bunch of obscure cranks on the right making idle threats is somehow of “more profound concern” than this catalog of ACTUAL ABUSES over the last 12+ years is just mind-numbingly insane.

      To be clear, I wouldn’t have agreed if Boehm had done some “To be sure, both sides have their problems…” nonsense. But I also wouldn’t have objected. But this “BTW: The right is even worse” is just the worst own goal Boehm could possibly make.

      1. Let’s talk about how Boehm frames this. He said Republicans are in favor of doing away with America’s representative government, by linking to a Washington Post framing of a poll.

        What does the poll show? For one, that 2/3 of Republicans polled (in May) didn’t think Biden’s win was legitimate. So when asked what the strategy for winning elections was going forward, there was a split between focusing on messaging, or focusing on voter laws and regulations. 47% thought we needed changes to voter rules in districts and states, in a poll where 2/3 did not believe Biden won the election.

        So how is this framed? “Since 47% of Republicans don’t believe in messaging to appeal to larger base they don’t believe in representative government.” It’s SO fucking disingenuous. And if you asked Democratic voters a fairly similar question they’d probably poll similarly, since there were so many pre-election concerns about “fortifying the election.” Democratic and Republican voters are pretty equally concerned about election security and validity. Both sides want to have faith in election results.

  8. “if Democrats are going to be the party that defends liberal institutions” puts a pretty heavy load on the word “IF”. They talk a good game but based on their actions, they’ve not consistently taken that role at any point in the past.

    1. If by liberal you mean progressive, it fits. But nothing liberal left in the party if you check the dictionary.

  9. Very rich. The side that regularly looked to “heroism” from murkowski, collins, romney now are putting it out there that these 2 senators going against their party are basically enemies of the people and represent “no one”.

    Other hilarious thing. Saying Sinema “only” represents 2% of the people. God forbid, a state that is 1/50 represents 2% of the population. Sounds unfair

    1. I’d also ask what percentage Sanders represents.

      1. 0.17% by my quick math

    2. And to look at those two Senators and not counting the other 50? I guess only membership in the proper party matters.

      “Well, the other party is the enemy of the people so they don’t matter.”

      1. Sanders isn’t even a Democrat, which makes his ignoring of Republicans particularly galling.

    3. And Arizona (like all states) has 2 senators. So presuming the math there is correct (and that’s a huge presumption) that means Sinema is representing about 2.1 times as many people as she theoretically should be. Since if you divide 100% of the American population by 100 senators, you’d notionally expect them to represent 1% of the population.

  10. 48 Democratic Party Senators make a majority. That’s because GOP Senators represent sub-human deplorables who only count as 3/5th of a person each. So those GOP Senators likewise count as only 3/5ths of a Senator each. (But they may overcome this shortcoming by taking Government Almighty into their hearts and voting along with the Democrats.)

    “Rural deplorables had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with enlightened liberals, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which any liberal person was bound to respect; and that the deplorable might justly and lawfully be reduced to disenfranchised serfdom for his benefit.”

    (/sarc because Poe’s law, especially here)

    1. You’ve got it exactly backwards.
      Democratic voters are counted as 3/5ths of a person (or thereabouts). How else can you explain the paradox that the senate is split 50/50 split yet Democratic senators represent 42 million more people than Republican senators?

      1. It’s sort of how everybody thinks those evil Southerners only counted slaves as 3/5 of people, when it was the NORTH who was pushing to exclude slaves 100%.

        1. The south wanted to count them as 3/5 so they could get additional representation in the house. If a guy owned 100 slaves he basically had 61 times the representation that a non-slaveholder had.

          The southerners didn’t want to count slaves for tax purposes though.

          1. “The south wanted to count them as 3/5 so they could get additional representation in the house.”

            The slave states wanted the slaves counted in full for determining representation while not allowing them to vote.

            3/5ths was a compromise between 0 and 100%.

            1. You’re right. I somehow f’d that up.

              My point still stands that “those racist northerners didn’t want to count them at all. At least the south agreed to 3/5 is a bs argument.”

          2. Scumbag asshole IGNORAMUS gets anther flag

          3. Vanquished, motherless, inept misfires that have to live in the past to make a point are enchanting to watch when they cry and vanish.

      2. Democrat voters have no souls, and are therefore 0/5ths of a person. Yet have 50% representation.

      3. Because the Senate was always intended to represent the separate states, not be another House of Representatives?

        1. ^This

  11. Sanders was making a political statement, not mis-stating how he believes the Senate rules work. But it was a calculated statement, not a mis-spoke like Obama saying there are 57 states. Let’s discuss the demerits of the $3.5 trillion bill and not twist and guffaw at some silly statement by the Vermont pinko.

    1. Aww nice of you to defend Sanders and know what he is thinking. Again, he said 2 are defying the majority. 52 is the majority not 48. You can spin it however you want but a good bill would have someone from the other party too. Why isn’t that happening huh?

      1. He’s not defending… Read once more, especially the end.

      2. That this is a diversion is a fair point.

      3. And adding the 2 wouldn’t even *be* a majority. It’d be precisely 50%, which is parity, having no majority or minority. They’d have to have the spoiler vote of the VP to pass it, but they wouldn’t have a *majority* in the Senate.

        So Sanders is wrong even in his wrongness. He’s *fractally* incorrect.

    2. I’d have to guess that from Bernie’s viewpoint, the only real problem with a $3.5Trillion bill funding leftist pet projects is that it’s barely half the size it should be, and that it’s not establishing that level as “mandatory” spending for the government in every FY budget going forward.

  12. Also, Bernie may not be aware of this but a Senator’s first loyalty is supposed to be the state that he/she represents. If Manchin’s or Sinema’s voters are really pining for the Socialist Worker’s Utopia they’ll just vote them out of office.

  13. Can someone explain this to me?

    The progressives’ message is clear: Get in, loser, we’re going shopping. Or, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) put it earlier this week:

    ????
    pic.twitter.com/fOkSgNFpIW

    — Lawrence B. Jones III (@LawrenceBJones3) October 2, 2021

    Did they insert the wrong quote? Or are ???s a joke I’m missing?

    1. It’s a video. Transcript:

      Better than nothing? Isn’t something better than nothing? And you know what we have to say? I stood up in front of the caucus and I said, you know, that might be an easy thing for some of you all to say. Because when a bill passes that is underfunded, that only gives a crumb, you get that crumb. Because when you only give some and not all, then some people get nothing. Some people get nothing. Who gets nothing? We get nothing.

      So, you know, standing up there in that Capitol, and I was like, I don’t know if you all know yet by now, but I’m from the Bronx. When you tell me, isn’t something better than nothing? What I hear, what you’re actually telling me, isn’t something for you better? And why don’t you accept nothing? So that I can get something? That’s what is actually being said.

      She’s not actually saying anything coherent, but I’ll be damned if she’s not super fierce about it.

      1. She’s also not from the Bronx.

      2. “…blah blah because when a bill passes that is underfunded, that only gives a crumb, you get that crumb. Because when you blah blah…” says AOC, and then continues “Who gets nothing? Blah blah I don’t know if you all know yet by now, but I’m from the Bronx” and the group she has had assembled for her whoops and cheers.

        Thoroughly disgusting, vomit inducing display of how clever AOC really thinks she is. They keep the trained seals barking for her, and occasionally throw her on the red carpet in a $10,000 dress, and she’ll do anything for the left wing of the democrats.

        No wonder she passed the audition.

  14. The swing votes are coming from inside the party.

    1. I’ve seen multiple progressives online saying Sinema and Manchin should be kicked out of the party for not wanting to spend (as) freely as the PC caucus. Uh, okay…. what’s your majority up to then?

    2. I’m picturing a detective calling Bernie Sanders telling him that in dramatic fashion. Like in ‘When a Stranger Calls’.

  15. Good job Boehm trying to spin the Republicans as authorithian. I mean it’s all the it’s all those pesky Republicans mandating vaccines. Democrats are more like a bad HOA. They will argue and berate you if you grass is 1/2 inch too high.

    What about all those executive orders from Biden? Or you know not even following law and doing what they want. But yeap, it’s all the GOP.

    Nice work there. Reason should be proud.

  16. Also, while we’re at the twitter links, what the fuck is with this?

    Some right-wing windbags might fantasize about doing away with America’s representative government,

    I mean, why include this sentence at all? You’re making a point about Sanders and his weasel words math. Do you really have to do both sides thing? Especially when the “other” side is a random crank on the twitters. For fuck’s sake, you can find some random asshole who will take ANY position on social media, quoting them as though they represent any sort of prevailing opinion means nothing. Quote another Senator parroting Sanders, sure, but there is no parity to some twitterer.

    1. Considering the link is to a co-worker’s tweet who looks to be about the same age, I would suggest it was included in the hopes of getting laid.

      Otherwise, we would have to accept that Boehm is a disingenuous cunt.

        1. Yeah.

          ¿Por que no los dos?

  17. Bernie’s whole schtick is a lie. Socialists are not the slightest bit concerned with Democratic principles. He would just as happily shovel his shit down the throat of 95% of the population as he would 50%.

    Heaven forbid you should be in a minority that disagrees with him. Kulaks and wreckers.

    1. Democratic socialists care about democracy. More so than Republicans who just want to throw out an election because their guy lost.

      1. Hey commie faggot, you do know we are NOT a democracy, right? So it’s a bad thing your treasonous democrat friends are concerned about democracy. Which is part of why they need to cheat to win elections.

      2. Your impotent, motherless bawling and stomping about the legitimate votes of elected officials is luscious and delightful.

        1. Hint:Do not engage the asshole.
          Flag the asshole, make sure to point out that s/he *is* an asshole, and a dishonest and stupid one besides, but do not engage.

          1. Muted and ignored for ages now. KAR is a steaming pile of shit.

      3. The asshole’s getting flags this evening.

      4. “”More so than Republicans who just want to throw out an election because their guy lost.”””

        They took a page from the democrats.

    2. That’s the thing with Bernie and his crowd; they often gesture to “the people” to justify what they want, but they don’t care what anyone else actually wants, least of all the people of this country.

  18. It’s insane to think that the cohort of one party’s elected officials is more authoritarian than another. Like, absolutely insane.

  19. Socialists rule that pi = 3 to make computations easier.

  20. A senator represents the same number as every other senator, ONE, since a senator represents his state. It matters not how many people are in that state. Each state has two senators which is how we arrive at the number of 100 senators in Congress. Sanders knows this but instead he is hunting for a soundbite narrative for the media to repeat while trying to put pressure on Manchin and Sinema.

  21. You don’t have the votes
    You don’t have the votes
    [A ha-ha-ha-ha]
    You’re gonna need congressional approval and
    You don’t have the votes.
    Such a blunder!
    Sometimes it makes me wonder
    Why I even bring the thunder.

  22. Math was never Sanders’ strong suit.

    But no one should want major new laws or major new spending proposals to pass with 50% +1 support, or the other side can just repeal them 2 years later by flipping a handful of seats in Congress.

    A supermajority of 60% (like the Senate’s cloture rules) or 2/3 or 3/4 (for Constitutional amendments getting through Congress and the states) are a good idea for all legislation. If you can’t convince some people on the other side to support your ideas, not only are they likely to be overturned in short order, they may not be good for the country as a whole, or the opposing party would be hesitant to oppose them.

    1. Government by Unanimous Consent would be great, but there’s always going to be some handful of cranks like me opposing things that most people want and think we need. So I would set the bar at 90%, so things that are truly and obviously necessary and beneficial could still get passed.

      1. It’s just easier to cleanse the leftists.

    2. The problem with the “supermajority makes good policy” theory is the history of what have been the most strongly “bipartisan” supported bills in the last 25 years.

      The “banking modernization” bill in 1999 that enabled Wall St banks to become “too big to fail” and leverage their assets at higher ratios but also mandated them to increase the amount of “high risk” mortgage lending they underwrote passed with more than 70% support from both caucuses in both houses of Congress; Bill Clinton signed it, but a veto wouldn’t have held up anyway. This law was instrumental in not only creating the asset bubbles of the first decade of the 2000s, but created the situation that led to the perceived need for TARP when that bubble popped (an inevitability which came as a shock to almost the entire government, most of the public and an amazingly high proportion of financial professionals in the country).

      The USA PATRIOT ACT passed with near-unanimous bipartisan approval, along with its first several renewals.

      The bulk of the rest of the things which Congress passes unanimously are meaningless symbolic decrees (such as declaring an official “Cookie Dough Ice Cream Day in the District of Columbia” or similarly inconsequentail activity that they know almost nobody cares about or will object to time having been wasted on it)

  23. The roiling authoritarianism on the right is a deeper, more profound concern.

    You mean the authoritarian in charge before Biden, the one who left COVID policy up to the individual states and did not push for any national mandates?

    And are they profoundly concerning because they are skeptical of big tech doing the bidding of big government to squelch free speech in the digital public square? Or more concerning because they want to defend the pesky First and Second Amendments?

    Those issues are debatable on both sides by people of good conscience, but spending multiple trillions we don’t have when we are already 29 trillion dollars in debt would seem to be the most profound concern of all. The nation is nearing insolvency.

  24. Democratic senators represent 42,000,000 more people than Republican senators. In just about any other democracy in the world, that would be a super majority.

    1. That’s not how it works here. That’s one of the reasons so many people want to live here. Think about it.

    2. Yeah, we don’t have Mob Rule here. At least not yet. Guarding against a Party Machine controlling urban centers is one of the reasons why.

      1. exactly. same reason we have the electoral college. someone needs a basic civics lesson.

    3. In any actually liberal worldview, there would be a high degree of concern over safeguards against the tyranny of the majority. The U.S. Senate was created as a check against exactly that condition (at the time, largely in order to prevent the more populous southern states from permanently enshrining chattel slavery into the new Federal laws).

      The “roiling authoritarianism of the right” is dangerous, but is far too blunt an instrument to really make inroads or establish lasting oppression (especially since it includes such reverence for the importance of an armed populace). Real “existential threats” almost always come packaged in a far more insidious and “well intended” trojan horse.

      Hence the warning that “government big enough to provide all you need is powerful enough to take all you have”.

  25. I believe that the DNC refuses to allow a Bernie Sanders presidential candidacy, regardless of what Democratic Party members/voters want. For example, every county in West Virginia voted for Sanders in 2016, yet the Democratic National Committee declared them as wins for Clinton, the latter candidate’s neo-liberalism, unlike Sanders’ fiscal-progressiveness, already known for not rubbing against any big business grain.

    Fiscal conservative ideology/politics, big business interests and most of the corporate mainstream news-media resist sufficiently progressive ideas from actually being implemented. They seem to favor big money interests over people. Republican representatives may also be manipulating the Democratic Party hierarchy into making the latter’s fiscal politics/policies more conservative.

    1. “…Republican representatives may also be manipulating the Democratic Party hierarchy into making the latter’s fiscal politics/policies more conservative.”

      Sarc? Stupidity?

      1. Eh, he just thinks of the Democrats what you think of every Republican not named Trump. He can’t see thinking more than 0 steps ahead as anything but a betrayal.

        1. You’re full of shit.

    2. Well, he certainly can’t win if he takes a dive for a new mansion every run.

    3. Maybe Sanders should consider joining the Democratic party, if he wants to be its nominee? That normally is part of running for a party’s nomination, but he can’t be bothered.

  26. Bernie Bro Mathematics coming to a public school near you.

  27. It’s not arithmetic, it’s majority rule that he does not understand.

    1. Be real: He’s a communist. He understands majority rule just fine, he simply doesn’t support it.

  28. This is just the reality of democrat majority control. Republicans don’t exist unless its their fault for screwing things up, or to scare people into voting more democrats in.

  29. Hey, he just returned from a tour of all 53 states!

    1. Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam?

  30. Does anyone want to lay odds on Bernie taking his penis out in public before Biden does? Bernie is older, but Biden exhibits more signs of dementia. I am thinking it’s a tossup.

    1. My money is on Russ Nelson.

      I always have a big party whenever your prophet dies. Hinckley was the best. I tried to light a BOM on fire, but you bastards made them burn proof or something. It was for the best. I was pretty shitfaced at that point and could of hurt someone.

      1. My money is on Jeffrey Toobin. Might take a lay-off bet on Anthony Weiner. (Seriously, do comic writers name politicians and script what they do?)

      2. Stupid, dishonest asshole gets another flag

  31. Bernie also thinks $5 trillion is pocket change. The guys a total nutjob. No wonder liberals love him.

    1. Thatbolshivist piece of shit has never had the slightest bit of real accountability or responsibility his entire worthless life. Remember, this is the dp same guy that got kicked out of hippie commune fifty years ago for being lazy, and keeping other people for their work. And all within only three days!

      He’s the perfect prog. No wonder democrats love him so much.

      1. Traitors like you worship Trump. Even putting him above your oath to defend the constitution.

  32. Bernie Sanders doesn’t understand math, period. Never has, and that’s why his policies continually fail (because crackpot socialist is not an instant disqualifier, CBO actually has to run numbers to prove he’s an idiot almost annually).

    Fired from his carpentry job, then kicked out of the commune because he’s a bum… Then he found politics and never left.

  33. Bernie is crushing their little heads. Crushing, crushing.

  34. Skip to the chase: We should repeal the 17th amendment so that the US Senate will again answer to the states, bringing the whole federal apparatus to heal.

    Ever since that one formal connection was destroyed, the federal government has been running roughshod over both state sovereignty and individual liberty. It’s way beyond high time for states to take back the Senate.

    1. It does seem like popularly elected senators ceased to be a brake on the whims of the house.

  35. What everyone should find shocking is that only 2 Democrat senators have a problem with spending another $3.5 trillion… Plus another $1.5 trillion…… On top of a base of $4.5 trillion…..

    Just 1 year ago these numbers were insane to all but a tiny minority, even among the Democrat caucus. Certainly Joe Biden was against it.

    Something is broken. Irresponsibly got passed by long ago… There is not even a word for what they are doing… And there is no debate, barely any dissent, and nobody even bothers to ask what the money is for beyond a headline phrase.

    I have never seen anything like it.

    1. It’s really terrifying.

  36. Bernie Sanders is correct, if Republicans do not count towards the total. This is what the democracy of a democratic socialist is.

  37. “But the one thing that you can never, ever do is pass legislation with 48 senators in support and 52 votes against. Because, again, there are 100 members of the United States Senate.”

    Sadly, you’re not right about this. All you have to do is arrange for the vote to be held when some of the Senators against aren’t in the room.

  38. Bernie believes in Reformed Democracy which is referred to as Trans-Democracy where a fundamental pillar is based on “Voting results who feel like they are a Majority…”.

    1. Can I self identify as an islandic tax haven?

  39. Cloture rule is a FIAT – not in the US House and not in the US Constitution.

    Its just a democracy- busting way to deny laws a majority of voters want, no mater who is in power.

    1. Its just a democracy- busting way to deny laws a majority of voters want, no mater who is in power.

      When those guardrails on democracy come off and you get true majoritarianism. Marx himself described what you want as “dictatorship of the proletariat” and you can see the consequences in 20th century Germany.

      In a free country, it should take large supermajorities to pass laws. That is, if the legislature can’t muster 80% to agree on a law, that law shouldn’t be passed, period.

Please to post comments