Democrats Might Soon Rediscover the Value of the Filibuster
Some liberal political analysts are warning that Republicans will gain a big Senate majority over the next two elections.

For much of the first year of Joe Biden's presidency, progressive Democrats pushed radical ideas to change Senate rules, abolish the filibuster, and enact their agenda with a simple majority.
Even Biden, ever the rusty weather vane of Democratic politics, eventually swung around to supporting the idea. Though he has a long track record of defending the filibuster—killing it would only demonstrate "the arrogance of power," he said on the Senate floor in 2005—Biden in January officially called for the Senate to abolish the rule requiring 60 votes on most bills. "Let the majority prevail," Biden said. "If that majority is blocked, then we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster."
For Democrats, however, the stumbling block during the first 15 months of Biden's presidency hasn't been the Senate's 60-vote "cloture" rule or the Republican minority's use of it. It's been that Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.) have objected to key parts of the party's agenda—including the anti-filibuster campaign.
"Eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come," Sinema said on the Senate floor in January, just days after Biden's call to action.
Looks like she's about to be proven right.
"Democrats need to wake up, because right now they're sleepwalking into disaster, with no plan to avert it," writes Simon Bazelon, an advisor at the liberal political think tank Data for Progress, in a post published Monday on Matthew Yglesias' Slow Boring newsletter. Bazelon cites polling data and historical midterm election trends to suggest that Democrats are likely to lose three to four Senate seats this year before heading into a potential electoral wipeout in 2024.
Bazelon's post builds on a tweet from David Shor, a Democratic pollster who has lately played the role of liberal Cassandra, in which Shor suggests that Republicans could be heading for a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority after the next election.
Unless we see big structural changes in the Democratic party's coalition, then the modal outcome for 2024 is Donald Trump winning a *filibuster-proof trifecta* with a minority of the vote.
If you want to help stop that, come check out our job board! https://t.co/2xKqs6nT3e pic.twitter.com/cK1ojkyYII
— David Shor (@davidshor) April 4, 2022
It's probably right to be skeptical that Republicans will be able to swing 10 or more Senate seats in the next two elections—if for no other reason than the fact that politics change rapidly these days, and today's trends will be in the distant past by November 2024.
Still, a quick look at the Senate maps for the next two elections suggests that Republicans are poised to pick up several seats, even if the party can't hit the all-important 60-seat threshold. In 2024 alone, Democrats have to defend seats in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. That's 10 seats that Republicans could, in a very good year, flip. If you assume that Republicans will pick up at least two or three seats currently held by Democrats this year—Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada seem the most likely to flip, and midterm elections are typically unfavorable for the president's party—then getting to 60 by winning seven or eight of those other races in 2024 is at least within the realm of possibility.
"'Business as usual' will result in President Trump or President DeSantis, with somewhere between 56 and 62 Senate seats," writes Bazelon. "And this is actually worse than it might seem at first. In recent years, Republican senators who have retired (or announced that they are retiring) have skewed heavily toward those who were willing to occasionally stand up to Trump, like Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, and Richard Burr. If Trump returns to office, he will do so with a median Senator who is far more deferent to his wishes than the last time around."
Of course, it's also not difficult to imagine Republicans blowing it despite this favorable electoral terrain. Look no further than the GOP Senate primary in Pennsylvania to see how the GOP, now unmoored from any sense of commitment to principles or specific policies, is inviting voters to take one look and go running back to the Democrats. Grievance politics that lacks a coherent and compelling vision for the future of America will never provide more than a temporary electoral advantage.
But it doesn't really matter whether Republicans can reach the 60-seat threshold or not. What matters is that they are now overwhelmingly likely to have a Senate majority after this year's midterms, with a good chance of expanding that majority in 2024 when Democrats have to defend the gains they made during Trump's midterm defeats in 2018.
When that happens, Democrats, liberals, and anyone else who isn't thrilled by the prospect of an increasingly authoritarian Republican Party getting to enact its agenda at the federal level will owe a debt of gratitude to Sinema, Manchin, and other Democrats who resisted the urge to blow up the filibuster. Instead of an emerging and permanent Democratic majority, the party is now heading into a cycle where it is likely to be playing defense.
Thankfully, one of the fundamental virtues of the American democratic system is that legislative majorities are not all-powerful. Minorities in Congress rarely get what they want, but they can slow or stop the majority from simply ramming through whatever agenda it wants.
Some Democrats have spent the past year or so acting like that's a flaw in the system. They were wrong, as they'll likely learn very soon.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Boehm, GFY.
A vote for any of the Rs in PA is better than a vote for keeping Schumer in power
A shame no one ever found out where Schumer hides his coffin.
In his bra?
Do you smell panic? I think I smell panic...
How foolish of them to think that their slim majority will last forever.
Far as I can tell, most of them genuinely believe that in a "fair" system where there's "electoral integrity" their majority would be both large and permanent.
It's worked wonders for California over the last 15-20 years, so why not inflict that level of "progress" on the national level.
The numbers actually bear that out. The Democrats have won the popular vote for president in every election except one since 1992, yet the Republicans got the presidency anyway in two of them. Which in turn means the GOP now has a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court.
And if you look at the Senate, if it were population-proportionate rather than two senators per state, Democrats would currently have 60 seats in the Senate, rendering the filibuster moot.
So please do not claim the Republicans enjoy popular support. You don't. You just benefit from a system under which Republicans don't need to care if they have popular support.
I was almost foolish enough to ask if you understand the purpose of the U.S. Senate, or that the election of the President has literally never been based on strictly the result of the national popular vote. It's clear that you don't so I guess I should instead wonder whether you're unable to comprehend that, or unwilling to do so. Since more than 100% of the Dems' margin in the national popular vote for most of those presidential elections can be attributed to the population of CA (and in 2016, just Los Angeles County, where I've lived for most of my adult life), it's hard to imagine that the Dem fantasy of eliminating the Electoral College (and maybe also dissolving the Senate?) is really motivated by anything other than a desire to disenfranchise the trolls of "flyover country" and subjugate them to their proper role as the "peons" to the "bi-coastal" ruling class.
I'm not a Republican, either and actually consider that party to be every bit as feckless and repugnant as the Dems; but again, I have little doubt that you're either unwilling or unable to comprehend the existence of a mind that rejects the binary paradigm and doesn't fall somewhere within the "two-party system", even when the number of people claiming "no affilitation" or "independent" is now larger than the number who identify with either of the "viable" parties.
Your original comment, to which I was responding, was that Democrats believe that under a fair system they would have permanent majorities. I was merely pointing out that the numbers do in fact show that. Get rid of anti-democratic institutions and the GOP will never win another election. It's not that we want to disenfranchise flyover country; we just don't think it should have a veto over what the majority wants to do. They're entitled to one-person, one-vote same as the rest of us.
And I do understand the purpose of the Senate. It's to permanently ensure that the majority can't get what it wants unless flyover country is on board with it. The framers said as much. Whether that's good policy is a separate question.
My original implication is that Dems have structured their conception of "fair" to be whatever keeps their party in unchallenged power without accountability (such as their recent attempt to gerrymander Maryland such that every congressional district contains a slice the small portion of the state with an overwhelming Dem majority in a way that makes every district in the state a "safe" district for their party).
For the Framers, in 1790, the effect of the Senate as a check on the tyranny of the majority was to prevent the more populous south from codifying the practice of slavery into Federal law; the federalist system of not prohibiting it in order to enable the fledgling "union" of states to have a chance took long enough to rectify, but with so many of the first Presidents coming from Virginia, allowing the slave states to dominate both houses of legislature might well have created a system in which the practice could have endured to this day.
Not to mention that CA has literally been regressing for the last 10+ years (about as long as it's been since the Dems in the state established an unaccountable super-majority in Sacramento). L.A. in some ways is now in worse shape than it was when I first moved here in 1992 (and that was 4 months after the riots). I hope there might at least be some comprehension for my failure to yearn for a system in which the voters of this County would have a far louder voice in the entire scope of Federal politics than the entire population of a half-dozen of the states which are now the new home to tens of thousands of refugees who have fled "progressive" rule in recent years. To score last place on quality of life surveys in the location with one of the greatest natural environments on the continent takes an awful lot of work, but it appears that the Dem Party in CA and the so-called "leaders" they've empowered were apparently up to the task.
I would argue that California is far better run than Mississippi, Alabama, or most of flyover country, as evidenced by the fact that more people want to live in California, but be that as it may.
When I say that I want a fair system, what I really mean is that the structural and procedural rules should not favor one ideology or the other. Both parties should have a level playing field. Under our current system, in which South Dakota gets to cancel California in the Senate and the electoral college trends more conservative than the national popular vote, conservatism is heavily favored. And if conservatives can't win popular elections because their policies are disfavored by voters nationally, then they should not be in power. It's really like having a super bowl in which one of the teams starts out with a free touchdown. If the other team is really, really good that year, they may be able to overcome the free touchdown and win anyway, but nobody (except the team that gets the free touchdown) is going to think that's a fair rule.
And platitudes like tyranny of the majority are simply handwaving. Who says the minority is any better at setting policy? Why is tyranny of the minority any better? If the voters make a mistake, we have another election in two or four years and they can fix it.
"Some liberal political analysts are warning that Republicans will gain a big Senate majority over the next two elections."
No way.
Biden is the best President ever — yes, even better than Obama — and voters will no doubt reward his party with #BlueWave2022. Then either Biden or Harris will win in 2024.
In fact Democratic landslides are so obviously the only logical outcome that any alternative must be the result of Russian interference.
#LibertariansForBiden
#ElectionsAreOnlyLegitimateWhenDemocratsWin
I have confidence our election will be secure and expediently delivered by the USPS while we are locked down to prevent the spread of Covid. As long as one life is saved.
Democrats, liberals, and anyone else who isn't thrilled by the prospect of an increasingly authoritarian Republican Party getting to enact its agenda at the federal level
You make it sound like that's a bigger worry than the increasingly authoritarian Democratic party enacting its agenda.
What exactly are Republicans trying to do at the federal level that counts as "authoritarian"?
Undo all the fascist's gains?
Some of the R proposals around abortion can be counted as "authoritarian". And a distressing number of R politicians are every bit as willing to embrace censorship as the Ds.
Cite?
Specifically, cite for:
"And a distressing number of R politicians are every bit as willing to embrace censorship as the Ds."
When was the last time a dissenting voice was even let on FOX News, and how many minutes were they allowed to speak before they got cut off midsentence.
How long does a progressive last on one of their shitty right-wing social media apps? Five minutes before getting banned for wrongthink?
YOU ARE ALWAYS INFINITELY WORSE ON EVERYTHING.
Hey Tony, how many days until midterms?
"When was the last time a dissenting voice was even let on FOX News"
It's actually a rather routine affair.
"How long does a progressive last on one of their shitty right-wing social media apps? Five minutes before getting banned for wrongthink?"
Hmm, conservatives certainly get MORE time on MSNBC and CNN, right?
One of their most prominent hosts is a fucking Bush staffer.
LOL
How much makeup did you have to put on to type that out?
That was a near-perfect demonstration of the left-leaning folks tendency to reflexively accuse conservatives of the very thing of which their in-group is most guilty. It would be amusing, except watching it time after time, cascading in narratives across the media, is boringly predictable and more than a bit repulsive.
today's trends will be in the distant past by November 2024.
Agreed. If Bumblefuck's first 14 months are any indication there is plenty of time for things to get considerably worse than they are now.
It’s guaranteed they will. I just wonder if his regime survives until 2024 without a popular uprising. Which would really be just chickens coming home to roost.
I think the Dems' bigger dilemma (at least for a while) is going to be whether or not to go 25A on Biden after the mid-terms, considering how despised Kamala has turned out to be.
Someone should definitely track to figure the exact moment when the administration party line flips from the immorality of impeding the will of the majority to the need to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
It used to be that they could dump mumbles AND giggles and put Pelosi in, but she won't be speaker all that long. Kinda hard to go the 25th route if the 'loyal opposition' takes over next year.
Remember, remember, the eighth of November.
I don't take any real comfort in the idea of the GOP taking over Congress, except that the resulting gridlock is probably the closest thing to actually limiting the expansion of government while the two rival authoritarian regimes are fighting over which portions of the Bill of Rights need to be repealed first, or in some cases merely which reason to claim they're doing it for.
I'd really like to know why Boehm appears to suffer TDS. What Hoaxes did he buy in to?
No appears about it. The boy has long TDS.
I'd really like to know why Boehm appears to suffer TDS.
Peer pressure.
All of them.
Boehm is an utterly worthless hivemind.
How many articles did he write after the election about the challenges to it? 30 something, was it not?
Schumer has more faces than Janus, so I'm sure he'll be calling for protecting the filibuster in the interest of preserving democracy.
That asshole hasn’t the slightest bit of shame or integrity. He pulls 180’s on his positions all the time. The only thing he gives a fuck about is pushing more democrat bullshit.
Not true; his first priority is to stay in office and [2] in power. And things like the filibuster are only useful toward that end, and should be eliminated whenever it isn't.
No shit Sherlock.
But wait until DeSantis has a GOP Senate and House before commenting on the histrionics. You won't see anything serious until then.
It would be wonderful if we had the numbers to successfully convict Biden and Harris in an impeachment trial. Granted the bar is very high, because we have subhuman garbage senators like Romney, Collins, and Murkowski in the senate.
What impeachable offenses did they commit?
Biden threatened the President of Afghanistan with withholding military assistance unless he publicly lied about the progress of the war against the Taliban in order to help Biden politically.
Biden also pushed vaccine mandates that he privately admitted were unconstitutional because he knew many people wouldn't be able to give up their jobs until the issue was resolved in the courts, so they would be forced to get the vaccine. That's a violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution.
I can't find evidence of that first charge on the internet, so you'll be kind of enough to link me. Though it's possible that you're confusing Biden for Trump, who was already impeached for threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine by extorting it for anti-Biden dirt.
As for the second, presidents and congresses enact unconstitutional laws all the time. They don't become unconstitutional until the Supreme Court strikes them down. If it doesn't, they are by definition unconstitutional.
Legislating is not an impeachable offense.
by definition *constitutional
Legislating is not an impeachable offense.
It is (or should be) when you are in the Executive Branch or the Judicial Branch:
Article I, Section 1: All legislative powers granted herein shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.
The phrasing was "Biden pushed for vaccine mandates." Are we talking about a rule for the executive branch of which he is CEO? I don't have a problem with bosses making hygiene rules for their employees.
If the President wants to try to enforce vaccine mandates against federal government workers under the guise of workplace safety, he can try.
What he can't do is try to enforce that same mandate on private-sector employers and private sector employees.
No such Article II power exists, and that is exactly what he tried to do, using OSHA as a cover, after he stated multiple times he had no such authority.
So you don’t even know what “legislation” means. And that’s not even the dumbest thing you said.
Legislate: to perform the function of legislation specifically : to make or enact laws
If the Executive Branch is attempting to make and enact laws or rules without any authority granted to it by Congress or Article II Powers (Eviction Moratoriums, Vaccine Mandates, DACA) it is attempting to legislate, which is not a power granted to the Executive Branch, and the President should be impeached.
Or are you okay with the president and regulatory state bypassing Congress to make and enact rules (effectively legislating) via "a pen and a phone" and things like "judge made law"?
https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-call-before-afghan-collapse-biden-pressed-ghani-change-perception-2021-08-31/
"In the call, Biden offered aid if Ghani could publicly project he had a plan to control the spiraling situation in Afghanistan."
“I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said. “And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”
Biden was obviously primarily concerned with American domestic political opinion. He wanted the Afghans to paint a rosy picture of how things were going until US forces completed their withdrawal, at which point he knew most voters would no longer give a damn.
He knew if the withdrawal was perceived as being handled badly it would hurt him politically. Just like it ended up doing. The Afghanistan debacle was the turning point for Biden's standing in opinion polls, and he's never really recovered.
It's certainly as solid as anything the Democrats had regarding Trump/Ukraine, which even the lauded President Zelensky has said he never considered a quid pro quo.
"I can't find evidence of that first charge on the internet, so you'll be kind of enough to link me."
You do not read links, so it would be immaterial. Reuters released a transcript of the call, so here: https://www.reuters.com/world/excerpts-call-between-joe-biden-ashraf-ghani-july-23-2021-08-31/
"Though it's possible that you're confusing Biden for Trump, who was already impeached for threatening to withhold aid to Ukraine by extorting it for anti-Biden dirt."
You're aware Biden did that, right? Threatened to withhold $1B until the prosecutor who was investigating his son's boss in Ukraine was fired.
"As for the second, presidents and congresses enact unconstitutional laws all the time."
Name one other time when the President said he KNEW it was unconstitutional. Biden DID that. SCOTUS had ALREADY said the moratorium was unconstitutional but did not kill it because it wwas set to end very shortly regardless.
Man, you're such a hack.
Malfeasance on the border. The money he received from The ChiComs, and others, through Hunter. His bungling of Afghanistan, and the subsequent fraud he tried to perpetrate. His complicity in the Russia hoax.
Do I really need to go on?
You don't have the slightest clue what your gibberish means, do you?
Whatever happened to the President's "take care" duty? I know the blog by that name shut down after Biden took office, but the clause didn't disappear from the Constitution.
It would be perfectly valid for Republicans to impeach Biden for systematic refusal to enforce laws he doesn't like, even if Democrats think it was just fine because they didn't like them either.
Mind, I'm not saying they WILL impeach him over that, or anything else. Probably not. But it would be perfectly legitimate to.
Okay now make up something to impeach Harris for, since we're having a fun conversation about STILL trying to do a coup in favor of the fucking Republicans.
Don't have to make anything up, the election was rigged.
Didn't "make up" anything about Biden. There are laws he doesn't like, immigration laws, for instance, so he just doesn't "take care" that they are faithfully enforced. That's impeachable, legitimately, even if you don't like those laws.
He's also having the BATF attack the 2nd amendment, and of course you don't mind that, but the Republicans could base an impeachment off that, too.
Mind, I predict they won't, you didn't notice that?
Harris? Can't think of anything impeachable she's done, aside from being an embarrassment.
By these standards, Trump should have been impeached about 700 times instead of just the 2.
Pulling numbers out of your gay ass doesn't make them more valid.
What impeachable offenses did they commit?
Whatever the GOP decides it to be, if that's the path they choose to pursue.
Tony is allergic to the concept of "precedent."
The issue isn't that they haven't actually done an impeachable thing, it's that the MSM won't carry the water for claims that they did. The first impeachment of Donny Jingles (hat tip to Penn Jillette) was based on the idea that he obstructed the investigation of something that was fabricated almost from whole cloth (since we now know that the real source of much of the "Steele Dossier" was actually a PR operator who was on the DNC payroll at the time), and the second one was based on the idea of some kind of "incitement" which no Federal Prosecutor would have ever sought an indictment over, which is really saying something considering how easily the Feds can get an indictment.
There's no need to impeach Biden, he's an easy target for 25A Section 4 removal. For Harris, it's not immediately clear to the public, but as they say a motivated prosecutor could come up with grounds for a felony indictment on pretty much any adult citizen of the USA; the only real defense is to stay off their radar altogether.
Trump endorsed Dr. Oz in Penna. so Oz should win the primary.
Then, registered Republicans will probably hold their nose and vote Oz in the general. But Dems hold a 1 million vote registration lead and Oz's association with Trump - once Trump's obnoxious self was further revealed beginning in 2017 - is likely to be the kiss of death for the GOP's hopes of holding Toomey's seat.
1M D over R in PA? If you count the Dead and Infirm, maybe 250k. PA has had the largest D->R registration shift in the nation. Philly lockdown isn't going to help. And except for Philly, the rest of the state is hugely sensitive to gas prices, since we have one of the highest taxes in the nation.
My mistake - the d/r gap was only 600K in Nov. 2021 with 1.3million additional independents and Libertarians. Dem candidate for Senate will probably be young and relatively unknown Cong. Connor Lamb and not the socialist Lt. Gov. Fetterman. Whether Oz' notoriety can overcome TDS is the question.
Oz is a shitty endorsement, but it's sad your focus is still on your own resentment.
Revealed preferences are a bitch.
I’m scratching my head over that one too.
trump's picks haven't necessarily been doing well in GOP primaries in the last couple cycles. Oz might have an edge in a crowded field, where 20% might be enough to hold the lead, but he'd maybe have that edge anyway just on name recognition.
“Grievance politics…” Lol.
When did the GOP co opt the tactics of the left? Identity politics, income inequality, global warming, the many phobias (trans, xeno, etc) don’t count as grievance politics?
It’s true that the masters seldom get their due.
Isn't all politics grievance politics?
No. But thanks for another stupid comment.
I guess there could be someone who wants to change nothing about the world and is perfectly content.
For Democrats, principles are like fashion. Change every season.
"Thankfully, one of the fundamental virtues of the American democratic system is that legislative majorities are not all-powerful. Minorities in Congress rarely get what they want, but they can slow or stop the majority from simply ramming through whatever agenda it wants."
Wasn't it just last year that Reason was spouting Dem non-sense about how the filibuster was anti-democratic and would be the end of our democracy? (Never mind that we are not a democracy, but a Republic.)
And, we get a constant helping of non-progressive resistance to the government = radical, far right wing terrorism. (Those pesky parents thinking they deserve input and transparency into their children's education. They're just extremist right wing terrorists! Sick the FBI on them! Don't look at the actual siege being laid on Portland for months on end...)
Now suddenly that the Dems are likely to be the minority again, Boehm is cheer-leading their upcoming resistance to the GOP authoritarianism? Boehm, are you fucking serious? Your far left ideology is showing. Please stop pretending to be a Libertarian.
I recently heard of an experiment where some FOX News addicts watched only CNN for a month.
Their political priorities completely shifted in that month. Obviously they stopped caring so much about trans sports students and more about foreign policy. What's interesting is that the deprogramming was so easy.
Your problem can be solved with a room, a Murdoch, and a gun.
Remember, Tony is a peaceful person who never calls for violence.
Until his party is set for a midterm shellacking as a result of their wildly unpopular totalitarian bullshit, and then the fangs come out.
It was a simple statement of fact. Also a commentary on the capriciousness of power. Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are ruining societies by the dozens. Propaganda wouldn't be a thing if it weren't effective.
The pragmatic solution is for FOX News to fall into a sinkhole. The employees can go get other jobs, but if they were all buried in the earth's crust, it wouldn't even be the body count they insist schoolchildren in school regularly experience in the name of freedom, so...
It's funny how broken he's become. Just a false narrative spewing Anti-Fox News tribalist.
He used to have interesting arguments. Now it's just invective, hyperbole, and straight intellectually-dishonest political propaganda.
It’s been posited that someone new took over the Tony account at the fifty cent factory.
Personally my guess is a stroke.
It has to be someone else. The Tony of old was much better at actually making an argument, whereas this current Tony is just a bizarre, hyperbole and propaganda spouting moron.
If FOX News were hit by a meteorite the size of a, say, volleyball, with sufficient speed, literally every problem this country is facing would be made immeasurably better.
All of political media is either FOX News or other outlets responding to their latest moral panic du jour. And dutifully y'all come here and repeat their lies verbatim as if your brains were connected to your TVs and Facebooks with a flesh cord.
This world has real problems, and Republicans are addressing only the fantasies dreamed up by Steve Bannon and other assorted alcoholic bigots and grifters.
If every white liberal got the Full Rosenbaum, literally every problem this country is facing would be made immeasurably better.
You’re like malignant tumor. You and your fellow travelers are largely responsible for the world’s problems. This is why Marxists should be cleansed.
Always entertaining to watch a rabid tribalist get angry at others for acting tribal.
You know what would make the world immeasurably better, people actually engaging in self-awareness and self-respect and ditching tired and intellectually dishonest anger and hyperbole.
Lol. Shifting the focus from “trans sports students” to foreign policy is not something you want, tony.
I want facts, and it would be even better to have a news ecosystem that not only presented facts but a generally fair and honest calibration of context.
How do you rank the problems in the world? I think climate change is no. 1. That's not just my media diet, but it largely is. All the scientists and science reporters could be lying. It's a nonzero possibilities.
Some people think one instance of a trans girl winning one match is a much bigger problem than climate change. The issue to which the entire nation must devote its time and energy.
Republicans are experts at moral relativism, after all.
Climate change? That's funny. I didn't take you for a religious man.
It's a bit late in the day to be a denier. You need to graduate to "Sure, my team impeded progress every stem of the way for decades, but you're a shithead because you didn't build a bunch of nuclear plants, so you're the bad one really!"
Then maybe before you'll die you'll have the science education of a 5th grader.
Bitch, you still think the term "Great American Desert" is a euphemism for "Eden-like garden spot."
from Dune:
fear is the mind-killer...
In this case - your fear of the climate change prophecies.
Modern Dems:
"We need lithium strip mines to save the planet!"
"Electric vehicles don't pollute and their energy is clean!"
"We have the infrastructure for this!"
Oh the use of the term "denier." Just like a good little religious adherent.
How about you explain to me the magic energy that you want to use in order to save us from your religious apocalypse?
“I recently heard of an experiment where some FOX News addicts watched only CNN for a month.”
Cite?
You missed the part where one of the coauthors of that study told Brian Stelter that CNN is just as biased.
Sure, everyone has a bias. What counts as the most important news stories of the day is a choice, not an easy one most of the time, and made with incentives ranging from profit motive to ideology.
The key difference between CNN and FOX is not necessarily that one has the "correct" judgment on what the important stories are (I'm sure the gender of Mr. Potato Head is the most important thing to someone). The key difference is that CNN is confined by the bounds of facts and FOX News lies all day every day.
Bullshit, total bullshit. CNN went all in for every negative story about Trump, regardless of whether it had any factual basis. Russian collusion, fabricated quotes from anonymous sources, claiming he'd asked the Russians to hack an email server that Clinton had wiped clean, and was sitting unplugged in an FBI forensics lab.
And most of the stories you're unhappy about FOX covering were perfectly factual. You're just unhappy anybody covered them.
You just have to turn it off for 30 days. You'll be embarrassed by the crap you fell for, you'll feel stupid, you'll regret all the relationships you destroyed, but you'll be free.
I'd have to turn Fox on first, to turn them off. I was an early cord cutter, I don't have cable TV, our TV is strictly used as a dumb monitor for streaming movies and my son playing his Xbox.
Given being exposed to it in airports and medical waiting rooms, I've watched considerably more CNN than Fox. In fact, I really enjoyed their election night coverage back in 2016. That was some entertaining TV!
Fox is far more accurate. CNN has gotten almost everything wrong. By design.
Question, do you actually believe these lies you tell, or are you aware they are lies but your need to "own" the other political tribe is just more important than honesty?
I'm not the one lying. Maybe one day you'll figure that out, maybe not. It's 100% purely a matter of how intelligent you are.
Hey, Tony, did a black hole take an airplane?
Is it really illegal to read the Wikileaks information?
Funny thing about that researcher. He thinks CNN is no better, it's just biased in favor of Democrats instead of Republicans.
"In an exchange during Sunday’s Reliable Sources, Yale assistant professor Joshua Kalla — who recently conducted a study which paid Fox News viewers to watch CNN — argued that Fox News is not the only network engaging in what he and his study’s co-author call “partisan coverage filtering.”
“Basically, you’re proving what we’ve sensed for a while,” Stelter told Kalla. “Which is, Fox viewers are in the dark about bad news for the GOP.”
“That’s right,” Kalla said, concurring. “Fox and CNN cover different issues, and Fox News predominantly covers issues that make the GOP look good, and make Democrats look bad.”
To that point, it was the type of commentary which could be heard on Reliable Sources just about each and every week. But then, Kalla went off book.
“On the flip side, CNN engages in this partisan coverage filtering as well,” the Yale researcher said.
Kalla cited the network’s coverage — or lack thereof — on the Abraham Accords, the peace agreements between the Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
“Fox News covered this really major accomplishment about 15 times more than CNN did,” Kalla said. “We saw how much both networks are encouraging in this partisan coverage filtering. It’s not about one side, it’s about the media writ large.”
Stelter appeared to take umbrage with the slight towards CNN.
“I think you’re engaging in some both sides-ism there, Josh,” Stelter said.
“Not trying to lay out a moral equivalency,” Kalla replied. “It’s not about what an objective standard is. It’s really about how all networks do engage in this. And in order for viewers to get a realistic picture of the world, we need viewers to see all types of information. And unfortunately what we find in the study is that the viewers don’t want to engage in watching all sides.”"
So they demonstrated the power of propaganda? I bet the experiment works the same way in the other direction, too, given the power of propaganda. No one should watch Fox or CNN or MSNBC. When I watch TV news, I tend to watch BBC-America, for the quasi-outside-looking in POV.
Republicans have a 2022 platform that includes raising taxes on the poor, more protection for abusive cops, violation the 1A, and eliminating SS and Medicare. And that is what they put in writing. The Ds could cream them if they run the right attack ads.
That's mostly Democrats, actually... Politically dyslexic?
I actually did see a study back in the oughts that said Democrats tended to attribute to the GOP any Democratic party positions they didn't like, and assume any GOP positions they did like were actually Democratic.
Just ask any college student.
Lol. Don’t worry molly. “Raising taxes on the poor” from zero won’t do nearly as much damage as inflation.
Let’s go Brandon!
Tell me you don't understand US politics without telling me you don't understand US politics.
If 'they' put it in writing, you would have provided links. Since you are known to be dishonest, and are trotting out the latest shilling points, you don't. Any more lies to tell?
More lies and distortions from a lying Marxist shitweasel.
I'm still against doing away with the filibuster. I would prefer a strong majority agree to any legislation. That being said, I would love for the GOP to talk about doing it and watch the theater as both sides switch their position.
The idea that a party fully in the grips of genocidal fascism would be stymied by the filibuster is absurd. Sen. Sinema might be stupid enough to believe that Republicans look to Democrats as role models when deciding how far they're willing to go on legislative maneuvers, but I think she's just a corporate puppet protecting tax cuts.
It takes 51 senators to kill the filibuster. If Republicans have 59 seats and are still hopped up on trans panic Tucker juice, they will kill the filibuster before they even sit down. They already stole the presidency twice and practically countless supreme court seats. They have no moral principles. They are fascists. Fudging the rules is what they do, to say the least.
Well, it's held Dems somewhat at bay so far, which is worth a Manchin at the Sinema.
I love this shade of desperate you've got going, Tony. It really brings out the bullshit in your eyes.
My position couldn't be clearer or more frequently stated. I don't care how the government looks as long as Republicans are never allowed to have power over it again.
Democrats could cheat at elections, for all I care. They're going to accuse us of it anywhere.
“Genocidal fascism…”
You are brainwashed by grievance tony. Turn off CNN.
CNN is ratings-chasing war porn at the moment. I haven't watched it regularly in decades.
You can use all the well-honed "family values" euphemisms you want, but the upshot of all this FOX-driven Republican moral hysteria is they want to erase trans people from existence. Or else you explain what it is.
It is funny how completely unhinged you've become.
We do have a bunch of Trump cultists passing laws banning books, punishing corporations for wrongthink, assaulting the basic rights of the most vulnerable people in society, and forcing women to be birthing cattle.
I'd say you're not worrying enough, but my understanding is that you support all that stuff?
You really went off the deep end without a snorkel, huh?
That's Dems, buddy. Especially the wrongthink parts.
That's all things Democrats are doing.
Note sure who's supposed to be doing that.
Yet that's all hyperbole and gaslighting. When was it that you actually lost your mind?
Advocating the treatment of gender dysphoria as a symptom of mental illness (which it clearly is by any plain definition of the term, i.e. not the tortured rationale of the latest DSMs) instead of a lifestyle choice to be celebrated and encouraged is totally on par with 50 years of Hutu rhetoric. The logic is unassailable.
"CNN is ratings-chasing war porn at the moment. I haven't watched it regularly in decades."
I'm assuming that's why you think "CNN" and "ratings" should appear in the same sentence. If they're chasing ratings, the ratings are winning the race.
“Democrats could cheat at elections, for all I care.”
Hey, Tony posted something honest.
Only if they could get away with it.
Letting a culture warrior fascist cult take power is contrary to liberal democratic values. Democracy isn't a suicide pact.
"Better get MY fascists in before THEIR fascists. Because fascism is bad. When other people do it."
-Tony
Obviously, "liberal democratic values" died with the election of Obama and Biden.
You mean the ones who actually managed to win the popular vote, unlike every Republican since the early 90s?
So. Much. Dishonest. Bullshit.
You will be accused of it because democrats DO cheat. And you admit that you don’t care. At least you’re being honest. And now you and everyone else here understands why there can be no more democrats. You’ve just proven why you’re an existential threat to Americans.
"If Republicans have 59 seats and are still hopped up on trans panic Tucker juice, they will kill the filibuster before they even sit down."
Probably not happening, unless the current GOP Congressional leadership can be replaced. They find filibusters too convenient for preventing votes on conservative agenda items that would expose RINOs to the Republican primary electorate.
Note that the author of this piece never even considers the possibility that the 'increasingly authoritarian Republicans' might decide to abolish the filibuster themselves by a simple majority vote, as almost the entire mainstream media is on record asserting is the majority's right. Everyone assumes the GOP will play by the rules.
Quick, better give Dems complete control over all government agencies an our lives to protect us against impending Republican fascism!
By our bonds we are free.
"Authoritarian" is yet another word that has become meaningless in the bad orange man era. Boehm is a Biden voting sheep. The democrats are the party exercising authoritarian tendencies.
Yeah, that was my point. The media derides the Republicans as authoritarian fascists who want to seize power and rule over a thousand-year Reich or some bullshit like that, and yet everyone operates under the assumption that a Republican majority wouldn't abolish the filibuster unless the Democrats did it first.
Does Boehm break ENB's Yglesias streak?
The statistical analysis is b.s. It's intended to strike fear into Democrats and make Republicans complacent.
Democrats are likely going to lose the House and the Senate. Republicans may win the presidency as well. A filibuster proof Republican majority is very unlikely. Even if it happened, it wouldn't make any difference because many of the Republicans would come from purple districts, and many other Republicans are people like Romney.
Following the link, it's not so much that the modal outcome predicted Trump winning with a minority of the vote, as much as that it had him winning, and they only looked at scenarios where he won a minority of the vote.
With Republicans currently leading the generic vote 44.7% to 42.5%, and Biden being a tiny polling error away from being less popular than Trump, unless something changes drastically, it would be quite realistic for Trump to win the Presidency with majority of the vote.
As I was saying: the statistical analysis is b.s.
Wait I thought the filibuster was all about white supremacy?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/3/25/22348308/filibuster-racism-jim-crow-mitch-mcconnell
But maybe not whenever Democrats want to use it...since 1964?
Democrats are the party of white supremacy: they invented it, they kept running on it, and it's still at the core of their ideology.
Everything is about white supremacy don't you know? Look at the wave of white supremacy violence. I know it appears blacks commit an extraordinary amount of crime but whenever they do its because of white supremacy.
No, they’re just the black face of white sumpremacy.
Republicans will need at least 65 seats in the Senate to make it filibuster-proof. Squishy RINOs like Romney, et al will vote with the other side at critical moments.
Rs won't use the weapon even if they have it. They like shaking their fist at the sky.
I never took democrats seriously when they bitched about the filibuster's existence. It comes from paying attention for too long.
Is there anyone naive enough to believe that the Party of Satan DBA the Democrat party would be howling to eliminate the filibuster (because, democracy) if the senate was 50-50 with a Stupid Party VP tie breaking vote?
The filibuster is no hill to die on. It's an accidental policy. So one can take one side or the other depending on which is politically expedient. I for one like politicians who practice a little expediency.
“…an increasingly authoritarian Republican Party”? What the bloody hell are you talking about? There’s NOBODY more authoritarian in American history than today’s Democrat Party. They’re full-blown COMMUNISTS! They want unlimited Government power and total Government control over literally every aspect of our lives. Republicans, with a few exceptions, mainly want to leave people alone. What bizarro world are you living in?
My goodness, talk about Fox News living rent free in Tony's head, just about every other post is of him bitching about FNN, the guy is totally obsessed!
From the advent of TV news in the early 50's the left had it all their way until Reagan and congress did away with so called "Fairness Doctrine" and when FNN goes on the air in the mid 90's the left loses its mind. The only free speech the left want's is their own. Maybe when Elon gets a hold of Twitter he can start setting things right for 1A absolutists but the cuntocracy of the left stream media is already calling him a racist, the only tool they have in their shed. It's fucking ponderous
But FOX News is lying to you. You won't know that if you're one of its addicts.
All it takes is a mature approach to information. Consult reputable sources the world over. See if there is some rough agreement. If, as is normally the case, all of the reputable newspapers and networks are talking about Thing A, and FOX News is talking about the gender of Mr. Potato Head, then Thing A is news and the gender of Mr. Potato Head is FOX News treating you like a sucker who'll buy pillows.