• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

Colin Parkinson said:
Considering how long impeachment would take and the pitfalls, I think your 2nd option is much more useful and with better chances of winning the POTUS.
Click to expand...
A variation has been tried before by several Democratic-controlled Houses, in which they send bills to a Republican-controlled Senate where they know the bills won't advance. Then they bleat that Republicans are against whatever fairy tale happy ending story accompanies the bill, and about 5 minutes later social media are awash with the details of whatever poison pills were in the bill to assure failure. In short, it doesn't work, except to excite the Democratic base.

First they'll have to change the filibuster rule, or bills that are just facades won't even reach the president's desk. Changing that rule won't win them any points with most independents, and it won't be something they can hope to durably undo during the lame duck session following the next Senate flip back to Republican control.

If they don't want to eat the damage of changing the rule (and granting Republicans the same power for the future*), they'll have to bring forward bills substantively useful to Republicans, and if that's the case, they probably will have enough votes to override a veto. The gambit sounds like fun, but is somewhere between dangerous to future Democratic electoral prospects and impractical depending on how it's executed.

*Democrats typically have a lot more ambitions for new legislation than Republicans, so undoing the Senate filibuster gives Republicans the advantage (to easily undo whatever Democrats do). Being able to use the filibuster to protect whatever legislation they do get passed during their periods out of full control is critical to Democrats. They'd be cutting their own throats.
 
Brad Sallows said:
A variation has been tried before by several Democratic-controlled Houses, in which they send bills to a Republican-controlled Senate where they know the bills won't advance. Then they bleat that Republicans are against whatever fairy tale happy ending story accompanies the bill, and about 5 minutes later social media are awash with the details of whatever poison pills were in the bill to assure failure. In short, it doesn't work, except to excite the Democratic base.

First they'll have to change the filibuster rule, or bills that are just facades won't even reach the president's desk. Changing that rule won't win them any points with most independents, and it won't be something they can hope to durably undo during the lame duck session following the next Senate flip back to Republican control.

If they don't want to eat the damage of changing the rule (and granting Republicans the same power for the future*), they'll have to bring forward bills substantively useful to Republicans, and if that's the case, they probably will have enough votes to override a veto. The gambit sounds like fun, but is somewhere between dangerous to future Democratic electoral prospects and impractical depending on how it's executed.

*Democrats typically have a lot more ambitions for new legislation than Republicans, so undoing the Senate filibuster gives Republicans the advantage (to easily undo whatever Democrats do). Being able to use the filibuster to protect whatever legislation they do get passed during their periods out of full control is critical to Democrats. They'd be cutting their own throats.
Click to expand...
Except in this version, the bills will likley clear both houses and if they are aimed at something the public want and something else that Trump hates, it may cause him to veto an otherwise popular bill.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Except in this version, the bills will likley clear both houses and if they are aimed at something the public want and something else that Trump hates, it may cause him to veto an otherwise popular bill.
Click to expand...
As long as the Senate filibuster rule remains, there aren't going to be many bills that clear both houses and can't override a presidential veto.

With the filibuster rule in place, a bill that can clear the Senate by definition has at least 60% support. Overall, Democrats are going to have more than half the votes in both chambers; if merely one-third of Republicans join that gets over the two-thirds threshold for an override.

Members know where a bill is going before it ever comes to a vote and the vote simply legitimizes something already negotiated and decided. If the Senate clearly indicates that enough Republicans are joining to get past a filibuster, everyone knows the bill is at least going to clear Congress and that it has close to two-thirds support in the Senate. If Republican members disinclined to support a Democratic bill see that it will nevertheless have enough votes to override a veto, there will be a preference cascade in favour of the bill. I expect most bills that get enough votes to override a veto to get well past two-thirds. It's pointless and self-damaging (except for those House members who represent strongly pro-Trump districts, if such things actually exist) to cast a futile vote against a bill that is popular and can't be stopped. Trump might be stubborn enough to pointlessly veto a bill that is coming to him with over two-thirds support, but it will only impose a slight delay on the inevitable.

I've been enjoying watching some of the framing. People talk and write as if the Republicans are going to have to yield to Democratic demands. Democrats are still going to have to find something to trade, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top