I’m mystified as to why so many Presidential candidates are reticent on this question. The math is clear. If progressive policies depend on 60 votes, they will not become law for decades — if ever.https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1099432067060895745 …
-
-
Better to get Trump to force McConnel to do it than take any potential hit for doing it yourself though. Talking about it makes that possible.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well explain it so that when you get 52 seat majority and can't pass anything people will understand
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
THIS. No need to get tangled up in arguing about it when there are more important issues (that voters care about) to address. Also, it is a moot point if the Dems don't win the Senate and the goal should be to win 60+ seats so it won't matter anyway.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Avoiding taking positions on issues is not a great way run a campaign
-
The filibuster isn't an issue for presidential candidates. It is an issue for senators. Why would presidential candidates argue about a matter that is both difficult for average people to understand and also should be pointed to senatorial candidates? Focus. Focus. Focus.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I suspect it is a real fear of what the Republicans might do with a 50 vote threshold
-
Wolfson’s right. You can, e.g., gut the clean air act or financial regs with 51. They’ll pass all sorts of ill conceived “tort-reform” type stuff, too. Just look at a list of veto bait legis. the GOP house (2011-17) passed but the Senate ignored. The do same for the last Cong.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That’s possible, but in most cases politicians seem to assume voters care more about obscure policy issues than voters actually do, not less.
-
I think it’s more that there’s a risk within the Senate in calling for procedural changes. There’s a cultural capital associated with being an “institutionalist” and it’s a way to stay on good terms with colleagues. I strongly disagree with it, but that seems to be the approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also the decision is in 22 months and not up to the president?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.