The General US Politics Thread

We actually have more than one play available—another alternative is to get the Voting Rights legislation passed, and that would have just as much if not more of an effect on national elections than making DC a state.

'Course, doing both would be best of all ; )

It seems like several House Republicans who are also scheduled for CPAC have decided to use proxies using the ongoing public emergency excuse.

Unfortunately, we do not. The reason statehood is possible is because it might be able to avoid the filibuster, there's no way for normal legislation to do that.

That will only come into play if we're able to abolish the filibuster.

The best way to do that it to cause political theatre. Democrats have a number of important bills that have been put forwards, once the senate has done the initial business they should pick a bill (I’d go with either the new voting rights act or the minimum wage increase) and make it the only item of senate business, when Republicans say they’re gonna filibuster the response should be “okay, then do it”, not to try for a closure motion and give up when it fail, but to sit in the senate chamber and make the Republicans talk to prevent the chair going “I see no senators wishing to speak, as such we now move to vote on the motion”.

If Democrats can’t pass stuff they need headlines like “Senate enters 12th day of Republican filibuster of minimum wage increase”.

@Fourth: My understanding is that they would have to over-rule the filibuster to make DC a state, and both Manchin and Sen. Michael Bennett of CO have said they wont do that. Do you know differently?

Edited by DeMarquis on Feb 26th 2021 at 6:14:53 AM

I thought so too, but it turns out that if the Senate decided that the filibuster didn't apply it could be passed with a simple majority vote.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2021 at 3:21:00 AM

"If the Senate decided" inspires little hope.

It's not quite so dire, the Senate has previously decided to remove filibusters for specific purposes such as appointing cabinet members. Making it so the filibuster doesn't cover statehood would still let Manchin and co preserve the legislative filibuster.

If nothing else it's more plausible than a general abolishment.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Feb 26th 2021 at 3:22:49 AM

There is a strong precedent that they can do it.

And in today's "I can't believe I'm not making this up" news, it looks like CPAC designed their stage after an SS symbol. As in the literal Nazi logos.

Manchin has said he won’t overrule the legislative filibuster, but the adding of states is actually in the constitution under article 4 rather than article 1 (which covers legislation), the actual addition of a state is done via a simple joint resolution, not by Act of Congress.

So if the senate leadership can convince Manchin and others that the filibuster shouldn’t exist for joint resolutions then that’s that, it’s gone.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 11:41:52 AM

You mean this: "So the Senate could amend its rules to allow new states to be admitted with a simple majority vote, while leaving in place the filibuster for ordinary legislation."

No way Manchin votes in favor—it would eliminate the leverage he has right now as the deciding democratic vote. Right now he is the single most important man in the Senate, one whose every whim must be taken into account even by the President. He wants to keep that leverage, you can count on it.

And I thought Spartan had a poor view of Manchin, you really think he’s secretly opposed to DC statehood? On the grounds that he wants to be the senate swing vote?

That’s a pretty bold claim.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 11:44:48 AM

I am not the only one who has made it. While admittedly I can be "Mr. Cynical" at times, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that Manchin wants to preserve his political leverage, and will oppose any bill that would threaten it.

That link doesn’t assert than Manchin is secretly opposed to democracy if it meant he would loose power, which is what you’re claiming.

You’re claiming that Manchin is as amoral and power hungry as Mitch Mc Connell, that requires some actual evidence beyond “he’s enjoying being influential right now”.

Not necessarily. I'm sure Manchin could justify it to himself with any number of moral arguments. But indirect evidence exists: Manchin is one of four senators who have chosen not to co-sponsor the bill (Sinema is another one). If they were in favor of making DC a state, why the hesitation?

Edited by DeMarquis on Feb 26th 2021 at 6:59:29 AM

I don't think they're for or against. I think they just want pork.

Subtle. Almost as subtle as the golden idol they decided to get for the event.

Only way it could be less subtle is if the seating arrangements has the 14 worlds and "88" plastered over them

This is a great idea, but you would have to use the minimum wage increase, voting rights is an incredibly blue issue with almost no bipartisan suport, republicians really do belive there voter fraud narrative, and so there base wants STRONGER restrictions like ID checks and the like.

Minimum wage though? That spans across the isle at the voter level, and even a pure red state lile flordia (let's be honest it hasnt been swing since 2004) has voted to pass it.

Edited by Imca on Feb 26th 2021 at 4:28:29 AM

Your link literally includes Manchin’s stated position (which is apparently that he has no position), so there’s your reason for him not co-sponsoring the bill.

Him apparently being so lazy that he’s got no position on respecting the right to self-determination is bad, but it’s a believable kind of bad, as opposed to your assertion that he’s got some secret scheme in the works to keep himself as the swing senator.

He’s only the swing senator as long as nobody start opposing what he wants, Sanders can scupper a bill just as easily as Manchin can.

Edited by Silasw on Feb 26th 2021 at 12:25:11 PM

Well, time will tell us who is right. Just don't get your hopes up, is all I'm saying.

Didnt you say he plans to retire soon any way?

Even if he only cares about maintaining his swing vote power, there is no reason not to do it on the way out the door.

Soon is when his term is done. He's still got four years.

I don’t think he’s actually confirmed a 2024 retirement, it’s just expected because he’s talked a fair about how he doesn’t particularly like being in Washington and dealing with political division.

I know right?!

De Marquis I bow to your superior anti-Manchinism.