Why does Schumer have to "share power" with McTurtle?

[MoonRiver]

[Hortensis]

1. Use of power is an incredibly complex job, not at all simple. But in simple terms,

maybe think of it as someone sharing his candy with others to get cooperation. And the others as causing trouble if they don't get it. We only have a 50+1 to 50 majority, and some of our members go conservative or liberal depending.

[StarfishSaver]

2. It's not a choice. It's a fact.

Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2021, 03:58 PM - Edit history (1)

They already share power. The Senate is divided 50-50 with the VP as the tiebreaker on floor votes. They now have to work out how things will run.

Some people here think Dems should just ram through everything with Kamala as a tiebreaker, but that is extraordinarily unrealistic for several reasons:

1. There's no guarantee that all 50 Democratic senators will vote together on everything.

2. It's completely unworkable for there to be this kind of struggle over every single measure that comes up on a given day - nothing would ever get done.

3. While Vice President Harris will certainly step in on important measures, she can't spend all of her time presiding over the Senate casting tie votes. She has a day job.

4. The 50/50 breakdown does not automatically give Democrats control of committees. Under Senate rules, measures getting a tie vote do not come out of committee. Without any agreement pretty much everything would get stuck in committee on tie votes

5. It doesn't take a majority to screw everything up. McConnell can obstruct till the end of time from the minority. Democrats need to work out rules and processes with him in order to avoid that.

[PCIntern]

3. You know,

Quite frankly I’m tired of this approach. When the Republicans had power Democrats were helpless. When the Dems wield the power they’re still helpless. Yes I get the sharing nonsense necessity, but Schumer should threaten to leak to the press what they really know about the two seditionists in their ranks, as well as some personal info about them which is sure to exist, but is kept quiet due to the “gentlemen’s clause”. I say: screw these treasonous Bastards to the wall. That stunt with SCOTUS alone merits it.

[Hotler]

7. Chuck has no fight and that's been the problem for too long.

Even if we don't have the votes our leaders should still show some junk yard dog bark and growl. Stop trying to caress their feels.

[mitch96]

9. Agree, First 100 days dem's have to strike while the iron is hot.. b/c you KNOW repukes

won't play ball after that. Remember what McTurtle did to Obama.. No "hands across the isle, kumbaya moments"... They flat out tried to screw up every thing he did and assure he was a one term Pres. Thankfully that did not work..
YMMV
m

[StarfishSaver]

12. The "kick their ass and show 'em who's boss approach" will make some people feel good

but won't get any legislation passed in the first 100 days.

But I guess it all depends on what your priorities actually are - get something done or feel like you kicked someone's ass.

[onenote]

49. +1

[NCDem47]

11. I share your frustration.

If the Rs get a scintilla of power, they run us over with it and never look back. At all. And they've proven it over and over again. We are not playing with people who play fair or by the rules.

Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.

Now, somebody show some backbone here and close this deal in the Senate.

[StarfishSaver]

13. The Republicans had more than a "scintilla" of power. They had a clear majority

We don't. This is an entirely different situation. We don't have the numbers to run roughshod over anybody. We DO have the numbers to get things done if we do it right - but the "our way or the highway" approach won't cut it.

[NCDem47]

15. I'm impatient. It's a flaw.

But we were feed a line during the Georgia election that the balance of the Senate hung in the balance and if we won it, the Ds would control Congress and the WH. We won it, but now we are waking up to a revised narrative that its "shared power" in the Senate. I admit, maybe I only chose to hear what I wanted to hear, not understanding the facts (the very thing we accuse the Rs of doing). We've been beaten and abused, but now we are empowered and have hope. I just want something done and not have two more years of stagnation in Congress.

[onenote]

51. When the dust settles, the Committees will be evenly split, but tie votes can move to the floor.

And Schumer will be majority leader and will control the agenda.

I don't know what else people expected would come out of a 50-50 split.

[Hortensis]

16. PCIntern, the voters DID NOT GIVE US ENOUGH POWER. Just some.

So you're tired of it. Big deal. How do you think they feel?

I've already realized I don't have the strength that high-minded politicians must have to put up with the inexcusable behaviors of most of the electorate. Willfully ignorant, hypocritical, ungrateful, lazy, whiny, self-defeating bastards.

To be able to go on fighting, I can only guess they cling to strong belief in their own ideals and thoughts of the people who do give them strength and purpose. And develop the protective hides of rhinoceroses.

[PCIntern]

19. Running scared

We are always running scared. When we had 60 votes in the Senate we held back. Some things never change.

[StarfishSaver]

23. When did we "hold back" when we had 60 votes in the Senate?

Please be specific.

[PCIntern]

27. Perhaps I landed in the wrong website today

I have to check the URL.

[StarfishSaver]

31. It seems that you may have

But why not answer my question - since you made the claim.

You said Democrats "held back" when we had 60 votes in the Senate. It should be a simple matter to explain when we held back?

[PCIntern]

41. I've been here since 2004 so don't start...

When we controlled the Senate, much was made of the need to take the minority wishes into account. Always worried about what the RW will think of us. Well, we found out.

[StarfishSaver]

42. You still haven't answered my question

You claimed we had a filibuster-proof majority but "held back." Yet whenever asked when that was and what happened, you just changing the subject. One might think you can't back up your claim.

[PCIntern]

44. I did

And I’m not really answerable specifically to you, Professor.

I distinctly recall the Dems tiptoeing around and being oh-so-careful about proposed legislation and being warned not to overstep by the media and the Republicans.

[StarfishSaver]

45. "I distinctly remember" isn't an answer

But obviously the best you can do.

Thank you for calling me by my proper title. And now I will treat your non-response the way I would any student as poorly prepared as you are to engage in a discussion.

Pass.

[PCIntern]

56. Like I would care what you think.

[PCIntern]

58. I ate some dinner and got to thinking..

And I thank you for that....

When I was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, I was privileged to consort with faculty who saw fit to demean others as a matter of course. This was a measure of their personal inadequacies. The fact of the matter is, as an observer of politics since 1961, my statement that I distinctly remember some thing is quite valid and applicable here at DU. This is a message board, not a PhD thesis. I am under no obligation, and neither is anyone else, to cite chapter and verse on a message board. Rather, what is more appropriate is to discuss particular impressions, memories, aspects of the civilization which appear to the individual to be factual. If you don’t happen to agree with something, that is your certain right, but the notion that you are the arbiter of requiring citations When things don’t go your way is noxious. Everyone here is entitled to their deep-seated feelings, including those of us who feel the Democrats cave too quickly and too much. I will cite for you The incident when Ed Rendell, less than one week after the election of 2000 stated on the Brinkley show, that as head of the DNC, his opinion was it Al Gore should concede the election immediately. No Republican office holder or advisor would ever make that statement in public. This is quite typical of how Democrats act, when we feel that we want to be bigger then the other side.

I found your commentary to be insightful, I am not questioning the rationale for the dealmaking, I am extremely frustrated however that we are always the ones called upon to compromise and the Republicans come out of the box with right upper cuts aimed squarely at the chin. That is my opinion and I am of course entitled to it and in fact it will be borne out, I am certain, to be a valid concern. As a Party, we rarely play hardball which the other side plays artfully. It is no coincidence that the most effective advertising spots during this election cycle were conceived by former architects of the Republican Party’s candidacies, The Lincoln Project. They know how to hate. We need to learn.

[NYC Liberal]

32. People seem to forget that those "60 votes"

included moderate/conservative-leaning senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landrieu. Any “holding back” happened because of that.

Also, Democrats only had 60 seats for 7 months, from when Franken was seated in July 2009 to when Scott Brown won the special election in February 2010.

[Doremus]

36. What could have been accomplished in those 7 months .... nt

[NYC Liberal]

39. Plenty was done in spite of the fact that at least 3 or 4 of

those 60 senators were moderate conservatives, not progressives.

[StarfishSaver]

43. What do you think could have been accomplished that wasn't accomplished?

Please be specific. No pie-in-the-sky fantasies. What could actually have been put on the table and passed with the Senate makeup that actually existed?

[StarfishSaver]

37. Hence my question

It sounded to me like this was another instance of "I read somewhere on the internet that they had a filibuster-proof majority, so I'm going to accuse them of being whimps because they didn't change the world."

[NYC Liberal]

40. That's what it seemed to me as well...

[Doremus]

34. 100% agree.

Repukes seize power and use it to ram their legislation through regardless of consequences.

Dems get power and immediately kowtow to the chorus of "unity" and "work together." It's BS. Take a page from their book, Dems, and be smart, fearless and most of all firm in wielding the power given to you by the people.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

4. +1 for the facts.

[MiniMe]

5. And because 1 of our 50 is Joe Manchin

He has on occasion been the 51st Republican. Manchin is probably the best we can get from West Virginia.

[honest.abe]

8. Thanks for this sensible explanation.

However, I still think there may be other options to stop McConnell from mucking up everything. Democrats need to be more creative and think out of the box and forget about following past norms. It seems like McConnell is always two steps ahead of us and could care less about following any kind of standard accepted procedures. We need to play hard ball with this guy or we will forever be fighting from behind.

[StarfishSaver]

10. How do you know the Democrats AREN'T "thinking outside of the box"

Why do people assume if Schumer and Pelosi haven't held a press conference to announce their every thought, plan and move, they don't have any?

Just because you don't know exactly what they're doing at this very moment doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

[honest.abe]

20. Past performance.

But I get your point and hope you are right.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Past performance proves me right

The Democrats have done pretty well with the hand they were dealt.

[honest.abe]

24. Example: McConnel was able to force 3 new SCOTUS justices under Trump...

when in fact he should have only gotten one. One should have been Obama's the other should have been Biden's. Not sure if Democrats had any options to stop McConnell on either one but this is a good example of why many of us often feel like our side is getting screwed.

I am hopeful however, just now I saw Schumer is refusing to cooperate with McConnell on the "deal". That's a good start.

[StarfishSaver]

25. That had nothing to do with Democrats not fighting hard enough

That was basic math. There was absolutely nothing the Democrats could do to stop that.

The only way to have prevented that was for Democratic voters not to have constantly called Democrats weak, trash them for years, tamp down enthusiasm and allow Republicans to win the Senate back in 2014.

[honest.abe]

29. However, if the situation was the opposite I suspect Democrats would have followed tradition..

and not stolen those two SCOTUS seats. Not saying we should lower ourselves to McConnell's level but there may be situations where we don't do what is expected.

Just so you know, I am not a Democrat basher.. far from it. I have often defended Democrats much the way you are doing now.

[StarfishSaver]

33. We would have followed rules and tradition

That's what makes us different than Republicans.

We can't complain about Republicans running roughshod over rules and process and insist we need to kick them out and replace them so we can stop them from their abuses, but then, once back in power, behave just like they do.

[honest.abe]

38. And that is an unsustainable situation.

If we continue to do what's "right" and follow tradition and the Republicans do whatever they want regardless of the norms, they will always have the upper hand. I don't advocate becoming just like them but we do need to recognize that this is a serious problem and come up with something to counter what they are doing. Something needs to change or we will continue to lose most of these battles.

[StarfishSaver]

46. Do you have a suggestion for how to bring about that change?

[honest.abe]

47. No. I am not an expert on Senate rules and regs.

However it doesn't take a genius to see the current situation is a disaster for Democrats. Surely the brilliant people in our party must be able to figure something out to stop McConnell from continually running roughshod over us.

[StarfishSaver]

48. It's blip, not a disaster.

It will get worked out and the Democratically-controlled Senate will get a lot done in the next two years.

[honest.abe]

52. I hope you are right.

I like how Schumer is approaching this latest battle with McConnell.

Cheers!

[StarfishSaver]

53. Right back atcha!

If it's any consolation, things usually tend to work pretty well on the hill. We just don't hear about it because things are going along. We only tend to notice things when they're going badly and they get lots of attention - which means often the only time we pay attention is when it is going badly.

Granted, lately lots of things have been going badly, so we've been watching it much more closely than normal.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

17. Well then...

Majority Leader Schumer needs to do his job and get the Republican sympathizers to vote in lockstep with the rest of the Democratic body, like McConnell is always able to get his people in line to vote the way he wants.

Democrats can't do this, exactly why? Because that's just not the way we do things? Well if so then the way we do things has become a fatal exercise for preserving democracy in America.

Damn the torpedoes, end the filbuster, ram the organizing resolution through, nuke Senate tradition and put majorities of Democrats on all committees, start packing every federal court vacancy with young, aggressively liberal justices (like McConnell packed the court with young fascists) and ram through everything on President Biden's agenda in record time.

Republicans have forfeited all rights to any consideration of their wishes and feelings by their silence about, enabling of, and participation in, Trump's attempt to destroy democracy and overthrow our government.

The only way we are going to prevent that from happening again in the near future is to enact as much legislation as we possibly can as fast as we can in order to protect our democracy from another Republican fascist attempt at a coup to establish dictatorship is to render them as powerless as we possibly can as quickly as we can.

Fuck their feelings, they are no longer deserving of any respect or power as public servants after their failed attempt to destroy democracy and establish Trump as dictator for life.

Continual appeasement of Republicans will destroy our country within a decade. The surest and fastest way to repeat the slaughter of 2010 and lose both Houses of Congress in 2022, is to fail to strike while the iron is hot.

[StarfishSaver]

22. If you're going to demand that "Schumer do his job," you should first educate yourself on what

his job is, how it can be and is done - which includes learning about how the Senate works, which you don't seem to understand at all.

[Polybius]

30. StarfishSaver explained this amazingly in post two

There is no choice, they have to power share. While Schumer can reject any deal, a deal still has to be reached.

[Wednesdays]

28. "Wild vice president Harris"

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at your typo!

[StarfishSaver]

35. LOL! That's funny!

Thanks for flagging it.

[Happy Hoosier]

6. I think lots of folks think Schumer can do whatever he wants.

It does not QUITE work that way.

With a 50-50 split, it means he needs EVERY Democrat and both independents, plus VP Harris to get anything done.

He probably does not have the confidence he can do that. Manchin is going to be a thorn in our sides. And Bernie Sanders has said he opposes ending the filibuster, though I think the chairmanship of a committee ought to have some strings attached.

But here we are. IMO, we need to eliminate the filibuster. We could possibly lower the required number to 55 or even 52 votes, but frankly, I expect to do the dramatic action we really need is going to see a lot of 51-50 votes. And we have two years to make it happen.

IMO, if we do not show what we can do in two years, we will lose the Senate, maybe the House, and that's the end of the first term. The clock ticketh.

[Kaleva]

14. There's numerous posts and threads that explain this.

Here is a link to one of many:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214965693

[unblock]

18. StarfishSaver laid it out nicely above. The fundamental problem is we don't have the unity they do.

If democrats had the authoritarian discipline republicans did, then we might be able to control the senate with impunity. But that involves every single democrat agreeing to vote the party line nearly every time no matter how problematic that vote may be in their state.

Republicans have thus act down pat, including Collins feigning "concern" but almost always voting party line in the end. That silly dance and maybe some pork she gets from leadership keeps people like her politically viable.

Manchin can't get away with that too often in West Virginia. We're really lucky to have a democratic senator there, it's a very red state. Plus, keeping democrats in line is, as they say, like trying to herd cats.

If we had the discipline, we could nuke the filibuster for the organizing resolution and and control the senate virtually ignoring republicans. But still, that would force all democratic senators and Harris to stay in washington nearly all the time because we have no margin for error.

So some kind of agreement allows us to operate as a practical majority without that kind of constant challenge.

Yes, it gives some power to mcturtle and yes, he will use it to obstruct. But if we can still get our agenda through, it's a small price to pay.

[Yavin4]

50. So, we worked our asses off to win the two GA seats only to "power share"

And then some on this board wonder why turnout in midterm elections is so poor.

[Vinca]

54. That's my question, too. If circumstances were reversed, Mitch would tell Chuck

to go fuck himself.

[StarfishSaver]

57. Not if the Senate was 50-50 and no organizational plan had been agreed to

[liskddksil]

55. Elections matter. Cal Cunningham thought with his wrong head. Bloomberg endorsed Toomey in 2016.

Gideon and Greenfield couldn't get it done in ME and IA this year, Nelson in FL in 2018. Any one of these would have been the difference maker, but here we are.