Should Democrats who oppose ending the filibuster be primaried?

[friendly_iconoclast]

I say yes- those who want to preserve it simply wish to be kingmakers in a hung Congress.
I feel it's *that* important, even at the possible cost of seats.

Democrats should not conform to the old stereotype of "liberals that are too principled to defend their own interests"

17 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes- preserving the filibuster will help the GOP rule as a minority party
	7 (41%)
	No- Dems need all the seats we can get
	10 (59%)
	Other/unsure- Please give your thoughts on this
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[JI7]

1. Are one of them your senators ?

Who exactly is going to primary them ?

Do the people of that state want them primaried ?

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. No- but their actions affect me, you and everyone else

I doubt that Those Senators Who Shall Not Be Named scruple to refuse out-of-state money, so why
should I (or anyone else, for that matter) refuse to offer it to a as-yet-theoretical primary opponent?

This 'playing both sides against the middle for ego and power' shit needs to stop.

[JI7]

2. Why not focus on WINNING more democratic seats so someone like Manchin

doesn't have as much power .

We wouldn't be in this situation if we had won Montana, North Carolina, and Maine .

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. If the GOP gets their various voting suppression laws enacted, there won't BE any.

The filibuster threatens HR1 and SB1, and if the Pubbies get their way, we'll not see their like again for a generation.

That is more important than an individual senator's ego.

[JI7]

9. Are you from West Virginia ?

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. No. And now, a question for you: Does Manchin refuse out-of-state money?

In any event, what difference does it make?

If Manchin is *that* popular in WV, a primary challenge won't gain any traction.

And if a challenger did make any real headway, it would indicate that Manchin isn't as irreplaceable to
West Virginian Democrats as you would have us believe...

[JI7]

15. Manchin isn't going to lose the Primary to someone to the left of him .

I prefer to focus on beating someone like Ron Johnson and other shitty republicans.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. "I prefer to focus on beating...shitty republicans." Me too, but the GOP wants to stack the deck

And they're working overtime to do so as we speak. Preserving the filibuster serves to help the achieve this.

[Funtatlaguy]

6. Those Maine Biden/Collins ticket splitters really hurt.

[Celerity]

20. We ran a weak, non-native ( a big deal in Maine) candidate, and Collins took Manchin's endorsement

pf her and ran with it to falsely boost her phoney bi-partisan act. Gideon did not move to Maine until the mid noughties, when she as already in her 30's. Collin's campaign tore into her for that as well.

Stephen King would have beaten Collins, a native Mainer, and a legend. We did such a shit job at recruiting in so many states.

Let me just list them quickly (and the ones who refused to run who were our best hope, in some cases only hope, ie TN and KS.

ME (Stephen King)

KS (Sebelius, our only hope and it was an OPEN SEAT)

TN (Tim McGraw, twice (2018 especially, plus 2020) turned down running for OPEN SEATS after promising for years he would run when he was 50. He likely would have won, perhaps somewhat easily in 2018, and had a better shot than who ended up our nominee in 2020).

IA (Vilsack or Axne would have been stronger than Greenfield)

NC (the fool Cunningham with his sexting scandal late in the game killed us, he had a wee bit of lead (and growing) lead before, BUT there were far better candidates before that shit anyway as well, especially Jeff Jackson, who should pick up the 2022 open seat hopefully. Foxx and Stein also could have spared us Cunningham)

AK (we did not even field a Dem candidate, a previous Dem US Senate winner, Begich, refused to run)

then the pre-decided and the 'it didn't matter'

KY (that goose was cooked when Beshear decided to run (at least he won! ) for Governor in 2019. No other candidate would have had a chance against McTreason.)

TX (did not matter, even Beto would have lost to the vermin Cornyn.)


Finally, we shit away over 300 million usd on fantasyland races in SC, KY, TX, and ME (to a point with ME) and thsu we ended with two cash-starved campaigns (MT especially, and IA) who had leads, especially Bullock, but were BURIED by 200 million usd in RW dark money nuclear flame-thrower attack adverts, and neither MT or IA have the cash to counter.

The most egregious was SC, where Harrison took one (that was a huge outlier) poll over a month out that showed him tied with graham, and then ran weeks on non stop adverts using just that poll. It convinced so many (falsely) that he had a shot (many Dem actually thought he was the clear favourite, smdh) when the reality was he was never in the hunt actually. Charlie Cook, a true hack, was all over hyping it up as a toss-up and said he was likely to put to lean Dem. I never put it on my possible list, and when pressed at my uni here by some fellow instructors from the Poli Sci department, said Graham would win by 11 to 12 points. I was off, but not by much, he won by 10.5.


The poor, poor recruiting by Schumer and Cortez Masto really bit us in the ass, and also the poor money distribution. I am just furious at dick-text Cunningham, and then pretty angry with Tim McGraw (especially for 2018! Blue Wave and him as candidate equals NO ultra MAGAtette Blackburn) and also Sebelius (all the KS newspapers said she was the only Dem in last 50 years with a chance, and it was an open seat, grr). Irritated, not furious (I like his novels, lol) with Stephen King. Disappointed that Jeff Jackson did not run (ths no Cunningham scandal), but hopefully he wins in 2022.

[Funtatlaguy]

24. Great post. Cunningham's pecker cost us NC. Sigh.

[Celerity]

29. The Senate is sorta my thing (the House a bit too). I had us winning 52 seats, maybe 53, but

then Cunningham blew up in a cloud of cock texts, I saw Bullock and Greenfield get SHREDDED with those huge money dump attack adverts, and talked to 2 people from Maine (one here in Sweden, a co-worker, she went to Colby College for her undergrad) who said Collins was going to win easily (and explained why). She was so unhappy about King not running, and it has rubbed off on me. She also HATES Manchin for endorsing Collins. She would get banned here in a day if she posted on a Manchin thread, lolol.

I was so pleasantly surprised with GA, but that also frustrated me even more, as IF we had run the best candidates (and helped Bullock and Greenfield with a shedload of cash to fight back) we actually could have had (counting the 2 GA seats) 56 (not convinced Begich would have won AK even if he had ran, and one of those we would have won in 2018, TN with McGraw) seats, and flushed the filibuster EVEN if winning 54 on election night meant we lost the the two GA seats (as a huge reason we had that turnout was to win control of the Senate). At 54 seats, we had the 3 extra to overcome the 3 Dems against ending the filibuster (Manchin, Sinema, Feinstein) and even had one to spare. Hell, we still might have won both GA seats anyway, for that 56 number.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. I had forgotten about Manchin's endorsement of Collins. The support for this hack merely because...

...'he's got a Senate seat in a nearly-tied chamber' completely ignores what's he's doing to the party as a whole.

He's got his, and apparently doesn't give two shits about what he's doing the *rest* of the party (or the nation, for that
matter).

We regularly, and rightfully, dunk on the GOP for kissing Trump's ass while we do the very same thing with Manchin.

[qazplm135]

14. Well yes we would

Montana and North Carolina candidates were pretty darn moderate. At best, we'd be at 49.

I think we are stuck with Manchin in WV, but I don't buy we can't run a solid left of center moderate against Sinema.

Having said that, we have new chances in places like PA for example, which I would think would be one solid vote in our favor. Just need one more and to not lose any.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. "Senator John Fetterman" does have a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

[bottomofthehill]

5. Let's try to win other seats so we don't need them.

Who here thinks a democratic socialist can win in West Virginia and Arizona? I don’t. So we can go back in to the minority and have Mitch calling the shots... sounds like a self inflicted wound to me

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Mitch is *already* calling the shots- SB1 is dead without elimination of the filibuster

[JI7]

10. No, If Mitch was calling the shots we would not even have a chance of passing what we do

right now.

[meadowlander]

8. No. Flip the low hanging fruit and make them irrelevant again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. In your opinion, which Senate seats do you feel are 'low hanging fruit' in '22 and/or '24?

Because I would frankly love to see the filibuster becoming a moot point.

At the current moment, it isn't.

Added on edit: I could see John Fetterman winning one of Pennsylvania's seats.

[meadowlander]

28. Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin.

Ohio and Florida are unlikely but still more likely than a progressive Democrat winning in West Virginia.

We'll get a lot further focusing on keeping Raphael Warnock's seat and picking up 2-3 of the above than we will faffing about trying to get someone better than Joe Manchin out of an electorate that broke for Trump by like 40 points.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. I'd actually prefer Manchin and Sinema retain their seats- but their opposition to voting reform...

...will, at best, result in their retaining their seats as members of a permanent minority party-
or losing them because the GOP suppressed voting- which they are already trying to do in AZ and several other states

[PSPS]

12. Why? The next cycle is 2 years away. By then, the only chance to eliminate it will be gone forever

The GOP obstruction just in this cycle will ruin democrats in the next cycle. After that, unfettered voter suppression and gerrymandering will just accelerate and cement minority rule forever.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. That's exactly what will happen if Manchin and Sinema don't change course on the filibuster

I'd prefer that they would do so by having seen the sweet light of reason- but I could live with them doing
so because of a threat to their seats.

I feel it's *that* important. YMMV

[Crunchy Frog]

19. If we fail to pass voting reform, losing those Senate seats will hardly matter.

We'll be living in a one party authoritarian regime. Permanently.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. To put it bluntly, Manchin and Sinema are obstructing that voting reform

[Crunchy Frog]

23. I know. And if they obstruct it sufficiently, they'll make themselves irrelevant.

To the point where it won't even matter if they lose their seats, or switch sides, or whatever.

We may just need to put everything on the line and go for broke, and see where the chips fall.

[pnwmom]

22. Not unless the aspiring candidate is strong enough to beat the Republican.

For example, it would be stupid to replace Manchin with someone who couldn't beat the Republican, in a state that went for Trump by a huge margin in both 2016 and 2020.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. It won't matter if the GOP rigs the game, and then he'll lose his power as kingmaker...

...even if he retains his seat for the rest of his life.

I will say this, ich kann nicht anders...

Whatever his intentions are, Manchin's current course of action is enabling Republican attempts to emplace
themselves permanently in power.

Maybe all he's after is simply a lifetime seat in the Senate (to be fair, it's a good gig if you can get it)- but the way he's going about it is threatening the Democratic Party and the nation as a whole.

[pnwmom]

32. As long as he's in the Senate, he counts toward the 50 or 51 votes we need

in order to keep a majority in the Senate and in all its committees; and this determines which bills get voted on and which don't.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Except we won't *have* those votes, because the GOP is actively trying to suppress voting:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100215166315

GOP "tidal wave of voter suppression": 253 restrictions in 43 states

Tweet text:
John FitzGerald
@TheTweetOfJohn
"We are about to be hit with a tidal wave of voter suppression legislation by Republican legislatures throughout the country," warned Marc Elias, who fears this may result in a historic "contraction of voting rights like we have not seen in recent memory."

GOP “tidal wave of voter suppression”: 253 restrictions in 43 states
The GOP is using Trump’s “big lie” to push a historic “contraction of voting rights," says Democratic lawyer Marc Elias.
salon.com
2:06 PM · Feb 27, 2021

https://www.salon.com/2021/02/27/republicans-roll-out-tidal-wave-of-voter-suppression-253-restrictive-bills-in-43-states/


And right now, Manchin is helping to enable them.

[pnwmom]

36. Manchin votes with progressives about 60% of the time

according to Progressive Punch. That's far more than even so called "moderate" Republicans.

We far better off with him in that seat, even with his imperfect record, than we would be with any Republican.

[orleans]

27. in a perfect world

sure b/c they would be easily replaceable.
but they're not.
and we've had a long hard look at this fucked up world lately and we know it sure as hell isn't perfect

and while you might be all okay with mcconnell running the senate again, throwing all the dem house bills in the trash, and making biden look like an idiot who can't accomplish a fucking thing while mitchy gets back on his high horse of bullshit--i'm not okay with it. not one little fucking bit

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Moscow Mitch *will* be running the Senate again, and we will be the minority party forever...

...if a couple of egomaniacs derail the For The People Act because they value keeping their seats over what the country needs.

Apparently, selling out the rest of us is okey-dokey so long as you get to keep your nice office and those sweet, sweet
official (and unofficial) perks of office.

[Celerity]

35. Only Feinstein, IF she runs again (and the filibuster is not the only reason). Manchin and

Sinema are pointless to primary, we will lose the seats for sure (especially WV) and Manchin quite likely will lose 4 years (a little less now) from now in the general anyway, especially if Justice runs (Justice, as an actual West Virginian explained on another thread, has now outflanked Manchin on the left AND on the right).

Feinstein is also completely against SCOTUS expansion (and expansion of the lower federal courts too), plus she will be 97 at the end of that next term (98 five months after it ends) if she runs for re-election. The Senate is not a place to try and make it to near 100 years of age in, especially for a Senator that is so out of touch with my home state (on balance, as we do have ratfucker MAGAts in large numbers as well, simply becuase we have 40 million residents) on multiple HUGE issues.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. I forget who said it, but there's a cynical (but accurate) description of the two parties:

"Too many Democrats treat politics like it's a high school's Model UN.
Too many Republicans treat politics as a gang war."

[rampartc]

37. we may need the filibuster sooner than you think .....

are you that sure that we will dtill have a majority in 2023? that a dem semator won't die before then, giving repubs an instant majority?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. I think we can pick up 3 or 4 Senate seats, and retain the House, *if*...

...we stop the GOP from suppressing the vote.

[rampartc]

40. that is a big IF

i wouldn't vote for a repub uf they held a gun on me, but the system is rigged in their favor.

[Celerity]

42. and, ironically, the filibuster is going to stop the new Voter's Rights Act dead in its tracks

I am a pessimist about US politics, but another poster posited something even worse than my prognostication that we will never again see a Democratic POTUS SCOTUS (and perhaps even a lower Federal court) nominee approved by a Rethug-controlled US Senate. They said it is quite likely that a completely Rethug-controlled Congress may never again approve an Electoral College outcome that would elect a Dem POTUS and VPOTUS. I think that the poster might be right, or soon maybe, if not the next time we win. The Rethugs are certainly speeding down the road to that level of outcome.

I put NOTHING past them anymore, nothing.

[rampartc]

43. i am with you, celerity

as a lame duck president trump was able to replace key dod leaders. one of them, miller, reserved for himself, personally, the authority to send the national guard to the capital while others made sure that decision was delayed.

and i put nothing past them.

the supreme court gutted the old voting rights act before trump finished stacking it with federalist society hacks, if i remember that right.

[Celerity]

41. Biden can veto, (and that is only needed if they have the House as well) and historically, the

filibuster mainly crushes us and doesn't really hurt the Rethugs much.


The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215175635