Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
2. It's not a choice. It's a fact.
Fri Jan 22, 2021, 10:15 AM
Jan 2021

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.

Use of power is an incredibly complex job, not at all simple. But in simple terms, Hortensis Jan 2021 #1
It's not a choice. It's a fact. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #2
You know, PCIntern Jan 2021 #3
Chuck has no fight and that's been the problem for too long. Hotler Jan 2021 #7
Agree, First 100 days dem's have to strike while the iron is hot.. b/c you KNOW repukes mitch96 Jan 2021 #9
The "kick their ass and show 'em who's boss approach" will make some people feel good StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #12
+1 onenote Jan 2021 #49
I share your frustration. NCDem47 Jan 2021 #11
The Republicans had more than a "scintilla" of power. They had a clear majority StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #13
I'm impatient. It's a flaw. NCDem47 Jan 2021 #15
When the dust settles, the Committees will be evenly split, but tie votes can move to the floor. onenote Jan 2021 #51
PCIntern, the voters DID NOT GIVE US ENOUGH POWER. Just some. Hortensis Jan 2021 #16
Running scared PCIntern Jan 2021 #19
When did we "hold back" when we had 60 votes in the Senate? StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #23
Perhaps I landed in the wrong website today PCIntern Jan 2021 #27
It seems that you may have StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #31
I've been here since 2004 so don't start... PCIntern Jan 2021 #41
You still haven't answered my question StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #42
I did PCIntern Jan 2021 #44
"I distinctly remember" isn't an answer StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #45
Like I would care what you think. PCIntern Jan 2021 #56
I ate some dinner and got to thinking.. PCIntern Jan 2021 #58
People seem to forget that those "60 votes" NYC Liberal Jan 2021 #32
What could have been accomplished in those 7 months .... nt Doremus Jan 2021 #36
Plenty was done in spite of the fact that at least 3 or 4 of NYC Liberal Jan 2021 #39
What do you think could have been accomplished that wasn't accomplished? StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #43
Hence my question StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #37
That's what it seemed to me as well... NYC Liberal Jan 2021 #40
100% agree. Doremus Jan 2021 #34
+1 for the facts. obnoxiousdrunk Jan 2021 #4
And because 1 of our 50 is Joe Manchin MiniMe Jan 2021 #5
Thanks for this sensible explanation. honest.abe Jan 2021 #8
How do you know the Democrats AREN'T "thinking outside of the box" StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #10
Past performance. honest.abe Jan 2021 #20
Past performance proves me right StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #21
Example: McConnel was able to force 3 new SCOTUS justices under Trump... honest.abe Jan 2021 #24
That had nothing to do with Democrats not fighting hard enough StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #25
However, if the situation was the opposite I suspect Democrats would have followed tradition.. honest.abe Jan 2021 #29
We would have followed rules and tradition StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #33
And that is an unsustainable situation. honest.abe Jan 2021 #38
Do you have a suggestion for how to bring about that change? StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #46
No. I am not an expert on Senate rules and regs. honest.abe Jan 2021 #47
It's blip, not a disaster. StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #48
I hope you are right. honest.abe Jan 2021 #52
Right back atcha! StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #53
Well then... Roisin Ni Fiachra Jan 2021 #17
If you're going to demand that "Schumer do his job," you should first educate yourself on what StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #22
Post removed Post removed Jan 2021 #26
StarfishSaver explained this amazingly in post two Polybius Jan 2021 #30
"Wild vice president Harris" Wednesdays Jan 2021 #28
LOL! That's funny! StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #35
I think lots of folks think Schumer can do whatever he wants. Happy Hoosier Jan 2021 #6
There's numerous posts and threads that explain this. Kaleva Jan 2021 #14
StarfishSaver laid it out nicely above. The fundamental problem is we don't have the unity they do. unblock Jan 2021 #18
So, we worked our asses off to win the two GA seats only to "power share" Yavin4 Jan 2021 #50
That's my question, too. If circumstances were reversed, Mitch would tell Chuck Vinca Jan 2021 #54
Not if the Senate was 50-50 and no organizational plan had been agreed to StarfishSaver Jan 2021 #57
Elections matter. Cal Cunningham thought with his wrong head. Bloomberg endorsed Toomey in 2016. liskddksil Jan 2021 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why does Schumer have to ...»Reply #2