i understand it just fine ...

I knew that. :)

I think Democrats don't win filibuster-proof majorities in the senate has little to do with state populations and a lot to do with Democrats' seeming inability to sell their stuff.

You completely understand what I'm talking about!

And, maybe eliminating the filibuster would force Democrats to be better communicators so that voters would understand how Democratic policies would benefit them and the country and how Republican policies would not.

Heck, maybe eliminating the filibuster might even force Republicans to have competitive or even better policies. Heh.

I think I might be convincing myself. Perhaps, someone should send a memo to Biden ... hey, Chris!?

In the long term, the argument for weakening or abolishing the filibuster is that, yes, it would allow each party to actually pass the legislation on which it campaigns for election. And the people could finally find out what that legislation actually feels like.

Over time, if a majority of voters is still allowed to vote (big IF), they will be able to vote for the actual legislation, not for the promises and the BS. Suppose the Dems abolish the filibuster and pass the Biden program. The elements of that program poll incredibly positive in the US electorate, even among Republicans (if you don't tell them the programs are Democratic sponsored).

Now, as you warn, the Republicans manage to retake the Senate, House, and White House. Taking advantage of the lack of a filibuster, they pass regressive legislation to their hearts' contents: outlaw abortion, eliminate taxes on the wealthy, cut off all social safety net programs for the poor and working classes, etc.

Within a few years, are the people more happy with the Republican program? Do they remember the Biden program with regret? Are they open to campaigners who promise to reverse the Republican legislation and restore the Democratic legislation? One suspects they would be - one suspects that, without a filibuster, the Dems would eventually establish another permanent electoral majority, based on actual voter experience with the alternative, for a generation or more. A previous example is the New Deal, where most people remembered the heartless Republican approach to poverty and suffering for thirty years, and voted Democratic because of it.

Now, of course, this doesn't work if, during the Republican control years mentioned above, the Republicans abolish the electoral franchise for all but their own voters, through restrictions based on voter fraud. If you get my drift.

Suggesting that, if the Dems do abolish the filibuster, they should reform the Supreme Court pronto, to prevent the final hijacking of democracy and majority rule when the Repubs get their final, last chance, in 2024 or 2028.

The way to think of that is that we are a republic (or a nation if you please) of "united states", which (surprise!) is WHY we are designated 'The United STATES of America'.

We are not a republic of united 'citizens', but rather of united STATES. Every single state has all the same power in the senate as every other state. Population is of zero consequence in the senate.

That situation is not accidental. The founders established it that way completely by intent.

On the other hand, for stuff that does go into a reconciliation bill, it sure ought to be at least as possible to negotiate one vote from among the dozen least-extreme Republicans, as it is to negotiate one vote from the farthest-right Democrat.

[10]
i understand it just fine, but i'm not the target demographic. most people, of any country but ours especially, are simply not all that bright. who was it that said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the voters...

[11]
CW has actually written on this recently i think - or maybe it was another author. the main reason is that red states have a much lower population on average than blue states, but the same number of senators. so something like 30 percent of the nation's population are represented by something like sixty percent of its senators.

JL

If that can't be done during a Biden administration (or immediately following the Trump years), then it can't be done.

Then see where you are with no filibuster. Or, do y'all think Republicans won't ever take the senate again?

then he needs to do a better job of saying it.

No, you and your fellow citizens need to do a better job of understanding it.

It really ain't that hard.

I'm interested in understanding how ending the filibuster completely would be good for uniting the country.

Oh, I know, of course, the country is divided. It's always been divided. Right. But, never like this.

The United States of America is on its last legs as an influential nation and supposed leader of the free world.

Hardly naive or delusional, Biden understands this very well. Uniting the country is of utmost paramounce if anything of substance is to get done, now or into the future.

Maybe instead of abolishing the filibuster, which is relatively easy to do, how about persuading the American people that Democratic polices are now far and away the best polices to improve their daily lives and proving that confidence in government is not misplaced?

You simply have no chance whatsoever of reaching some semblance of unity if the filibuster is abolished. At, least, I don't see how that happens.

Disunity, which will only get worse without the filibuster, equals chaos ... one government undoing the work of the last with zero confidence in any outcome.

Good luck with that.

Oh, did you hear the part where Biden was talking about the reaction to the US by world leaders at the G7 when Biden said, America is back? I hope everyone heard at this town hall what Biden said about Putin's worldview...

Your references to "crafty Uncle Joe" are always a dead giveaway.

You really have no idea.

I think you're right. Time will tell.

One thing I do know ... Biden knows better what's going on in Congress than Chris will ever know.

And, who thinks this is a good thing?

Well, I guess it is a good thing ... if Republicans never win the senate again. And, good luck with that.

Unfortunately, Democrats don't seem to have much luck in recent times when it comes to seating judges on the Supreme Court. Ahem.

Heh.

nonsense! the turkey is ineligible for pardon, and biden is just demonstrating his corrupt, autocratic agenda by the pretense.

JL

then he needs to do a better job of saying it.

I was shocked at Biden's apparently whole-hearted and misguided endorsement of the continuation of the filibuster as it currently stands. Your analysis is spot-on, especially the insight about how infrastructure is the most inherently bipartisan legislation there is. Joe's pet bipartisan infrastructure bill, even if it passes which sure seems unlikely right now, is the opposite of a marker on the return journey to Republican sanity and workmanlike cooperation.

I guess you are missing here only some credible mind-reading as to what is actually going on in Bidenland. Sure, the good old days, yadda, yadda. But he was Obama's VP, for cripe's sake. He's had a front-row seat for the past two decades to see that the Senate of the good old days is long gone. I wish I could believe that crafty Uncle Joe is playing some key senators like fishes on a long line, but it sure doesn't seem like it after today.