So the Senate has left Washington, to head out on the campaign trail for the rest of this month. Before they scarpered off, Republicans tried to pass a few bills that were no more than performative -- they seemed like they were doing something to address a problem, but when you actually examined the details, they really weren't. Democrats denied the Republicans some wins that they doubtlessly would have made a big deal of back home to the voters (but that wouldn't have lived up to the hype).

Two such bills in particular were voted down. The first was a bill that purported to guarantee that consumers wouldn't have to foot the bill for new data centers (by seeing their electricity rates go way up). It was written by Senator Jon Husted of Ohio, who is fighting for his political survival in a race with Sherrod Brown. A key part of Brown's campaign has been slamming Husted for his previous enthusiastic embrace of data center construction. The issue has emerged as the biggest one in the race, in fact, as Brown builds on the rage people across the country have been feeling whenever a data center suddenly appears in their town.

So Husted tried a last-ditch desperation move by introducing a bill (the "Ratepayer Protection Act") that purported to make new data centers pay for upgrades to power plants and the electric grid. The idea is a sensible one -- make the data centers pay for not just the massive amounts of electricity they consume, but also for any new power plants or other infrastructure necessary to deliver that electricity. This would insulate families from seeing their electric bill skyrocket, which would address at least one of the major concerns people have with data center construction near them.

But the bill falls woefully short of guaranteeing that lofty goal. It would merely suggest to state utility regulators that they consider making the data centers pay for all the costs associated with new data center construction. There is no mandate for the states to do so. There is no enforcement mechanism if they decide not to. It is a gentle suggestion that they might want to implement such changes. Democrats, quite rightly, called the bill "toothless."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had this to say about the bill:

At a time when Americans are calling out for real guardrails on AI, Senate Republicans are trying to secure an ineffectual participation trophy before they skip town. Instead of trying to score cheap political points with hollow proposals, Senate Republicans need to work with us to take meaningful action that will actually contain these existential risks.

In other words, let's actually do something about the problem rather than pass meaningless posturing bills designed to help a Republican senator who is in danger of losing his seat over this very issue.

The Senate also rejected a bill that purported to ban stock trading by members of Congress. This bill was introduced by Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, who is also in a tight race (with Independent candidate Dan Osborn). But, like the data center bill, it was more performative than any serious attempt to rein in the practice (which disgusts most voters). It had massive loopholes in it and only applied to certain stock trades, and was nowhere near as strong as a bill Democrats have proposed.

With this bill, the Republicans knew they were going to lose, so they went ahead and tossed in a gigantic poison pill, which would have required voters to show photo identification to vote. This was part of the voter-suppression bill that Donald Trump has been begging Senate Republicans to pass all year, which doesn't even have the support of enough Republicans to bring it to the floor. Attaching this provision to the stock trading bill was a clear sign that Republicans knew it wasn't going to pass.

Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon introduced a much tougher bill, which would have banned not only members of Congress but also the president and vice president from buying, selling, or owning individual stocks. Unlike the bill from Ricketts, this one had some teeth and would have instituted a total ban. Republicans blocked Merkley's bill, showing they are much more concerned with performative nonsense than actually addressing the problem in any meaningful way.

So the Senate went home without passing two bills designed to improve GOP senators' chances of re-election, neither of which would have actually solved either problem. They also failed to pass any bill regulating artificial intelligence, or any other bill addressing any of the pressing problems the country (and the voters) are facing.

Instead, they spent the past few weeks working hard on a bill to regulate college sports. Seriously. That's what the Republican Senate prioritized above all else, as the last big bill they passed before the midterm elections. Which voters are probably not going to be all that impressed with (to say the least).

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant