Republicans have significant division in their caucus. Look at the chaos they had with electing a House speaker. Most of the Republicans in the House will talk the talk, but ultimately they really don’t want to tear down the entire government. But there’s a quarter of them or so that would eagerly vote for a bill that just shut the Federal government down entirely. There’s some real whackadoos there. Or some people who will simply never vote for a debt limit increase under any circumstance.
And Republicans are looking like they’re going to have a razor thin margin in the House, probably only 4 or 5 seats. History has shown that when the House GOP needs to actually govern, they fail miserably. They also have quite a few histrionics within their ranks who will object to any significant bill just for the sake of getting attention. Inevitably, any significant legislation to come out of the House will require at least a few Democratic votes.
And then in the Senate, there’s the filibuster to worry about. Republicans are loathe to repeal the filibuster; as on balance, it helps Republicans a lot more than it helps Democrats. So any significant legislation beyond basic budgets and court confirmations is going to require the participation of at least a few Democratic Senators.
And this actually does concern me. Democrats suffer from pathological bipartisanship. It is in their DNA to always offer an olive branch, try and be the better person, and seek a compromise. It just takes a few compromising Democrats to see some really terrible legislation passed. If Republicans try to pass anti-trans legislation, they will not be able to do so on their own. In the House, some of the Histrionics Caucus will object to its because it doesn’t go far enough. And they won’t have the 60 votes they need in the Senate. But if a few centrist Democrats decide, “hey, I can compromise on this. I’ll vote for this, but in exchange I’ll ask them to water it down a bit. So we’ll end up taking away fewer civil rights…”
Hey there, sorry for the delay! This has to be one of the best argued responses with which I disagree.
I think you’re right that the republicans have significant division but I think with trump in the actual presidency, they may be a lot less fractured. The freedom caucus wing takes orders from him and the rank and file are terrified of being primaried from their Right flank, as has happened to so many moderate Republicans.
That being said, I fully agree that hey, let them trip over themselves and fail if they don’t have the votes (I think back to Mcain’s infamous thumbs down.) And I’m basically okay denying those votes. I don’t think you need bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.
But, when more than half the country rejected you, I don’t think the right answer is to hold temper tantrums and silly stuff like not doing photo ops around the presidential transition.
simply voting no on literally every single committee hearing, bill, and budget proposal for the next four years.
Doesn’t seem helpful and gives the republicans more ammo than we’d like. It might feel good in the moment but I think the US is in a very dangerous place right now and I’ll put winning back political power over trying to stop government from functioning. (Especially when, holding the trifecta, that makes it easier for hard line Republicans to win over their more moderate colleagues on changing procedure/decorum etc.)
Yes, Dems try too hard to accommodate but I think that’s the result of their coalition which skews heavily to highly educated, high income folks who actually pay attention to the nuances of politics. If we simply become the anti government party part 2, it hurts our coalition without any obvious gains.
Again, I’m not saying they need to compromise on all or even much legislation. But blindly trying to gum up all the works by voting no on every committee hearing etc just doesn’t seem useful. I dunno, whom are you trying to win over with that strategy? Is it a moral victory that somehow encourages more Dem supporters? Does it somehow appeal to the middle who drifted over to trump and apparently don’t agree that he is an existential threat? Is it just trying to limit damage? I just don’t see a convincing win scenario and a reasonable amount of possible downsides (gives republicans ammo, loses independents, some of the Dem coalition etc.)
Republicans have significant division in their caucus. Look at the chaos they had with electing a House speaker. Most of the Republicans in the House will talk the talk, but ultimately they really don’t want to tear down the entire government. But there’s a quarter of them or so that would eagerly vote for a bill that just shut the Federal government down entirely. There’s some real whackadoos there. Or some people who will simply never vote for a debt limit increase under any circumstance.
And Republicans are looking like they’re going to have a razor thin margin in the House, probably only 4 or 5 seats. History has shown that when the House GOP needs to actually govern, they fail miserably. They also have quite a few histrionics within their ranks who will object to any significant bill just for the sake of getting attention. Inevitably, any significant legislation to come out of the House will require at least a few Democratic votes.
And then in the Senate, there’s the filibuster to worry about. Republicans are loathe to repeal the filibuster; as on balance, it helps Republicans a lot more than it helps Democrats. So any significant legislation beyond basic budgets and court confirmations is going to require the participation of at least a few Democratic Senators.
And this actually does concern me. Democrats suffer from pathological bipartisanship. It is in their DNA to always offer an olive branch, try and be the better person, and seek a compromise. It just takes a few compromising Democrats to see some really terrible legislation passed. If Republicans try to pass anti-trans legislation, they will not be able to do so on their own. In the House, some of the Histrionics Caucus will object to its because it doesn’t go far enough. And they won’t have the 60 votes they need in the Senate. But if a few centrist Democrats decide, “hey, I can compromise on this. I’ll vote for this, but in exchange I’ll ask them to water it down a bit. So we’ll end up taking away fewer civil rights…”
Hey there, sorry for the delay! This has to be one of the best argued responses with which I disagree.
I think you’re right that the republicans have significant division but I think with trump in the actual presidency, they may be a lot less fractured. The freedom caucus wing takes orders from him and the rank and file are terrified of being primaried from their Right flank, as has happened to so many moderate Republicans.
That being said, I fully agree that hey, let them trip over themselves and fail if they don’t have the votes (I think back to Mcain’s infamous thumbs down.) And I’m basically okay denying those votes. I don’t think you need bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship.
But, when more than half the country rejected you, I don’t think the right answer is to hold temper tantrums and silly stuff like not doing photo ops around the presidential transition.
Doesn’t seem helpful and gives the republicans more ammo than we’d like. It might feel good in the moment but I think the US is in a very dangerous place right now and I’ll put winning back political power over trying to stop government from functioning. (Especially when, holding the trifecta, that makes it easier for hard line Republicans to win over their more moderate colleagues on changing procedure/decorum etc.)
Yes, Dems try too hard to accommodate but I think that’s the result of their coalition which skews heavily to highly educated, high income folks who actually pay attention to the nuances of politics. If we simply become the anti government party part 2, it hurts our coalition without any obvious gains.
Again, I’m not saying they need to compromise on all or even much legislation. But blindly trying to gum up all the works by voting no on every committee hearing etc just doesn’t seem useful. I dunno, whom are you trying to win over with that strategy? Is it a moral victory that somehow encourages more Dem supporters? Does it somehow appeal to the middle who drifted over to trump and apparently don’t agree that he is an existential threat? Is it just trying to limit damage? I just don’t see a convincing win scenario and a reasonable amount of possible downsides (gives republicans ammo, loses independents, some of the Dem coalition etc.)