Emerging leader Sen. Chris Van Hollen says he is refusing to fund the government next month until the war is defunded.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 9 hours ago (5 children)

The Republican politicians are already motivated as are their donors. The American people currently, at large, are much more motivated for the Democrats because they’re trusting we will try to implement changes. If we fail to deliver then that’s where Republicans will be motivated to turn up to vote for Republicans and Democrats could be frustrated and not turn up.

The benefit now is the headlines of “X bill passes House and Senate by Democrats in record time and number” for the next two years. Let them have to veto the bills, but passing them does matter to show Democrats are showing up to work everyday for these next two years. If we get even something helpful passed because we got rid of the filibuster it’ll help motivate Democrats to turn out again in record numbers.

We can easily pick up another handful of Senate seats if we’re passing helpful legislation these next two years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 hours ago (4 children)

    Well, we can agree to disagree. I think “X bill failed because these specific senators voted against it” will be much more effective for getting an even larger majority in 2028 than “X bill failed because Trump vetoed”.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 hours ago (3 children)

    Their ‘No’ votes in the House and Senate will still be on record in either case so we can still bring that up come 2028.

    So Trump, the figurehead of the Republicans whether in office or out, can try to field the blame but the rest of the party still looks bad since the ‘No’ votes go on record as well. Especially so if Democrats attempt to overturn any of the vetoes directly as they can point to both Trump and the Republicans in Congress as the hold-up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 hours ago (2 children)

    Sounds like a whole if wishful thinking and all downside. Ending the filibuster now is madness. We can talk in 2029. But now is just dulling your blade before you have the opportunity to use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago* (1 child)

    I disagree that it would be madness especially given Democrats are coming in with such a sizable lead where it could be used. Imo they can use it in 2027 and in 2029.

    Playing it too safe and visibly accomplishing nothing for two years has a real chance of stopping the wave which I think is a valid concern given how 2024 went.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago

    Well, I think it is 100% certain the democrats will not get rid of the filibuster before 2029. So we will see if that works out for them!

    Honestly, I’d be shocked if they did it in 2029 as well. Just because of the massive backfire risk. But I am also hopeful they will have 60 senators and can actually pass things without needing to do that.

  • source
  • parent