CSNbbs

So I have been mulling an idea over in my head and was curious for some feedback from the folks on here.

As you know, the Senate is currently 48-49 pending the uncalled race in Alaska and the 2 Georgia seats headed to a January 5 runoff. As things currently stand, I think that Republicans are likely to control the Senate, though maybe there is a 20% chance that the Dems can win 2 of these 3 seats.

I don't want to get into why I don't think Senator McConnell's leadership in the Senate is bad for the country, that is not the point of this post. But my suggestion is a possible way to sidestep his leadership.

I think POTUS-elect Biden should approach a small group of senators that have proven themselves to be either more moderate or more independent and ask them to form a separate caucus or to caucus with the democrats. They would then vote with the democrats to elect one of the more moderate/independent Republicans as the senate majority leader. Then the House and White House would need to negotiate primarily with this group of Senators to get substantive legislation passed, rather than Senator McConnell being the funnel through which everything would need to pass.

I'd suggest the following group of Senators as candidates, though my list is certainly non-exclusive: Murkowski, Collins, King, Tester, Sinema, and Romney. Maybe Murkowski as the Senate Majority Leader.

The Dems would give up their 20% (or whatever) chance of controlling the Senate in favor of leadership that would be less obstructionist on things like cabinet nominees, judicial nominees, and structural/voting reform issues. The moderates in both parties would ensure that they have a stronger hand in all negotiations since they can't be whipped in the same way when they are in control. All legislation would need to be fairly moderate to pass, but it would at least ensure more legislation gets brought up for a vote then someone like McConnell would allow.

Remember that some issues that could have achieved 50+ senate votes in the last few years were explicitly kept off the senate floor by McConnell (budgets during the government shutdown in 2019, immigration legislation, some government reform bills, background checks, covid-19 relief bills, etc.). I am not suggesting that Trump would have signed all those bills, but Biden certainly would sign similar legislation, even if it isn't as progressive as he or the party wants.

I'd be perfectly fine with a similar situation even if it looked like the Democrats were likely to take the Senate in 2022. Let the moderates of both parties control the valve for what gets votes, rather than the partisans in either party like McConnell or Schumer. Perhaps a new trend in how the Senate is run could be started in 2020, with the support of POTUS-elect Biden. The time to hammer something out is now before the Georgia runoffs.

I think an added benefit is that it would make the Georgia senate runoffs about which senators will best serve the people of Georgia, rather than making those runoffs about which party will control the Senate. Because either way, the moderates would be controlling the Senate.

Please be pleasantly constructive with your criticisms, life is stressful

No.

Gang of 14

These "bipartisan" arrangements seems to fall apart as soon as one party doesn't need it any longer.

"In the 110th Congress, the Democrats had a 51–49 majority in the Senate, and no longer needed to filibuster nominees. Thus the purpose of the Gang of 14 disappeared."

I'm not fine with giving an inch to what I see as the socialist agenda of the democrats--the GND, confiscatory taxes against the "rich" and corporations (maybe not absolutely confiscatory, but way way confiscatory compared to what is available to them in other countries, including most of Western Europe), attempts to redistribute income and wealth, draconian gun controls, single payer health care. I am not interested in compromising on any of those.

I would favor Bismarck universal private health care, a UBI based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (with current welfare programs farmed out to the states on a voluntary basis), paid for by a national consumption tax (VAT/GST) and lower, flatter, and broader (fewer/no deductions/exclusions) income taxes (like both Bowles-Simpson and Domenici-Rivlin recommended), accelerated development of alternative energy but with conversion dictated by economics rather that arbitrary fiat (Texas gets 1/3 of its electricity from wind on windy days as a result of this approach), a gun license with a training and proficiency requirement and links to the criminal database, and much heaver sentences for use of a gun to commit a crime. But I don't see either party pushing any of those, and therefore don't see how any of those could come out of compromise.

I don't care for Mitch McConnell because he hasn't shown me much leadership. I think a lot of his keeping bills off the floor is because he isn't a strong enough leader to keep his own folks in line on a vote. I despise Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, but they run circles around McConnell and McCarthy when it comes to leadership. I doubt you'd ever see Mitch with the ability to get anything like 100% of his party to vote against a Supreme Court nominee, particularly not one as well qualified as ACB.

I'm not talking about a "Gang of 14" scenario. That (along with other similar gangs) were created to deal with specific issues (avoiding the nuclear option for judicial nominees, bi-partisann immigration, etc.). I am talking about electing someone from the "gang" as the leader of the Senate, which has much more significant consequences.

Basically, this GANG would agree not to support McConnell or Schumer as majority leader, they would only support someone from within their group. Such an arrangement could be implemented any time the Senate was closely divided (say 52-48 or less) to make sure that a partisan leader could not function as a roadblock to legislation or nominees that had otherwise bipartisan majority support.

I can't imagine a rational, thoughtful person thinking a 50-50 senate lead by the Democrats would pass a "socialist agenda". It will be the party of Manchin and Sinema, not the party of Bernie and Warren.

I heard two interesting tidbits. Both conjecture, one interesting for structure, one interesting for ramifications.

This would have never been brought up here, but I was told about this by two people at a post workout coffee, one whom is fairly high up on the Cornyn staff and the other fairly high up in the Cruz staff. But, as I am not going to name them (for obvious reasons) treat it as 'what if' -- even I do.

1) McConnell, if the Senate is majority GOP, will move to 'denuclearize' the Senate and reinstate the filibuster for all aspects of Senate business. This would have a two-fold effect -- a) it is a step away from a polarizing mode, since each party has increasingly moved down the path towards the nuclear midnite. Started with the continued Democratic filibustering of a good number of appellate judges, equalized with the Republicans adopting that same tactic, made a major move down the 'antagonism' path when Dingy Harry ixnayed the filibuster for everything below SCOTUS including Presidential appointments, and the Repubs threw down a king of spades trump card by upping the ixnay to SCOTUS.

In short, the Repubs might lose some edge battles with a filibuster in place, and might lose some votes from the remaining centrist Senators. But overall, the Repubs really dont need the filibuster if they control the Senate under a Biden presidency. A simple majority vote thumbs down would be sufficient to inhibit the most radical of Biden appointments, or force Biden to the 'acting Secy of whatnot' that the Democrats themselves went apeshit over perviously.

It would be a very visible, very positive move in a reduction of the tensions. And, if the Democrats gain control of the Senate at a later point, they would have to remove the filibuster once again as Dingy Harry did -- a move that very much helped the Republicans move into Senate control later on. It would make any re-enablement of the 'no filibuster' a really bad pill for future Democrats to address.

b) McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.

Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Again, rank speculation -- but each is interesting to consider.

(11-09-2020 12:58 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not talking about a "Gang of 14" scenario. That (along with other similar gangs) were created to deal with specific issues (avoiding the nuclear option for judicial nominees, bi-partisann immigration, etc.). I am talking about electing someone from the "gang" as the leader of the Senate, which has much more significant consequences.

Basically, this GANG would agree not to support McConnell or Schumer as majority leader, they would only support someone from within their group. Such an arrangement could be implemented any time the Senate was closely divided (say 52-48 or less) to make sure that a partisan leader could not function as a roadblock to legislation or nominees that had otherwise bipartisan majority support.

I can't imagine a rational, thoughtful person thinking a 50-50 senate lead by the Democrats would pass a "socialist agenda". It will be the party of Manchin and Sinema, not the party of Bernie and Warren.

That same ideal of a 50-50 Senate didnt keep Obamacare from passage. I am not sure if I buy into that.

Also the 50-50 allows the full removal of the filibuster -- something I dont think the Democrats would hesitate to do. I may very well be wrong about that, but I think that is a very definite possibility. The thought of two years running wild with an agenda is something I feel the Democrats would absolutely sacrifice Sinema and Manchin to do -- that is exactly what they did with the then-moderates of their party to pull out Obamacare.

(11-09-2020 12:58 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I can't imagine a rational, thoughtful person thinking a 50-50 senate lead by the Democrats would pass a "socialist agenda". It will be the party of Manchin and Sinema, not the party of Bernie and Warren.

Oh, I think you underestimate the power of partisanship. Schumer got 100% of democrats to oppose ACB, when there was really no justification for doing so except pure partisanship.

It will be the party of Bernie and Warren, and the Manchins and Sinemas of the world will be told to toe the line or else. The danger to Schumer is that one or both might bolt at some point, turning the majority back to republicans.

My bottom line is that I don't trust the b*****ds.

(11-09-2020 12:58 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not talking about a "Gang of 14" scenario. That (along with other similar gangs) were created to deal with specific issues (avoiding the nuclear option for judicial nominees, bi-partisann immigration, etc.). I am talking about electing someone from the "gang" as the leader of the Senate, which has much more significant consequences.
Basically, this GANG would agree not to support McConnell or Schumer as majority leader, they would only support someone from within their group. Such an arrangement could be implemented any time the Senate was closely divided (say 52-48 or less) to make sure that a partisan leader could not function as a roadblock to legislation or nominees that had otherwise bipartisan majority support.

I do find it interesting that you propose this for the senate but offer no corresponding proposal for the HOR, which is almost as evenly divided and which is headed by a speaker who is at least as polarizing as McConnell.

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.

Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.

Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now. But to repeat -- mere speculation.

(11-09-2020 05:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.
Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now.

With Murkowki and Romney, I think Mitch needs more than 51-49. If he gets to 52-48, he can ask them to vote present (which is probably in their best political interests) and be okay. If he gets to 53-47, they can both go rogue and he is okay. Actually, Manchin's maximum political leverage might come if R's lose both Georgia seats. I'm fine with sweetening the pot to get him to go now, but I'd be willing to offer something to get him at any point.

Whatever the odds, I would expect McConnell to screw it up.

(11-09-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.
Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now.

With Murkowki and Romney, I think Mitch needs more than 51-49. If he gets to 52-48, he can ask them to vote present (which is probably in their best political interests) and be okay. If he gets to 53-47, they can both go rogue and he is okay. Actually, Manchin's maximum political leverage might come if R's lose both Georgia seats. I'm fine with sweetening the pot to get him to go now, but I'd be willing to offer something to get him at any point.

Whatever the odds, I would expect McConnell to screw it up.

Manchin says he plans to remain a proud conservative Democrat.

(11-09-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.
Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now.

With Murkowki and Romney, I think Mitch needs more than 51-49. If he gets to 52-48, he can ask them to vote present (which is probably in their best political interests) and be okay. If he gets to 53-47, they can both go rogue and he is okay. Actually, Manchin's maximum political leverage might come if R's lose both Georgia seats. I'm fine with sweetening the pot to get him to go now, but I'd be willing to offer something to get him at any point.

Whatever the odds, I would expect McConnell to screw it up.

Manchin says he plans to remain a proud conservative Democrat.

(11-09-2020 07:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]McConnell has given Manchin a very time limited opportunity to switch parties. The idea is that McConnell can short circuit the Georgia elections. But the nub is that Manchin can only make the move in the next three to seven weeks -- if McConnell wins just one of the Georgia races, McConnell then has what he wants with or without Manchin.
Looking at the recent elections in WV, there is a clear red wave over the state races there. The selling point is Manchin can much more easily keep his seat in the Senate as a moderate Republican with the very heavy bias to the R side that exists in WV currently, versus keeping his seat with a D by his name there.

Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.
Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now.

With Murkowki and Romney, I think Mitch needs more than 51-49. If he gets to 52-48, he can ask them to vote present (which is probably in their best political interests) and be okay. If he gets to 53-47, they can both go rogue and he is okay. Actually, Manchin's maximum political leverage might come if R's lose both Georgia seats. I'm fine with sweetening the pot to get him to go now, but I'd be willing to offer something to get him at any point.

Whatever the odds, I would expect McConnell to screw it up.

Manchin says he plans to remain a proud conservative Democrat.

Scratch that speculation...

(11-09-2020 08:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 07:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-09-2020 05:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting idea. I think McConnell should welcome Manchin at any time. Yes, he can get 51-49 with one Georgia win, but 52-48 leaves more margin for error, and 53-47 if R's win both Georgia elections actually allows a little breathing room if Murkowski and Romney go rogue.
Be interesting to discuss over a beer this weekend.

Manchin's maximum leverage disappears post Georgia with even one Repub win. McConnell knows this, and McConnell can play to it to his advantage right now.

With Murkowki and Romney, I think Mitch needs more than 51-49. If he gets to 52-48, he can ask them to vote present (which is probably in their best political interests) and be okay. If he gets to 53-47, they can both go rogue and he is okay. Actually, Manchin's maximum political leverage might come if R's lose both Georgia seats. I'm fine with sweetening the pot to get him to go now, but I'd be willing to offer something to get him at any point.

Whatever the odds, I would expect McConnell to screw it up.

Manchin says he plans to remain a proud conservative Democrat.

Scratch that speculation...

also says he would not vote to pack the court or the GND and some other key issues, so in effect, 50-50 won't work much of the time for the dems.

Might help to have a voice of reason in the Democrat caucus...

I remember Bush Sr trusting the Democrats.

It did not go well.

As an alternative proposal, why not have each party designate 12 of the other party's Senators as ones whose votes will not count? Each side would designate the most extreme hard liners on the other side, leaving decisions to the moderates in the middle.

The idea sounds good on its face, Lad... but a) it implies that politicians believe that compromise is good... and I believe that lots of them don't at all believe that... and b) as others have said, these sorts of things, the party 'not quite' in full control always supports... and the party 'holding just a sliver of power' would never want. It ALWAYS will favor the party with fewer votes.

The issue is that this 'small group of moderates' is a nebulous term... and I'm sure it would be manipulated.

I think the vastly better solution is for Progressives and Libertarians to not caucus with Democrats and Republicans. You've got people like AOC and others essentially saying that they are not Democrats and they intend to push Biden their way.... because 'they' got him elected.... and had more Democrats listened to them, they would have taken even MORE power. I mean let's be honest... They're going to vote with dems and against reps 99% of the time, but its that 1% that can make the difference. As an example, 'Democrats' are likely going to want to protect Obama's legacy through the ACA. Progressives want M4A. Trump was in favor of single payer. Numbers and I both accept or support a limited form of M4A. It might be easier to get US on board with M4A than some Democrats. Wouldn't THAT be interesting. Similarly, I think you'd find people like the righties on here willing to find common ground on 'sensible' gun laws with Democrats, but not some progressives nor with the far right... You'd find that also with gay marriage, much of the LGBTQ+ agenda and other issues.

I don't know that 'progressives' hold as much power as they think... but if they do, THIS would be how to take advantage of it. They can ALWAYS simply side with the democrats. I can't name any true representatives of those groups or a 'moderate' between dems and progs... but it would be very interesting if Dems nominated Pelosi as speaker and Progs nominated AOC... and they compromised on a more 'progressive friendly' democrat. You might actually have Republicans voting for Pelosi.... and others for the 'progressive friendly'.

(11-10-2020 11:12 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ]The idea sounds good on its face, Lad... but a) it implies that politicians believe that compromise is good... and I believe that lots of them don't at all believe that... and b) as others have said, these sorts of things, the party 'not quite' in full control always supports... and the party 'holding just a sliver of power' would never want. It ALWAYS will favor the party with fewer votes.

The issue is that this 'small group of moderates' is a nebulous term... and I'm sure it would be manipulated.

I think the vastly better solution is for Progressives and Libertarians to not caucus with Democrats and Republicans. You've got people like AOC and others essentially saying that they are not Democrats and they intend to push Biden their way.... because 'they' got him elected.... and had more Democrats listened to them, they would have taken even MORE power. I mean let's be honest... They're going to vote with dems and against reps 99% of the time, but its that 1% that can make the difference. As an example, 'Democrats' are likely going to want to protect Obama's legacy through the ACA. Progressives want M4A. Trump was in favor of single payer. Numbers and I both accept or support a limited form of M4A. It might be easier to get US on board with M4A than some Democrats. Wouldn't THAT be interesting. Similarly, I think you'd find people like the righties on here willing to find common ground on 'sensible' gun laws with Democrats, but not some progressives nor with the far right... You'd find that also with gay marriage, much of the LGBTQ+ agenda and other issues.

I don't know that 'progressives' hold as much power as they think... but if they do, THIS would be how to take advantage of it. They can ALWAYS simply side with the democrats. I can't name any true representatives of those groups or a 'moderate' between dems and progs... but it would be very interesting if Dems nominated Pelosi as speaker and Progs nominated AOC... and they compromised on a more 'progressive friendly' democrat. You might actually have Republicans voting for Pelosi.

Ive not posted in this thread.

Just like Hispanic voters in the 2020 election, the progressives on this board are not a monolith. Haha.