4 ms·

There are 48 Democrat Sentors and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, one of whom has sought the Democratic nomination for President. That’s 50 votes,

There are 48 Democrat Sentors and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, one of whom has sought the Democratic nomination for President. That’s 50 votes, plus the Democratic VP to break any tie. While it might be correct to say the Democrats do not have a majority in the Senate, its not incorrect to say they do control the Senate.

wilde 4y ago
The Democrats control the one spending bill a year subject to the Byrd rule. All other bills require 60 senators.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
In the context of voting for taxpayer funded healthcare, or any other broad population wide benefit program / tax increase, it would be inaccurate to label Manchin and Sinema as Democrats. Same as when Affordable Care Act was being molded, a couple of “Democrat” senators like Leiberman sank any chance a taxpayer funded option. Just like Manchin and Sinema sank Biden’s universal preschool/daycare and paid parental leave proposal last year.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  Eh, both Manchin and Sinema self-identify as democracts, which some argue is all you really need these days. More importantly to me, however, if we rely on actions and not words, they consciously elect to remain members of Democractic party ( as opposed to say.. being Republican, Independent, Green or whatever ). For all practical reporting purposes, they are Democracts. The moment you apply 'but they voted for X', you can cast McConnel as a democract, because he greenlighted new gun deal.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Context matters. The original post I replied to was admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare, specifically with a taxpayer funded option. The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Democrats as a whole for holding back progress in taxpayer funded healthcare, and ignore the 50 Republicans voting against it. This is all ignoring the fact that in the context of taxpayer funded healthcare, you need 60 votes to do anything, so the measure for “control” of the Senate would be 60 votes.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      It is my bad. I did not read down-voted comment closely enough. I do have a problem with casting senate control as 60 votes, but your rationale makes sense now.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Why should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        I think, because, in theory at least[1], simple majority in Senate is all that you should need to pass a bill. To the best of my understanding, 60 is just for being filibuster-proof. Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass. In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is safety. 50+1 is control albeit minimal. [1]https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-pr...
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        I agree with your characterization. I supposed we will see more support of getting rid of filibusters via “nuclear option” as the bipartisanship gets less and less likely.
    - maxwell 4y ago
      > admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Democrats would not be able to bring a vote without 60 votes, or without using the nuclear option to rid the filibuster. Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote. The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senator from Connecticut.
  - 1111567893 4y ago
    > Eh, both Manchin and Sinema self-identify as democracts, which some argue is all you really need these days. When you speak with disdain and sarcasm, no one will listen to what you have to say even when you are right about everything. If you want to change minds, show respect first, clarify the opponent's best argument, and then take it apart calmly piece by piece. If, instead, you want to spread anger and frustration from yourself to those around you, by all means continue with the snide comments.
adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
unless you want to delete the philibuster, that's a long way from the 60 votes you need.
- maxwell 4y ago
  I'm not talking about passing anything, just taking down a vote of who is actually for and against Medicare for All.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1111567893 4y ago
    The problem is, the democrats have done a lot of these symbolic votes, on issues that majorities (55% or more) of the public support. They take down the vote, and the public doesn't notice. Even with public support for their ideas, they are losing the messaging war against the other party. Most voters don't pay attention to candidates' voting records, and barring the unforseen the Republicans appear poised for a major victory in the House, with the senate in play as well. We are in for some bad times ahead.

wilde 4y ago

The Democrats control the one spending bill a year subject to the Byrd rule. All other bills require 60 senators.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

In the context of voting for taxpayer funded healthcare, or any other broad population wide benefit program / tax increase, it would be inaccurate to label Manchin and Sinema as Democrats. Same as when Affordable Care Act was being molded, a couple of “Democrat” senators like Leiberman sank any chance a taxpayer funded option. Just like Manchin and Sinema sank Biden’s universal preschool/daycare and paid parental leave proposal last year.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Eh, both Manchin and Sinema self-identify as democracts, which some argue is all you really need these days. More importantly to me, however, if we rely on actions and not words, they consciously elect to remain members of Democractic party ( as opposed to say.. being Republican, Independent, Green or whatever ). For all practical reporting purposes, they are Democracts. The moment you apply 'but they voted for X', you can cast McConnel as a democract, because he greenlighted new gun deal.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Context matters. The original post I replied to was admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare, specifically with a taxpayer funded option. The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Democrats as a whole for holding back progress in taxpayer funded healthcare, and ignore the 50 Republicans voting against it. This is all ignoring the fact that in the context of taxpayer funded healthcare, you need 60 votes to do anything, so the measure for “control” of the Senate would be 60 votes.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    It is my bad. I did not read down-voted comment closely enough. I do have a problem with casting senate control as 60 votes, but your rationale makes sense now.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Why should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        I think, because, in theory at least[1], simple majority in Senate is all that you should need to pass a bill. To the best of my understanding, 60 is just for being filibuster-proof. Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass. In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is safety. 50+1 is control albeit minimal. [1]https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-pr...
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        I agree with your characterization. I supposed we will see more support of getting rid of filibusters via “nuclear option” as the bipartisanship gets less and less likely.
  - maxwell 4y ago
    > admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      Democrats would not be able to bring a vote without 60 votes, or without using the nuclear option to rid the filibuster. Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote. The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senator from Connecticut.
- 1111567893 4y ago
  > Eh, both Manchin and Sinema self-identify as democracts, which some argue is all you really need these days. When you speak with disdain and sarcasm, no one will listen to what you have to say even when you are right about everything. If you want to change minds, show respect first, clarify the opponent's best argument, and then take it apart calmly piece by piece. If, instead, you want to spread anger and frustration from yourself to those around you, by all means continue with the snide comments.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago

unless you want to delete the philibuster, that's a long way from the 60 votes you need.

maxwell 4y ago
I'm not talking about passing anything, just taking down a vote of who is actually for and against Medicare for All.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 1111567893 4y ago
  The problem is, the democrats have done a lot of these symbolic votes, on issues that majorities (55% or more) of the public support. They take down the vote, and the public doesn't notice. Even with public support for their ideas, they are losing the messaging war against the other party. Most voters don't pay attention to candidates' voting records, and barring the unforseen the Republicans appear poised for a major victory in the House, with the senate in play as well. We are in for some bad times ahead.