Democrats do not control the Senate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why should Senate control not be considered 60 votes, if that is what is needed to accomplish the legislation in question?

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-pr...

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.

> admonishing Democrats as a bloc for not trying to reform healthcare

Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.

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.

Let's get a vote in the House to see where everyone actually stands. My point is that the Democrat majority seems to be against Medicare for All, and I want to see it in a vote.

It's not really fair to pin Lieberman's opposition to the public option or expanding Medicare as some personal opinion, he had previously supported expanding Medicare until he abruptly... got new orders? Seems like the the $930,000 in bribes he accepted from the health industry could have played a role:

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?c...

And the major force against universal healthcare, since FDR's Second Bill of Rights (right to health), has always been the AMA:

https://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/12/ama_opposition_to_oba...

> 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.

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

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

I'm not talking about passing anything, just taking down a vote of who is actually for and against Medicare for All.

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.

Blame the senator from West Virginia who refused to vote on some of the Dems bills.

Blame Democrats for the college educated urban-dominated coalition they’ve deliberately chosen. I recall some activist types talking a few years ago about whether pro life Dems like Manchin should be kicked out of the party. Though it’s the House not the Senate, Dems just lost a longtime majority-Hispanic seat in south Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-electi.... To give you an idea of the temperature of that room, the Dem candidate had run as “a ‘conservative Democrat’ and ‘pro-life’ Catholic.” National Dems are making a deliberate choice to abandon those Dem voters, just as they did with working class white people in the Midwest. Remember when Dems had 60 Senate seats, including in states like South Dakota? It wasn’t ancient history it was 2008.

Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.

> Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies.

I mean gerrymandering doesn't help but the Democrats aren't one cohesive unit otherwise they'd have no issue doing stuff right now. Sure people claim they only have 50+1 in the senate so they can be filibustered but they can just remove the filibuster with 50+1 and then do w/e they want. Democrats don't achieve their "party position's" because they're not the position that each member of the party has.

The same is true for Republicans. Look at Trump's campaign promises [1] which were often parroted by Republicans in congress but they only major thing they achieved was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [2]. ACA was not repealed because some Republicans voted no. One thing news orgs commonly bring up with Trump is he appointed a bunch of judges but that's just because Republicans changed the filibuster so they could; if RBG retired when Obama told her too or Democrats made the same changes, Obama would have appointed a bunch more judges.

[1]: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?prom... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017

Republicans were never going to get rid of ACA; it’s their plan after all. Republicans were never going to build a wall. These were just talking points. What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power. Republican lawmakers are much more united when it comes to core principles:

1. Thwart Democrats

2. Oppose abortion

3. Tax cuts

4. Cut/freeze non defense spending

1. This is kind of vague but Republicans do vote on Democrat-lead bills [1] which is a pretty poor way of thwarting them.

2. I did forget about mentioning that one. Republicans could have easily restricted it in 2016 if they as a cohesive unit wanted to. They do not. It's much more useful to leave it in the current state where it can constantly be brought up every election cycle as a way to drum up supporters who have no object permanence.

3. You got me here but that's also the thing I listed as their only accomplishment.

4. This one is very bi-partisan. The military has no issue with losing funding and especially wants to optimize funding by doing things such as closing low-utilized bases and moving those staff to other under-utilized bases. However doing so affects congressional districts and their congress representative have no interest in losing jobs (money) for their region. The lack of awareness of defense spending as a jobs program is a big pet peeve of mine :/

> What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power.

5. Sure but Democrats have this issue as well. There have long been calls for things such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc and Democrats and Republicans have long tried to even overturn those efforts even when decided by voters as a ballot measure. Both of them know that allowing this will degrade the "both sides" situation going on as other parties will gain a foothold. However it also leads to situations where voting for your first choice (a 3rd party) in close elections (i.e 2016 [2] vs 2020 [3] and 2000 [4]) can allow your second favorite candidate to lose but Democrats collectively are ok with losing every 3rd presidency (~1/10yr) as long as it doesn't eat into their powerhold (every other elected position).

There really is no reason to argue about the Republicans here. We have a bunch of states such as North AND South Dakota strictly to increase the number of republican senators [5]. Or more recently, in 2000 when Republicans in US Supreme Court overruled Florida's Supreme Court about if a recount should occur [6] (so much for states rights!). SO yes, it's a moot point that Republicans are power hungry and don't care about consistency only power.

[1]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/s... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

> Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people.

Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous.

> Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections.

The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD.

> Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies.

Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that.

Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote.

> The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.

Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools.

The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.

You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote. It absolutely does. Especially in non-Presidential years. There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers.

We do not have proportional representation in the House, and the person with the most votes for President lost in 2000 and in 2016. The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day?

EDIT: The Republican Party has overtly attempted to subvert the political norms of the country and continues to do so. Arguing about this or that policy is meaningless unless the messed up way the Senate and House seats are allocated is fixed. That won’t be addressed anytime soon so the situation is essentially hopeless. Oh, and Manchin sabotaged voting rights legislation.

> You are absolutely wrong in thinking Gerrymandering does not affect Congressional popular vote.

Gerrymandering does not even consistently hurt democrats in the number of House seats. Dems in 2020 won the same number of seats as their share of the Congressional popular vote.

> There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers.

This is the Democrat equivalent of believing the Big Lie.

> The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party.

What’s Biden’s approval rating again?

> Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day?

Because Democrats still claim to be the party of FDR, who stitched together a winning coalition. The electoral system benefited that coalition—when Biden became a Senator, Democrats had 10 percentage points more House seats than their share of the Congressional popular vote. That coalition is still viable. Obamacare was enacted on that coalition. Urban Dems have chosen deliberately to prioritize other things instead.

You are very much wrong in your assessments. Closing hundreds of polling locations absolutely affects voting outcomes and number of voters. That isn’t a big lie. It is a provable fact. There is no point in discussing this topic with someone who refuses to acknowledge indisputable facts.

You are completely wrong on your assessment regarding Gerrymandering. You clearly don’t understand how total national vote total has nothing to do with whether or not Gerrymandering causes one party to have more seats than they otherwise ought to have. Here’s a hint: A Representative from California res presents far more people than the one from North Dakota. Here’s another hint: Heavily Democratic distinct overwhelmingly votes Democrat while three districts with slight majority Republican vote elect Republicans and the overall vote totals are mostly even. Both hints must be used to see why overall vote total means nothing when it comes to determining if Congressional representation is skewed.

You are wildly wrong in your views.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/report-more-tha...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...

https://www.salon.com/2019/09/12/report-reveals-nearly-1700-...

> Closing hundreds of polling locations absolutely affects voting outcomes and number of voters. That isn’t a big lie. It is a provable fact.

It doesn't meaningfully affect turnout in the same way Voter ID doesn't affect turnout: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Both parties are lying about the impacts of voting rules on turnout.

> You clearly don’t understand how total national vote total has nothing to do with whether or not Gerrymandering causes one party to have more seats than they otherwise ought to have.

You're mixing up completely different things. The Congressional popular vote represents the total number of people that voted for each party in House elections. It's an absolute number of votes, irrespective of number of seats. Republicans have won this absolute count more often than not since 1990. For example, in 2016, Republicans won 63,182,073 votes (49.1%) and Democrats won 61,765,832 votes. Also, you can cross check it against the generic Congressional ballot, which is based on polling and isn’t affected by gerrymandering: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls. Republicans are ahead right now. That’s not a “minority party.”

> Here’s a hint: A Representative from California res presents far more people than the one from North Dakota.

It's actually the opposite, though it's a rounding error. California has 53 representatives and 39 million people, or 736,000 people per rep. North Dakota has 1 representative and 760,000 people.

> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/report-more-tha... > https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin... > https://www.salon.com/2019/09/12/report-reveals-nearly-1700-...

These sites are peddlers of election falsehoods, just like Breitbart or Newsmax.

The irony of all this is that progressive election lies are used to disenfranchise minorities within the Democratic Party. Disproportionately white progressives invoke the notion that Democrats have overwhelming popular support but elections are close because of dirty tricks, to boost their own power within the party. That happens at the expense of disproportionately conservative and moderate democrats, who are disproportionately minorities.

Political parties aren’t one big happy family. The truth is that there’s trade offs between the interests of different factions and we should be honest about those. If Obama hadn’t run to the right on social issues in 2008, we wouldn’t have Obamacare today (which cut the number of uninsured Black people by half). That’s the reality of the trade offs between different factions of the party.

Manchin is not doing yeoman's work when he throws hissy fits over his name on a WH press release about something he'd already done (negotiated with Biden)

The Dems might have had 60 seats in name only, but even that was for a few months (Jul 2009 to Jan 2010). More importantly, a couple Democrats like Lieberman do not tow the party line, and frequently vote like Repubs, so I would not say Democrats ever had 60 seats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elec...

> Democrats held at least 57 seats as a result of the election. When the new senators were first sworn in, the balance was 58–41 in favor of the Democrats, with the unresolved election in Minnesota causing that seat to remain vacant. The April 2009 party switch of Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat and the July 2009 resolution of the Minnesota election in favor of Democrat Al Franken increased the Democratic majority to 60–40 (providing the Democrats, including the two Independent senators who caucus with them, a supermajority and thus able to hypothetically over-ride any filibusters). Republicans gained a seat in a January 2010 special election in Massachusetts, thereby making the balance 59–41 before the start of the next election cycle.

They had 60 votes to get Obamacare enacted, which was a historic achievement. Obviously your coalition won’t agree on everything and you have to keep the marginal votes on board. That’s just how politics works. My point is that there is a more potent democratic coalition out there even within the framework of the Senate system. To the contrary, the Senate system long benefited Democrats because it favors working class rural areas over moneyed industries (finance, tech, etc.) concentrated on the coasts.

The country and politics of the nation have shifted. The divide is rural/urban now. The cities have the vast majority of the wealth but not the accompanying representation. The rural areas of the country are overwhelmingly conservative and increasingly white nationalist in sentiment. What the state of things 50 years ago was is no longer relevant.

Approximately nobody is “white nationalist”. Believing nonsense like that is not helping you.

The election of Donald Trump was clearly a white nationalist backlash. This is obvious and it was an enabling event for more extreme elements of white nationalism. One only needs to look at the rhetoric used to see this. Don’t confuse “white nationalist” with “white supremecist” (though the latter is a subset of the former).

The underpinnings of white nationalism have been around for a while but really came to the fore in 2016. The desire to keep “our America” and other catch phrases are indicative.

EDIT: Having white, nationalist sentiments or leanings is not necessarily bad or wrong. It’s quite natural for a majority population to have such sentiments when their status as a majority gets threatened. The demographics and gender power structure of the nation is noticeably changing and having a backlash against that change is common.

I'm not talking about passing anything, just putting it to a vote.

Blame bad bills that their own party members vote against…maybe?

did they put the Medicare for all on vote? if not, you can't just assume that if they didn't want more reckless government spending(thank God they stpped at that, the damage is already immense) they also don't want medicare for all.

If you truly think that the Democrats hold controlling majorities in the House and Senate, then you are quite misinformed.