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.