It looks like the Democrats are going to win control of the Senate at this point. I am pleased, since I prefer democracy to kleptocracy. And democratic principles are important to me.
But what does this mean in practice? Biden is experienced and central enough to be able to act as a unifier. But let’s be honest. The Dems are divided by identity politics. The Republicans are divided too. Some are pretending, really well, to be guilty of sedition. Obama was long under the illusion unity was broadly desired and possible.
What will the Dems do? Will they be able to get stuff through the Senate? Will they be hamstrung by filibusters and division? What happens in two years?
Appointments will pretty much be guaranteed. The Dems will control all the committee chairs so they control the agendas. While divided on some points of policy they can pass pretty much anything they want assuming they can avoid problems with cloture - they need 60 votes for that. But there are ways around that if they’re willing to go that route.
Yes, the Democratic party still has differing opinions on policy issues but they can get done everything they agree on. And if they work together with the House they can get a huge amount done. It’s a pretty big deal.
This article implies agreement might be more difficult if the Senate win means the Democrats cannot manage party expectations. (Not sure if paywalled).
There are 3 big implications if we assume that Republicans don’t compromise on anything and no Senate rules change:
-They can appoint judges, cabinet members etc. with a simple majority.
-They can pass a budget and use reconciliation to offer continued stimulus (although there might be some limits imposed by reconciliation on everything they want to fund) with a simple majority.
-They have more control over the media narrative around legislation and the political news of the day. Democrats controlling committees and the general legislative agenda means they can actually get everyone to talk about healthcare reform, or voting rights, or infrastructure on their terms to some degree. Not to mention they will have control over the Senate’s oversight function. And 41 GOP senators can still filibuster most normal legislation, but whereas with a GOP majority McConnell alone could take the heat for blocking something, this time around they would actually have to get 41 Republicans to all put their names to blocking a popular bill.
Given that we’re in a crisis and Biden is going to have to spend some time filling his cabinet, we probably won’t have a major filibuster fight for the initial run of it. When (knock on wood) setting up the Biden Admin and getting all the vaccine distribution, medical help and economic stimulus is squared away, the GOP is going to be in more of a position to flex their muscles.
There are some things they’re obviously going to block: DC statehood, any healthcare reform, any bill to deal with climate change, etc. There simply isn’t going to be compromise on any of these big issues, so either the Democrats are going to have to nuke the filibuster or accept that these things won’t get passed. There’s also voting rights legislation which I’m not sure about. While it may be wishful thinking on my part, protecting voting rights is so important to the Dems political survival that I think that is a particular case where they would be willing to nuke the filibuster, and the GOP may know this and opt not to block legislation.
in theory, they can use budget reconciliation to pass legislation. if they want to improve the affordable care act (expand subsidies, expand coverage, add a public option, etc) all they have to do is add that to the budget, find a way to make it budget neutral with creative accounting and pass it with 50 votes and Harris as tie breaker.
Yes, a 50-50 Senate means that any individual Senator who wants special treatment can threaten to withhold a vote. That’s not unusual. Even with the margin the Republicans had, a few Senators could do the same and indeed threatened to and succeeded at times.
Therefore Schumer will have to be as effective as McConnell in controlling his colleagues. He might not always be able to do so, but remember that the alternative would have been total opposition to everything all the time, whether bills or nominees or policies.
There’s no comparison. This situation is a million times better.
This. The most powerful prerogative of being Majority Leader is that you get to decide what comes to the floor for a vote, and in what form. So Schumer can ensure that only legislation that all or nearly all his caucus agrees on makes it to the floor, and he can include provisions that are divisive within the Republican caucus to try to peel off votes.
Joe Manchin will command more power than ever before, given that he may be the likeliest Democratic senator to defect to the Republicans on particular issues and Democrats cannot afford a single defection when it’s 50-50.
Anyway, to reply to the OP, the Democrats will not be able to get really progressive stuff done - only relatively centrist/mainstream stuff.
Interesting scenario, though: if for some reason Joe the President has to leave office in the next coupla years, Kamala would become President. Then she is faced with a tied Senate, for which there is no one to serve as tie-breaker. Which means she has to nominate a VP, to be approved by the tied Senate.
Of course with the filibuster Manchin has no power – he’s just one of 50 Senators that still leave Chuck ten shy of cloture. The irony of Manchin’s opposition to eliminating the filibuster is that it would make him ENORMOUSLY powerful as the “must have” vote on any and all legislation.
Presumably, the removal of Trump will return some of the norms to the Senate. Would all 50 Republicans actually vote against a VP nominee? Seems completely unlikely.
I don’t think it’s as much an issue of appointments being guaranteed as it is of appointments being possible. Federal judges are the critical issue. The Republicans have been using the court system as a third branch of Congress; they appoint Republican judges who will enact laws from the bench when the Republicans are out of power in the legislative and executive branches. And part of this strategy has been refusing to appoint judges when a Democratic President is in office.
Sure, the mainstream Republicans aren’t going to follow Trump’s example and call for rioters to attack the capital.
But they will continue to use quieter forms of obstruction that is much more effective in advancing their agenda and doesn’t look as bad on the news. Refusing to confirm a Vice Presidential nomination in order to eliminate the tie breaking vote in the Senate would be exactly the kind of thing they’ll do.
And leave the country without a Vice President? Never mind that doing so puts Nancy Pelosi next in the line of succession, the optics of creating a giant hole in the government will be devastating. McConnell would read the tea leaves and see that while the party is trying to live down an image of being full of anti-democracy idiots, doing a nation-splitting anti-democratic violation of the second-highest office isn’t the brightest move.
Besides, without a VP the 25th Amendment can’t be used. So a lengthy vacancy is an immediate constitutional crisis.
With this double whammy, it is realistic to think that McConnell could hold onto every single one of his 49 colleagues? Even Romney? No, it isn’t.
McConnell will pull every legal dirty trick he can come up with to gain an advantage. This gives him no advantage, only crushing problems and open defiance. He’s Nixon, not Trump.
A vacancy in the Vice Presidency during a tied Senate is unprecedented, and would lead to some difficult questions. Foremost – who’s Majority Leader? Under precedents, the Majority Leader decides what come to the floor and when. But in this instance there is no Majority Leader.
I’d imagine that the President Pro Tempore would effectively decide who would act as Majority Leader by deciding who to recognize. The PPT is elected by the Senate at the start of each term and is by tradition the most senior member of the majority party. That will be Patrick Leahy when the two Georgia Senators are seated.
Yes, but with Leahy in the chair, the senate now has 50 Republicans and only 49 Democrats, at least under Robert’s Rules. I have no idea what the actual senate rules, but it could be dicey.
I see the biggest advantage, aside from getting appointments approved, is that the leader determines what bills are brought up. The Trump tax cuts could be repealed which would be good for various reasons for the ACA. But there are many bills on which a few Republicans can be brought onside. Susan Collins, Liz Murkowski, maybe even Mitt Romney.