I think it's crucial, but I also think it's probably impossible. You can't do it through reconciliation (parliamentarian says no); can't do it without 60 votes (50 filibustering Republicans say no); and you can't get rid of the filibuster to do it with 50 (Manchin and Sinema say no). We can't have nice things.

Why can't we bribe Manchin and Sinema to the moon with earmarks? Let's just be totally shameless about it.

From your mouth to Chuck's ears. But I don't have much hope.

Also reading your comment made me realize that I had a dream where I was in the audience as Elizabeth MacDonough was preparing to tell everyone whether or not the $15 minimum wage could be included. It was more game-show-esque than it probably is in real life, with lots of voice over narration and dramatic pauses, but still visually somber as far as wood paneled walls and suits go. Sort of like Judge Judy.

That is about as outlandish as my dreams ever get. Mostly I do not have the kind of surreal dreams that other people's brains generate.

As Democrats move forward with Mr. Biden's economic plan with the budget reconciliation process, it now falls to Ms. MacDonough to enact Mr. Byrd's rule. It is a high-stakes job; in 2001, the parliamentarian at the time, Robert B. Dove, was unceremoniously ousted from his position after Republican leaders took issue with his rulings.

The rule's name lends itself to a number of bird-related puns commonly used to describe the stages of the reconciliation process. There is the "Byrd bath," when senators can lodge objections to items they believe violate the rule, and Ms. MacDonough scrubs and analyzes them to make a judgment. Anything that does not survive the scrutiny is known as a "Byrd dropping," and is removed from the legislation before it can advance.

I think there should be an addition to the Byrd Rule that the Senate parliamentarian has to take the name of a bird.

Is anything they can put through for voting rights going to survive the Supreme Court?

Anyway, the only way to win I see (that is, without continously being one election from disaster) is to get control of state legislatures in swing states.

7: On partisan gerrymandering, isn't Rucho v Commons saying it isn't a court issue, it's a legislative issue, and if they don't like it they should pass a law?

Which carries zero weight with conservative judges who really just mean that it suited them on that day to believe that.

Aren't they saying it's a state legislative issue?

Didn't this whole thing start because parts of the VRA were overruled?

But not overruled for being unconstitutional. Just overruled for having been fixed by the magic of time.

Let's just be totally shameless about it.

Shamelessness is the Republican superpower, and among the Republicans, only a select few have truly mastered it.

I wonder the degree to Manchin and Sinema are motivated by genuine (if fucked up) principle. I wonder the degree to which their political success is genuinely a function of their willingness to straddle the line in the culture wars. And of course, I wonder if there is any hope for humanity. Early signs are not promising ...

The absolute supremacy of Republican State Legislatures over elections coming to a 6-3 Supreme Court Case near you. John Roberts is utterly in on this. Most effective racist in America seals in white supremacist semi-democracy for the rest of my lifetime at least.

Where Did Our Democracy Go.

I don't know if he has done a formal analysis yet, but Dave Wasserman (who is quite good on election numbers stuff) said it was pretty clear to him that if the PA, VA, and NC gerrymandering cases had not led to new districts that the Dems would not have held Congress in 2020 (assuming same votes R v D).

What's up with Stacy Abrams, does anyone know either what she'd like to do or whether she's been offered any responsibility ?

Didn't this whole thing start because parts of the VRA were overruled?

There was ratfuckery before that, but that sped everything up.

And Roberts was on it back in the early 80s in the Reagan administration when it was up for renewal.

Stacy Abrams has always been exceedingly clear about her elected office interests. Plan A is Governor of Georgia then President, Plan B is Vice President then President, there is no Plan C.

If only Jimmy Carter were alive to see it.

13: Sinema has had the history of the filibuster pointed out to her directly several times and is maintaining an original intent stance, so I think her position is cynical/pragmatic.

Manchin is a small c conservative and also a bit of a bigot. I think he's earnest about liking the filibuster.

Shhh if he sees that someone on the internet said something mean about him then more in sorrow than anger he'll have to oppose another minority cabinet nominee.

Not sure how reasonable this is, I'm not an expert, but I'm pinning my hopes on the legal system, not Congress. In addition to the now-old legal case about Trump's tax returns, prosecutions are just getting started for the attempted coup. Impeaching Trump, or invoking that Civil-War-era clause about insurrections, or arduous legislative work at both the federal and state level to maintain the status quo on voting rights and maybe hopefully expand them a tiny bit, wouldn't be as satisfying as getting those fuckers in orange jumpsuits, and might not be as effective for protecting democracy in the long term either.

I don't mean to denigrate the importance of work on voting rights, of course. But it's all a spectator sport for us at the moment, and on the specific question of short to medium term stuff - "First 100 Days", the current Congressional session, etc. - I'm more optimistic about the legal stuff than the legislative stuff.

23: Even if we could lock up and disqualify Trump, and throw in every minion and every Republican who's ever had a direct phone call with him, I'm not sure how that would prevent the tens of thousands of coreligionists at the state level from fucking voting rights and increasing GOP power still more.

If his crimes get bad enough the GOP has to institutionally condemn, and then they split, that would help, but that's a lot of ifs.

I'm kind of wondering what kind of crime would split the GOP?

25: More or fewer ifs than the idea of ramming anything meaningful through Congress?

I don't see how 23 solves anything. The whole game is to depress Democratic turnout in order to win elections. By the skin of our teeth, we have an opportunity to structurally address that, and I would have us spend every dime of political capital on getting the centrists on board.

27: I think there's more of a chance of the latter, if we're less respectful of the legacy of Robert Byrd. Maybe it's just some reforms, not all but enough to hold on in 2022. Something we should be pestering our electeds about!

Not sure how reasonable this is, I'm not an expert, but I'm pinning my hopes on the legal system, not Congress.

It's going to be tough to rely on the legal system when so much of the Judiciary has been captured.

Sinema has had the history of the filibuster pointed out to her directly several times and is maintaining an original intent stance, so I think her position is cynical/pragmatic.

Sinema's ideological profile is very odd. She started out very progressive and has moved significantly to the right over the course of her career, at the same time that Arizona has been steadily moving in the other direction. It's never been very clear what's going on, but pragmatic cynicism is a plausible explanation.

I wonder if anyone's run numbers on how common that is - for US Senators specifically, probably more in need of campaign dollars from the bigs than anyone.

Gillibrand has had a similar trajectory, though with a much smaller magnitude. There could well be a gender component.

33: I have not followed Gillibrand closely, but I had heard her criticized by folks in her old House District for moving to the left on guns once she became a Senator.

I read something somewhere fairly recently saying that women and POCs were generally perceived by voters as significantly further left than their actual positions, meaning that to appeal to centrist voters they had to move substantively further right than a white man would. Ed Markey can go all hog-wild with supporting the Green New Deal because centrist voters trust him to be a sensibly moderate white guy, but the same kind of voters are much touchier about leftist positions from Sinema or Gillibrand.

The penis is the organ of social conservatism.

And pee is stored in the balls.

34: Huh, I haven't followed her closely either so I may be wrong. It would make sense given her trajectory that she's moved left rather than right.

IIRC Gillibrand was the only Senator to vote against (nearly?) every one of Trump's appointees.