• @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    110 months ago

    Give me one reason why Democrats couldn’t pass DC Statehood.

    They need either 60 votes in the Senate, which they don’t have, or 50 votes in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster, which they don’t have.

    Fact of the matter is they don’t have the votes. I suspect you’ll call it controlled opposition and “there’ll always be someone because Democrats don’t actually want it”, but that’s baseless theory. Especially since the last time Dems did have those votes, for a scant 2 months, they put together Obamacare. It even had single payer, but the 60th vote they needed refused to support it unless they took it out.

    You could get 49 ideal leftist socialists elected, but as long as there’s 1 detractor, the party can’t do anything. And it’s silly idealism to think that some mean words will make that single detractor come to your side.

    • @Wiz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      This right here.

      At this point, I think that people asking “Why didn’t Democrats do X and Y” posts are sea-lioning, and not asking in good faith. “I’m just asking questions!”

      And Joe Fucking Yacht-boy Manchin was the best we will ever get from West Virginia - maybe for the rest of our lifetimes.

    • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      They need either 60 votes in the Senate

      Democrats can get rid of that number at the start of any Congressional session. They have deliberately chosen not to do so, because they cling to the idea of bipartisan reforms passing through the upper chamber.

      You could get 49 ideal leftist socialists elected, but as long as there’s 1 detractor

      You offer the detractor the carrot or the stick. Very easy to wipe the vote of a Senator when the next Defense Authorization bill is up for a vote and everyone is talking about which bases to close.

      Bush did not need 60 votes. Trump did not need 60 votes. Reagan sure as hell did not need 60 votes.

      Democrats are lying to themselves if they think 60 is a magic number. They’re lying even harder if they think 49 Socialist Party Senators would not be able to whip support for their policies, given how ably the GOP has skated by with a meager 40.

      • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        110 months ago

        Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind? If that worked, you could just shame Republicans into getting 100-0 votes for everything.

        This is what’s ridiculous to me. You’re cynical and conspiratorial that there will always be controlled opposition, but you also think a bully pulpit and the right words will convince that opposition to support you.

        • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          Do you have any examples of a carrot or stick actually convincing a politician to change their mind?

          The Civil Rights Act was a big one.

            • @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              010 months ago

              I mean, I don’t want to be snide but… there’s an ample backlog of historical material that gets into the details. Just pick up a book. Nick Kotz’s “Judgement Days” offers a deep dive. Chapter 17 of Howard Zinn’s “People’s HIstory” gives you the abbreviated version. There are plenty of others.

              From Johnson’s acerbic legislative style to the economic leverage applied by MLK’s boycotts and the militant organizing of Malcolm X’s radicals, historically intractable politicians were swayed with both the carrot of an enormous new activist constituency and the stick of strikes, shut-downs, and the President literally grabbing and twisting your ballsack because you failed to deliver him the votes.