I just can't see shutdown-by-filibuster (SBF) working out well for Democrats. Sure, it will rally the troops...until the day Democrats cave, as they must, in which case the troops will be angry at them anyway. It will drive down the party's approval, and although mid-terms aren't until next year, there are Democrats on the ballot NOW. Every one of those will have to take a position on the shutdown, which is something I am sure they don't want to do.
I want resistance, too, but not resistance that does more harm to us than to the enemy.
Is it clear that ending the 60 vote requirement is a bad thing for the Dems. Short-term it clearly is. However, at some point the Dems are going to regain control of the Senate, and without the 60 vote rule they can get a lot done (especially if they also have a majority in the House), and since their policies are far more popular that the GOP's, wouldn't actually enacting some of their really popular stuff lead to longer term dominance by the Dems?
In other words, maybe the Dems best strategy is to dare the GOP to eliminate the filibuster, and hope they are short-sighted enough to take the bait.
There's an argument for that, but the short term really matters - a GOP-only set of spending bills would be considerably different, and worse for Dems, than a negotiated deal. And a full end to the filibuster could produce e.g. a national abortion ban, and who knows how long it would take to repeal it?
Ending the 60-vote requirement would be a good thing, IMO.
I just can't see shutdown-by-filibuster (SBF) working out well for Democrats. Sure, it will rally the troops...until the day Democrats cave, as they must, in which case the troops will be angry at them anyway. It will drive down the party's approval, and although mid-terms aren't until next year, there are Democrats on the ballot NOW. Every one of those will have to take a position on the shutdown, which is something I am sure they don't want to do.
I want resistance, too, but not resistance that does more harm to us than to the enemy.
Is it clear that ending the 60 vote requirement is a bad thing for the Dems. Short-term it clearly is. However, at some point the Dems are going to regain control of the Senate, and without the 60 vote rule they can get a lot done (especially if they also have a majority in the House), and since their policies are far more popular that the GOP's, wouldn't actually enacting some of their really popular stuff lead to longer term dominance by the Dems?
In other words, maybe the Dems best strategy is to dare the GOP to eliminate the filibuster, and hope they are short-sighted enough to take the bait.
There's an argument for that, but the short term really matters - a GOP-only set of spending bills would be considerably different, and worse for Dems, than a negotiated deal. And a full end to the filibuster could produce e.g. a national abortion ban, and who knows how long it would take to repeal it?