Ruben Gallego Leads In All Arizona Senate Match-Ups

These charts reflect the results of the Public Policy Polling survey -- done on October 6th and 7th of 522 Arizona voters, with a 4.3 point margin of error. 

Sinema Has Changed - From Progressive To Narcissist

Senator Sinema of Arizona has abandoned the Democratic Party, and now calls herself an Independent. In doing so, she's says she has not changed. That's not really true. She was elected as a progressive, but has governed as a corporate shill. But in one way she has not changed -- she seems to care only about herself.

The following is part of an op-ed on Sinema by Michelle Goldberg in The New York Times:

In the self-congratulatory video that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona made to announce that she was leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent, she didn’t mention any disagreements with her former caucus about issues. Instead, she framed the move as a step toward self-actualization. “Registering as an independent, and showing up to work with the title of independent, is a reflection of who I’ve always been,” she said.

It’s true: This is who she’s always been. The content of Sinema’s politics has changed over time, from Green Party progressivism to pro-corporate centrism. Her approach to elected office as a vehicle for the refinement of the self has not. . . .

Until recently, Sinema has seemed to delight in the power an evenly split Senate gave her, which she used to benefit the financial and pharmaceutical industries. Negotiating the Inflation Reduction Act, she single-handedly stopped Democrats from closing the carried interest loophole, a provision that significantly cuts the tax bills of Wall Street investors. And Sinema insisted on narrowing the part of the law meant to bring down prescription drug prices, earning criticism even from Joe Manchin, the centrist West Virginia Democrat with whom she is frequently aligned.

“One of her deep flaws is that she doesn’t realize our actions have impacts every day on people who need our help,” said Ruben Gallego, a Democratic Arizona congressman who’d been considering a primary campaign against Sinema.

For much of this year, Sinema appeared to be preparing for a future in a Senate run by the Republican Mitch McConnell. In September, at a cozy appearance with McConnell in Kentucky, she said, “As you all know, control changes between the House and the Senate every couple of years. It’s likely to change again in just a few weeks.” She described McConnell as a friend, and he praised her as the “most effective first-term senator” he’d seen in his career.

Had Republicans won the Senate, Sinema could have become an independent who caucused with Republicans, preserving her place in the majority. A red wave might have seemed to vindicate her aggressive centrism, especially if Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat far more loyal to his party, had lost. But Kelly won and Democrats picked up a Senate seat. That meant Sinema could no longer hold the rest of the Democratic caucus hostage, or argue that only Democrats who defy their base are electable in her state. She was about to become a lot less relevant. Now she’s center stage again.

For the immediate future, Sinema’s move is unlikely to have major national political consequences. She has refused to directly say whether she will caucus with the Democrats. Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper, she shrugged off a question about the balance of power in the Senate, saying, “That’s kind of a D.C. thing to worry about.” Her answer was an insult to all the Arizonans who care very much which party controls the Senate, but it was also a deflection. Sinema ruled out caucusing with Republicans and said she intends to keep her committee assignments, which she can do only by aligning with Democrats. However much she values her own uniqueness, there are no parties of one in the Senate.

The real significance of her defection will come in 2024, when she is up for re-election. Had she remained a Democrat, Gallego could have been a strong primary challenger. Many of those who supported Sinema four years ago have been enraged by the way she’s obstructed popular liberal priorities, and a recent AARP poll found that only 37 percent of likely Democratic voters in Arizona had a positive opinion of her.

It will be harder for Democrats to challenge her in a general election, where a three-way race would risk a Republican victory. But Gallego, who said he will decide on running next year, insisted that the threat of Sinema acting as a spoiler won’t shape his decision. “No matter what, I’m not going to base my decision off this false threat that she’s trying to put on,” he said, arguing that she doesn’t have enough support “to put together a coalition that will affect the Democratic nominee.”

That might be too optimistic — Sinema wouldn’t need to get that many swing voters to thwart a Democrat. But he’s right that she doesn’t have a winning coalition herself. In the AARP poll, a decisive majority of voters in every demographic group, including independents, viewed her unfavorably. It’s one thing to be independent on behalf of your voters. It’s another to be independent from them.

Will Sinema Again Kill A Bill That Most Americans Need?

The Inflation Reduction Act, agreed to by 49 Democrats and President Biden, is a bill that Americans need. But it will need 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Harris) to pass the Senate. The lone holdout among Democrats is Krysten Sinema of Arizona. She has refused, at least so far, to say whether she supports the bill or not.

Here is what the editorial board of The Washington Post has to say about this:

Senate Democrats have overcome obstacle after obstacle in their push to pass a reconciliation package, and this week they’re close to the finish. Unless a final something — or someone — stands in their way.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) reportedly wasn’t included in talks between Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) as they hammered out the details of the surprise Inflation Reduction Act announced last week. The deal, nonetheless, is largely in line with the preferences she laid out in past negotiations: from its relatively modest reforms to prescription drug pricing to action on climate to the 15 percent corporate minimum tax rate estimated to raise $313 billion. Indeed, that the legislation neglects broader hikes on the highest-income Americans is itself a form of concession. There is, however, a big exception. The closure of the carried interest loophole has been a boogeyman for Ms. Sinema from the beginning. But it is in the bill before her today — and for good reason.

The carried interest loophole is essentially a way for fund managers to make a lot of money and pay the government very little back because the share of the fund’s profits they receive for their work is taxed at a top rate of just under 24 percent — dramatically less than the 37 percent top rate for ordinary income. This giveaway is so valuable that many have it to thank for the bulk of their fortunes. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Blackstone Inc. Chief Executive Stephen Schwarzman received somewhere around $150 million in carried interest compensation last year; two other executives at the company received close to $92 million and $77 million. There’s simply no excuse for any lawmaker who purports to care about economic justice or equality to oppose eliminating the carried interest loophole.

Yet all the same, Congress — many of whose members benefit from the donations of the deep-pocketed — could allow this scandal to persist, especially if Ms. Sinema demands it. She shouldn’t. Republicans have been making hay in recent days of an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, claiming that the reconciliation would raise rates on those earning less than $400,000 per year, contrary to President Biden’s pledges. This is mostly meaningless. The theory that some of the new 15 percent minimum tax on corporations would be passed on to employees and to shareholders doesn’t change the reality that the bulk of the burden would fall on the richest and the bulk of the benefit would redound to those worse off: whether it comes as help affording medicine or health care or as an investment in slowing global warming.

Ms. Sinema shouldn’t sink this bill, most of whose contents she has indicated in the past that she supports. And she shouldn’t sink it because she opposes closing the carried interest loophole. That provision unambiguously aids those who need help most, at the expense only of those who need it not at all.

Sinema Could Not Win A Democratic Primary Right Now

 

These charts are from a new Data For Progress Poll -- done between January 21st and 24th of a sample of 673 likely Democratic primary voters in Arizona, with a 4 point margin of error.

It shows that Krysten Sinema could not win a Democratic primary if it was held now. She trails her most likely opponent, Ruben Gallego, by a whopping 58 points.

She's not up for re-election until 2024, so she has some time to rehabilitate her image. But if she continues down the path she's currently on (valuing the filibuster over voting rights), she's going to be a one term senator.

Biden Should Put More Pressure On Manchin And Sinema

 

With the Republicans in red states passing dozens of new laws to suppress voting, it was extremely disappointing to see Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema vote with the Republicans to allow them to continue filibustering voter rights. They are helping Republicans to cheat in future elections, and need to be pressured to change their stance on the filibuster. Some groups are already doing this, but President Biden needs to also act to put pressure on Manchin and Sinema.

Here is what Dean Obeidallah thinks Biden should do in part of his op-ed at MSNBC.com:

Biden, who owes his presidency in large part to Black voters, must do more than simply hope that voters two years from now will punish Manchin and Sinema. In the first speech he gave after being declared the winner of the 2020 election, Biden promised point blank to the Black community, “You’ve always had my back and I’ll have yours.” At Biden’s news conference on Wednesday, Kristen Welker of NBC News asked Biden about Black voters criticizing him for not making voting rights a priority sooner, to which the President responded, “I’ve had their back my entire career. I’ve never not had their back.”

Biden now needs to show, not tell. For starters, he needs to travel to West Virginia and Arizona to build more grassroots support to pressure Manchin and Sinema.

He should say no to the people Manchin and Sinema want nominated as federal judges or any people they seek to recommend to the Biden administration, a freeze-out that would diminish the two senators’ power and influence. He should also use his influence to prevent the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from helping fund these two senators' 2024 campaigns. Finally, Biden may have to very publicly support a primary challenge against them.

Black Americans were targeted by laws and violence for decades by bigots seeking to stop them from voting. It would be insult to the memory of those African Americans who were killed in the struggle for voting rights to allow these two senators to help roll back the progress made by those who sacrificed so much. And it would be an insult to all today who support Democrats of any race if these two senators can undermine our self-determination without paying a political price.

Biden has a choice to make: Stand with these two Democratic senators who have chosen to preserve the filibuster over democracy or stand with the communities that elected him. What’s it going to be?

Sinema Is Censured By The Arizona Democratic Party

 

Senator Krysten Sinema has been censured by the executive board of the Arizona Democratic Party.

They took the unusual move because of her vote to defend the 60-vote filibuster. Her vote effectively killed the Voting Rights Bill in the U.S. Senate. And it also means that no bill proposed and supported by Democrats can pass the Senate -- not the Voting Rights Bill, the Build Back Better Bill, or anything else. She has effectively given the Republicans the power to prevent any Democratic bill.

She is not up for re-election until 2024. That gives her time to rehabilitate her image among Democrats. And she needs to do that, because she is very unpopular with Democrats -- both in Arizona and across the nation.

I doubt she will even try though. She seems to be enjoying the notoriety that comes with being the "Republican" voice in the Democratic caucus. It feeds her ego, and makes her feel important.

But this narcissistic ego-inflation comes at a price. If she continues down this road, Arizona Democrats will find a suitable opponent for her in 2024, and Democrats across the country will help fund that replacement. There is a very good chance she would be defeated -- and she would deserve it!

The Real Reason Manchin/Sinema Killed Voting Rights Bill

 

On Wednesday, Senators Manchin and Sinema voted to protect the filibuster -- effectively killing the Voting Rights Bill. Why did they do that. They said it was to promote bipartisanship in the Senate, but they have to know that there is no bipartisanship in the current Senate. Some are saying it's to keep the corporate donors pumping money into their campaign coffers. But there may be an even more important reason. Robert Reich gives us that reason. I think he may be right. Here's some of what he had to say:

What can possibly explain Manchin’s and Sinema’s votes against voting rights this week? Why did they create a false narrative that the legislation had to be “bipartisan” when everyone -- themselves included -- knew bipartisanship was impossible? Why did they say they couldn’t support changing the filibuster rules when only last monththey voted for an exception to the filibuster that allowed debt ceiling legislation to pass with only Democratic votes? Why did they co-sponsor voting rights legislation and then vote to kill the very same legislation? Why did Manchin vote for the “talking filibuster” in 2011 yet vote against it now?

I’ve suggested that the answer to all these questions could be found in the giant wads of corporate cash flowing into their campaign coffers. But as I’ve watched the two senators closely and spoken about them with members of Congress as well as Hill staff, I’ve come to the conclusion this isn’t it – or at least not all of it.

The corporate money explanation leaves out the single biggest factor affecting almost all national politicians I’ve dealt with: Big egos. Manchin’s and Sinema’s are now among the biggest.

Before February of last year, almost no one outside West Virginia had ever heard of Joe Manchin, and almost no one outside of Arizona (and probably few within the state) had ever heard of Kyrsten Sinema. Now, they’re notorious. They’re Washington celebrities. Their photos grace every major news outlet in America.

This sort of attention is addictive. Once it seeps into the bloodstream, it becomes an all-consuming force. I’ve known politicians who have become permanently and irrevocably intoxicated by it.

I’m not talking simply about power, although that’s certainly part of it. I’m talking about narcissism – the primal force driving so much of modern America, but whose essence is concentrated in certain places such as Wall Street, Hollywood, and the United States Senate.

Once addicted, the pathologically narcissistic politician can become petty in the extreme, taking every slight as a deep personal insult. I’m told that Manchin asked Biden’s staff not to blame him for the delay of “Build Back Better,” and was then infuriated when Biden suggested Manchin bore some of the responsibility. “You want to understand why Manchin stabbed Biden in the back on voting rights?” one House member told me this week. “It’s because he’s so pissed off at Ron Klain [Biden’s chief of staff].”

Paradoxically, a large enough slight played out on the national stage can also enthrall a pathologically narcissistic politician. Several people on the Hill who have watched Sinema at close range since she became a senator tell me she relished all the negative attention she got when she gave her very theatrical thumbs down to increasing the minimum wage, and since then has thrilled at her burgeoning role as a spoiler. . . .

Not all senators are egomaniacs, of course. I had the good fortune to work closely with the late Paul Wellstone, who was always eager to give others credit while being the first to take any blame. I know several now serving who have their egos firmly in check — including Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Most of the rest lie on an ego spectrum ranging from inflated to pathological.

Manchin and Sinema are near the extreme. As I said, neither had much national attention prior to the last February. But once they got a taste of the national spotlight, they couldn’t let go. They must have figured that the only way they could keep the spotlight focused on themselves was by threatening to do what they finally did this week — shafting American democracy.

Manchin/Sinema Vote To Help The GOP Suppress Voting

Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema have been threatening to help Republican maintain their filibuster against the Democratic bill to protect the right of all citizens to vote. On Wednesday night, they followed through on their threat.

Both of the senators claim they support the bills that would protect voting, and indeed, they voted yes on the motion to end the Gap filibuster. But it's easy to vote that way when you know there is no chance of the bill being considered. And sure enough, 50 Republican voted to maintain the filibuster against the voting rights bill (9 more than was needed to maintain the filibuster).

Then another vote was held. This vote was on whether to change the filibuster rules and allow a majority vote on the voting rights bill. It would not end the filibuster, It would just change the rule for only the voting rights bill. That would happen only if the Democrats got 50 votes and the vote of Vice-President Harris.

If Manchin and Sinema really supported the voting rights bill, this was their chance to show it -- and still maintain the filibuster. But they voted to kill the voting rights bill by voting to not change the filibuster. They voted to allow the Republicans to continue to filibuster the bill -- meaning it could not be passed without 60 votes.

Manchin and Sinema will probably still claim to support the bill, but that would be a lie. They had their chance to help pass it, and they refused to do it. They still consider an archaic Senate rule to be more important that the right of every U.S. citizens to vote.

They should be ashamed of themselves, but they aren't. I am left to wonder why they continue to call themselves Democrats.

We Must Protect The Right To Vote Or Lose Our Democracy

 

Anyone who has been paying attention knows our democracy is in trouble. The loser in our last presidential election has been telling a big lie -- that he won the 2020 election, but it was stolen from him through massive fraud. It's not true, but he has convinced many people that it is.

He even encouraged his deluded supporters to stage a violent insurrection at our U.S. Capitol building. When that failed, Republicans in red states began passing a whole raft of laws to suppress voting and give GOP legislatures the ability to change the outcome of voting in many states. The goal, of course, is to make sure Republicans will win future elections -- even if they have to cheat to do so.

If we allow these anti-democracy Republicans to be successful, we will lose our democracy. It will be replaced by an authoritarian government that refuses to recognize the will of the voters.

This must be stopped, and the only way to stop it is to pass federal laws to protect the right of citizens to vote and to protect the valid outcome of that voting. There are bills to do exactly that. They have been passed in the House, and are currently pending approval in the Senate.

The problem is that Democrats (who support the bills) only have 50 votes in the Senate. And the Republicans are filibustering the voting rights bills -- meaning it will take 60 votes to pass them. There is no chance of getting those 60 votes, since the Republicans are unanimous in their opposition.

The only way the bills can be passed to protect voting (and our democracy) is for the filibuster to be banned on voting rights bills. This could be done if all 50 Democrats voted to do that, and Vice-President Harris casts the tie-breaking vote.

Unfortunately, there are two Democrats -- Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema -- who love the filibuster. They even refuse to carve out an exception for voting rights and to protect election results. They seem to think that an archaic Senate rule (the filibuster) that is not in the Constitution is more important than the right of every citizen to vote. More important than democracy itself, which depends on the right to vote.

Their refusal is making it possible for Republicans to suppress the vote, and possibly even overturn the will of the voters in some states. They are enabling a future coup by anti democracy Republicans. 

Their behavior is shameful!

Sinema's Stance On Filibuster Is Inconsistent & Nonsensical

 

The following op-ed on Krysten Sinema's stance on the filibuster is by Ja'han Jones at MSNBC.com:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s rambling speech Thursday defending the filibuster and refusing to bypass it to advance voting rights legislation was a total dud. With the warmth and sincerity of a Frigidaire, the Arizona Democrat spoke from a lectern on the Senate floor about the merits of a racist relic historically used to beat back civil rights measures.  

The filibuster, she claimed, is “a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators representing a broader cross-section of Americans — a guardrail, inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the Senate majority, but which in reality ensures that millions of Americans represented by the minority party have a voice in the process.”

And if millions of Americans in the minority party believe in creating obstacles for the opposing party to vote, or the minority party wants to gerrymander districts that diminish the power of Black and brown voters? So be it, according to Sinema’s logic. 

But her rationale for defending the filibuster is as inconsistent as it is immoral. Sinema, as some have noted, supported bypassing the filibuster just over a month ago in order to raise the debt ceiling on a party-line vote. She doesn’t think Republicans should be allowed to damage America’s credit, but she thinks allowing them to damage American democracy is a virtue.

It’s a contradiction Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., called out during his own Senate speech last month after the debt limit vote: 

Be very clear, last week we changed the rules of the Senate. To address another important issue, the economy. This is a step, a change in the Senate rules we haven’t been willing to take to save our broken democracy, but one that a bipartisan majority of this chamber thought was necessary in order to keep our economy strong. We changed the rules to protect the full faith and credit of the United States government. We’ve decided we must do it for the economy, but not for the democracy.

Sinema may well succeed in thwarting voting rights legislation due to the outsize power she wields in the Senate, but the more she explains her stance, the more incoherent it becomes.

Only 26% Of Arizona Dems Want Sinema To Be Re-Elected

The chart above is from the OH Predictive Insights Poll -- done between November 1st and 8th of a random sample of 713 Arizona registered voters, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

The Two Most Selfish Democrats In The U.S. Congress

The following is just part of an op-ed at MSNBC.com by Michael Cohen. I think Mr. Cohen may have a valid point:

On Thursday morning, the White House unveiled a framework for the Democrats’ massive budget package, and surprisingly — after months of negotiations that seemed to be going nowhere — it looks pretty good.

Yet, on Friday morning, the bill was still hanging in the balance because of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, two of the most selfish senators I’ve seen in my decades of following national politics. For months, these two have bullied the White House and progressive Democrats into bending to their will. Key liberal priorities such as paid family leave and medical leave and measures to reduce prescription drug costs, provide two years of free community college and repeal key elements of the Trump tax cuts have been jettisoned. The total cost of the bill has been cut in half — from $3.5 trillion to around $1.75 trillion — all to satisfy Manchin’s and Sinema’s demands.

House progressives have begrudgingly accepted these changes because most seem to understand that even half a loaf is better than none. But they have maintained one unshakable and eminently reasonable demand: They would not vote on the massive infrastructure bill supported by Manchin and Sinema until the two make clear their support for the budget package. Yet, Thursday, Manchin and Sinema were still refusing to make their intentions clear. Seemingly, the two attention-starved senators can’t bear to give up the media spotlight they have hogged unto themselves.

By making it all about them, Manchin and Sinema are making it increasingly difficult for Democrats to focus on what their framework budget agreement would accomplish. . . .

Manchin and Sinema are acting as though they were the ones on the presidential ballot last November. And while the Democrats’ narrow majority in the Senate gives individual senators outsize power, no one else in the caucus is as focused on being pains in the neck like Sinema and Manchin are.

Like many political observers, I’ve given up trying to understand Manchin’s and Sinema’s motivations. From a political perspective, they are undercutting their own party and decreasing the chances that Democrats will be able to hold on to the majority in midterm elections next year. In pushing for the removal of paid leave, tuition-free community college and lower drug prices for seniors, they are taking away winning campaign messages for Democrats in 2022. Sinema’s obstinance has led to a plummeting of her approval ratings in Arizona and an increasingly likely primary challenge. Manchin, who won re-election in 2018 by a mere 3 points is likely a long shot to win again in 2024, no matter how much he tries to distance himself from the party’s liberal wing.

None of those objections makes much sense, unless we accept that both senators have an outsize need to be the center of media attention in Washington. Democrats may get their bill passed in the end, but because of the narcissism displayed by Manchin and Sinema they will be left wondering about what could have been.

Arizona Democrats Have A VERY Low Opinion Of Sinema

The charts above are from the recent Data for Progress Poll -- done between October 8th and 10th of 467 likely Democratic Primary voters in Arizona, with a 5 point margin of error.

They show that Arizona Democrats are very angry with Senator Krysten Sinema. Only 25% approve of the job she is doing, while a whopping 70% disapprove. They support the planks in President Biden's Build Back Better bill, and don't like her opposition to the bill.

Right now, she would lose a Democratic primary to four possible opponents.

Arizona Democrats Are Very Unhappy With Senator Sinema

The chart above is from a new Civiqs Poll. It shows that 65% of Arizona Democrats have an unfavorable opinion of their Democratic senator -- Krysten Sinema. Only 17% have a favorable opinion.

It's a good thing she doesn't have to run for re-election until 2024. That's gives her some time to rehabilitate her image. Right now, she would not only lose a general election, but she might not even survive the Democratic primary.

Her numbers started to go down when she refused to support a raise to the minimum wage and said she would not support doing away with the filibuster. She also skipped a vote on establishing the January 6th commission.

Now she is opposing the President's Build Back Better bill. Worse yet, she refuses to say what parts of the bill she can't support.

She either needs to support the bill, or give her constituents a very good reason why she won't. Refusal to do either is not an option if she wants to be re-elected.

Arizona Democrats Unhappy With Sinema Over The Filibuster

Arizona Democratic Senator Krysten Sinema has been a huge supporter of the Senate's filibuster rule. She has been adamant about not voting to eliminate the filibuster. That may be a serious mistake.

A new poll shows Arizona Democrats are very unhappy with Sinema over her position on the filibuster -- and about 66% say if she persists in that, they would vote for someone else (someone who would get rid of the filibuster).

Sinema has taken the position because she thinks it would help her in the general election. But to get to a general election, you have to win the primary. And she might not win a primary if she has an opponent that would eliminate the filibuster.

The chart above is from a Data for Progress Poll -- done between June 28th and July 6th of 574 likely Arizona voters, with a 4 point margin of error.

The Filibuster Is A Tool For Cowards Who Don't Want Debate

On Tuesday, the Senate voting on stopping the filibuster against the voting rights bill. The vote was 50 Democrats in favor of stopping the filibuster and 50 Republicans in favor of keeping the filibuster going. It showed clearly that the Republicans aren't interested in debating or amending or voting on anything. They are using the filibuster to block everything until they can regain power. It was just another example of why the filibuster must be reformed or eliminated.

The following is part of an article on the filibuster by Hayes Brown for MSNBC.com:

I don’t know how much more bluntly I can say this: The filibuster isn’t a protector of democracy. It’s not the last bastion against tyranny of the majority. It’s a tool of cowards.

Because let’s be clear: Tuesday’s vote in the Senate wasn’t about passing S.1, the For the People Act. It wasn’t even the vote to begin the process of discussing and amending the bill. No, the vote was the first of two steps: first, asking the Senate to “end debate” on whether to turn the Senate’s full attention to bill; and then, if passed, a majority vote on whether to bring the bill to the Senate floor. That first, key step is what Senate Republicans rejected en masse. . . .

In a world that makes sense, Vice President Kamala Harris — who was presiding over the Senate — would have broken the resulting 50-50 tie. But because of the filibuster, the world’s greatest deliberative body was silenced in the name of unlimited debate. Sixty “yes” votes, just ten from Republicans, were required to break the impasse; zero Republicans obliged.

What was most galling about this whole shadow play is how unnecessary any of it was. It would have cost Republicans nothing to allow debate on S.1 to proceed — and then kill the bill before final passage or even filibustering the final vote. This was simply a GOP flex; a reminder that even though they’re in the minority, they still can effectively set the Senate’s agenda.

It also served as a reminder that as much as Democrats (rightly) complain about Republican obstruction, they have the ability to break the logjam. But as of now, there aren’t the 50 votes necessary to amend the Senate rule that empowers the filibuster, let alone abolish the procedure.

I wrote back in February that Manchin and Sen. Krysten Sinema, D-Ariz., the most outspoken Democratic defenders of the filibuster, were really “protecting themselves politically at the expense of the country.” It turns out I was too easy on them — especially Sinema.

The Arizona moderate published an op-ed in the Washington Poston Monday justifying her position on the filibuster. It was, to be generous, specious. To be ungenerous, it was fearful and timid, written from a place of distrust in America’s voters. Particularly ill-considered is her stance that the filibuster “helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles”. . . .

This vacillation between extremes in lawmaking based on the voters’ whims is something the Founders feared, especially in the House of Representatives, which has always been directly elected by the people. And the Constitution does include certain checks on the Senate that allow for more reasoned debate: Senate terms are longer than in the House and staggered, so that only one third of the body is up for re-election in any given national election. Senators were also originally chosen by state legislatures, which kept them a step removed from the masses. Notably, the filibuster is not one of those checks — it’s an accidental quirk of the Senate’s rules that was for most of its existence almost exclusively utilized to help hobble civil rights legislation.

More troubling, Sinema’s arguments depend on Democrats passing their agenda — and then losing elections precisely because they passed their agenda. Her essay is one that posits that voters can’t tell good ideas from bad ones and will punish officials who pass partisan laws, no matter how effective. It’s saying that the status quo, where almost nothing can get done in Congress without herculean effort and an inevitable drift to the right in the negotiating process, is preferable to any progress. And it’s an argument that is filled with crippling doubt in the ideals of the Democratic Party — the wild swings that she predicts suggests that Democrats’ ideas are just as indefensible to voters as the Republicans’ vastly more unpopular platform. . . .

If bills fail in the Senate, they should fail on their merits, exactly what the filibuster prevents. The GOP is afraid of spending the next few weeks in the Senate debating a bill filled with provisions to reduce corruption in elections, expand voting rights, and eliminate the partisan gerrymanders that keep politicians unaccountable. It makes a certain craven sense for them to use the filibuster to block this from happening. Democrats allowing it to happen is far more disturbing.