If Dems don't abolish the filibuster, zero will get done. Jon Favreau is asking candidates about it.

[sharedvalues]

Jon Favreau asks Kirsten Gillibrand about the filibuster and whether she’d abolish it.

Link to tweet

@jonfavs
: Would you push to get rid of the filibuster so you could pass something like Medicare for All or a Green New Deal?

@SenGillibrand
: I'll think about it... if you don't have 60 votes yet, it just means you haven't done enough advocacy and you need to work a lot harder.

She says no.

Aaaargh. I’m done with Democrats playing tiddlywinks while the GOP is playing hardball. 50 D votes in the senate already represent a large majority of the popular vote. And the GOP who just stole two Supreme Court seats are not going to let any popular priorities pass the Senate.

Also for context:

Link to tweet

Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
I may be missing it but I don’t see any groundswell of support among senate democrats for curbing the filibuster or DC/PR statehood and without those things “big” ideas are basically worthless.
10:57 AM · Jan 13, 2019

Link to tweet

[keithbvadu2]

1. Both parties have had the chance to get rid of the filibuster but do not want to. They find it use

Both parties have had the chance to get rid of the filibuster but do not want to.

They find it useful.

[sharedvalues]

4. Nope. Most thoughtful Dems are against the filibuster

Link to tweet

[joshcryer]

7. Every new Senate has the opportunity.

They don't want to get rid of it because it means that Senators will have to actually stand around and talk when they want to filibuster. This is all about the virtual filibuster, which is essentially saying "I am filibustering for an infinite amount of time until I no longer wish to do so."

If we got rid of it we'd have Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type filibusters where the guy stands there for 6 hours reading out of the Bible.

[standingtall]

2. If Democrats take bake the Presidency Senate and Congress

and get rid of the filibuster. The first thing they need to do is reform the supreme court, and the second thing they would need to do is add States then they could get medicare for all and ensure it sticks around.

[sharedvalues]

3. More on the filibuster from Harry Reid staffer

Link to tweet

[David__77]

5. Filibuster should go for sure.

...

[mr_lebowski]

6. I see NO VALUE in ANY Dems tipping their hand on ending it at this point ...

In fact I think it's downright stupid if any of them say 'yeah I would be for that' ... when WE AREN'T IN THE MAJORITY.

I want NONE of our candidates to say that they are 'for it', no POTUS candidates, no Senators, nobody thinking of running for Senate.

[sharedvalues]

10. Fair point.

But we are at a difficult point because we need to build Dem grassroots support for it. I’m glad Pod save America is raising awareness that nothing will get done without ending the filibuster.

[Azathoth]

8. Without the filibuster, Obamacare would have been gone on January 1, 2017

Something to keep in mind.

[sharedvalues]

9. No, it would have been months.

And yes, 2016 was a stolen election, both in the Senate and for the presidency.

But critically, that was the past.
We should abolish the filibuster AND make DC/PR states. Bring the Senate closer to popular representation.

[Azathoth]

11. No, it wouldn't have "been months." It would have happened within the first week

The House was ready to repeal on Day 1, and so were a majority of Senators.

The only reason repeal failed was because of the filibuster. They had to try to ram something though using reconciliation, which meant they couldn't actually repeal the full law and were going to be left with a Frankenstein mess if they tried removing parts of it. That procedural nonsense is why McCain ultimately sunk the initiative.

If a clean, full Obamacare repeal bill requiring only 51 votes had been introduced on Day 1, it would have passed by the end of the week.