[ad_1]
Senator Elizabeth Warren's decision to call at the end of the obstruction is a smart move that could help her stand out from the rival group.
Until now, I have observed a strange aspect of the Democratic primary, as candidates are increasingly inclined to adopt political radicalism for follow-up with procedural shyness. Even as he proposes ideas such as socialized health insurance and the free university, Senator Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Said: "I'm not crazy about getting rid of the systematic obstruction. " In fact, as long as the filibuster is maintained, it will take 60 votes to pass a major bill that will paralyze any attempt to implement the Sanders program – or anything close.
In a field dominated by Senators, Sanders has not been alone. Senator Cory Booker, DN.J., is worried that if the Republicans acquired unified control of Washington, as they had done in 2017, they could implement what he or she considers a dangerous agenda would not meet the threshold of 60 votes. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., A insisted"If you do not have 60 votes yet, it just means you have not done enough advocacy and you have to work a lot harder."
Of course, it must be said that the president does not determine the rules of the Senate, which are finally decided by a majority of senators. The Senate map is not a good compromise for the Democrats in 2020, and even if they end up being in the majority, they will probably be slim and any larger majority will have to elect candidates in more conservative states that will not want to go from the front. for example, the Green New Deal. So, even if the Democrats have a big year in 2020, they probably will not have the right to vote to abandon the obstruction.
But in an overcrowded democratic area in which several candidates subscribe to a major transformation of the role of the government, returns are diminishing for each new policy proposal implemented. For months, I thought that there was a great opportunity for a candidate to demonstrate that he was ready to do what it takes to implement his program. So it was very clever for Warren, D-Mass., Who had a hard time separating from other candidates with similar ideas to adopt this position.
Warren can now stand next to Sanders on a stage of debate and say, "We both agree to fight income inequality, provide free health care and a free university to everyone, and confront Wall Street, but unlike my opponent, I recognize that none of these objectives are possible unless we change the way the Senate operates in order to promulgate it. "
It is possible that the issue of filibuster reform is more important among liberal activists and experts than among primary voters. So Warren's gambit may not improve his fortune. But it was a position that was worth taking, with limited disadvantages.
[ad_2]
Source link