Kansas state Sen. Cindy Holscher (D) was projected to win the state’s gubernatorial race, according to Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ), keeping the office in Democratic hands and denying Republicans one of their best pickup opportunities this year.
Holscher defeated Republican Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who had President Trump’s endorsement, to succeed term-limited Gov. Laura Kelly (D). She notched just more than 50 percent of the vote, while her opponent garnered 49. 6 percent as of Wednesday afternoon.
Her victory extends Democrats’ hold on the governor’s mansion in a state Trump carried by roughly 16 points in 2024. Kansas has repeatedly elected Democratic governors, including Kelly, who won competitive races in 2018 and 2022.
I think it’s quite the opposite! First we need to step back and acknowledge that for better or worse whoever is the party in power was given the reins to lead. As a result the filibuster is inherently undemocratic. Crippling that genuinely gridlocks Congress, just as it did under Obama. Meanwhile half the time Democrats are unwilling to play such hardball with its use anyway. It is a fundamental systemic flaw, independent of strategy, that needs to be corrected for the nation to improve. It has slowed Republicans down some when convenient sure, but it has entirely neutered the Democrats’ ability to implement progressive change for nearly 2 decades now when Republicans are in the minority in Congress.
To be clear I’m referring to the lazy or silent cloture filibuster; traditional filibustering while actively speaking on the senate floor would still be available. For many reasons, this is much preferred.
Gutting the lazy filibuster now ensures that when a Democrat President is in power that they can actually effect change instead of being blocked for 8 years. There’s no reason not to do it now because the winds are in Dem’s favor going into 2028 anyway. We cannot squander this opportunity before the Senate is lost again.
Finally, I still believe that focusing attention on the veto on Trump’s desk is even more more damaging in my opinion. It’s a better PR stunt going into 2028.
Edit: Hell it would be better to at least shift the point of the 60-vote threshold to just passage of the legislation and after floor debate at the very least. That way the bill would have to be litigated in front of the public.
If this was just politics sure, but Republicans have made it clear lives are at stake. Not worth the risk right now, but maybe in the future
I think lives are at stake either way, for the inability to do nothing and effect real change is harming people every day Medicare For All (with supermajority support from the public) isn’t brought to a vote (as just one example).
I would just ask to consider that if you can mount pressure on Trump specifically and while he’s already deeply unpopular, then 2028 Dem gains will be higher. Easy for electorate to grasp. They don’t understand the filibuster (only 20% have a good understanding). They do understand veto power better.
Otherwise we risk the electorate in 2 years going, “Ugh, look how incompetent Dems are… We give them power and they still can’t find a way to fix government! Back to a more Strong but moderate Republican I guess. Vance/DeSantis it is.”
And honestly, if Dems don’t win everything in 2028? Then we are pretty much fucked either way and it’s a moot point. This must translate to gains in 2028.
Virtue signaling by attempting to pass a bill that will be vetoed does not save lives.
As for your request, I did consider that. Even stated it in my original comment. My fear is that too many people only respond after something has happened and don’t follow the debate at all.
I’m unconvinced removing gaurd rails just to debate on bills that will be vetoed is worth the risk of what happens when/if Republicans regain control
Indeed we cannot save lives being lost right now one way or another because Trump is President — That was precisely the point I was making. So this is all future-thinking anyway.
So we’re at an impasse where it’s “Can we sell to the electorate that we need more power in 2028 more clearly by forcing Trump to veto and ending lazy filibuster” — or is it, “Well, we may lose power again at some point down the road and so we better not drop it prematurely.”
So it’s Better Marketing for 2028 Right Now vs. Future Risk Aversion? Well, in fairness, we know Democrats are always gunshy, so skittishness it is.
I think we’re now starting to go in circles, so I’ll cede the final comment to you out of courtesy
Edit: Just stumbled across this but check out Stewart and Sanders discussing filibuster at around 41 minutes.