No. of Recommendations: 3
And yet, the democrats can engage in horse trading at any time...and yet refuse to.
Why would they do that? They think the whole concept of in-person voter impersonation fraud is made up by the GOP, and they have a point. There's nothing to horse trade, because there's no "horse" there, from the Democrats' perspective.
Again, I would be really interested to hear what you think the sizes of the two populations are: how many people actually engage in in-person polling place fraudulent voter impersonation vs. how many people lack the ID required by these bills. It seems rather obvious to me that imposing a photo ID requirement would end up blocking far more legitimate votes than fraudulent ones - and thus would hurt election integrity. But you seem to disagree, so I'm curious about what you think the facts are.
where some conservative position that would undoubtedly do the country some good is merely given lip service by the Establishment Republican types (almost always in the Senate) who ultimately fail to deliver but make it look like they're trying. So as to not appear completely useless to the donor base, you see.
Well, that's the filibuster, you see. You can't pass something in the Senate without getting more than a half-dozen of the opposing party to go along with it, so "conservative positions" - like "progressive positions" - are pretty much doomed from the start. The other part of the GOP base that isn't the donor base doesn't accept that the filibuster imposes a real limit on politics, so they will destroy their own Senators who commit the betrayal of finding a deal that can get that many of the opposing party on board. The same is true on the Democratic side.
