Mike the Mad Biologist

Because talk is cheap. As it stands right now, it seems that alleged rapist and Maine Democratic senatorial candidate Graham Platner is going to drop out of the race, which has led to all sorts of speculation about who should replace him, and how to do so.

What I have found frustrating is that there has been no discussion of what will be the most critical things to do if the Democrats regain the House, Senate, and the presidency in 2028:

1. End the senate filibuster, so Republicans don’t have a de facto veto.
2. Pack the Supreme Court and enact other reforms of the federal judiciary, so Republicans don’t have a de facto veto.
3. Having done that, grant D.C. statehood, so it will be harder for retrograde members of the Senate to hold the caucus hostage*.

Whether you believe Bernie Is The Way or desire an America Filled from Sea to Shining Sea With Incremental Programs Monitored by Privatized Income Verification Specialists, none of that happens if Republicans–and the couple of Democratic caucus members who are assholes–have de facto vetoes. For once, House and Senate Democrats will not be able to punt things to the courts or hope executive branch action saves them: they are going to have to govern regardless of what that governance ends up being, and that doesn’t happen without the above reforms.

I hope Maine Democrats are asking these questions of Platner’s possible replacements.

*As I’ve written many times, D.C. statehood is the right thing to do on its own merits, but I don’t hold Democrats, especially Senate Democrats, in high regard when it comes to D.C. statehood, as too many of them–though not nearly as many as Republicans–don’t believe in Home Rule when push comes to shove.

As of this morning, I have no idea if Graham Platner will drop out of the Maine senate race in time for Maine Democrats to appoint someone else. But maybe the next time there’s a Democratic candidate with a constant trickle of right-wing adjacent–or just right wing–statements and actions, listen to the ‘HR ladies‘ and other supposed hysterics who tell you that’s a sign of poor character and also of worse to come.

What it says about the Professional Politics Knowers who thought otherwise is left mostly as an exercise for the reader, though I would add that the subset of professional supporters who could be characterized as self-loathing college-educated middle-aged men who are handling aging poorly should not be listened to ever again.

While we’re at it, unless one is a professional interviewer, meeting candidates in person usually makes it harder rather than easier to observe the reality–superfically charismatic people can often hoodwink you over short periods of time or in ‘set piece’ encounters.

What a clusterfuck.