Access to this page has been denied
thehill.com
px-captcha

Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.

“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”

She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”

  • @[email protected]
    145•2 months ago

    It’s not too late but they’re not getting credit until they actually fucking do it and they deserve credit for just saying they want to do it without doing it.

    (Edit: And to be clear the credit they’re going to get would be credit for doing the bare minimum, long after they promised to do it, long after they had multiple opportunities to do it.)

    • @[email protected]M
      32•2 months ago

      Even if they agree to get rid of the filibuster on this one issue, it won’t do any good with the House under Republican control.

        • @digredior
          26•2 months ago

          Holy fucking shit, I wish I shared your generalized optimism

        • rustydominoEnglish
          9•2 months ago

          Whether this winds up being true or not, you’ve made my day just a bit better with your optimism. Thanks my dude.

            • @[email protected]
              3•2 months ago

              I’m not sure that’s correct. 538 was always a polling aggregator, but people treated it like 60% chance means “for sure.” I think what we’re now seeing is we don’t actually have much good polling data due to extremism, and therefore sites like 538 aren’t as valuable.

              I distinctly remember Silver refused to make a prediction on who would win in 2016 because he insisted that Trump’s 33% odds according to 538 meant there was a very real chance of a Trump victory. But everyone came out an blamed Silver for calling it wrong.

              I don’t actually like the guy, I think his analysis and political savvy is pretty weak and he comes off as incredibly arrogant. But he literally just runs a weighted data aggregator. So if the data is bad, his results will be bad too.