The D.C. statehood issue: Is it worth it for the Biden admin to ditch the filibuster...

[brush]

and green light it, and while we're at it, Puerto Rico too which would just about guarantee four new blue senators. So the hell with the previous caution towards the issue—that once the republicans get the majority in the Senate back they'd ram through endless right wing bills with the simple majority rule.

D.C., btw, has more population than two states, Vermont and Wyoming so there's a strong argument for statehood, and of course PR has 3.195M people, even more.

IMO we should take our chances and go for it as four new Dem senators, or even two if only D.C. statehood is granted, would swing political advantage in our favor.

And to those who think it requires a Constitutional amendment, check this out.

VERIFY: Can DC get statehood with a simple majority vote in ...
www.13newsnow.com/article/news/verify/verify-can...

Jan 21, 2021 · Yes, although there would need to be a rule change in the Senate. In the House of Representatives, a statehood bill would only need a majority vote. In the Senate, a bill typically needs 60 votes ...

[dawg]

1. It'd be worth it, but I don't think we have the votes to ditch the filibuster.

Personally, I see ditching the filibuster a good thing in and of itself. It is undemocratic and allows a minority party to sabotage and obstruct the government.

[getagrip_already]

2. biden has no say on senate rules.....

He can rainbow light it. It has zero effect.

The filibuster is entirely up to the senate (and harris practically speaking). period.

[brush]

4. Of course it's up to the Senate but Biden can certainly signal...

to Schumer, the new Majority Leader, and the rest of the Dem senators that he favors it. That's what I meant by "green light" it.

[DonaldsRump]

3. I hope this is done quickly

And if so, upon statehood, they should change the name of the airport from "Reagan National" airport. This was a ridiculous change that the Repubs made when they controlled Congress. The absurdity was that the airport already, by definition included a President's name (i.e., Washington National Airport). In other words, the Republicans effectively removed George Washington's name to add Ronald Reagan's.

Reagan can have another airport like Santa Barbara named after him, not the airport in the heart of the national capital. For that matter, it can be LAX, but I doubt they would ever allow that airport to be named after Reagan.