McConnell just wants to make Democrats sweat.

Follow Us Get the newsletter Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. What is Mitch McConnell up to?  The Senate Republican, now the minority leader, is holding up the basic organizing agreement required at the beginning of each new Senate. He's insisting that Democrats pledge to leave the legislative filibuster intact over the next two years, or else he won't let the resolution pass — and without it, the Senate's work won't get done, and the majority-party Democrats won't even be able to take over as chairs of Senate committees. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is asking for the same deal that the parties worked out in 2001 under similar circumstances. McConnell hasn't budged, more than two weeks after Democrats clinched the last of their 50 Senate seats in two special elections in Georgia and two days after the new senators and new Vice President Kamala Harris, the tie-breaker, took office. The odd thing is that what McConnell is doing is, as Congress scholar Sarah Binder points out, "not a credible commitment." That is, whatever the Democrats say now — and remember, they are not currently threatening to eliminate the filibuster — it simply won't be binding on them over the course of the next two years. At the same time, McConnell doesn't appear to be offering anything in return for the Democrats' pledge, such as a reciprocal promise to limit use of the filibuster, which gives the minority the power to stop most legislation that can't command 60 votes. He simply wants Democrats to agree to play by his rules, even if that means passing nothing for the next two years.  The end game isn't clear yet. It's possible that either McConnell or Schumer will surrender. It's also possible, if the impasse remains, that all 50 Democrats will at some point solve the problem by going nuclear — that is, changing Senate practice by a simple majority vote so that organizing resolutions cannot be filibustered. That would allow Democrats to pass their version of the organizing resolution (or, for that matter, an alterative that would leave Republicans worse off). They could even use it, if they all agreed, to go fully nuclear, ending the filibuster entirely.  What's McConnell's goal here? I can sketch out several possibilities.  Maybe McConnell simply sees an opportunity to slow the Senate down. He's already succeeded in delaying confirmation of President Joe Biden's cabinet-level nominees, and even if he surrenders soon it's a bit of a victory. At the expense, to be sure, of the ability of the nation's government to function, but McConnell may consider that a win, or at least not a cost.  Perhaps he thinks that this is an issue that unifies Republicans and divides Democrats, although so far Democrats appear united. Still, at least from McConnell's point of view, the Senate isn't focused on an impeachment trial that will split Republicans. Another possibility? McConnell may simply want a fight — any fight — to pour water on Biden's inaugural festivities. This may not be an ideal diversion, since the news media rarely find conflict over Senate procedure interesting, but it's what he has. Continuing to speculate, it's possible that McConnell is convinced that Democrats will go nuclear at some point soon if Republicans try to use the filibuster at all, and he'd rather have the fight on something voters don't care about than allow Democrats to pick a popular policy issue for the confrontation. The flaw in that logic is that Republicans don't actually have to use the filibuster to attempt to defeat popular measures; they could either support them or allow them to pass by majority vote. But McConnell may not see it that way. And who knows? Maybe McConnell really wants Democrats to go nuclear. The filibuster protects Democratic senators who will be on the ballot in 2022 from casting tough votes — as long as at least 41 of the 50 Republicans oppose something, Democrats can be free to vote the way their constituents prefer. Without the 60-vote requirement, and as long as Republicans stay united, measures that are unpopular in their states give Democrats an impossible choice: Vote no and anger their party, or vote yes and potentially alienate swing voters. To be sure, a majority-party-rules Senate would mean significant policy gains for Democrats, but McConnell may not care about that as much as he does making life difficult for Democrats in 2022.  Or perhaps it's some combination of these factors. I agree with political scientist Josh Huder: Time isn't on McConnell's side. Democrats want their gavels, and they aren't going to wait for them indefinitely.  1. Daniel J. Galvin and Josh Vincent at the Monkey Cage on Biden and the Democratic Party. 2. Nadia E. Brown Vice President Kamala Harris. 3. Dominik Stecula at Mischiefs of Faction on the politicized pandemic. 4. Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux on pardons issued by President Donald Trump before he left office. 5. Greg Sargent on Republicans and "unity." 6. And my Bloomberg Opinion colleague and Trump maven Timothy L. O'Brien says goodbye to the former president. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. You received this message because you are subscribed to Bloomberg's Early Returns newsletter. Unsubscribe | Bloomberg.com | Contact Us Bloomberg L.P. 731 Lexington, New York, NY, 10022