The dynamic where a minority of elected Democrats genuinely oppose trade deals full stop but a majority have expressed anti-trade platitudes means that the minority position goes unchallenged & (worse yet) gets wielded as a populist cudgel against more serious pols (yes I’m talking about 2016).

An Israel that prioritized its long-term security over its corrupt prime minister's attempt to stay out of prison would work with the Arab League's proposal for a post-Hamas Gaza, recognize the resulting unity government, and negotiate with the Palestinian Authority to end the Occupation.

Child’s play I would bet to what is coming

Annnd policies can still get blocked by a determined minority using various levers in and out of parliament.

Bottom line: blowing up the Senate would probably unfetter the majority in a way that could be alarming but ultimately lead to an institution that works better for everyone but esp. Dems

In other countries, parliamentary majorities actually implement big swaths of their electoral manifestos, which means that voters get to actually test the efficacy of the party agendas. Elections feel more consequential b/c there is a good chance party will actually do what they promise if they win

Policies would get enacted into law that the majority ran on implementing but can’t really do so under current rules very easily…and that be fine. Voters don’t really get why Congress can’t pass stuff even when they win elections (to be fair, this is an asymmetric problem between parties).

There is a myth that a Senate minority would be powerless without the current rules and that’s not really true. If you have 47 votes, you can’t stop everything—maybe even most things the majority wants to do—but it isn’t hard to imagine unpopular bills going down if you only need a few defections