Asklemmy

Raised his national profile. If he keeps up political theater like this for the next 3 year's he'll have a good shot at the Democratic nomination.

Nothing but it made Democeats feel like it did something and that is all that matters.

Booker's speech was an audition for Schumer's job. He laid out his vision of the Democratic agenda, and showed strength doing it, contrasting with that craven, corrupt, simpering, weak, vile, weenie Schumer.

Schumer is in the way, and needs to retire immediately, and make way for AOC to take his seat.

If Schumer leaves, Booker become Minority leader, and AOC goes to the Senate, that speech will have acvomplished a lot.

It set a new record. That's about it

Nothing by itself. But if it can encourage other senators to filibuster, and more importantly, to organize to filibuster together , the impact could be paralyzing.

To take an obvious example, for half a century, from say 1910 to 1964-5, there were more than enough votes in the US senate to enact civil rights legislation, as southerners only made up 22 or so of the 96-100 senators then (no Hawaii or Alaska for part of that).

But that legislation never happened. And the reason why it didn’t was that southern senators were able to filibuster so effectively that the legislation could never be brought to the floor, or to force its withdrawal if it got there.

It’s not that the votes on that specific bill weren’t there. It’s just that under the leadership of Sen Richard Russel of Georgia (who the “Russel Senate Office Building” is named after), the southern senators understood the way to block legislation was to filibuster not just the bill in question, but any law that was about to lapse that was so important economically that senators couldn’t afford to let that happen.

So they organized, filibustered key bills, set up “watches” where at least one senator had to be on the floor to defeat any quorum calls (which ends a filibuster, as you do not actually have to be talking to filibuster a bill), and filibustered not just votes on key bills, but even votes on motions to bring those bills out of committee to the floor.

Moreover, since these filibusters weren’t on the bill itself, it was easy for an individual senator to say they were against another bill, or another motion, and make it seem like an unrelated objection, when it was really all part of a comprehensive strategy.

Eventually, the impending economic doom created enough pressure to get any civil rights bill withdrawn in order to let those other bills pass, which was the southerners asking price.

Obviously, the democrats now aren’t doing that. But they could. And by generating headlines by filibustering, he encourages other senators to do so, if only for popularity.

Knocked Strom Thurmond’s racist ass filibuster of the civil rights act out of the #1 slot.

I too grew up in an era of action movies, where the good guy decisively self-defenses the bad guy to death, saves the world, goes home and has marital relations with the prom queen. It's a powerful story, but ultimately it's just a story.

Peaceful resistance does work, but there isn't a single event that achieves change. It has to be an accumulation.

Rosa Park's arrest didn't achieve anything "in terms of change".

Ghandi's protest fasts didn't achieve anything "in terms of change".

When the Baltics had their singing revolutions, there wasn't a single performance that achieved anything "in terms of change".

All these were parts of larger efforts of peaceful resistance that culminated in change.

What did Cory Booker's speech achieve? It's too early to say. It's possible it will be part of an accumulation that culminates in measurable results. On the other hand, it's possible cynicism will poison the resistance and it will achieve nothing. We'll only know once the history is written.

Nothing. It was cringe and should be condemned. Don't let hasbara bots convince you otherwise.

It slowed the process if nothing else. Every day that this administration can be slowed down is a win.

What did a single Trump rally achieve? Nothing. What did multiple years of Trump rallies achieve?

What does anything achieve on a long enough timeline? The same nothingness, but for 25 hours the entire senate could do nothing but bear witness to an unyielding resistance to the cruelties currently in motion. May not be much but some will find inspiration in those that continue to make 'good trouble' I personally found a spark of hope and I'm a real cynic tbh

It achieved false catharsis, the main scam product Democrats are always selling. Performative nonsense immediately contradicted by their actual (lack of) actions. Immediately afterwards they helped confirm a Trump judicial appointment with help from Booker. His long speech wasn't even to delay any legislation. It has no so-called momentum, which you can note has no stated descriptors in the other comment. Momentum for what? Sitting on your hands and then voting for them again in 4 years? This is not a real political party, it is just the controlled opposition of the US political duopoly trying its usual parlor tricks to make its potential voters stop recognizing how they aren't cleaning house or really doing anything at all.

Real parties do exist. It is a struggle due to the aforementioned duopoly and general level of political education in the USA, but it is a struggle worth joining because this is the only "opposition" you will ever see being forwarded by the Democratic Party by its own volition. Every bit of progress has been hard fought and its vanguard has always been left organizing outside of the major parties. Join that vsnguard!

It's political momentum. Same thing bernie and AOC are doing. None of them have changed anything yet, it's just getting attention and support for future acts

Think of it like a protest. Most protests don't DO anything, but he forced the entire senate to sit and listen to him for 25 hrs rant about how bad things have gotten. I'm sure there was work and stuff they were supposed to vote on that he effectively delayed. But that's all it really was, a record breaking protest.

Absolutely nothing. It's nice that he broke the record of some asshole racist but functionally nothing has changed.

Democrats are just as impotent today as they were yesterday and throughout the Biden administration.

It got people to talk about it and take interest in what is going on. There are undoubtedly some portion of the population that are fully oblivious of the world around them, or just indifferent at least, but someone going on for that long has to make them wonder why he would do that.

Senators (in the US) are elected representatives of their state. Sen. Booker, through his 25 hour speech, brought his constituents' message to the forefront, criticized the Senate, Democrats' and his own failures to act. He got millions of people to look at Senate business as if he was a professional streamer which is usually boring stuff. The speech is Booker's answer to "what can I do at this moment to make a difference?", which hopefully will get others to ask the same of themselves.

It's impossible to measure the true impact of the speech afterward, but it's intended to inspire people to take action, resist the Trump monarchy, and cause "good trouble" where they can. Who knows whether this has had any influence on the Wisconsin Supreme Court which was a humiliation to Musk, or if it had any influence on the 4 Republican Senators joining Democrats to pass a resolution nullifying the false emergency against Canada?

At least it's not Strom Thurmand mad about the civil rights act with the longest speaking time record anymore...

Allowed the media to focus on something other than Trump.

He also beat Strom Thurmond's speech. I'm fine with a black guy beating that piece of shit's record.

It was a great show for what it was, but did it achieve anything? Not really. Which is, in and of itself, pretty sad.

I'm seeing a post and some great comments that were achieved by the speech that's for sure