Would nuking the filibuster really help Democrats?

First, Republican trifectas—control of both chambers of Congress and the White House—are more probable than Democratic trifectas, suggesting the GOP will be able to use its future majorities to push through favored legislation more frequently than will Democrats, absent a filibuster. Much ink has been spilt on the Republican geographic advantage in the House, which exists even without intentional gerrymandering. The Senate and Electoral College have likewise presented Republicans with a leg up on Democrats over the past 30 years. Even before 1992, when Democrats likely had an edge, the true edge went to conservatives, who could bottle up liberal legislation except in extreme cases... The real dangers for Democrats, though, are a number of things Republicans could pass that would damage internal Democratic Party messaging and fundraising. This is also an asymmetric risk, as the organizations that support the Republican Party tend to be more ideological, and harder to constrain given the First Amendment. Consider labor unions. In 2020 eight PACs donated more than $2.5 million to candidates and gave 60% of those dollars to Democrats; they all represented labor interests. A Republican trifecta could pass a national right-to-work law, neutering an important conduit for information between Democrats and their working-class supporters in the North and Mountain West. The TEAMS Act (H.R. 1 in an earlier Republican-controlled Congress) could reorient the role of labor unions substantially. Limitations on public sector unionization under the NLRB would likewise damage Democrats. Tort reform could damage trial lawyers, an important Democratic constituency, especially at the state level. Limitations or “revisions” to the various environmental statutes would limit Democratic presidents’ ability to act expansively. There are plenty of other things that could be done, but the idea is clear.