Can you count to 60? Or even just 50? You can't elect a Senate that has Lieberman as the 60th vote & complain you didn't get your way. He wasn't even a Democrat anymore by then, bc he lost the 2006 primary! If you elect the bare minimum & make a shitty person the pivotal vote, it's going to suck.
If you want better things, elect more Dems. What's easier, getting 50 out of 50, or getting 50 out of like 75? Do you prefer to have a threshold of 100%, or maybe only 67%? Likewise, don't elect a Senate where Manchin and/or Sinema are the 50th votes. It gives them veto power over everything.
If they were the 99th & 100th votes, they couldn't stop anything. Obviously, 100 Dems isn't feasible, but we used to routinely elect 60+, even 70+ Dems. The best Senate in my lifetime was the 111th, when Obama was elected. That was only marginally better than FDR's *worst* Senate. Margins matter!
[ just vote harder guys!!! it's the people's fault for voting wrong, not the government's fault for letting right wing propaganda run rampant, convincing the voterbase to vote wrong, while having and communicating no good values to them to vote for. ]
[ we need to do more than just fucking vote, that just passes responsibility onto whatever schmuck games more votes in the end. we need to *demand* shit from our politicians, we need to fight with grassroots activism, we need to change the party itself. ]