A Raw Story article highlights comments made during a New York Times discussion about how Senate Republicans can prevent certain priorities of President Donald Trump from advancing without directly opposing him in public.Political commentator Jonathan Bernstein described a strategy that political scientist Matthew Glassman refers to as 'negative agenda setting.' Under this approach, lawmakers simply avoid bringing a proposal, nomination, or funding request to the Senate floor for consideration.As a result, the measure effectively stalls or disappears without requiring any senator to cast a vote against the president.According to Bernstein, this tactic has become more noticeable as Trump's political standing with voters has weakened.

He argued that Senate Republicans have shown a greater willingness to publicly disagree with Trump, but many still prefer to avoid direct confrontations.

Instead, controversial proposals may be left unaddressed, preventing them from moving forward while allowing lawmakers to avoid political consequences.

The article cites examples including Trump's repeated calls to eliminate the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE Act, a voting-related measure, and his proposal for a $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund.

Senate Republican leaders reportedly declined to advance the filibuster proposal, while the funding request was significantly reduced after resistance within the party.

Bernstein suggested that Trump's governing style contributes to this outcome because he often focuses on broad goals rather than legislative details.

In his view, a president more engaged in the legislative process might push harder for specific proposals or avoid promoting initiatives that lack sufficient support.

The discussion concludes that many presidential priorities can effectively be defeated through inaction, without lawmakers ever formally voting them down.