My prediction: (0.00 / 0)

If any proposal that even makes filibusters much more difficult ever gets close to passing, more opponents will suddenly come out of the woodwork. Deep down, most of them will be loathe to give up a system that makes it much more likely for each Senator to get a chance to play king or queen for a day.

But then I'm a cynic. I hope I'm wrong.

---

by: Steve LaBonne @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 16:34:08 PM UTC

Led by Obama (0.00 / 0)

behind the scenes, of course.

---

by: kroses @ Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 16:24:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bigger than November (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for staying on top of this. Reforming the filibuster may have a bigger impact on what legislation we get out of the 112th Congress than all of the November elections combined. Lowering the threshold to pass legislation from 60 to 50 (plus Biden) would be akin to gaining 10 Senate seats.  

---

by: Kal @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 16:42:26 PM UTC

According to this diary (0.00 / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Tester made up some DC boilerplate about working together better and tried to avoid taking a stand either way. Obviously not an ally, but not virulently opposed.

---

by: bay of arizona @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 17:20:02 PM UTC

I disagree entirely (4.00 / 1)

I'm sorry Chris, but this appears to be a prescription for repeating the Public Option fiasco all over again -- a huge argument/agitation for an ill-defined "thing" that becomes easier to defeat precisely because it's ill-defined. This allows the opponents to define what it is they oppose.

Contrary to your suggestion, the most important thing that needs to be accomplished is to reach general consensus on what a sellable, achievable filibuster reform would look like. On that score, a "51-vote Senate" positioning is a loser. There are too many who will demand that a minority have some rights. Instead, keep a 60-40 structure, but make it such that the burden is placed the minority to sustain their objection.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 17:31:05 PM UTC

Good logic, but maybe not the solution (0.00 / 0)

I like your logic. The problem is not just that 40 Senators can stop legislation, it is that 40 can very easily stop legislation while the 60 must work really hard to pass anything. And of course, behind this problem is that the geographic makeup of the Senate means that a small, conservative minority of the US population can elect 40 Senators who can then easily dominate the federal government. Making this process more difficult would go a long ways towards solving the problem.

But I'm not sure that opponents of the filibuster can agree on anything. And pushing them all to agree to anything may unravel the work that has already been done.

At this point, it seems to me that the most useful thing we can do is to focus on how a small minority of Republicans can block real change. There are then two obvious solutions: elect more Democrats or change the Senate rules to allow Democrats to have more power. Most Democrats should be able to agree on this and if electing more Democrats doesn't work, then they ought to be open to the other solution. But of course, they are all afraid that it might ruffle the feathers of some important campaign funder or induce a right-wing attack on themselves, so even though filibuster reform is an obvious solution, Democratic Senators have a difficult time standing up for it.

But if we can generate enough agitation at the grassroots, then even the most conservative/fearful Democrat should be able to vote for reform.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 19:11:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Two points (0.00 / 0)

1) Keeping 60/40 is a political decision that severely undercuts those opposing reform. It acknowledges that the 40% minority should have some power. Forty Senators would still have rights. There's no "cheating" or changing the numbers or simply turning the Senate into a majority-rule-only body. In short -- a 60/40 filibuster reform can be sold as "not taking anybody's rights away."

The term "51 vote Senate" should be purged from the filibuster debate. It only hands opponents a gift: A legitimate reason to oppose.

2) The real question to be resolved is the proper and appropriate burden the 40% minority must meet to exercise their rights. It should be a substantial, but not undue, burden. Our filibuster problem right now is not due to the numbers or ratio, but rather it's due to the fact that under current rules the obstructing minority bears no burden at all. They get a free ride, until the majority meets a substantial burden.

Cloture should not require 60 affirmative votes -- it should require 40 negative votes to fail. The minority should be required to produce 40 negative votes on demand. And the minority should be forced to hold the floor and debate. Craft a plan around these reasonable principles.

The way to win the filibuster debate is to make it about burden, not about numbers.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

---

by: Steve in Sacto @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 21:36:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keep them talking? (0.00 / 0)

"what we need to do is group all supporters of the various types of substantive reform together, and keep them talking"

Any Senator who hasn't already made up their mind about the filibuster is a dunderhead. They sit at their desks watching their legislation get filibustered. Any rational person would be thinking about how to change the rules.

And if you think about it for five minutes it's clear that there are only two options: #1 Try to appease Republicans in hopes they will honor this gentlemen's agreement when they retake the majority (highly doubtful), and #2 Go all the way to a 51-vote Senate and accomplish as much as we can while we still control both houses and the executive.

What we need to be asking is why are some Democrats more fearful of an unbridled Democratic majority than an unbridled Republican majority? Why is that?

---

by: bmull @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 17:36:43 PM UTC

Why can't get more Bernies and Merkleys (4.00 / 1)

in the Senate?

The ten names don't completely surprise me, but I'm disappointed in Tester.   We worked hard to get him elected--and he's turning his back on reform? Feingold is a different story--I'm wondering why he wouldn't want change, but maybe he's been in too long already.

Agitation takes a lot of energy, but that seems to be the main takeaway though from the NN conference.  I'm relying more on Keith, Rachel, Ed, and to a certain extent, Larry to keep the heat up.  

---

by: Benny @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 18:17:07 PM UTC

Because the establishment largely controls (4.00 / 1)

the nominating process, and we generally don't get engaged in elections until the waning days of the primary or even after the race is over.  We need to start making winners. which required getting in early.  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

---

by: David Kaib @ Fri Jul 30, 2010 at 14:59:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]