Will 57 or 58 Democratic senators make us the minority?

[W_HAMILTON]

I keep hearing how we need 60 senators to gain a filibuster-proof majority, but what if we don't reach that total? Does simply being in the majority mean nothing? Why were Republicans allowed to railroad through so much legislation back when they were in power? They didn't have a filibuster-proof majority either, did they? So, why does it seem like unless we get 60 senators in there, we won't be able to accomplish anything? Will the Republicans just filibuster every-damn-thing, making it impossible to accomplish anything on the national level?

I've really been worried about this. How does this all work? Can the Republicans just filibuster EVERYTHING, meaning we can't get new healthcare laws passed, or new education laws passed, or new corporate oversight laws passed, etc? I'm really worried that we will win the presidency, gain in both the House and Senate, but have Republicans filibuster everything so we are not able to accomplish any of our Democratic goals. Am I wrong in thinking this, or is there some mechanism in place to keep the Republicans from doing that, even if we don't have the 60 required votes?

[FLAprogressive]

1. Not really because I think we could count on moderate republicans like Snowe/etc.

to vote with us enough to where we'll have 60 votes for just about everything. I wouldn't be surprised if senators like Snowe or Collins vote with us more than Ben Nelson votes with us .

[Strelnikov_]

5. I agree. For most good legislation we were typically able to muster 54+

votes the last few years. With the probable pickups the filibuster is probably history for most good legislation.

[pirate_satellite]

10. There'll be more pressure

on moderate Republicans to stick with the party line, when their vote represents the difference between 59 and 60 Democratic votes, than when it's the difference between 53 and 54 Democratic votes (in which case their vote is merely of symbolic value).

[FLAprogressive]

24. Maybe if they get pressured they might be tempted to pull a Jeffords....

....I could see Olympia Snowe becoming an Independent and caucusing with us if the Republican party keeps moving so far to the right.

[Strelnikov_]

31. More pressure? To toe the modern day Whig party line?

I don't think so.

[geckosfeet]

2. There are 100 senators. 51 is a majority. eom

[W_HAMILTON]

7. I know that.

Read my post.

[geckosfeet]

13. So, if 60 provides a fillibuster proof majority, then until there are 60 dem senators,

the republicons will continue to do what they are doing today. They will block and bottle up legislation that they don't like. They will litter bills with pork and earmarks. I also suspect that they will cry unconstitutional from time to time and drag things in front of the RW whores in the supreme court.

[W_HAMILTON]

14. Well, that sucks.

I was hoping some people would say otherwise, but judging from the responses, I guess I was right to be feeling kinda hopeless about everything. I guess our best bet is to get as close to 60 as possible, and hope some Republicans jump ship and vote with us when it comes to issues like healthcare, and education?

I wish the Democrats would have been more forceful in blocking legislation back when they were the minority.

[tavalon]

20. Not if you believe our fellow Democrats

The worst part about the last two years has been having the Republicans school us again and again about how to be an effective minority party. That hurt more than anything.

[TriMetFan]

3. There is also...

Senator Bernie Senators.

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. You have to make them pay the political price

for filibustering everything. Not letting bills come to a vote simply due to the threat of a filibuster is lame. Make them do the work and shame themselves in full public view.

[RC]

6. You are forgetting about the DINO's

ND has two DINO's, one in the Senate and one in the House. Conrad and Pomeroy. Both should really belong to the Republican Party. Their voting record is not good for supposedly being Democrats.
Dorgan is the closet thing we have for a Democrat in this state.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. So what happens?

Do we need 70 freaking Senators to accomplish anything? Why were the Republicans able to push through so much legislation, even when they didn't have an overwhelming majority? Why can't we do the same? Why do we have to have such an overwhelming majority to be able to accomplish anything?

It just makes me a little worried that we will gain in everything, but won't be able to accomplish our goals because Republicans filibuster everything.

[orleans]

30. ...

"Why were the Republicans able to push through so much legislation, even when they didn't have an overwhelming majority?"

because they owned the house. and the fuckhead was signing everything that passed both houses. they didn't need 60 pukes in the senate. don't forget--cheney was the tiebreaking vote on the occassion or two that happened.

we also had more dinos around than we have rinos. and collins and snowe stuck with their party most of the time--just so they could be good little republikas.

ugh.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Actually, Conrad votes with the Democrats more than Dorgan does:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

[MrsBrady]

8. 51 makes a majority, but

it takes 60 votes to override a filibuster. why, I don't know. maybe someone else does.

but that is what has been happening. dems get something going and then repukes would filibuster and then blam, all for nothing.

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Yes....

...I was being facetious.

Why do we have to have such an overwhelming majority to pass legislation?

If we don't have 60 senators, is the Senate basically a graveyard for all legislation that Republicans don't want to pass?

If so, that's bs. How will we get healthcare reform if it will just take one Republican senator to filibuster it? How will we accomplish anything, if we aren't able to get to that filibuster-proof majority?

And WHY THE HELL when the Democrats are in the minority, do we not do the same sort of thing, and lock up everything the Republicans propose? Why do we let them trample on us, then let one or two of them derail issues we try to address?

[rucky]

15. It only works that way when Dems are in the majority. n/t

[W_HAMILTON]

16. But why?

Why can't we block their legislation when we are in the minority, and why do we have to have such a huge majority to be able to accomplish anything in the Senate? It stinks.

[Fumesucker]

17. The Republicans didn't really do all that much filibustering..

They threatened to filibuster and the Dems basically just said, "oh well if you're going to filibuster just never mind".

[MiniMe]

25. It didn't matter, they couldn't achieve cloture

[Fumesucker]

26. But people here are talking about how much the Republicans filibustered..

When they really didn't..

I'm strangely fond of reality and facts.

[MiniMe]

27. They have come up with a "polite" way to fillibuster

imho, they should make them fillibuster.

[Fumesucker]

28. Exactly. n/t

[Two Americas]

18. 110

Once we have 110 Senators, plus 3/4 of the House, and the White House, plus all of the governorships and state legislatures, then we can start to do things. Even then, it will be decades and decades to take a few baby steps. These things take time. Right wing things, on the other hand, can happen almost instantly. But we need to have won everything first before we can hope to start fighting, let alone winning. Once we have won than we can start talking about winning. Of course if we have already won without having to fight or do anything, it is hard to say what the incentive would then be to start fighting or doing anything. No one said it was going to be easy.

[W_HAMILTON]

22. LOL

It seems that way :(

[W_HAMILTON]

23. Well, hell, how about this?

Can we draw up legislation for universal healthcare, but include in the bill amendments for banning gay people, outlawing liberals, denouncing New York City for being "fake America," etc....then when it passes, we just have Obama line-item veto the Republican crap and keep the universal healthcare part? :)

[MiniMe]

19. Cloture. You need 60 votes to achieve cloture on a bill

I don't think we will have to worry much about a veto in Obama is the President. But if they can't get a bill up for a floor vote, it won't help. You only need a simple majority to pass a bill, if you can get it past cloture.

[tavalon]

21. Gosh, I really think you're missing the joke here

The sad, sad joke that we're being strung along by our own party while being strung up by the other party.

[kenny blankenship]

29. it depends on the Republicans' party discipline

if they wind up with enough Senate seats to filibuster, they can use that ability to stop any given piece of legislation-or all legislation- if they stick together. Democrats don't stick together in opposition to the majority, but Republicans have a record of keeping their members in line and playing the filibuster card to the max.

That will be the one tool they have to prevent transformational legislation from being passed revoking the Reagan Revolution and to keep a transformational figure from being re-elected President. Their whole political philosophy is at stake, and they have only their most rabid core of supporters left. So you have to take seriously the possibility that they will obstruct to their best of their ability.

I don't know if you remember how Bob Dole led Senate Republicans to stop the election of Bill Clinton from changing America in the early 90s. First they stopped him from appointing his own choice of cabinet Secretaries. It was a line drawn in sand or stone or blood - Clinton would be allowed to do nothing. Nothing was too trivial for the Senate Republicans to bring Washington to a standstill over. In Clinton's first 2 years there was a record number of filibusters. The one important legislative Democratic initiative Clinton hoped to accomplish, healthcare reform, went down in flames. The leader of the obstruction, Bob Dole, was of course planning on becoming President himself. So he wanted Clinton to look as ineffectual as possible. He succeeded tactically and would soon get great assistance thwarting Clinton from Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress. But the overall strategy didn't pan out for Dole's Presidential bid in 1996. Having accomplished practically nothing a Democrat would want to claim credit for, Clinton was re-elected anyway. The Achilles' heel of Bob Dole's plan was always that it called for Bob Dole to somehow be elected President by the people of the United States. Dole really needed something more like the Gerald Ford strategy of being appointed to the job, or G.W. Bush's trick of having his daddy's friends write up a court order making him President.