On Day 2 of shutdown, Trump suggests nuclear option in Senate

and they are usually loathe to get rid of their ability to filibuster. There are too many blowhards in there who like the tool.

Everything they have done in the last year has been 51 votes.

Cabinet picks, Federal judges, Supreme Court justice, Tax Cut bill.

We just fell into their trap! The R's will not tolerate ongoing Democratic obstruction, and now - like it or not - Democrats have shutdown the government.

If we don't end this NOW, the only thing they will be working on will be the "nuclear option."

When it comes to general legislation....

The previous "nuclear option" was regarding confirmations, where the vast majority are done by unanimous consent and where the more critical appointments had the ability to filibuster until recently.

Turtle could do a kamikaze move and try to change the rule but I expect there are a few GOPers who would not go along and all they need is 2 of them to object. I.e., with McLame no longer voting, the real split is "50 - 49".

4 years or 8 years, they get the first 2 years, and then it's divided government. It's what the American people do.

Now. Would R's rather "negotiate" with a couple other R's to get to 50 - or at least 10 Democrats to get to 60?

Link to tweet

Twitter-in-Chief:

Great to see how hard Republicans are fighting for our Military and Safety at the Border. The Dems just want illegal immigrants to pour into our nation unchecked. If stalemate continues, Republicans should go to 51% (Nuclear Option) and vote on real, long term budget, no C.R.’s!

When Democrats had control after the 2008 election, they were able to reach the 60 vote threshold by the summer of 2009 when Arlen Specter switched parties. In this current case, the split is so much closer, which is why the conundrum has come up. There are a bunch of moderate (D) Senators and even an (I) - Angus - who could conceivably flip for certain things.

However they are dealing with a President who the least popular in history, and they are also dealing with some rumbles of "wave" that seems to exceed what happened in 2010 with the teabaggers.

The only things they have in their back pocket as a stopgap are that if by some miracle, Democrats took over Congress -

(1) Drumpf could do like Obama did and threaten to veto or veto anything that was not acceptable (and there would not be enough to override)

(2) Democrats tend to be more "reasonable" and might consider re-instituting the rule for the Senate's survival's sake (which would cause our base to have a fit), which would lock out our agenda upon the next flip.

In reality - they got what they really really wanted - the tax cuts for the rich. Anything else is icing on the cake at this point (like killing the ACA by slowly taking away its funding mechanisms).

Shit Gibbon shut down the government by blowing up the Senate deal he originally agreed to. A deal that would have easily passed the House with some Dem votes and we wouldn't be talking about this.

With the filibuster, it depends on if the Rethugs miscalculate the impact of the shutdown, ie. who's to blame. If they think it actually hurts the Dems, whether it actually does or not, they will leave well enough alone. That is McConnell's first inclination. Then again, they could go for broke and see everything they've done easily reversed in a couple elections cycles or less. I really don't think McConnell will go there, but time will tell.

getting rid of the filibuster for spending bills would be the last nail if these idiots lose control of the house of representatives in november (which looks more and more like a possibility).

This is political suicide

He has no clue on policy, process or procedure. Just wants to "win" but doesn't have a clue on the mechanics needed to make that happen.

Seems the option is there if they are ruthless and desperate enough to take it.

Not necessarily this one issue in particular.

Totally agree with you. But I do wonder if the Rethugs are seriously considering the nuke option .

51 votes to change the rule? Would the parliamentarian be involved? Any issues with the rule about increasing the deficit?

Thanks

The issue is that if there are 2 of their own who would object (and in the past, there were a few who did not want to give up their ability to filibuster), then the rule change would not pass.

Note that they only have an effective "50 - 49" majority since Mccain is pretty much no longer voting. If they lose another person, then Pence could break a 49 - 49 tie, but the loss of a 2nd person would kill it.

The "deficit" thing is regarding the "reconciliation" process for budget-related legislation, which has its own rule ("Byrd Rule" ), but that rule is based on a law (Budget Control act of 1974, later amended a few times) and I do not think that would suddenly change with non-budget related rules change.

Thanks!

Along with the House does he realize they also could do many things with his rule changes proposals, making it much harder on him soon? Works both ways .

Would be the best thing that ever happened to the Democrats after we take back Congress.

Start with Neil Gorsuch.

His minions are constantly spouting the infallibility of der fuhrer

Trump in his own words saying the responsibility and blame falls on the Prez.

One element I feel is missing in these discussions on Capital Hill and within the online communities is the reputation of our country. To me, the DACA argument is secondary to the argument of our country's honor and keeping our word. It's a matter of trust.

The country made a promise that it no longer feels compelled to honor. We are seeing this situation come up time and again under this Administration. This is dangerous not only domestically but globally. We see more international leaders questioning whether they can take America at it's word. Whether it's worth getting into negotiations or agreements with the US when we may change our mind down the road.

To break our word to these young men and women will have unintended consequences for years to come.

Republicans have a majority and they have more than willing to change the rules in the past. They should own the shutdown.