2016 Postmortem

LiberalFighter

(51,301 posts)

26. We don't know if he had the votes to make it happen.

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 11:42 AM

Jan 2013

He needed at least 50 Democrats and there were too many that were either not supporting it or on the fence. The Democrats had 53 of their own and 2 Independents in their caucus.

Someone else on a different site suggested that there should had been a vote on the Udall/Merkley/Harkin resolution first. If that vote had failed then Reid's rule change would had gone poof because he wouldn't had had the bargaining chip. The Republicans were in a position of either agreeing to Reid's rule or take the chance that the U/M/H resolution would had passed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

You could say that Reid just didn't have the votes to pass the talking filibuster--- [View all] Atticus Jan 2013 OP

So why did he let it get this far?????????????? patrice Jan 2013 #1

The Drama makes for better Kabuki Theater, bvar22 Jan 2013 #12

That's one theory. nt patrice Jan 2013 #14

I know. How could we find out For Sure? bvar22 Jan 2013 #18

He better get the votes! Unless it's to late. The Wielding Truth Jan 2013 #2

You always start out talking about more than what you want, then negotiate. Tx4obama Jan 2013 #3

Didnt Sen Reid make an "agreement" with McDipShit this same time last session. rhett o rick Jan 2013 #4

Last time it was a handshake deal, this time there'll be a bill/vote and Rule 22 ... Tx4obama Jan 2013 #7

Thanks, good news. No more handshakes with republicans. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #8

I respectfully disagree that this is a "good" deal. Atticus Jan 2013 #9

Reid also doesn't want to do gun control. He just wants to sit in the Senate and grow politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #13

We don't know if he had the votes to make it happen. LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #26

I personally think he didn't have the votes and didn't call a vote to give cover to the 7 Ds davidpdx Jan 2013 #32

You could say that no legislation is going to be prevented from reaching the president's desk onenote Jan 2013 #5

I believe that is an unrealistically optimistic assessment and FAR from "undeniable fact". nt Atticus Jan 2013 #11

Its "optimistic" to acknowledge that the repubs hold the House? onenote Jan 2013 #15

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I meant! Atticus Jan 2013 #16

The Senate has the power to confirm (or not confirm) the President's appointments Hippo_Tron Jan 2013 #33

I agree with you except the last sentence. Sen Reid is doing exactly what the party rhett o rick Jan 2013 #6

Last time it was a handshake deal, this time there'll be a bill/vote and Rule 22 ... Tx4obama Jan 2013 #10

Good news, thank you. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #22

All talk Harry as usual. Nothing has really changed at all. budkin Jan 2013 #17

For the next two years, the Republicans still have the House. doccraig67 Jan 2013 #19

Getting the House back will be extremely difficult until the next census budkin Jan 2013 #29

TAKE THE LEADERSHIP AWAY FROM HIM trueblue2007 Jan 2013 #20

Who is likely to fight to take it away from him? Sanders? Certainly not that milquetoast, Durbin. ancianita Jan 2013 #21

Sanders isnt a DEmocrat. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #23

Thanks, but I already knew that. I was being sarcastic about the low probability for replacements.nt ancianita Jan 2013 #30

Sorry, I often stumble on sarcasm. nm rhett o rick Jan 2013 #31

I think the Senate Democrats are more than happy with his rhett o rick Jan 2013 #24

filibuster can NOT be anon. anymore, we will know who obstructs by name, we citizens will smash 'em. Sunlei Jan 2013 #25

And there is a limit on how long the filibuster lasts LiberalFighter Jan 2013 #27

Reid fits in well with the Dem senators, most of whom are sacks of shit! dmosh42 Jan 2013 #28