Reply #41: Well, that's actually not true.

[TahitiNut]

Ignoring the technical possibility of attracting some moderate (honest) Republican support ....

The Dems stated retaliation if the Pugs abused their authority and illicitly wipe out the filibuster for nominations is to halt all Senate business unless critical and CLEARLY unanimous or nearly so. The tactic is to deprive any motion of 'unanimous consent' ... an "efficiency" practice where the Rules of the Senate are bypassed in the interests of expediency. Requests to "revise and extend," forgo the Clerk reading of a bill, and a plethora of other instances where the Rules are evaded would then be subjected to roll call votes (and the coincidental quorum) and the requisite majority or supermajority result.

Why not just monkey-wrench 'em?

If there's absolutely no accommodation for Democratic Senators (who, by the way, represent the majority of the American People!) in a one-party-rule Senate, what the hell is there to lose? More seats? So fucking what? If we have no voice as it is, what the hell is the use of playing nicey-nicey?