We are far away from 2016, but -however awful it may be- we may lose th Senate this year.

[sadoldgirl]

So I have a question to people on this forum, who have worked in politics: If the Republicans win the Senate, will they get rid of the filibuster? I am just not clear about that in my mind, because 2016 could change the Senate again. Your speculation, please.

[sharp_stick]

1. I don't know if they'd bother

without holding the White House it wouldn't give them much of an edge to actually accomplish anything on their POS agenda and allowing the Dems to use the filibuster would give them some useful talking points.

[randys1]

2. Piece of shit agenda, spell it out, i would call it worse than that but the American people

MUST be reminded EVERY god damn DAY just how vile and disgusting not only the teaparty obviously is but also the entire Republican party

thank YOU for reminding me to remind others...

[Swede Atlanta]

3. If....and I still believe that is a fairly uncertain "if"........

they take control of the Senate they might eliminate the filibuster altogether. I could see them doing that so they could move horrible, meaningless legislation through the Chamber while the House does the same.

These bills will include the Ryan budget, more votes to repeal Obamacare, more money for wars, more give aways to the rich, more guns everywhere, more people in prison, eliminating Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid and eliminating the federal minimum wage, the Departments of Energy, the Interior, Education, IRS and the EPA.

Now none of this will ever go anywhere because Obama will veto everything they pass and they will lack the 2/3 majorities in both houses to override his veto.

But for their base it will be mana from heaven. They can say see Congress isn't a do nothing Congress. We have passed a lot of bills (all bad) and Obama is the one who is obstructing. Why does he hate America?

But they might, just might not want to cross that line because the next time they are in the minority, and they would again be in the minority someday, eliminating the filibuster would mean they would lose any ability as a minority party to stop legislation or Supreme Court Nominees.

[sadoldgirl]

4. Thanks, yes the last paragraph reflects my thinking.

[FSogol]

5. Cheer up. We'll hold the Senate and increase our majority.

Don't let vocal morons get you down. A liberal wave is headed towards the US.

GOTV

[leftstreet]

6. That wave crashed and ebbed on the Obama Administration n/t

[sadoldgirl]

7. That is my impression too.

[FSogol]

9. Wrong. Millions of Americans now have insurance due to the ACA.

One party is trying to take that away. The future looks pretty dim for the GOP.

[leftstreet]

11. Millions are still without

So, millions of uninsured voters will turn out to prevent politicians taking away something they don't even have....

right

[FSogol]

13. So, no point in improving something if it doesn't improve everything for everybody?

You guys make me laugh.



That was one example.

How about the millions that can now get married that couldn't before.
How about the Latinos that are watching how the GOP treats immigrant kids.
How about all the women that see their rights being taken away.

Are they all sitting at home too?

[leftstreet]

14. By that reasoning, the 'liberal wave' succeeded

So...what will bring voters out this time?

Or is this just to be a positive affirmation, ceremonial commitment election? Maybe Democrats could hand out sage burning sticks and fortune cookies

[FSogol]

15. I never said a liberal wave succeeded. The Obama admin is the start of the country's

pendulum swinging back to the left. It will continue until both House of Congress and the Presidency are in Democratic control. Does that mean we will win every election? Nope, but rejection of failed GOP policies and ideas on a national level is coming. Cheer up Eeyore, they'll always be something to mope about.

[leftstreet]

16. LOL. So the Obama Administration was the 'start'

So...Democrats running post-Obama are pushing single payer healthcare, a public jobs program, nationalizing the banks, etc

Excellent

[FSogol]

17. Nationalizing the banks isn't part of the Democratic Party platform.

Just keep moving those goal posts.

Wanting to have any kind of discussions on those issues in Congress will require larger Democratic majorities. Sitting at home won't achieve that.

[leftstreet]

25. But Single Payer and a Jobs Program are?

That's good news

[tabasco]

28. Waaaaaaah! It's not a socialist utopia yet!!!

[leftstreet]

36. Technically the ACA is capitalist utopia

Not only does it guarantee profits, profits, profits, but goes one utopian step further and mandates people purchase it

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. Everything would have to go just right for the GOP to take the Senate.

I don't think it's going to happen, but the margin could get tighter.

[WI_DEM]

10. Several close races. I think it is 50-50--however, I think we have a very good chance

to pick up several key governorships including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan and even Wisconsin.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. ...and GEORGIA!!!!!!!!

[Laelth]

32. Indeed. And Georgia! n/t

-Laelth

[Maedhros]

12. This goes to show just how bankrupt is the Democratic Party.

With the Republicans in such disarray, openly in-fighting and alienating huge swaths of the electorate (like women, Hispanic people and LGBTQ persons), the Democrats are still in danger of losing the Senate?

[sadoldgirl]

19. Sorry about my skeptical attitude, but actually I thought I asked a relevant question, in spite of

its "if" nature.

[Maedhros]

26. I'm probably being overly pessimistic, and I apologize.

I just find it amazing that we're still on the defensive after the Republican Year of Incompetence.

Your question is valid. I think the Republicans hate or love the filibuster depending on who is in the White House. If they believe that a Democrat will win the presidency in 2016, then they would push for "filibuster reform." If they think that they can take the White House, then they will defend the "hallowed traditions of the Senate."

[sadoldgirl]

30. Thank you, yes, that makes sense

My question was probably more related to the Senate rules, because for either party there should be a small recourse for the minority. It just should be allowed in very, very rare cases. Am I wrong with this kind of thinking because at present the Repups are totally crazy?

[Maedhros]

33. The problems with the filibuster in its current form can be laid at the feet of Senator Robert Bird.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/how_robert_byrd_jr_created_the.html

From a comment quoted in the article:

The major change in Senate rules that made possible the modern filibuster occurred under the leadership of Robert Byrd during his first stint as Majority Leader. Byrd introduced the concept of "dual tracking" under which the Senate could have two or more bills under floor consideration at any one time. Prior to this change, a filibuster ended floor consideration of all other bills until the one being filibustered had been disposed of. No appropriations, no nominations, no unanimous consent agreements, no nothing. All Senate business came to a dead halt during a filibuster, which raised the stakes on the members conducting the filibuster exponentially. The pressure that would be brought to bear if the entire Senate ground to a halt was one of the reasons filibusters were so rare.

Once Byrd changed the rules to allow dual tracking, filibusters became almost pain free. A Senator simply had to announce they intended to filibuster and the Majority Leader would use his dual track authority to move to other business and get around the road block. Over time, most leaders simply did a whip check and declined to schedule a bill if a filibuster was possible..

When most people think of a filibuster, they think of a principled stand such as the fictional filibuster in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Not so, anymore. The filibuster has become a simple procedural trick. I say let's go back to the way it was before Bird changed the rules. Someone wants to filibuster? Make them (and their Party) sweat it out, while the media spotlights their obstruction (for good or ill - sometimes obstruction is needed).

For what it's worth, Bird appears to have realized his error:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-robert-byrd/the-filibuster-and-its-co_b_581919.html

[sadoldgirl]

34. Gee, thanks again

I did not know this. What I would like to see disappear totally is a block of the debate, and, yes the original filibuster as you describe it. I think that the public should be able to hear those debates, because a lot of the arguments from the right would fall on their face. Thank you again.

[Maedhros]

37. You're welcome! [n/t]

[brooklynite]

18. Those huge swaths aren't necessarily in Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, Montana...

and the other State where the most vulnerable Senate seats are...this time. Come 2016, the map strongly favors the Democrats.

[LonePirate]

20. Yes. They will control all of Congress so they could pass all their crazy legislation

Obama would veto it and then the Repubs would paint Dems as obstructions blocking progress for America. Yes, those hypocritical slime balls on the right are that brazen.

[sadoldgirl]

22. If you are right,

can the filibuster be reintroduced by the next Congress?

[LonePirate]

23. Yes, but why would Dems want to do that since we will have Dem President in 2017.

If Hillary runs, we could also flip the House then we could finally pass all the needed legislation that has been back logged since 2011.

[sadoldgirl]

24. I certainly hope for the Dems to take over,

but was the filibuster not introduced to help the minority in the Senate? I am not against that as long as it is used very rarely.

[HooptieWagon]

27. I don't think the situation is that dire.

I think Dems will retain control of the Senate, pick up a few House seats, and pick up a few Governor's offices.
Even if the Dems lose the Senate, Rep leadership will lose Cantor and McConnell ( if he loses as currently polling). That will put their new leadership caught between a rock and a hard place.... trying to appease a radical base, while also trying to appeal to swing voters in the '16 Presidential election. I suspect the result would be GOP paralysis and dysfunction.

[Louisiana1976]

29. I hope you're right.

[Laelth]

31. They don't see themselves holding the executive branch in the next 8 years.

Frankly, neither do I. As such, they will not weaken the filibuster. If anything, they will strengthen it.

-Laelth

[sadoldgirl]

35. Should we keep the majority

could we at least make sure that every bill proposal gets a debate or is the filibuster always including the obstruction of the debate?

[Laelth]

38. I am not sure how Majority Leader Reid will play it.

It will, of course, be his call to make.

-Laelth

[jwirr]

39. If we lose the Senate this year and we are still allowed to vote in 2016 the world will be more

than ready to move left but it will be too late - the Supreme Court will be theirs.