Wasn't there a special maneuver that would allow

[Mme. Defarge]

a bill passed in the House to be passed in the Senate by a simple majority vote?

[AZSkiffyGeek]

1. That's what started the process last week

They still needed a cloture vote to end debate, rather than to start debate.
The Democracy Docket tweetstorm about it made it sound like they were doing an end-run around the cloture vote, but then said something along the lines of "they'll still be able to filibuster ending debate."
I did give them a chance to speak on it at least.

[PoliticAverse]

2. No, the maneuver allowed the bill to come to a direct consideration -

debate, but no amendments - but still could be blocked by final filibuster.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/12/chuck-schumer-voting-rights-bill-debate

The only bills that are immune from the filibuster explicitly are reconciliation bills.

[madville]

3. It provided a lot of false hope

And was misinterpreted by many. It was always going to require 60 votes for cloture to end debate, the maneuvering basically fast tracked it to the same eventual outcome.

[Bev54]

4. Yes, that is what they are doing now

read this and the full thread:

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. That trick allowed to bill to be debated but you still need 60 votes for final passage

Without this trick, there would have been no debate on these bills

[Tickle]

7. We couldn't gather a

majority. 48 votes is the best we could do

[Yandex]

8. It's dead as a doornail n/t

[Patton French]

9. False hope (n/t)

[Irish_Dem]

10. Only the GOP is allowed to do special maneuvers.