Democratic filibuster-proof majority in the Senate possible

[wyldwolf]

It started out as such a faint hope for New York Senator Charles Schumer that he hardly dared voice it. But as more and more Republicans retire or become engulfed by scandal, it has become irresistibly imaginable: the idea that Democrats might gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate after the 2008 elections. "It's a very remote chance and every star would have to align correctly," Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told TIME. "But it's way too early to make predictions."

It may not be too early, however, for Republicans to be fearing the worst. As early as July Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell grimly acknowledged: "When you look at our numbers, holding our own is the best we can hope for." And that was before five long-serving Senators recently announced their retirements, many of them in purple states such as Virginia and Colorado that may be difficult for the GOP to defend.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1671599,00.html

[jmp]

1. Fool me once ... (nm)

...

[trotsky]

2. What the hell difference does that matter?

What have the Repubes had to filibuster to this point?

[sharp_stick]

5. Actually quite a bit

they use the fillibuster to great advantage. I know it was a POS from scum but now I'm almost wishing cat killer Bill Frist had been successful with his nuclear option to kill the fillibuster.

[skipos]

3. Marginilizing Lieberman would be great.

though I am sure this thread will have a bunch of Dem bashing in it

[EST]

4. Even those who don't face election until '10 are beginning to

feel the hot breath of accountability scorching their collars.
It'd be nice to have had such a majority with a puke pretzeldunce, so as to whup him around a little, but we'll take what we can get.
The problem we're gonna have is keeping devious democrats in line. If they don't feel threatened, they won't have the pressure to do the right thing that they might, otherwise.