Do we really need 60 votes in the Senate?

[FlyingSquirrel]

If the Repugs had 54 Senators right now plus two Independents who caucused with them, and a Republican president - would they need four more Republican Senators to ensure that their agenda wouldn't be blocked?

I think not.

I think the Democrats better put their big girl panties on and get things done this time around, regardless of how the last 4 races go and regardless of who fills Obama and Biden's seats.

[Up2Late]

1. For basic "government as usual" no, but for real change, Yes.

By Real Change I mean 1) fixing Social Security, 2) Medicare, 3)Medicaid, 4) The U.S. Health System, and 5) truly reviving the U.S. Economy, then yes, 60 is necessary.

[Greyskye]

4. I agree w/ U2L

After the dust settles, I expect the GOP to be as obstructionist as possible.

I hope that it's otherwise, but they've lowered my expectations so many times that absolutely nothing that they do, no matter how slimy, can surprise me anymore.

[galaxy21]

2. Depends. How many moderate republicans are there?

[Eric J in MN]

3. Here are some Senators whose defeat in 2010...

...would get us closer to 60 votes:

John McCain of Arizona
Mel Martinez of Florida
Johnny Isakson of Georgia
Chuck Grassley of Iowa
David Vitter of Louisiana
Kit Bond of Missouri
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
Richard Burr of North Carolina
George Voinovich of Ohio
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania

[FSogol]

5. We need better leadership in the House and Senate.

Time to replace Pelosi and Reed.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Depends on what you want the govt to do. If you want CHANGE

then you need to pass some major legislation, stuff that the other side as the party of the Bushler status quo will surely fight, you need as many Senators as possible.

If you just want to muddle through the next 4 years and have Obama run on that record, where most of the stuff he really wanted to accomplish wasn't even allowed to reach his desk, then be content with 54. 54 is good for normal times - these ain't normal times we're headed for.

We can get some moderate Republicans to play ball. But on the other hand there aren't that many of them left since we've poached most of them.

[onenote]

7. 60 Democratic Senators isn't a magic number. But more Democratic Senators

is better than fewer.

If we had 60, we still wouldn't be guaranteed that a filibuster could be overcome on some issues, since not all Democrats toe the party line on everything. And occasionally, a repub will jump ship.

But for that reason, more is always better

[Jersey Devil]

8. Not with a prez who knows how to use the bully pulpit

Reagan got a lot of his proposals approved by Congress by getting on TV and convincing the public that they ought to be passed, putting pressure on Congress to pass them. Bush couldn't do that - for Chrissakes, he could hardly speak English let alone get large numbers of voters on his side.

Obama is about the best speaker I have ever heard. If there are filibusters by the Republicans he can get on the tube and fire up the voters to get his agenda passed so that the Repubs will be forced to back down.

[woofless]

9. Am I missing something here? Did we not used to sit out

filibusters? Let the SOB's rant and show America why they are opposed to progress and then pass the damn bill anyway. Why are we scared of filibuster?

[TexasProgresive]

10. Takes a supermajority of 60 votes to close discussion

It's not a matter of sitting it out.

[GetTheRightVote]

11. It would have been nice so no filibuster possible but Dems control the Senate & House of Reps & WH

:kick:

So now they control government.

:kick:

[cloudythescribbler]

12. Actually, "WE" (Democrats) need MORE than 60, as a # of Democrats easily defect

There is no symmetry to how the two parties function in Congress, girl panties or whatever notwithstanding. On one hand, Democrats are soft even where WE have the majority in the senate or in BOTH Houses, as was true THROUGHOUT the Bush pere Administration, and the Nixon presidency. So Democrats are disunited, and there are plenty, as in the war resolution, who won't even set any CONDITIONS on their cooperation with the most AWFUL of Repuke Administration policies, almost all the time.

On the other hand, Repukes stick together and fall in line obediently almost all the time, as in the SYSTEMATIC filibuster that almost EVERY SINGLE filibusterable bill for reform faced in the Senate 93-94. Even with 44 or less Senators, they (including so-called "moderate" Repukes -- "moderate" like the "maverickness" of McCain) went along, with few dissenters even relative to their ("moderate" Repukes) small and dwindling number.

So, to be realistic, any political program that is seriously, even if most moderately, reformist in a progressive direction can get SOME things done w/less than 60 senators, but cannot fulfill even close to the full promise (as Repukes can) without MORE than 60, even if only a few more.

I would add that this time, ANY Repukes including "moderates" who go along with even a sign filibusters of the extremely moderate reforms apt to be targeted BIGTIME to replace w/even a moderate Democrat who WON'T join the filibusters

Lieberman should be given notice that he joins in filibusters and he's toast (but my guess is his vote will not or will very rarely be needed/decisive)

[olkaz]

13. Either way, we can expect the Blue Dogs to hold us hostage now.

So you might want to keep that in mind.

[Sebastian Doyle]

14. No. We need 61

So we can kick that piece of shit Lieberdouche to the curb once and for all.