Democrats need a Super-Majority in the Senate or an end to the filibuster.

[no_hypocrisy]

Not just a majority. 61 or more democratic senators.

There's a good chance that Mitch McConnell will be re-elected, and thus also be elected as Minority Leader in the Senate. You remember what kind of leverage he had during Obama's two terms. He blocked nearly all legislation being put up for a vote. Not judiciously, but rather arbitrarily. Even if McConnell isn't re-elected, the republican block will elect someone who will follow Mitch's "strategy" to block all democratic proposed legislation. Bipartisanship is a pipe dream.

On the other hand, if Democrats are the majority, they can take away the stick in the hand of the Minority by voting to take away the filibuster and let a simple majority pass legislation. Yes, it cuts both ways: if Democrats are in the minority, and say Senate Republicans propose a federal law that outright bans abortions in all 50 states and U.S. territories, it will pass. The filibuster would have stopped it from coming to a vote. But I've come to the conclusion that the filibuster is not being used by Republicans (nor will it continue to be used) as originally intended. For the foreseeable future, the filibuster will be used to neutralize any legislation even if there is a Democrat in the WH, a democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, save for a super majority, which is statistically very difficult to expect.

[PJMcK]

1. Good points

One question: Wouldn't a super majority be 67 Senators? You know, 2/3rds?

[no_hypocrisy]

5. I was considering a "super majority" in terms of getting around a filibuster,

not overriding a veto. You may be correct.

Plus, a super majority isn't inviolate. Certain wavering Democrats can be persuaded through "incentives" or by threat to vote against their party and their constituencies.

[lagomorph777]

11. Assuming Biden wins, 61 would work for now.

Vetoes wouldn't be a likely issue in that situation.

[bullimiami]

2. The Rs didn't end the filibuster. They just steamrolled over it whenever it got in their way.

What’s good for the goose..

[True Blue American]

3. Mitch was Majority Leader

Democrats lost the Senate when they passed the ACA. Obama had 2 years,but was trying to clean up the Bush mess.

[dsc]

7. That isn't correct

We didn't lose the Senate until the 2014 election meaning we had a majority until Jan 2015. All of the blocking he did from Jan 09 until Jan 15 was as minority leader.

[Jamastiene]

4. Notice how these dirty tricks are only ever used by Republicans to stop Democrats?

They seem like special rules JUST to stop Democrats from trying to govern when we finally get in charge again. The Republicans are never stopped and these rules are never REQUIRED for them to do as they damn well please. It is just plain wrong how these rules are used only against Democrats. Technically, yes, they COULD be used against Republicans, but they never are. They are only used to stop Democrats from getting anything we want done.

[dalton99a]

6. Kill the filibuster and get things done for the American people.

Republicans can go fuck themselves

[honest.abe]

8. I think if the Dems get the majority they should nuke the filibuster.

The filibuster is an old outdated rule that stifles any substantive change.. either left or right. Seems to me if one side has the majority they should be allowed to use it effectively.

[dsc]

9. The filibuster has become a nearly completely one sided weapon

The GOP has only 3 real priorities when they have control. 1) Cut taxes (can be done w/o filibuster) 2) stock the government and judiciary with right wing whackos (again can be done w/o filibuster). 3) increase defense spending (never gets filibustered). The only major thing Trump wanted that was killed by the filibuster was ACA repeal. Conversely Democrats can't get any of their priorities passed without the filibuster.

[moose65]

12. Actually....

Since the ACA contains some tax provisions, it could have been killed with only 50 votes (50 Republicans plus Pence breaking the tie). Collins and Murkowski voted against the repeal. That was the setting for McCain's surprise vote against the repeal - meaning they only had 49 votes for repeal. The ACA held on by 1 vote.

But I agree with all of your other points.

The filibuster for legislation needs to go. I used to think otherwise, but the Republicans have abused it so much that it's time for it to go. It is the major reason why many people think that Congress "gets nothing done." Actually the House gets a LOT done, because they don't have a filibuster rule. Majority rules. I know that's a scary proposition when Republicans are in power, but elections have consequences. I really do feel that the majority deserves a chance to either succeed or fail.

[dsc]

13. I think they would have had 50 votes for a repeal and replace

but the replace part could be filibustered.

[beachbumbob]

10. I think the size of the tidal wave will be the end of the filibuster being used as a means

to stop the Senate from doing its work. If democrats hit 55-57 senate seats after Nov 3rd with holding 2018 gains in the house and a massive win by biden on popular vote count ( I expect 20 million vote advantage), Schumer will revise the filibuster rules.

no doubt at all