Another reason to be wildly optimistic about a filibuster proof majority

[Happyhippychick]

I was just reading on electoral-vote.com about the senate races. If the Dems manage to get 58 or 59 seats, Harry Reid will go all out to convince some moderate Republicans to switch parties to either Independent or Democrat. It has happened in the past and it makes total sense that a moderate would switch in order to be part of the majority.

Of course, the Dems also have a great shot at getting 60 outright but I would love it if they could get somebody else to convert so we could kick LIEberman out on his ass.

[Marsala]

1. Unfortunately getting very close to 60 will make it easier for LIEberman to keep his position

But, if we do get a filibuster-proof majority, we should be big enough to not care about it.

[tekisui]

2. They could, best case scenario get 60, without LIEberman.

It is a long shot, but the way things are going, who knows?

They have 50, now, I don't count Traitor Joe.

It would take pick-ups in: CO, NM, VA, AK(all of which are likely)

AND

Pick-ups in: OR, NC, MI, MN(all of which are possible)

AND

Pick-ups in: NH, KY, ME(The long shots)

for a total of 61.

No one thought NC would be dumping Dole a couple of weeks ago, now she is as good as gone.

[Happyhippychick]

4. Hell, Chambliss might lose his seat too! He's only ahead by two points!

And Wicker is only ahead by 4 points in MISSISSIPPI. Perhaps 63 seats? Or am I being ridiculously greedy?

[tekisui]

5. I counted Miss.,

only I labeled it MI, instead of MS(oops!). But, GA could make 62. Rising tide lifts all boats.

Look out Super Majority. It could happen.

[iceman66]

3. Unfortunately

there are not a lot of moderate Republicans left to try and convert. We may be stuck with Lieberman!

[Better Believe It]

6. We Only Need 51 Votes To Pass Legislation In The Senate

Any failure to win 60 Senate seats should not be used as an excuse to not pass legislation.

The Republicans passed George W. Bush's domestic and foreign policy agenda with well under 60 members of the Senate.

The Democrats can't pass Obama's agenda with a simple majority but Bush could? Why not?

If the Republicans filibuster against progressive legislation, let them!

All filibusters end, few rarely go beyond a few days and if Democrats take the floor to challenge the views of Republicans during a filibuster all the better.

[Happyhippychick]

7. 51? They need 60 votes to pass, don't they?

[Better Believe It]

10. No The Republicans Only Needed 51 Senate Votes To Pass Legislation ....

so why would we need 60 Democrats in the Senate?

The Republican Party never had anywhere near 60 votes in the Senate.

[crankychatter]

8. can we DO something about Lieberman? puh puh puh pleez? NT

[backscatter712]

9. Even if we only get 57 or 58, we'll have a much easier time getting legislation done.

That means to break a filibuster, we just lean on a few Republican Senators, tempt them with tasty earmarks, and get just two or three of them to flip over - the GOP will have a very difficult time maintaining that lockstep discipline.