2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDo Senate Dems have the votes for the `nuclear option’?
Heres what this means: A very plausible scenario being mulled by top Dems is that the prospects for changing the rules may rest on a tie-breaking Senate vote from Vice President (and Senate president) Joe Biden.
Its simple math. Lautenbergs passing means Dems now only have 54 votes in the Senate. (His temporary Republican replacement cant be expected to back rules reform.) Aides who are tracking the vote count tell me that Senator Carl Levin (a leading opponent of the nuke option when it was ruled out at the beginning of the year, leading to the watered down bipartisan filibuster reform compromise) is all but certain to oppose any rules change by simple majority. Senators Patrick Leahy and Mark Pryor remain question marks. And Senator Jack Reed is a Maybe.
As I reported here the other day, President Obama has privately reassured Harry Reid that he will support the Majority Leader if he decides to change the rules, which means Biden can be expected to break the tie in Democrats favor. Indeed, its hard to imagine that there wouldnt be unity between Reid and the White House on this.
But the mere fact that Bidens potential role as tie-breaker is being discussed underscores just how precarious the push for a change in the rules really is. And this makes things very tricky for Dems right now. They need to escalate the threat level in order to force Senate Republicans to drop their unprecedented opposition to Obamas nominations. Currently they are expected to filibuster Obamas pick as Labor Secretary and his choices to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency, and they are threatening to oppose his three nominations for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these are key to Obamas ability to move his agenda forward. But the numbers are such that we simply cant be sure whether Dems can make good on the threat to change the rules by hitting the nuke button. This could embolden Republican obstructionism further.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/06/17/do-senate-dems-have-the-votes-for-the-nuclear-option/
Response to octoberlib (Original post)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
msongs
(67,413 posts)octoberlib
(14,971 posts)than Obama's ability to shmooze or arm twist members of Congress, tbh. If Levin's against it , there's money involved somewhere. Congressmen are more interested in pleasing their campaign donors because they profit.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)As far as I know none of them have not publicly given up their opposition to filibuster reform. I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, I haven't heard about it.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)I imagine some Dems are afraid of losing the filibuster in case they need it when Republicans have the majority.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)They were part of the spinless 7.
Hawaii Hiker
(3,166 posts)Any democrat who opposes filibuster reform is guilty of political malpractice....
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Never had the votes, never will. The best chance was to do this at the beginning of the term and they pissed it away. Pryor is going to be a solid no. They would have to run the table by flipping Reed, Leahy, Feinstein, and Boxer to have a shot at it because at the last minute there is bound to be someone that changes their vote. So those of you from those states (RI, VT, and CA) you are the ones that could get it passed by finally getting your senators on board. Both of mine support it and one of the sponsored it.