Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 02:47 PM Jun 2013

Do Senate Dems have the votes for the `nuclear option’?

It’s being privately discussed at the highest levels of the Democratic Party: The passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg has cast doubt on the ability of Senate Democrats to exercise the so-called “nuclear option” and change the Senate rules via a simple majority.
Here’s 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.
It’s simple math. Lautenberg’s passing means Dems now only have 54 votes in the Senate. (His temporary Republican replacement can’t 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, it’s hard to imagine that there wouldn’t be unity between Reid and the White House on this.
But the mere fact that Biden’s 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 Obama’s nominations. Currently they are expected to filibuster Obama’s 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 Obama’s ability to move his agenda forward. But the numbers are such that we simply can’t 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/
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do Senate Dems have the votes for the `nuclear option’? (Original Post) octoberlib Jun 2013 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author AtomicKitten Jun 2013 #1
how sad is it when a president cannot get his own majority party to pass his agenda lol nt msongs Jun 2013 #2
I think it has more to do with rampant corruption and influence peddling octoberlib Jun 2013 #3
What about Boxer, Feinstein, and Baucus? bornskeptic Jun 2013 #4
I haven't heard anything either. octoberlib Jun 2013 #5
All opposed it davidpdx Jun 2013 #8
After all the nominations and legislation that has been filibustered so far Hawaii Hiker Jun 2013 #6
I agree. We need a functioning government. nt octoberlib Jun 2013 #7
There is no way it will happen... davidpdx Jun 2013 #9

Response to octoberlib (Original post)

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)
3. I think it has more to do with rampant corruption and influence peddling
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 03:42 PM
Jun 2013

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)
4. What about Boxer, Feinstein, and Baucus?
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 05:05 PM
Jun 2013

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)
5. I haven't heard anything either.
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 06:59 PM
Jun 2013

I imagine some Dems are afraid of losing the filibuster in case they need it when Republicans have the majority.

Hawaii Hiker

(3,166 posts)
6. After all the nominations and legislation that has been filibustered so far
Mon Jun 17, 2013, 07:37 PM
Jun 2013

Any democrat who opposes filibuster reform is guilty of political malpractice....

davidpdx

(22,000 posts)
9. There is no way it will happen...
Tue Jun 18, 2013, 06:03 AM
Jun 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Do Senate Dems have the v...