Are we at a point in time where getting a filibuster proof Senate majority is unattainable?

[In It to Win It]

I'm one to believe that if we do away of the filibuster to enact an abortion rights bill or anything else that we care about, we can't be scared of "retaliation." If we're going to do it, we can't be scared of the scenarios that could happen when Republicans gain power.

If there is no path to a Senate majority of 60 pro-choice, pro-climate, pro-Democratic agenda Senators, then what exactly is the plan for the Party if that is unattainable? What does the Party do if we want to enact our agenda but cannot obtain a proper Senate majority to make that happen? Is the Party ready to take the plunge of nuking the filibuster if getting a filibuster proof majority for issues like abortion rights or climate change is unattainable?

[SoCalDavidS]

1. Pretty Much

We probably need at least 55 Democrats in order to nuke it. Manchin & Sienema are not the only ones opposed.

[TwilightZone]

3. And several are undecided.

Hirono (leaning toward getting rid of it), King (I) and Tester (open to changing his mind) are all maybes. I'm sure there are others, but those are the three that come to mind.

[TwilightZone]

2. Retaliation is a real threat, though.

And it should be considered seriously rather than tossing it off as an afterthought as often happens on DU and elsewhere.

If we nuke the filibuster and pass major legislation with, say, 50 votes, the door is open for the GOP to do the same by swinging just one Senate seat. That just doesn't seem like a viable long-term solution.

That being said, I'm not sure what the solution is other than electing more Democrats. In the current political environment, however, getting 60 seems pretty unlikely for the foreseeable future.

It's also quite possible that if the GOP returns to control of the Senate, they'll get rid of it.

[In It to Win It]

4. I agree, it is a real threat. That is not power that I would want them to have.

For the longest time, I held no opinion on getting rid of the filibuster. However, I find coming up against the roadblock that is the filibuster for the things we want to do.

What exactly is on the Republican platform that requires overcoming a filibuster? I can't think of anything. Maybe trade agreements? I can't really imagine an issue where there would be a need for them to get rid of the filibuster, unless they have a sudden itch for big government action. Maybe that changes in the future.

Let's take reproductive rights since that's pretty fresh and top of mind issue, if getting 60 senators (specifically pro-choice senators) seems unlikely in the foreseeable future and we also shouldn't get rid of the filibuster, how exactly do we accomplish our goal nationwide access to reproductive care? The only other option is dealing with this state-by-state patchwork of mess that now find ourselves in.

[TwilightZone]

5. Much of their agenda would be helped by getting rid of the filibuster.

National ban on abortion
Banning same-sex marriage
Criminalizing same-sex relations
Kill SS and Medicare
Expansion of gun rights
Criminalizing gender-affirming therapy and medical care
Kill environmental and other regulations
Further cut taxes on the rich

None of that passes if they need 60 votes. All of it passes if they only need (and have) 50 and the presidency.

[In It to Win It]

6. Cutting taxes

doesn't need 60 votes.

I think they would leave killing environmental regulations to any crackpot Republican president that will come.

I'm unsure on SS and Medicare because I would think that's a tax and spending issue that they could be done effectively through budgetary means with a simple 51-vote majority. Correct me if I'm though because I'm not certain.

I think that while Mitch McConnell is in charge, much of that won't happen. Mitch McConnell is a shitty person but he's not impulsive, like Lauren Boebert or MTG. Someone else other than Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn would need to be in charge of the Senate for most of that to get through. Mitch McConnell has gladly taken the heat to keep the filibuster for legislation all this time. I think he would have nuked the filibuster to do most of that under Trump if he really wanted to. Someone more right wing and more crazy would need to assume the senate GOP leadership.

[TwilightZone]

8. You're putting way too much faith in McConnell and Cornyn.

If we get rid of the filibuster, all bets are off. We need to stop fooling ourselves into believing otherwise.

They would also reverse anything we managed to pass.

[In It to Win It]

10. I don't disagree

that all bets are off. My overall point is that if we do that, we can't be afraid of what may come. If the Party does it, the Party has to be willing to accept the consequences of that choice.

If we can't get 60 senators, at some point, the Party has to make a choice at the national level. Either we do nothing and hope that the GOP will be the ones to pull the trigger first, or get rid of the filibuster and actually do things.

[roamer65]

7. At this point, I favor carve outs with Roe gone.

[Tree Lady]

9. I think the only answer is what Maine did

When they hit back at new law about private schools and vouchers with their own law.

All the blue states need to have laws that affect the laws being written on the right.

[Celerity]

11. to get to 60, you will need to something similar to this map (which is near impossible in 2026, the

soonest it could happen)

Tan States are split 1 Dem, 1 Rethug. I cannot, in almost any remote situation seeing us grab BOTH seats in those states for a LONG time, decades maybe



The only possible further pickups if we lost some off that map (VERY LIKELY) would be ONE, (not both, not a chance) seats from these following 6 states (and these are true reaches and dependent in the first 2 cases on one special candidate for each)

Kansas - ONLY if Kathleen Sebelius runs, she so blew it in 2020 (when the seat was open) by refusing to run, many Kansas experts said she could have beaten Marshall, but now the chances are so low. I am still mad at her.

Tennessee - ONLY if Tim McGraw runs. I am so mad at him (more than any other refusenik from 2020), as he TWICE refused to run (after promising to do so when he turned 50, and did this for a decade) He refused OPEN seats in both 2018 and 2020. In the 2018 Blue Wave, he would have smashed the brain dead idiot neo Confederate nazi lite Marsha Blackburn.

Indiana (Buttigieg, if not POTUS, would make a superb Senator, but Indiana is far too fundie nazi gay bash christofascist to elect him I fear, ffs)

Alaska (somewhere out these there has to be an Alaskan version of Fetterman, a unique character who can capture that States' quirks)

Missouri (super stretch, almost impossible now but stranger things have happened)

Texas (Cruz is the main target, or when the Cornyn seat opens up, both are massive reaches)


plus

Montana (maybe maybe Bullock could swing it so we held both seats)

[In It to Win It]

12. That would be a really tall order

I live in Florida. I'm really starting to reevaluate whether Florida is winnable for Democrats.

Other states like Iowa, Indiana, Missouri has been drifting away from us.

[Celerity]

13. Literally over half, 34 of the 67 listed above, are NOT at all for sure things

Many are unlikely to be Blue at all.

Here are all the unsure (some are very likely Blue, some are coin tosses) to unlikely seats:

Both NV (we are in trouble here in 2022)

Both AZ

Both WI

Both MI

Both PA

Both NC (our best 3 candidates ALL refused to run in both 2020 and 2022)

Both FL very hard to grab one, let alone both

Both OH very hard to grab both

Both VA (zero excuse to not always have 2 Dem Senators now)

Both GA (massively important seats, Walker beating Warnock would send me over the edge, mainly because Walker is literally mentally handicapped level in intelligence, borderline insane, and with a violent past, plus is a near Trumpian level liar, whereas Warnock is one of the most brilliant Dems in Congress)

Both NH (we are so lucky Sununu refused to run now, he would have most likely won with ease)

Next up:

Then one seat gain possibilities (all the other 2nd seats are lock Red except ME, which is a Blue lock for the other seat) and MT (Bullock could win a 2nd seat, just not likely, and the other seat with Tester is far from a sure thing) from each of these:

ME
KS
TN
MT (plus Tester who is always at risk)
IN
AK
MO
IA
KY
WV
TX

Some of those take extraordinarily lucky and/or specific circumstances to make a Blue seat.

KY, only shot is McTurtle's seat once it's open with Beshear

TX (Cruz is the only shot to take out until Cornyn retires, and both seats will be hell to win for us)

IA, only real shot is Ernst's seat. So pissed at Vilsack for refusing to run in 2020. Grassley will turn his seat over to his grandson soon unless we can pull off a HUGE upset now.

MO, either seat is tough as hell (I listed us as POSSIBLY winning one, never two)

IN see MO

AK see MO

MT see MO, and only Bullock would have a shot atm, IMHO, of getting us a 2nd seat in 2026, (2nd seat if Tester also wins too)

TN see MO, and our only shot is the twice refusing to run Tim McGraw

KS see MO, and only if the 2020 refusenik Sibelius run

ME only shot the RETHUGS have is Collins' POS fucking arse (Stephen King is another refusing to run for us Dem in 2020, he would have won, so mad at him as well)

WV once Manchin loses or retires, bye bye WV for decades.