So, can we finally change the filibuster rules next year?

[MinneapolisMatt]

I'd really like that.

[CanonRay]

1. If that's not Job One, then it's all for nothing

because noting will pass the Senate for four years.

[get the red out]

2. It's imperative

There is no excuse not to. We can't have government function at all without doing that.

[byeya]

3. If we can't have straight majority rule, then 52 or 53 will be OK

We can't let "Mitt McConnell" tie the Senate in knots any longer, propped up as he is by tons of RW $$$.

Lesson should have been learned from the past 4 years.

[thucythucy]

4. It depends on

whether or not you think a Republican controlled House is likely to pass anything progressive in the next two years that might be filibustered in the Senate.

Personally, I doubt it. It would have made sense in 2009, when Speaker Pelosi was running the House and it passed a slew of progressive legislation that the Senate shut down. But today....?

The only argument I'd see for such a change in today's context would be in regard to future Supreme Court and federal court nominees. Otherwise, I don't see much point.

But I certainly might be convinced, if you can show me some tactical or strategic gain for progressives.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Probably a bad idea

If we had lost the Senate, it would be our savior...

[jpak]

6. We have the Senate and it is not our savior

dump it

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Be interesting to see if it happens

Since we do not have both houses, I doubt that will be done.

[kentuck]

8. Yes, they can, because...

They had many more Democrats up for re-election this year and did not want to hand the new rules over to the Republican Party. The Democratic Senate has been stabilized enough to work on the filibuster rules, imo.