Ezra Klein writes that “can win one of the more stubborn states on the list — like Kentucky, Mississippi, or Georgia — they’ve hit the holy grail of 60 votes in the Senate — a filibuster proof majority. And many think it possible.”
I’m not sure it’s right to think of 60 as a “holy grail” in this sense. You need sixty votes on any particular issue. It’s not like the 51 votes you need to organize the Senate where it’s just a one time thing. And if you think about concrete issues, it’s less clear that 60 Democrats, as such, is the magic number for progressive legislation. There are several Republicans, for example, who are more likely to vote for a decent climate change bill than is Mary Landrieux. And Arlen Specter voted for cloture on EFCA. On most issues, Senatorial opinion divides mostly along party lines, but it’s pretty rare to see a pure party line topic. Consequently, it seems to me that 60 Senators for one party basically just exists along a continuum with 59 Senators and 61 Senators in just the same way that 56 or 53 does.
Meanwhile, it’s still the case that the filibuster rule is a bad rule and should be done away with.
Previous in TP Yglesias
By clicking and submitting a comment I acknowledge the ThinkProgress Privacy Policy and agree to the ThinkProgress Terms of Use. I understand that my comments are also being governed by Facebook's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.