4 ms·

> Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together enough votes for a funding resolution Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which curr

> Republicans have the majority and can't even whip together enough votes for a funding resolution Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes, they only have 53 seats. If they changed the rules, it would have passed without the Democrats who voted yes to it yesterday. Yesterday's vote was 55-45, with 60 needed. Two Democrats and one independent voted for it, with one Republican voting against. Without those three, it was still 52-48. A change to a simple majority vote would have averted the shutdown. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00535.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
fzeroracer 1y ago
They can always involve the nuclear option and kill the filibuster easily. As they have done before in other circumstances. They won't, because they believe the optics of the shutdown is in their favor.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
throwup238 1y ago
> Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes That's not quite correct. Senate rules are set by simple majority, but the the proposed rule change itself can be filibustered mid-term, except for when someone can exploit procedural rules of cloture to squash it. Those rules were exploited in 2013 to remove the judicial filibuster and again in 2019 for the Supreme Court. It's called the "nuclear option" for a reason, but the road is already paved.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  You've written this twice now and I tried to reply the first time, but you deleted it. That statement is ambiguous, but my "require 60 votes" was meant for the funding bill, as evidenced by my other comments which mention only needing a simple majority to change the rules.
  - throwup238 1y ago
    My apologies for the deletion, I didn't like the way I phrased it the first time because what I wrote was too ambiguous and didn't cover the nuances of mid-term rule changes. That said, I don't see how "would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes" is ambiguous. The "which" is clearly referring to "change the Senate rules". You just misspoke and I can't be expected to read entirely out of tree replies that you make six minutes before my second comment (which was well after my first deleted comment).

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

fzeroracer 1y ago

They can always involve the nuclear option and kill the filibuster easily. As they have done before in other circumstances. They won't, because they believe the optics of the shutdown is in their favor.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

throwup238 1y ago

> Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes That's not quite correct. Senate rules are set by simple majority, but the the proposed rule change itself can be filibustered mid-term, except for when someone can exploit procedural rules of cloture to squash it. Those rules were exploited in 2013 to remove the judicial filibuster and again in 2019 for the Supreme Court. It's called the "nuclear option" for a reason, but the road is already paved.

Jtsummers 1y ago
You've written this twice now and I tried to reply the first time, but you deleted it. That statement is ambiguous, but my "require 60 votes" was meant for the funding bill, as evidenced by my other comments which mention only needing a simple majority to change the rules.
- throwup238 1y ago
  My apologies for the deletion, I didn't like the way I phrased it the first time because what I wrote was too ambiguous and didn't cover the nuances of mid-term rule changes. That said, I don't see how "would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes" is ambiguous. The "which" is clearly referring to "change the Senate rules". You just misspoke and I can't be expected to read entirely out of tree replies that you make six minutes before my second comment (which was well after my first deleted comment).