Magic Numbers

Because it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture in the Senate, a lot of liberal groups are organizing around a "60 votes" narrative. Matt Stoller has some doubts, citing the fact that most major pieces of legislation pass with substantially more than 60 votes. I think, however, that that mostly reflects the fact that Senators don't like to vote "no" to no avail. A whopping 12 Senate Democrats, for example, voted for the first Bush tax cut bill to their neverending shame.

I'm fairly certain, however, that some of those Senators could have been persuaded to vote "no" if their votes would have been decisive. The trouble is that whipping becomes very difficult once your side is going to lose anyway, while being willing to hop on board often gives you an opportunity to make minor modifications/additions to legislation that you like.

Comments

Just remember that the _real_ number is sixty-_one_, or else Joe Lieberman gets to be de facto Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by Craig | June 27, 2008 9:02 AM

It's my understanding that budget bills, such as the Bush Tax Cuts, can't be filibustered. So while the general point may hold - Democrats might well not have wanted to be seen casting useless 'No' votes on the tax cuts - the tax cuts aren't a great example for your point.

Posted by Warren Terra | June 27, 2008 9:08 AM

It works for "the other side" too. If you are always voting in a 40 or less minority, you have become largely irrelevant to the legislative process. And that means you have very little leverage when it comes to, say, advocating for your state, and that tends to put your future electoral prospects in jeopardy.

Of course I know the very idea of Republicans being part of Obama's working coalition alarms certain people. But that was how Johnson's coalition worked, and I personally have no problem with it, provided of course that Obama is in a position to dictate terms where necessary.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 9:12 AM

A whopping 12 Senate Democrats, for example, voted for the first Bush tax cut bill to their neverending shame.

As long as these fellows get re-elected, they can live with the shame.

Heck, I bet they can live with it even if they are defeated - just so long as they can then get some plush lobbying job.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | June 27, 2008 9:13 AM

As usual, the liberals are forming an inside Washington strategy. Sounds like Acocella came up with this one. I fondly remember his proportional representation theory, which explained that since the Democrats actually represent more people (but in fewer states) that they should have been the majority in the Senate in the early 2000s. What idiotic clap-trap. This is no different.

Posted by ThinMan | June 27, 2008 9:24 AM

But that was how Johnson's coalition worked

You realize the present Democratic and Republican parties have achieved ideological polarization in a way they never did in Johnson's era, right?

Posted by phil | June 27, 2008 9:26 AM

phil,

Sure. In fact I think it would be fair to say that most Republicans today are more like the Southern Democrats of Johnson's time than the Republicans who participated in Johnson's working coalition.

But I don't see the current ideological structure of the Republican Party as fixed in stone. Specifically, I think a substantial minority of Republicans (mostly in purple-to-blue states) have been playing ball with the Bush crowd because that crowd controlled the Party and the White House. But once that is no longer true, and these Republicans are facing the political implications of an Obama Presidency, Republicans in this minority are likely to start looking for ways to remain relevant.

Again, though, I fully recognize that many Republicans are going to be committed to pure obstruction. I just think there may be enough Republicans outside the pure obstructionists to expand Obama's working coalition well past 60. And if not, then I suspect Obama's Democratic coalition will grow in 2010 anyway.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 9:48 AM

I think, however, that that mostly reflects the fact that Senators don't like to vote "no" to no avail. A whopping 12 Senate Democrats, for example, voted for the first Bush tax cut bill to their neverending shame.

I'm fairly certain, however, that some of those Senators could have been persuaded to vote "no" if their votes would have been decisive.

This is exactly right. If you follow the Senate, you learn pretty quickly that the final roll call often doesn't tell you much about how close things really were. Senators even go back up and switch votes if things are turning out differently than they thought; it happens all the time. It's really cowardice, of course--either they realize they're getting killed and want to end up on the winning team, or they realize that their vote could end up being decisive and they chicken out. But it's how the game is played.

Posted by Jake H. | June 27, 2008 9:58 AM

DTM said... But once that is no longer true, and these Republicans are facing the political implications of an Obama Presidency, Republicans in this minority are likely to start looking for ways to remain relevant.

You mean like this Republican, who is touting how he worked with Obama?

I think the GOP will fracture into two pieces; die hards who will defend the Republican record under Bush to the hilt (the "history will judge us" crowd) and a more pragmatic group of actual conservatives. Until the latter takes control of the GOP, I think they have a hell of an uphill climb. The Dems will invoke Bush's name against every policy he ever advocated, staining the Republican standing with that policy, and that will work for at least a decade ... maybe 2 or 3.

Posted by LFC | June 27, 2008 10:23 AM

LFC,

Indeed--Smith is a good example of a person who clearly has incentives to play ball with a hypothetical President Obama, if of course Smith manages to get that far.

As for the timeframe of a GOP reinvention--I get cautious more than a cycle or two out. Obviously the GOP decided to double down on the Bush policies this time despite getting hammered in 2006, and they may even give it one more shot in 2010. But if they get wiped out three elections in a row, then I think things could change rapidly in 2012, with a new sort of Republicanism taking control via the Presidential nomination process.

And if not 2012 ... well then I think we may start seeing the actual death of the Republican Party and its replacement by a new conservative party (likely formed by a splinter group). And while we have't seen the death and replacement of one of the two major parties for quite a while, it has happened before.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 10:41 AM

But if they get wiped out three elections in a row, then I think things could change rapidly in 2012, with a new sort of Republicanism taking control via the Presidential nomination process.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm not saying the GOP is out for 20-30 years, I'm saying the Dems will have that stick to use against some of their worst policies. The ability of Dems to tar some of the more egregious GOP policies with George W. Bush is what can force a GOP shift to the center.

If smarter and more truly conservative Republicans take control of the party, they will be able to easily avoid those landmines and could come back quite quickly. Then there would be a good chance that they could bring forward candidates that I could vote for. I'm really "anti-2000 era Republican" rather than pro-Democrat, and I don't think I'm particularly unique in that regard.

Posted by LFC | June 27, 2008 10:49 AM

If I remember his lectures correctly, political scientist Bruce Oppenheimer (Vanderbilt) says that most legislation either passes by a large margin or, less commonly, is defeated by a narrow margin.

Posted by Number Three | June 27, 2008 11:06 AM

Guess what? Politicians do whatever the people who give them money want them to do. Until it's illegal for corporations to give money to politicians in ANY form, this is how it works.

House Dems Who Changed Their Vote to Support FISA Bill Got More Money From Telcos Than Those Who Didn't
http://www.maplight.org/FISA_June08

Money Quotes:

Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint gave PAC contributions averaging:

$8,359 to each Democrat who changed their position to support immunity for Telcos (94 Dems)
$4,987 to each Democrat who remained opposed to immunity for Telcos (116 Dems)

88 percent of the Dems who changed to supporting immunity (83 Dems of the 94) received PAC contributions from Verizon, AT&T, or Sprint during the last three years (Jan. 2005-Mar. 2008).

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 6:09 PM

More reason to replace John Cornyn with Rick Noriega. http://acropolisreview.com/2008/06/2008-democratic-senate-candidate-races.html

Posted by Jean | June 28, 2008 3:05 AM