I think if they did go nuclear it would give life to the idea that Obama/Dems are making power grabs and are out of control and there would be some drop in support (not overwhelming, but noticeable). On the other hand failing to get things done would also negatively effect their standing. At least if they did it they could then face the electorate in 2012 on their own record of action. People can judge if what they did worked or not. As it stands they may be judged for inaction on things they wanted to act on but could not bc of R obstruction.

But Obama just by nature doesn’t like to rile people up. HCR shows he’ll do it if there’s no other option, but I think he’ll look for any other avenue.

Great series of posts, by the way. Very informative.

Second point:

That sounds like the nuclear option to me.

Yep, that’s the procedural equivalent of the nuclear option, even if proponents don’t want to call it that. It’s the opening day gambit I discussed in the 4th post. I guess folks believe it’s a more legit maneuver than going nuclear. And maybe it is, as a matter of political strategy. Seems less vulnerable to accusations of changing the rules mid-game. Then again, I sort of doubt it will be any less likely to stir up the hornets’ nest. Republicans will cry foul, throw tantrums, and generally go nuts about it. But even so, I also doubt that anyone outside the tea parties will care much.

I have no business making predictions here, but I will say this: Based on the general dynamics of past reforms and the present situation, I would expect Democrats to make a serious threat of an opening day/nuclear gambit, and then press for compromise with a “Gang of ##” including Republican moderates, perhaps through a standing order requiring 60 votes. I would expect the compromise to end up a complicated mess, far short of paving the way for Democrats (perhaps holding a slimmer majority in 2011) to govern effectively. I would then expect pressure to mount against the compromise. And I would expect final results that made almost nobody happy. But that’s just me.

But screw that because they just need to ditch all this foolishness altogether. After all even if the Senate became majority rule they still have to agree with the House to actually do anything. So for something to happen it would have to get a majority in two different elected bodies. That hardly seems crazy.

So, here’s my question for you now: I’ve seen talk by several Senators saying something has to be done about the filibuster and they plan to address it in some way at the beginning of the next session. If they are true to their word, how would you predict they go about it? It seems hard to believe they would just “go nuclear,” but I’m having trouble seeing how they could address it in a less dramatic fashion.

Here’s an article about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/10/harry-reid-filibuster-rul_n_493474.html

which suggests this is how they would do it:

To change Senate rules in the middle of the session requires 67 votes, which Democrats clearly don’t have. But changing the rules at the beginning of the 112th Congress will require the chair to declare the Senate is in a new session and can legally draft new rules. That ruling would be made by Vice President Joe Biden, who has spoken out against the current abuse of the filibuster. The ruling can be appealed, but that appeal can be defeated with a simple majority vote.

That sounds like the nuclear option to me.