If we get 60 exactly there's a flip side.  Every Democratic Senator thinks that hisher vote alone can stop a piece of legislation and use it to demand some pork.

I'm not suggesting that 58 or 59 is preferable over exactly 60, just that no matter what, the Senate will demand negotiations and pork.  No matter how much the people demand change.

Trent Lott is no longer in the senate.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Amen to your points above.

Additional, it ignores reality to think that 42 GOPers won't dig in their heels and filibuster just for the heck of it.

Reid's brilliant Tomnibus bill, filled with nothing but no-brainer legislation that was phenomenally popular with Democrats, Republicans, and Americans at large, but gratuitously blocked by the insane Tom Coburn, was filibustered as well. I can't think of any reason except pure, unmitigated partisan gall.

Trust me, they'll do it. Particularly if the media and the Dems fail to highlight it and make them pay the price.

The republicans love power more than America. They are perfectly fine with destroying this country so that they can win the election in 2012.

We need 60 - short of 60, they will filibuster EVERYTHING!

Well i think that pushing 60 in interviews with the press would be a little stupid...it implies we cant govern without it...being minimalistic with the press also makes the win to 60 bigger when and if it happens.

Remember there are also a number of independents who "like" the idea of divided government so if they think we are going to win 60 they night vote for McCain to "balance it out"...

He'll be important.  We likely won't reach 60, with or without him.  I know lots of folks here, myself included, would like to punish him for his support of McCain.  Won't happen.  He'll be in our caucus because, basically, besides supporting the fossil for President, he believes in many of the same things Progressives believe in.  We won't be able to count on him for war votes but I doubt he'll support a filibuster on the same.

So, I hope and pray we get to 60 counting Holy Joe.  With him, we're in good shape.  Without him, we may need to revisit Senate rules which currently enable the minority party.  Of course I'm not suggesting changing the rules such that the minority has no voice.  That'd be suicide in the future.  No, we don't need to go nuclear.  But reinstating the requirement that a real filibuster take place rather than the virtual one created only recently, is a step in the right direction.  Make someone read the phonebook if they honestly want to block legislation.  This lazy bullshit version of the filibuster isn't even made for good TV.

PS.  Good to see you're still putting up solid front page articles here Josh.  Unfortunately, Jerome seems to have killed this site with his actions during the primary.  7 comments?  Sad.  Really sad.  Maybe you should move over to Kos and call it a day here.  This was once one of my favorite sites.  Yuck.  

Why keep pushing this?  Because Republicans haven't ACTUALLY FILIBUSTERED anything in this Congress.  60 seats would be great, but they aren't required to largely filibuster-proof the Senate; Harry Reid not allowing the Republicans to filibuster by acclamation is what is required.  Do you think they could actually carry out the number of filibusters they've threatened in the last 22 months?  They would throw in the towel from exhaustion before February 1 if they actually had to stand up and do it, and lucky for them, because they'd look like complete assholes for trying.

Because any two Republicans on any specific issue would be immensely powerful.

No, this gets it exactly backwards. It's not that any two Republican Senators can threaten a filibuster and get their way. It's that if we can peel away any two out of the whole GOP caucus then the others are impotent. We don't have to negotiate with Inhofe and Coburn if we can get Specter and Snowe.

Personally I think they ought to junk the whole filibuster thing (as the GOP almost did a few years back), but I doubt they could get Biden to do the dirty work (he'd have to make a patently absurd procedural ruling in order to break established Senate precedent).

If we don't get to 60, I hope to hell Obama can lay down the law to Reid that if the GOP wants to obstruct, they have to do it the old-fashioned way.  No more of Reid's 'we don't have 60 votes so that's that' nonsense.  If the GOP wants to take to the floor for a week and tell us why S-CHIP or an energy bill or what have you is a bad idea, let them try.  When their bullshit is exposed to sunlight, it might convince a few waverers to join us.  Also ... I'll trade some pork or judges for some progress on good bills.  

This is dumb. 60 Democrats doesn't guarantee cloture on anything just as 41 Republicans doesn't ensure a filibuster on everything. The goal is 60 votes on each individual piece of progressive legislation. Another Democrats will almost always make your job easier- 61 is better than 60 just as 60 is better than 59. But the number 60 itself doesn't matter. For purposes of getting senators elected there is absolutely nothing special about 60.

This is also why we don't have to worry about kicking Lieberman out of the caucus. 59+ Lieberman is still 60 on all the same domestic legislation. Sixty is exactly one better than fifty-nine, no more.

60 matters- but the nuclear option debate essentially killed the filibuster on important matters. The real problem in the Senate today is the split: 51-49, with you know who making it a 50-50 senate and making Cheney the tiebreaker.  But next senate, on important matters, when we have 57-58 votes; all we have to do is to threaten the filibuster away to prevent it.