60 votes to pass bills in the US Senate?

The main difference nowadays is the both parties are far more likely to vote as a bloc. There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, which meant that you could go across the aisle to find supporters. Nowadays, voting as a bloc is expected (It was news today when eight Republicans voted for the end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – but back in the 60s, you could often find Republicans to vote for Democratic Bills and Democrats voting for Republican bills).

Also, the filibuster was only used for major legislation. A judicial appointment would sail right through Congress after a brief set of hearings. Now, senators (of both parties) will filibuster even trivial things like that.

The majority leader does an unofficial vote count for cloture, and if he doesn’t get 60, then he knows he can’t bring it to a vote.

RealityChuck is totally right about the disappearance of the center of each party. For example, in recent Congressional elections, Northeast Repulicans were swept out, along with Sun Belt Democrats.

By Democrat Strom Thurmond. And it was the Civil Rights Act of 1957

So wait, they have to get the 60 votes on every single bill first, and then vote for it? Even if no one is filibustering at the moment?

They ANTICIPITATE filibusters at this point! So they need their “ducks in a row”.

Yes. That’s what all this talk of the “party of no” is about. Senators cannot take a leak nowadays without supermajority clearance.

Lots of dysfunction indeed…

I’d be interested in some stats on legislation that is moved forward without typical committee processes.

… and debate rules established that don’t allow any amendments.

The Democratic party still does pretty well here in NC. The Dems only lost 1 seat in Congress this year and that was by less than 1%. They still have 6 Dems in Congress (of 13) However they lost both the state house and state senate.

The plain fact is that prior to this congress, a Senate filibuster was rare enough to be newsworthy. With the current congress it is the rare bill that does not face filibuster that is newsworthy.

The uptick in the use of the filibuster is at least partly due to the psychology of the situation in which Senate Republicans found themselves in this congress.

With the results of the 2008 elections, they found themselves in such a minority that they could not even sustain a filibuster. If Senate Democrats united, the Republicans would be powerless to stop any measure.

They got a reprieve: A close result in Minnesota allowed them to milk the recount process and delay the seating of Senator Frankin for ~8 months, denying the Democrats a 60th filibuster breaking vote.

With not a single vote to spare, a siege mentality prevailed. Sen. Mitch McConnel enforced party discipline with an iron hand. It was a case of “We must all hang together, or together we all shall hang.” We saw Republican Senators denying cloture when they had sponsored virtually identical legislation in the past.

And it was not just a case of Republican leadership making demands. With every single Republican vote required, Republican senators were able to wield serious power by trading the favor of cloture nay votes with their republican colleagues. Republican Senators were quick to realize that with their vote required to block anything, they now held the power to block pretty much anything themselves. While it may have been hard to vote against some things they were really for, at least they could demand a lot in return.

When Al Frankin was finally seated, The Democrats once again had the votes to break a republican fillibuster… or not. Several right leaning Democrats (AKA Blue Dogs) seized the opportunity to expand their influence. The Republicans now had to win over at least one Democrat to deny cloture, but the blue dogs were lined up and willing. If one couldn’t be appeased, there was another waiting to take his (her) place.

Eventually, Sen. Scott Brown was elected/seated, giving the Republicans their much desired 41st cloture vote. A great day for the Republicans, but a sad day for the Democrats, especially the Blue Dogs, who had burned many bridges with fellow Democrats, and found themselves old, fat, and no longer needed nor loved by Republicans.

As much as I would like to believe that the Democrats would behave better, I don’t have any evidence of what they would do when faced with only the exact number needed to sustain a filibuster.

I have some thin hope that with Republicans holding a stronger minority in the next Senate, they may be able to behave better. No longer will each and every Republican Senator have the power to stop a filibuster with their lone vote.

An interesting, somewhat hopeful, Atlantic article on possible Senate reform:

Partisan politics aside, the former “gentleman’s agreement” was that you didn’t filibuster something unless you found it especially, atrociously bad. Hell, the 1993 Clinton tax package which was hated by Republicans was not filibustered and it passed 50-50 with a Gore tiebreaking vote. In 1991, Clarence Thomas, who was hated by Dems was allowed an up or down vote and was confirmed 52-48.

In recent years, it has just become pro forma to filibuster EVERYTHING that you don’t like, and that will cause it to be ended before long. You can’t run government needing a super majority for everything.

cite please.

What happened to the nuclear option? Wasn’t there a firestorm just a short while ago?

Wiki doesn’t show any use of that term in the past five years: Nuclear option - Wikipedia