| Get Jonathan Bernstein's newsletter every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Let's talk elections and the potential for filibuster reform. It's still possible that President Donald Trump will win a second term, or that former Vice President Joe Biden will win but Republicans will retain their Senate majority. Let's suppose, though, that Biden wins and Democrats gain at least the three seats they need for a 50-50 Senate tie — which, with a Democratic vice president, is what they'd need for the slimmest majority. You're going to hear a lot about that scenario this fall. To capture such a majority, Democrats probably need to win all four Republican-held toss-ups (according to the Cook Political Report) because the seat most likely to flip in November is in Alabama, where Democrat Doug Jones previously won a flukish election and will probably be defeated. Just remember: This is the Senate. Every seat counts. Yes, the technical majority matters, mainly because it would allow Democrats to confirm judicial and executive-branch nominations. But in a 50-50 Senate, any single Democrat could derail anything. Changes in the filibuster would be very unlikely, since keeping all the party's senators, from Vermont's Bernie Sanders to West Virginia's Joe Manchin, on the same page would be hard for any bill, let alone for major changes in how the chamber works. Oddly enough, in the unlikely event that Democrats win a landslide and wind up with 58 or 59 senators, eliminating the filibuster again becomes unlikely — because at that point they'd be able to pass bills by staying united and picking up one or two Republicans to vote with them. That's what happened in early 2009 and 2010 when Democrats had such majorities. It's possible Republicans would stick together and filibuster all legislation, but more likely that Democrats would compromise to get the votes they need. It's the zone between those scenarios where big changes become more likely. With 53, 54 or 55 senators and unified party government, Democrats could pass lots of things by majority vote, but would have no realistic chance of picking off half a dozen or so Republicans to vote with them. That result, giving Democrats the presidency, a large majority in the House and a big gain in the Senate, would also give them an electoral mandate. They're certainly going to have a lengthy agenda of bills to pass. That's a recipe for a lot of frustration if Republicans begin to defeat everything by filibuster. Especially if Democrats feel an urgent need for economic stimulus. What all this suggests is that what really matters for filibuster reform is the election result and the subsequent political context, rather than what Biden or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer or any other Democratic politician says right now about procedural change. That was the case in 2013, when even the party's most reluctant senators wound up supporting majority-imposed reform on nominations. It will likely be the case the next time around. 1. Dan Drezner on Senator Josh Hawley and trade policy. 2. Roberto Stefan Foa and Andrew James Klassen at the Monkey Cage on democracies and pandemics. 3. Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux and Meredith Conroy on Democrats and #MeToo. 4. Really good point from Greg Sargent, who is looking at the polling: "it's clear we're seeing surprising unity and agreement — across lines that typically divide us politically — that we should shoulder serious inconveniences in the name of public health. One might even suggest large majorities are collectively engaged in a deeply civic act." 5. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Noah Smith on the pandemic and inequality. 6. And Charlie Cook on the 2020 electoral landscape. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click here to subscribe. Also subscribe to Bloomberg All Access and get much, much more. You'll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. | 
Post a Comment