So we could not do it with 60. What number did we need to make

[efhmc]

it happen?

[xultar]

1. 150

[efhmc]

5. Probably would still not be the necessary majority.

[begin_within]

2. Even 100 DLCers wouldn't pass single payer or Medicare-for-all.

[efhmc]

10. Perhaps, we need just a few real feeling human beings and a

new constitution which reflects that idea/ideal.

[Mojambo]

3. 75 or 76. n/t

[RevCheesehead]

4. I am so f'ing tired of the "we don't have the votes" excuse.

Just throw out ANY number, and I guarantee "we don't have enough votes."
I don't know if they're lazy, or cowards.

[treestar]

8. Why is it an "excuse?"

Nothing can pass without the votes.

[RevCheesehead]

11. Because they have in the past used it as a reason not to try.

[efhmc]

12. So absolutely agree! Never seems to be the right number.

[JVS]

16. Both!

[treestar]

6. We only had 59

Lieberman is not a Democrat.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

14. We never really needed 60...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x424894

[Better Believe It]

7. 100 Democrats in the Senate might be close to what is needed, however ....

100 Democrats in the Senate will not be enough to pass progressive/liberal legislation that would challenge the economic and political power of the big financial interests if one popular theory presented on DU is true.

I've read some posts written by well intentioned DU'ers justifying the running of "conservative" or "moderate centrists" candidates in so-called Red states. They seem to be endorsing the idea that it's impossible to ever elect 51 Democratic liberals, much less 60 to the Senate, because in order for Democrats to defeat Republicans in "conservative" Red states, they must campaign and vote as conservatives!

If this theory is true, a liberal/progressive Senate that isn't controlled by Wall Street and corporate America can never be elected. We shall forever be at the mercy of Wall Street political whores.

I don't subscribe to that theory.

[efhmc]

19. I am an old feminist and am sick and tired of all the bs excuses

that pass for bipartisanship which are used to rid us of our rights. The right to get good health care SHOULD be a basic necessity but still it is not. Why are we so god forsaken backwards when it comes to doing right by our fellow human beings?

[earthside]

9. Majority rule.

I was taught that in the USA, the will of the majority wins.

So, at least 51 votes should be enough in the U.S. Senate.

If the Senate Democrats have the backbone, they can use the 'nuclear option' and end the tyranny of the minority filibuster rule once and for all.

The filibuster was originally meant only to cause more time for deliberation and persuasion -- not to permanently kill the ability to vote on legislation.

So, we should encourage the Senate Democrats to restore majority rule democracy in their body, that is the truly American way.

[efhmc]

13. You hit the nail on the head. We have the number, not the guts.

[Egnever]

You need to go back to school

The reason we have three branches of government is explicitly to protect from the tyranny of the majority.

Having said that. The filibuster rules do need to be changed. I dont think they can do that though until a new session of congress.

[Better Believe It]

21. What Republican filibusters? That's the easiest thing in the world to stop

if the Democrats actually wanted to stop them.

Senator Reid can either force Republicans to filibuster on the Senate floor .... that wouldn't last very long, he can simply use the "constitutional option" to stop any filibuster from even starting and he can quickly end the "two track" system in Senate debates.

But these "scary" bogus Republican filibusters give Democrats a convenient excuse to make concessions to conservatives and/or inaction on progressive legislation.

It's a con game they're playing on us!

Filibusters my ass! Do you think we were born yesterday?

[efhmc]

22. Why do they concede? Seriously want to know the answer.

[lonestarnot]

18. There are what 18 libs in the entire Congress? Majority, hugh ugh.

We should have run it through a longgggggg time ago had we a majority.

[Egnever]

15. 65 or so

We never had 60 to begin with. Lieberman is not a democrat he only caucuses as one to keep his chairmanships. Bayh and Nelson also are not dems. There are at least 4 more that consistently vote with the pukes. That brings us well under filibusterer proof.

[efhmc]

20. Even without those numbers the repukes managed to pass all

sorts of evil legislation. Why is that?

[Naturyl]

17. 101 - n/t