watch the senate runoff election for that answer

The Senate is built on coalitions of the moment. Even if the Democrats have 60+ members of their caucus, it's not at all certain that a filibuster won't hold. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats and they don't vote as a block. People seem to be forgetting the Gang of 14.

Also, a single Senator can muck things up if they want by refusing Unanimous Consent

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/How_Unanimous_Consent_Agreements_Regulate_Senate_Floor%20_Action.pdf

There are also various Holds that a Senator can place on consideration, but that is ultimately tied to filibuster threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold

In short, even if the Democrats have 60, that doesn't mean that they can run roughshod over the opposition. The Senate is very different from the House - individual Senators have a lot of power. Bush and the Republicans were often able to get their way because they had the threat of vetos along with the likelihood of over 40 votes in the Senate. The Democrats would have a slightly stronger hand with 60 in the Senate, but by no means would it guarantee that they could do what they want.

(I have no particular knowledge of the Senate candidates in Georgia, but think it would be fitting if Chambliss lost due to the way he campaigned against Cleland.)

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who realizes that pointing out complexity is not something that the MSM likes to do...)

Post #299,129 by boxley 11/7/08 7:30:51 AM Reply	watch the senate runoff election for that answer most of the libertarians I spoke with will turn out for saxby chamblis. The dem is a weasel (based on his ads in the general) and most dont want to lose another filibuster seat Yes, Virginia, there really is an Obama Claus. You can hear him shouting, "On Pelosi, on Reid, on Kennedy, on Biden. Cash away, cash away, cash away all!"
Post #299,134 by Another Scott 11/7/08 7:54:41 AM Reply	I think the filibuster number is a canard. The Senate is built on coalitions of the moment. Even if the Democrats have 60+ members of their caucus, it's not at all certain that a filibuster won't hold. There are conservative Democrats and liberal Democrats and they don't vote as a block. People seem to be forgetting the Gang of 14. Also, a single Senator can muck things up if they want by refusing Unanimous Consent http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/How_Unanimous_Consent_Agreements_Regulate_Senate_Floor%20_Action.pdf There are also various Holds that a Senator can place on consideration, but that is ultimately tied to filibuster threats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_hold In short, even if the Democrats have 60, that doesn't mean that they can run roughshod over the opposition. The Senate is very different from the House - individual Senators have a lot of power. Bush and the Republicans were often able to get their way because they had the threat of vetos along with the likelihood of over 40 votes in the Senate. The Democrats would have a slightly stronger hand with 60 in the Senate, but by no means would it guarantee that they could do what they want. (I have no particular knowledge of the Senate candidates in Georgia, but think it would be fitting if Chambliss lost due to the way he campaigned against Cleland.) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. (Who realizes that pointing out complexity is not something that the MSM likes to do...)
Post #299,135 by boxley 11/7/08 7:57:21 AM Reply	chamblis also champions the fair tax lost cause for now but very popular here in georgia. I wasnt here for the cleland campeign but from what I heard it was disgusting. Yes, Virginia, there really is an Obama Claus. You can hear him shouting, "On Pelosi, on Reid, on Kennedy, on Biden. Cash away, cash away, cash away all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!