Thread by @awprokop

This piece is illustrative of our confused discussion over the "talking filibuster."

Under that system, the author writes, the majority "could win."

But how does the majority win? By getting a supermajority for cloture — the same way they can win today!

politico.com/news/magazine/…

I promise you, if the Senate can line up 71 votes, they can overcome today's filibusters! This was not a feature somehow unique to the "talking" system.

The supermajority threshold to advance legislation is what matters. Not the spectacle.

What "talking filibuster" proponents are really hoping for is that, by making the filibuster more "painful" to use, they will turn back the clock to when it was much more rarely used.

I think this is a total misunderstanding of current partisan dynamics.

The filibuster used to be primarily a factional weapon, wielded mainly by the South. But the modern filibuster is a partisan weapon, now wielded by the minority.

That genie is out of the bottle. There's no reason to expect Republicans to revert to 1960s behavior.

If Democrats force a rules change, the GOP will respond with maximal obstruction, as McConnell has said. If there's a way for them to block legislation, they will.

That's why the "talking filibuster" is a dead end so long as the 60-vote threshold remains. 60 is what matters.

Various possibilities have been suggested including "maybe make them talk but leave the 60 vote requirement in place."

I'm saying that people are too hung up on the "talking" part. "How many votes will it take to advance legislation" is what matters.

https://twitter.com/bobbybaird/status/1373623208935632897