Poll: Majority Want Filibuster Gone

How about a poll to boot the entire senate? Maybe the senate should be gone. It's a worthless entity that has been f*cking up this country for decades. It gives way too much power to the likes of bozo baucus and the other small state senators who can be bought for peanuts. I still can't believe a senator from montana has more power than the mayor of a medium sized city. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Abolish the senate.

As is often suggested, making them really filibuster like they did in the old days instead of just saying they are would obviuosly limit filibusters to things a Senator thought would be supported by the public, since that means publicly doing something ridicuous while stopping the Senate from doing anything. Kind of like the Republican government shutdown (which it turned out the public was not that into) but not as extreme. I think the Senate probably allowed the pretend filibuster when they lowered the vote to end it from 67 to 60. This change would be within tradition and not involve some complex new deal like Harkin's idea.
And by the way if Democrats managed to pass a crappy HCR (or any other) bill and then fix the financial parts by reconcilliation Repubs would scream, but guess what....the public would mostly understand majority rule and NOT CARE. The Demos have nothing to fear with reconcilliation. The Repubs cannot get any more obstructionist than they already are as retalliation.

You libs should be careful what you wish for. You may want the filibuster gone now, but when the GOP takes back Congress and the White House in 2012 (Obama is a Carter-ite one-termer), you'll wish you had it back.

Like a lot of issue polling, differences in wording can get very different results. The Washington Post poll has a question something like, "The Senate Republicans now have enough votes to block any Democratic legislation. Is this good because it will force bipartisanship or is bad because the Republicans can obstruct all progress."
A decent majority respond by saying that this is a good thing. So if you describe the filibuster explicitly as a countermajoritarian tactic, it is unpopular, but if you describe it in a checks and balances frame Americans like it just fine.
If there's a morale to this story, it's that both sides have a decent messaging on the filibuster, and the Democrats had better start pushing their side.

Contra various commentators, there is no chance of "nuking" the filibuster in time to pass a jobs bill or HCR this term, although reconciliation is an option. It's a pity "nuclear option" entered the political lexicon as it gives the impression that filibuster reform seem radical, when the filibuster itself is historically a radical tactic reserved for high stakes legislation.
As back in the Bush judge appointments battle, the critical moment is at the beginning of the next congress in January. At that moment, if the Democrats had a unified caucus of 50 Senators plus Joe Biden they could either eliminate or water down the filibuster.
My crystal ball isn't clear enough to see that far into the future. The Democrats would have to avoid a worst case November scenario. Losing Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu from the Senate wouldn't hurt much, and Byrd retiring would be positively helpful (the new Democratic appointee might be more amenable to filibuster reform).

I think filibuster reform is not likely, but conceivable.

I think everyone is over-analyzing.

The constitution allows each chamber the power to define its own rules. So the Senate could easily change the filibuster rules and even the rules regarding how to change the rules, if they desired.

The filibuster in and of itself, is not the problem.

The problem is many do not feel the Senate is responsive enough to the will of the people who elected them.

Its a fair bet that most of our citizens do not even know what a filibuster is. Or, if they do, they don't know the rules surrounding it; or if they think they know, what they think they know is probably inaccurate (which is why polls to find out what people think about the filibuster probably don't mean much).

They just know government can't seem to get things done.

Therefore, the rules of the Senate need to be reformed to more closely fall in line with the expectations of the electorate. And that will happen sooner or later.

The Senate cannot thumb its nose at those who elected them for much longer. The curators of the library at Alexandria found that out the hard way.

The natives are getting restless (aka the anti-incumbent sentiment running rampant right now).

i am stunned that so many on this thread don't have any idea how senators and house members from each state are chosen, and the reason why each state has 2 senators, and how house members are chosen by population. pick up a civic's book, this stuff was taught in 4th grade. you may not like the answer you get, but at least you will understand it. it ain't gunna change.

Yeah, and a majority of Americans oppose the Democrat's health care bill too. I won't be holding my breath waiting on the hypocrites here to come out against it because of the dozens of polls showing majority opposition.

The US Senate is a place where the CEO's and corporate board directors masquerade as members of Congress whose major concern is to protect the enhancement of corporate incomes . Since they are the LAW MAKERS of this nation any Senate rule they have was made for the benifit of the members of the Senate . I heard a liberal radio talk show host quizing a Dem Senator about health care saying the public demanded reform . The Senator said "things do not work that way in the Senate . Public majority means nothing . Congress makes the laws and the public will get what the Congress gives them" . The CEO's and Board Directors in Congress were upset because the public complained about the nice profit they are getting so after more than a year of charades and kabuki dancing Congress designed a program to enhance the corporate income even more . The only way the public will ever get what they want is they wake up to the fact that BILLIONS are spent to divide the electorate and they have got their money's worth . With a divided electorate they are the government . With a unified electorate we are the government with the ultimate power .

JNagayra, Such bitterness and vile filled comments!
_____

I'm not the issue, shithead.
_____

Do you have a basic understanding that founders placed checks and balances in to the design of our government to curb the possibility of unlimited power by any one body?
_____

Blah, blah, blah . . .

I have an education in law. You do not, shithead. And this is a check you assholes ignore, which makes YOU the America-haters:

US Con. Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

So go ahead, shithead: continue to threaten "revolution:" based upon total ignorance of our history, and concepts you spew but about which know ZILCH.

And no teabagger, including name-calling assholes who haven't the first and least of clues, such as you, has anything to offer of value -- especially since your leader stole and crashed the airplane into the building in Austin, TX.