McConnell must be planning to eliminate the filibuster!

[Kablooie]

He can't eliminate Obamacare without 2/3 of the senate because he would have to overcome a filibuster which he knows is impossible.
Therefore to repeal obamacare he would have to eliminate the filibuster altogether.
Since he says he is going to repeal that means he will be killing the filibuster soon.

After all the years of repugs filibustering everything Obama wanted to do he will prevent the democrats from having any say whatsoever in new bills. A complete shit out. Something the dems didn't do to Republicans even though they wished they could.

The Republicans hate our government and are doing everything they can to destroy it and us.

[regnaD kciN]

1. I doubt he'll do so for this unpopular a cause...

...and I'm not sure he could even get 50 votes for straight repeal.

(Incidentally, ending a filibuster requires sixty votes, not two-thirds.)

[Kablooie]

2. Oops, your right. 3/5 of the votes.

So you think it's all just empty blather and he knows it.
Maybe so.

[BzaDem]

3. McConnell does not need to end the filibuster to pass the repeal bill. He can do so with 51 votes.

That's because the repeal bill in question doesn't repeal the regulations in Obamacare. It just repeals the funding (including the exchange subsidies and Medicaid expansion). So the bill can pass under reconciliation. The bill they are bringing up is the same bill that already passed under reconciliation in 2015, that Obama vetoed.

[pnwmom]

4. The 2015 bill wasn't a full repeal and they're talking now about a full repeal.

But they passed that the partial repeal at a time when Obamacare was MUCH less popular than today, and they were insulated from consequences because of Obama's veto pen.

I can't imagine that the people against the partial repeal that just failed will be in favor of yet another partial repeal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. No, McConnell explicitly said this is about the 2015 partial repeal

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

14. He doesn't have 50 votes.

[Kentonio]

5. I think he'd only change that rule if he was completely desperate to cling to the leadership

He knows full well that the repercussions long term would be terrible for both the country and his party. He even wrote in his book about how the Senate isn't supposed to work like that.

[DetlefK]

6. As if present-McConnell gives a flying fuck what past-McConnell said.

[Kentonio]

7. He gives a fuck about what future-DemSenate will do with that new rule.

[n2doc]

8. He won't get 50 votes for a full repeal

Filibuster won't be needed.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. If he decides to do a RAynd Paul "clean repeal"

and tries to go kamikaze by killing the filibuster, he will lose the wavering moderates - Collins, Murkowski, Heller & possibly Portman. I.e., "repeal" will immediately kill the Medicaid feature that has been a concern they expressed.

The issue about eliminating the filibuster for any legislation is that it requires a majority vote itself to change the rule and that might lose the McLame's and Grahams and (again) Collins of the world. I.e., same issue of not getting 50.

And should any "repeal" manage to pass in the Senate, this would be DOA in the House because they only barely passed their own version by convincing I believe 4 of the 25 GOP moderates to vote yes - and that was only after some sweeteners were added. Remove the sweeteners and the moderates will kill it.

[Voltaire2]

10. This will be a theater piece.

There will be a show of "repeal the aca" followed by a blame game "mean Democrats wouldn't let us do it".

[Demsrule86]

13. That is what I think too.

[Demsrule86]

12. He still need 52 votes...I don't see it happening .

I think this is just to try to push the moderates around...keep calling.