Democrats can't get cloture because we have a 49 member caucus

[Hippo_Tron]

In light of today's vote, people have been asking why the Republicans were so effective at getting cloture during the last Congress and we can't this Congress.

The answer is in simple mathematics. The Republicans had a 55/45 majority in the US Senate during the last Congress. In theory the Democrats have a 51/49 majority which starts the vote tally to get the 60 votes for cloture at 4 votes less than the GOP had. But, in reality we don't even have 51 seats. Senator Johnson is still recovering and is unable to vote. That gives us 50 seats. Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats but is about as much of a Democrat as Zell Miller these days, which means that he doesn't vote for cloture motions. That gives us 49 seats.

We are starting our attempts to get 60 votes for cloture motions with 6 less reliable votes for cloture than the GOP had last time. It's much easier to get 5 senators from the other party to vote for cloture than it is to get 11 senators from the other party to vote for cloture. 53 Senators voted for cloture on the No Confidence Resolution. Obama, Biden, and Dodd would've showed up if their votes mattered which brings the tally to 56. If we had started with 55 Democrats instead of 49, it would've been 62 votes for cloture meaning it would've passed.

The point is that if we want cloture, we need more Democrats in the Senate. I'll add that the Democratic Party had better not even think about supporting Lieberman if he runs for re-election in 2012.

[napi21]

1. You're right, and as much as it pi**es me off that we can't win, it

angers me MORE that so many Dems on DU can't seem to understand this logic! They keep screaming about the Dems not having any backbone, or that they never even try. I can only HOPE today's vote will make them recognize the cold hard facts.

[aquart]

2. Yeah, they're doing the work of Republican operatives for them.

Days like this, the place is lousy with Republican talking points.

[napi21]

7. Why do you say that? It's much the same as saying they're playing into

the Pub hands and I don't agree with that at all! Please, tell me what you mean?

[MGKrebs]

11. I assume it means that characterizing Dems as "spineless"

is exactly the message Repubs would like to have floating around.

[aquart]

13. Oh, that is what I'm saying.

[Erika]

5. Yep n/t

[DrDan]

12. well how do you think it plays across the U.S. to see an

AG no-confidence vote where 3 Dem presidential candidates did not think it important enough to even cast a vote?

Does this send a message that the Dems are really concerned about any wrong-doings at the Justice Dept?

[sandnsea]

3. And even though it looks close

They will just tell one of those so-called moderates, like Gordon Smith, to switch his vote to support Bush if it was necessary.

They're Republicans. That's what they do. Stop being fooled by these votes.

[depakid]

4. Republicans could filibuster with less in 1993-95

because they had leadership within the party- and they enforced discipline. There were consequences- both express and implied for crossing over.

That's the difference- the Dems lack leadership in the Senate (Reid even crossed over and voted with the far right on the bankruptcy bill) -and a significant number of their members lack integrity.

This will only continue unless and until the party manages to get serious about holding its members accountable to traditional Democratic values- which is what the majority of the electorate supports on issue after issue.

[napi21]

8. Speaking of today's vote only, Pubs were told not to fight Shrub

on this one. The admin knows they don't have the power to gain support on the immigration bill and are rapidly losing support on anything to do with Iraq, but since today's vote really didn't mean much they told the Pubs to support the Prez on this one...it may be the last thing they ever support him on in this congress!

Just realize the Dems were united on this vote, and for those Pubs who MIGHT be here, pay attention to the handful of them who voted for the bill.

[rockymountaindem]

6. Don't rain on the raining on the parade parade

Logic won't work around here.

[Eurobabe]

9. I just looked at the roll call

Why did these 3 miss the vote? Campaigning?

At least Hillary showed up. I have to respect her for that, she is consistent.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. I hate Lieberman but one needs 60 votes, not 51.

What further pisses me off, and what we need here in the netroots to wrap our in-fighting and obsessively-flaming minds around, is that when we were the minority we refused to block the Republican agenda in the Senate. When they are in the monority their obstruction is complete and effective.

Why is that? How is it that their minority is more powerful than our minority was? My conclusion is quite simple: we have, loosely speaking, a one party system, a duopoly. Our party is not an opposition party. It is really quite evident that it refuses to oppose current policies in any meaningful way. Instead our leadership does the minimum to draw votes, competes only for symbolic control and symbolic power, and acts in the interests of an establishment, that quaint 1960's term we prefer to discard or ignore, that has motivations, plans, and agendas that have nothing to do with representing 'the will of the people'.

To go out on a limb here, our republic is dead. It has been dead for quite some time. We are being gamed by a corrupt ruling class. The stench of our dead republic is now impossible to ignore.

[MGKrebs]

14. But the cloture vote was in effect the no confidence vote.

The no confidence vote was a symbolic gesture anyway, but the more votes you have, the more impact the symbolism has. Dems should be able to say that the no confidence vote has effectively passed, as only those who would fear it passing would vote against bringing it to the floor.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. The two party system isn't dead, but the GOP is the dominant party

The Democrats were the dominant party from the time FDR was elected to the time that Reagan was elected. The GOP, try as they might, could not roll things back to the way they were in the 1920's under Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford. Reagan convinced everyone that "big government" was their problem and while people aren't as convinced today as they were in the 80's, that mentality is still dominant.

There is a two party system, because the Democratic Party has leaders that are actually sane and the GOP has leaders that are batshit crazy. Both parties are more to the right than I'd like them to me, but that doesn't mean that there's a difference.