I'm not posting anything right now because...well, because I'm watching the Senate, and there doesn't seem to be anything more to say until we know what's going on. At least, anything worth posting about.
I'm tweeting, so head over there for blow-by-blow type stuff. I'll probably have something up later over at Greg's place, and then odds are that I'll be back here for more when things wrap up.
My guess at the beginning of the day was a 60% chance of GOP surrender (with perhaps a "deal" that's really surrender with a fig leaf; 20% chance of a deal that gives Democrats most, but not all, of what they want; 10% chance that Democrats are just bluffing, and 10% chance that Reid actually pushes the button. So far, however, there's very little chatter about, well, anything. So who knows?
Anyway, feel free to use this as an open filibuster/judges thread.
Um...10% chance? They just went nuclear. Not sure what you were hearing behind the scenes that made you think there was an 80% chance of some form of GOP cave. That seems like a big miss
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking the Rs did not think their bluff would be called. (Or, they did not think the votes were there.)
ReplyDeletePerhaps. If so, very foolish. Their conduct was outrageous, and they should have known Reid would not bring it to the floor unless he had the votes. They had the chance to preserve some influence over the nominations process by cutting a deal, but they threw it away based on a very bad tactical judgment. Alternatively, the interests of the Senators who would be expected to cut the deal diverged too far from the interest of the GOP caucus as a whole, which probably would have preferred that a deal be cut to preserve the filibuster while letting the D.C. Three through.
DeleteMaybe they are just very confident that because of the botched ACA rollout they will win control of the Senate in 2014. (If so, I think such confidence is as foolish as the Democrats' belief a few weeks ago that 2014 was sure to be a Democratic year because of the shutdown.)
ReplyDeleteThe relevant event to look to is the 2016 elections, since a majority in 2014 does them no good unless it's vetoproof. If they're confident of the outcome of the 2016 elections now, they are bad politicians.
DeleteGOP's real goal is to repeal the welfare state and the rest of the New Deal architecture. that was never going to happen with the filibuster in place. The GOP likes their odds of retaking the senate at some point in the next few cycles and when the stars align, they'll have the Presidency too. McConnel and the GOP played this very well. Where Reid erred was not forcing this issue sooner. All these mini bargains along the way were worthless because they never got agreement on questions such as: Is Obama under any circumstances allowed to appoint judges to the DC circuit that tip the balance of power? I would never have taken my finger off the nuclear button until I got that answer. McConnel played this brilliantly because he, until now, was always able to keep the Dems from going nuclear through these mini bargains, all the while maintaining the status quo with respect to obstruction. With the 2014 election nigh, and the GOP locked into the House for another 6-8 years, the strategy turned from offering just enough to prevent the nuclear option to goading Reid into doing his dirty work for him. McConnel is evil, but he's still a genius.
ReplyDeleteAnd in that scenario, Democrats can bring back the welfare state when they hold the House, Senate, and Presidency again.
DeleteThe filibuster is not what's holding together the American welfare state in 2013. It has extremely deep roots in our political order, and could not be opportunistically repealed if the Republicans happened to get unified government in 2016.
DeleteI have no idea what is the Republicans strategy, if any.
ReplyDeleteThe Wall Street Journal usually has intelligent articles or editorials explaining Republican thinking. One might disagree with the conclusions, but you'll get a sense of their reasoning. In the case of this DC court filibusters the WSJ really has nothing much to say.