60 supermajority still possible?

thoughts that he might appoint a caretaker republican to the seat. i would agree with that move. i know it's too simplistic to say that new hampshire voted for a republican over a democrat, but i believe that in cases like this, someone from the incumbent party should be appointed.

 

I'm starting to like Feingold's proposed ammendment that would make any open senate seat subject to a special election and not left to appointment.

 

If I were the Dems, I wouldn't want the 60th seat this time around. With enough RINOs in the Senate, the extra pressure of having 60 wouldn't be worth the trouble. The way 2010 is shaping up, they will blow well past 60 unless the next 2 years are catastrophic and they get all the blame.

 

This is one amendment that might actually pass the US Congress. Normally, I would think the party with more governor seats would be against it for short-term political gain. But with the Blago mess, I'm not sure people would really oppose it.

Where it would likely run into a problem is getting approval at the state level. All the governors would fight it, you would think.

 

It would take years to get it passed, which would be difficult, as you point out. Frankly, I don't know why a Democratic governor would appoint a Republican to fill the seat, should it become vacant. A Republican governor would place a Republican in the seat, should the situation be reversed. Of that I have no doubt. If Gregg wants the appointment by the President, should it be offered, then let the chips fall where they may.

I would have no problem with a special election, however.

 

I'm not really that concerned about 60 as some magical number. It looks like on most votes there are one or two from either party that go back and forth depending on the bill. It isn't always the same one or two. There are times when votes go straight down party line, but it isn't that often.

I don't think having 60 would make things all Democrat all the time.

Having 57-60 is really about the same from a practical standpoint.

 

I agree. Look at the House vote on the stimulus bill. Several Democratic members voted against it. Not a big number, but more than one or two. Having 60 in the Senate is more important for judicial confirmations, in my opinion, when the party is more likely to vote as the GOP House members did on the stimulus bill... in lock-step. That's what makes getting to 60 worthwhile, IMO. A deal breaker for judicial confirmations if we don't get it? No, but it doesn't hurt. Those confirmations are very important to me.

 

every nelson we lose, there's a collins we'll have. collins, snowe, specter, maybe even mccain on certain issues will vote for us.

and look even if we don't have 60, republicans just can't fillabuster everything. this stimulus is a case in point. they will not fillabuster it, even if we have 55 senators (nelson may oppose it, kennedy/franken may not be there etc).