If everything goes right and the "leaning republican" states also go Dem, they'll have 62 seats and can still drop Senator Droopy.

What's remarkable is to be this close to 60 in only two Senate cycles.

The concept of 60 sounds great, but the reality is not as rosy and Salonistas know it. First we have Joe "I'm an independent, see, it says so on my flag lapel pin" Leiberman, who is more Repuglican that many moderates who bear the party's standard, such as Olympia Snowe. Then we have the West Coast's Joe L., the disgrace to my home state, Dianne Feinstein of California. As she's aged, Big D. has become ever more tilted to the right. So I'd say even if we cash in Nate's 32% odds (and I think the youth vote plus a big African-American turnout gives us decent odds of doing that), we're still 58-40 with two senators of highly questionable motives.

The best hope for the Dems is some moderates like Snowe. And, of course, growing a motherfucking spine and some sense of who in hell they serve.

to have a big enough majority

to send Lieberman on his way...

and never hear another word from him again.

It seems simple to me. If they threaten to filibuster, don't just concede. MAKE them filibuster. Every. Single. Time. The minority party does not get to control the agenda. They've already been doing that for far too long.

I don't like the guy any more than anyone else around here, but what if we need him to forestall a filibuster? I'd like to see a discussion of exactly what Lieberman's role might be in such a case.

. . . if Snowe and Collins defect (a la Jim Jeffords), they would have much more power. They'd probably be relieved to be free of the Republicans anyway. And the Dems would be able to tell Lieberman to take a hike, finally.

Or if Snowe, Collins or Arlen Specter get named to a cabinet position, then the Democratic governors of Maine and Pennsylvania can name a Democrat to replace them, which is another way to get to a filibuster-proof (possibly even a Leiberman-proof) majority.

Let them filibuster each time they threaten to. The 60 vote super majority is a myth in any event used by the Democrats to proclaim themselves powerless. Did the Republicans have a super majority from 2001- 2006 and did we hear anything about this needing 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate before the Democrats took control in 06? Its all so lame.

to unite against a filibuster???

With Harry Reid?

Maybe with Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton.

It is a nice dream.

by the way, no one is counting on Lieberman for anything. He is gone.

I think Nate is doing good work on the Presidential stuff, but he is probably a little too optimistic on the Senate side. We would need to see the Dems pull out a number of close races at the last minute as they did in 2006 in VA, MO, MT. But those were states which were trending Democratic as we can see from recent presidential polls. This year to reach 60 they would have to win in solid conservative states of MS, KY, GA which I think is significantly less likely.

Why is everyone so fixated on the Democrats obtaining a "filibuster-proof" sixty seats in the Senate? Votes, whether to end a filibuster or to pass a law, are rarely made on a strict party line basis; there are almost always a few who cross party lines with their votes.

The Democrats might stand a slightly better chance of ending a filibuster with 60 seats than with 58 or 59, and a bit better with 61 or 62, but don't count on that to eliminate filibusters altogether.

it is about Coattails...

what they are talking about is a 1980-style realignment.

And the GOP is scared to death that if the RNC throws more money down the McCain rathole, down ballot races where they were holding their own will fall like dominoes because the dispirited base will stay home rather than vote for a loser.

akira1, I completely agree. I mean, I'd love to have a Senate with over 60 Dems, but ever since they started this "we need 60 votes" crap two years ago I've just seen it as an excuse.

And pacificwhim, one reason I'd love to have more than 60 is because Florida has our own version of DiFi: Spineless Bill Nelson. I sincerely hope we can replace this empty suit with an Actual Democrat (but we have to wait until 2012!). At least your other Senator, Barbara Boxer, is a keeper. Mine is GOOPer Mel "Fred Flintstone" Martinez.

I seem to remember something about a "Nuclear Option" .

I could be wrong.

I'm tired of the virtual filibuster. Make 'em talk and call 'em out as obstructing the will of the people's chosen representatives. There's no way the GOP would let the Dems get away with this.

I'm glad to see other commenters have realized that 58 Democratic senators plus Sanders & Lieberman won't lead us to some filibuster-proof Utopia. The Dem caucus has proved too spineless and fractured -- they'll need at least a few votes for a safety margin.

Read this post at a Princeton blog on meta-analysis of Electoral College data:

http://election.princeton.edu/2008/08/04/on-a-flaw-in-fivethirtyeightcom/

They point out that FiveThirtyEight's attempts to predict the outcome in November are closer to hocus pocus than meaningful information. Generally, FiveThirtyEight's calculations introduce uncertainty to the data, rather than come to useful conclusions.

If polls hold, Democrats will take the White House and gain seats in Congress. While I'm liberal as all git-out, I do have reservations about giving any single political party that much unchecked power.

Naturally, then, the prospect of 60, whatever its actual weight, concerns me. However, it seems that the majority of the left is excited and believes this would be a good thing.

My question: Do we not recognize our own hubris?