I've been looking at the polling for the Senate pretty closely and I have come to the conclusion that the most likely result is that we will win 57 seats plus 2 independents for 59. I have some hope for Martin in Georgia but it just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
McConnell is looking more and more likely to win in KY and he overuses the filibuster to ridiculous extremes. The dems really, really need to get that 60th vote to at least get through these filibusters to get things done.
Is there a Republican Senator out there who is vulnerable in 2010 who might be convinced to, at the very least, vote with the dems on filibusters?
My sense is that 2010 could be another potentially huge year of pickups for our side. I also think Obama is headed for a landslide 7 point, 150+ EV win. That would really give him a mandate for change. Obstructionism by the Republicans could be politically untenable, especially for a moderate senator up for re-election in a blue state. We've seen "working across the aisle" and "independent voice" as the main slogans that Republicans are trying to use this year and what better way for one of them to actually be able to say it and have something real to point to in 2010 than to vote with the Dems on filibusters.
I am more throwing this out there for discussion because I personally don't know how viable a possibility this is than making a specific proposal.However, here are some possible ideas:
-Try to entice a Republican to switch affiliation by offering good committee assignments.
-A less formal agreement that if a Republican at least sides with us on a bunch of filibuster.
-A more targeted approach where activists attack specific senators on specific issues to try to get them not to filibuster on individual pieces of legislation.
-Some sort of gang of 12 or 14 or whatever that tries to reach some consensus and allows filibusters to get through.
So my questions are: Which approach would work best? Which Senator would be most vulnerable?