[runako]

> needs 60 votes

This is a gentle fiction. The GOP has the 51 votes to change this rule by lunchtime tomorrow and proceed to govern according to the mandate they claim. They may choose not to do that, as is their prerogative.

But they do not "need" 60 votes according to the Constitution, which is free online to read. One can even search for a 60-vote cloture requirement in the document and its amendments, which are in fact the real governing documents that describe how Congress is required to operate.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

> This is a gentle fiction. The GOP has the 51 votes to change this rule by lunchtime tomorrow and proceed to govern according to the mandate they claim. They may choose not to do that, as is their prerogative.

You're correct, of course, but they're doing something that's exceedingly rare these days: they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.

Which is kinda dumb, because Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them (but they'll cry crocodile tears when it's done to them).

It's all moot anyway; now that the election is over, and they don't need to leverage their constituents well-being for votes, Democrats have indicated a willingness to pass the bill.

[runako]

> Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them

Notably, not for healthcare! (Older person's perspective: the pseudo-requirement for 60 votes is quite possibly why the US didn't get universal healthcare in 2010.)

Anyway, yes it is good if parties who win at the ballot box are able to enact their policies into law. The filibuster prevents this and as such is a cancer on representative government.

The GOP should be able to install armed checkpoints on every city block and eliminate the ACA, returning us to the status quo of 2009[1]. They won the most recent election, that is their prerogative. They should be bound by existing law, but beyond that there should be few checks on them realizing their wish list.

By the same token, when Democrats win, they should be able to offer a Medicare For All and universal preschool[2].

Parties that win should be able to enact their policies. Let the voters decide which policies they prefer. Which brings me back to

> they're thinking about the ramifications for when the shoe is on the other foot.

If they have conviction that their constituents will like their policies, they needn't worry. They should actively want to be able to enact their policies, so that voters can choose them again to get more of the same. What leader of conviction would intentionally neuter their own capabilities?

1 - taken loosely from current enactment of policy and https://prod-static.gop.com/media/RNC2024-Platform.pdf?_gl=1...

2 - taken loosely from https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024-Democr...

[atmavatar]

    Democrats have shown time and again that they're willing to throw the rulebook out when it suits them

Could you elaborate? What are some specific examples?