| >On the other hand: over the next couple years, the same force is going to work in the other direction as the Democrats assume the minority. Maybe. The republicans seem far better at parliamentary procedure and press management. Once there's a Republican president, I can imagine there will be loud outcries against "Democratic obstructionism" if the democrats attempt to block votes with a filibuster. As Hario's comment above pointed out, the reverse happened in 2006 then 2008. I could see them successfully switching the narrative back. These past several years I've been very surprised that the Democrats simply acquiesced to 60, and didn't even try to make Republicans actually filibuster bills by talking. As this article points out, actual filibustering is a gruelling process. The speaker can't leave the podium: http://mentalfloss.com/article/49360/5-famous-filibusters I looked up any more recent filibusters. I came across Rand Paul's filibuster from 2013. He lasted 13 hours, and failed to block the appointment of John Brennan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-fili... Anyone have insight on the Democrat's (lack of) response to the threat of filibustering? |