Will Republicans change the filibuster rule if they win the Senate?

[kentuck]

And why?

I suspect they probably will?

They will not want Democrats slowing down their agenda if they have the House and the Senate. They are not a Party that looks to the future. They do not concern themselves with "what ifs". For example, what if the Democrats take back the Senate in 2016? They worry about crossing that bridge when they get to it. They live in the now and present. That is the nature of their Party. Just as it was with the Bush tax cuts.

And if they do, would you be critical of the Democrats for not changing the filibuster rule when they had the chance?

[Scuba]

1. Why would they?

No one will use the filibuster to stop them anyway.

[magellan]

2. I'll be critical of the Dems for not changing the rule either way. n/t

[Mr. David]

3. The Republicans as it stands, will *NEVER* ever gain a Senate majority again for at least 10

generations.

They are going to start shrinking.

2014 will give a beating to the Republicans it has never seen before.

Yes sir.

[hrmjustin]

18. Welcome to DU my friend!

[treestar]

4. They would not change it, because it gives them an advantage

We want the government to work, they want it to come to a halt.

If they had the Senate, the Democrats would work with them to keep the government going to an extent, not automatically filibuster everything.

There might be some issues on which the Democrats could still use it. Like egregious Supreme Court appointments. They'll try to put John Woo on the Supreme Court - in which case, those now trashing Harry Reid because there are not enough votes to change it would end up trashing him because he did.

[kentuck]

5. But, if they wanted Woo on the Supreme Court...

It would be easier to do with a simple majority, would it not. So it would be to their advantage to change the rule, in that case.

[treestar]

7. Yes, though that might not be their focus for keeping it

In that they don't consider any Supreme Court nominee important, but do want to be able to hold up government programs to help people, gun laws, relief for immigrants not lawfully in the country, all of those things. The Republicans want fewer laws and regulations, so nothing passing is generally what they'd like. And they can get their favorite things - declarations of war - from the House.

[kentuck]

8. But they would not have to worry about "government programs to help people" if...

they had control of the House and the Senate, would they?

[treestar]

10. No but that could be temporary, and usually is

So while in power they may well keep the filibuster, remembering that the Democrats could take over again and they have a weapon to stop the Democrats from enacting such things, at least unless the Democrats get 60 in the Senate, not a likely prospect.

[kentuck]

13. They are a Party of instant gratification.

They do not think long term.

[JohnnyBoots]

6. They will have

60+ seats. Why bother.

[get the red out]

9. They don't need to

Democrats roll over and play dead even when in the majority, let alone the minority.

[earthside]

11. By the time the gavel falls ...

... the current filibuster rule will be gone.

Consistency is not the kind of value the Repuglicans and Tea Partiers care much about.

Indeed, they'll do it to spite Pres. Obama and the remaining Senate Democrats as much any thing else.

See, the Repuglicans care about power and are not afraid to use it -- even if they have a majority of only one, they will use that number to pass anything they want. If the Repuglicans keep the House in 2014, they will turn Pres. Obama into the 'veto' president, i.e.., "President No." They would love that.

And, yes, Harry Reid and the Democrats were just dumb not to change the filibuster rule in January.

[LonePirate]

12. Yes. They will not tolerate the same obstructionism they have perpetrated.

Plus, they will do whatever it takes to push their destructive agenda through Congress. Dems are only fooling themselves if they think the Repubs will allow the filibuster to remain if/when the Repubs regain the Senate majority.

[vi5]

14. They won't need to.

Democrats will bend over backwards to give them what they want anyway. All they'll need to do is catch wind of David Gregory or Joe Scarborough or David Brooks or the folks at Politico saying they need to cooperate with the majority and stop obstructing and they'll all rush to support whatever it is the Republicans want.

[kentuck]

15. Yes, the old "the people have spoken" excuse...

to get the President and the Democrats to go along.

[newblewtoo]

16. I am not ready to concede the 2014 elections yet

but if we continue with the vainglorious attacks and spending on those not up for election in 2014 at the expense of those who actually are we may just be able to pull defeat from victory's mouth. Here in New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen will stand for election in 2014 not Kelley Ayotte, yet there is a great campaign being waged against Ayotte which I am sure the Rethuglicans will use to poison the well among independent voters (NH has a slew of single issue gun owner voters) . It is easy to imagine a campaign to "throw them all out" derailing Shaheen's re election bid.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. IIRC, they threatened to do so last time they held the Senate

Forcing Dems to back down on every issue, which is how Dim Son was so (evilly) effective.