filibusters?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

what do you think about the fact that filibusters do not have an effect on the senate anymore?

[Franzl]

Where did you get that idea?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

the fact that the Democrats got 60 votes. It will most likely continue that way. The bills will most likely go through with ease now.

[Franzl]

Very unlikely...since when do the Democrats vote together on everything?

That's nonsense.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

That's nonsense.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Neither party has complete unity, and the Democrats have less unity than the Republicans, so filibusters can still work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's nonsense.

[angus]

what do you think about the fact that filibusters do not have an effect on the senate anymore?

I think votes for cloture will probably be a little more successful than before, since there will be some bills that the leadership want to pass so badly they will either pressure their caucus or make deals with their junior members to pass.  But I don't think you can assume that no filibusters will be attempted.  Some will even work.  The technique may involve grassroots campaigns in the states with Democrat senators but whose electorate can be convinced that the Democrat leadership's ideas are wrong.  Louisiana, for example, or South Dakota.  It may also be that some Democrat senators genuinely disagree with their party leaders.  Ben Nelson, for example, often votes with Republicans on key issues.  As do Evan Bayh, Joseph Liebermann, and Claire McCaskill.  They might convince the two senators from Maine to join the Democrats from time to time, but it won't be easy.  And for changing rules a super-majority of senators (67 senators) is still used, so any attempted rule change stands the risk of being talked to death.