Don’t bet on the end of the filibuster

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is [ready to trash the filibuster](. Liberal activists are demanding it, and several Democratic presidential candidates are stepping up to agree. It could happen. But I wouldn’t bet too much on the early demise of the filibuster. To begin with, while I think it’s likely at this point that most Democrats and Republicans would eliminate the filibuster if it was in their short-run interest, we can safely assume that no party will act on procedural changes unless it needs to. So the question isn’t so much about convincing a party to act, but in figuring out the conditions in which it will act. So what would it take? Certainly we’re not going to get filibuster changes without unified government. That’s become [somewhat rare](. With partisan polarization and without unified party government, there’s no reason to end the filibuster. For example, right now there’s no point in making it easier for a narrow Republican majority to make it easier to pass something in the Senate when it would need plenty of Democratic support in the House to become a law (and therefore easily reach 60 votes in the Senate with Democratic votes). Then the majority party actually needs an agreed-upon agenda; no point in eliminating the filibuster if there’s no bill to pass. Maintaining the filibuster may in some cases be a good excuse for a party that actually can’t come to an agreement; members can blame the rules instead of their own failure to reach consensus. The agenda also has to include at least one major item that can’t be passed through reconciliation, the procedure that (to oversimplify it) allows the Senate to pass bills by majority rule as long as they affect the budget in some way. Even then, not all majorities are alike. Hunter Brown argues that [neither party is likely to win 60 seats](, and therefore be able to pass any bill as long as it maintains party discipline, anytime soon. But a party that gets close may find it easier to find a few votes through compromise than it is to find the votes to eliminate the filibuster. That’s what happened when the Democrats only had 58 senators in spring 2009 and [passed the stimulus bill]( with Republican support, and what happened when the Democrats had 59 senators in 2010 and [passed the financial regulation bill](, again with Republican support. Meanwhile, a party that has only a slim majority in the Senate may not be able to pass anything even under majority rule — or may not have the votes to eliminate the filibuster even if it has the votes for an underlying bill. In other words, it probably takes both unified government and at least a solid, if not huge, Senate majority; the sweet spot is likely something like 53 to 57 senators. And they need an urgent, consensus agenda. Which can’t make it through reconciliation. Could that happen as soon as 2021? Absolutely. Is it likely? Not if the policy-challenged Republicans win in 2020. Maybe if the Democrats do. But again, I wouldn’t bet on it. What I think is somewhat more likely is that a slim Senate majority during a period of unified government will chip away at the filibuster. The majority party can hire and fire the [parliamentarian](, who determines what qualifies for reconciliation. A majority could also perhaps exclude some portion of legislation from the filibuster. It’s possible to imagine a Democratic Senate deciding that the filibuster couldn’t be used on, say, statehood bills. That would put the chamber on the path toward eliminating the filibuster but wouldn’t quite get it there yet. It’s also possible that, faced with the possibility of the total elimination of the filibuster, the minority party might cut a deal to preserve it in exchange for allowing a portion of the majority-party agenda to pass. But perhaps the era when that could happen is gone. 1. Matthew Green at Mischiefs of Faction assesses the early portion of [Nancy Pelosi’s second speakership](. 2. Mneesha Gellman at the Monkey Cage on the [Donald Trump administration and asylum claims](. 3. Geoffrey Skelley on [endorsements in the Democratic nomination contest](. 4. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Barry Ritholtz on [Trump and a possible recession](. 5. Toluse Olorunnipa on Trump and [governing by grievance](. 6. And Vivian Salama, Rebecca Ballhaus, Andrew Restuccia and Michael C. Bender on Trump’s interest in [buying Greenland](. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe](