![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/nortonspeaks.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/chuck-schumer-2.jpg?resize=326%2C206\")
Gaming out the end of the filibuster<\/h2>\nGaming out the end of the filibuster<\/h2>\nBill Palmer<\/a>\u00a0|\u00a09:09 am EST January 29, 2021<\/p>\n Palmer Report<\/a>\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0Analysis<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Gaming out the end of the filibuster Bill Palmer\u00a0|\u00a09:09 am EST January 29, 2021 Palmer Report\u00a0\u00bb\u00a0Analysis Back in 2018, liberal pundits \u2013 on TV and online \u2013 collectively decided that Trump was about to pardon his co-conspirators at any moment, and that it would cause him to magically win, and we\u2019d all be screwed. This…","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[43,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["entry","author-larrynorton","post-1331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-government","category-uncategorized","no-post-thumbnail"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8bppg-lt","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1331"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1331\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1334,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1331\/revisions\/1334"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nortonspeaks.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Back in 2018, liberal pundits \u2013 on TV and online \u2013 collectively decided that Trump was about to pardon his co-conspirators at any moment, and that it would cause him to magically win, and we\u2019d all be screwed. This was silly, both because pardons don\u2019t work that way, and because it wouldn\u2019t have helped Trump even if pardons did work that way.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
Sure enough, Trump never did pardon any of his co-conspirators prior to election day, just like the author of \u201cThe Palmer Report\u201d predicted. Then he lost the election, just like Palmer Report predicted. Then when Trump finally did pardon his co-conspirators after he lost, and only then did everyone realize that pardons never were magic wands, just as Palmer Report had long said. So what does this have to do with the filibuster in 2021? Everything.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
There\u2019s a reason the pundits were so wrong headed with their Trump pardon magical mystery tour in 2018: the whole thing was made up nonsense designed to scare you into staying tuned in, so everyone\u2019s ratings and page views would remain high. The reason Palmer Report got the pardon storyline correct all along, when most others wildly blew it, was that we weren\u2019t interested in playing along with the phony doomsday hype for ratings. Other pundits were hoping that by the time pardons didn\u2019t magically save Trump\u2019s presidency, you\u2019d be too relieved to notice you\u2019d been duped for ratings the entire time.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
This brings us to the current doomsday hype over the filibuster. If you listen to almost any liberal pundit right now, on TV or online, they\u2019ll tell you that the Democrats\u2019 agenda is absolutely screwed because they haven\u2019t eliminated the filibuster. You\u2019re probably even believing it at this point, because you keep hearing it over and over and over again. But this notion is almost childlike in its absurd simplicity.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
The one thing the pundits never do for you, while they\u2019re trying to scare you into staying tuned in, is game things out for you even one step ahead. And why would they? If the entire point is to scare you into staying tuned in for ratings by pointing out that there\u2019s an upcoming cliff, why would they point out that there\u2019s also a bridge across that cliff? But here at Palmer Report, we like to point out the bridge to you.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
Here\u2019s what will actually happen as things move forward. The Democrats have a couple Senators from reddish states who keep loudly saying that they don\u2019t want to get rid of the filibuster. They know they might ultimately have to do so, but for now they want to loudly get it on the record that they\u2019re opposed to the idea. That way, if they do end up having to vote to get rid of it, they can tell their moderate constituents back home that they only did it very reluctantly, because some unreasonable Republican Senator forced them to. This is always how politicians spin things when they know they might have to make a move, and they\u2019re concerned about how the constituents back home will see it. It\u2019s politics 101.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
But that\u2019s actually two steps ahead. For now the filibuster is irrelevant. The first few pieces of legislation the Democrats will move forward with will be passed with reconciliation, which will only require fifty votes. Right now the pundits are hyping the fact that there are only a limited number of times per session that reconciliation can be used, but they\u2019re leaving out the part where the Democrats can change the rules about reconciliation. So that\u2019s a non issue.<\/h4>\n
In any case, the Democrats will pass their first few pieces of legislation with fifty votes, no problem. But let\u2019s say after that, the Democrats reach a point where they\u2019re voting on legislation that they can\u2019t quite shoe horn into the rules of reconciliation, which do require some kind of budgetary component. That\u2019s when the filibuster could finally become relevant \u2013 or more likely,\u00a0still<\/em>\u00a0remain irrelevant.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
Based on the operating agreement that Mitch McConnell has already irrevocably signed off on, the Senate Democrats can change the filibuster rules as they go during this session. So let\u2019s say Democrats introduce a piece of legislation. Most Senate Republicans don\u2019t want the filibuster gone, they\u2019re likely to simply not filibuster it, meaning it\u2019ll pass with fifty votes. Yes, it\u2019s that simple. The pundits keep leaving this part out, but sixty votes aren\u2019t required unless someone actually attempts a filibuster.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
Even if someone like Ted Cruz does decide he wants to filibuster something, at that point the Senate Democrats can simply change the rules on the fly. They can get rid of the filibuster entirely, or they can just decide to exempt that particular kind of legislation from the filibuster. It\u2019s that simple. And because most Senate Republicans don\u2019t want the filibuster eliminated, there\u2019s a good chance that if one of them does try a filibuster, other Senate Republicans will vote to shut down that attempt, just to keep the Democrats from eliminating the filibuster entirely.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
And if the Senate Republicans don\u2019t properly police their own side with regard to the filibuster, yes, the Senate Democrats will begin to carve up the filibuster. There is no scenario \u2013 absolutely none \u2013 where any Senate Democrat allows his or her party\u2019s agenda to fail, just to avoid having to kill the filibuster. Again, these moderate Senate Democrats are making a point of very loudly getting it on the record now that they\u2019re opposed to the idea, so that if they end up having to do it, they\u2019ll have already laid the groundwork for being able to look like they only did it reluctantly \u2013 and not for partisan reasons. This is simply how politicians operate.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
So why not just kill the filibuster now? Because there are Senate Democrats from moderate states who would rather not have to do that. There\u2019s a good chance they\u00a0won\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0have to, and that every piece of Democratic legislation will still pass. Even if they do end up having to kill the filibuster, again, they\u2019d rather not do it until they\u2019re finished getting it on the record that they don\u2019t\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to have to do it. Just as Speaker Nancy Pelosi said as loudly as she could that she didn\u2019t\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to have to impeach Trump in 2019, right up until the minute she inevitably impeached him. It\u2019s called positioning. It\u2019s how all politicians, good guys and bad guys, operate. Any pundits who aren\u2019t willing to acknowledge this reality, shouldn\u2019t be pundits.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
So maybe Senate Democrats will end up having to kill the filibuster and maybe they won\u2019t. There\u2019s no way to know for sure yet. But there is no scenario \u2013\u00a0absolutely none<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 where they don\u2019t get their legislation passed. Through reconciliation, or changes to reconciliation rules, or the threat of getting rid of the filibuster, or actually getting rid of the filibuster, the Democratic Party\u2019s legislative agenda\u00a0will happen<\/em>. You\u2019d have to be unable to think even one or two obvious logical steps ahead to not be able to see this. Yet with an army of liberal pundits trying to convince you that Senate Democrats are doomed unless they do this one magical thing\u00a0right this second<\/em>, it\u2019s understandable why it might be difficult to see the obvious logic over top of the ratings-driven noise.<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
The kicker of course is that when the Senate Democrats do in fact get all their legislation passed, the pundits will act\u00a0shocked<\/em>\u00a0that it happened. Holy cow, you mean they changed a rule that they were clearly allowed to change? Who saw that coming? Oh my gosh, you mean those moderate Senate Democrats were merely posturing so they could look reticent in case they had to pull the trigger, as all politicians are always doing? And what do you mean, we ended up taking the bridge across the ravine instead of simply falling off the cliff like dopes? Utterly shocking!<\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
That\u2019s right, you\u2019re once again being whipped into a panicked frenzy over imaginary doomsday scenarios that obviously aren\u2019t going to happen, because the pundits feel like they need to boost their ratings right now. You\u2019d think there are enough real stories going on for everyone to hit their ratings marks, without having to invent simplistic doomsday scenarios about something that\u2019s obviously going to be worked around when the time comes. But then the media doesn\u2019t exist to inform you, it exists for ratings.<\/h4>\n