Specter's switch: Not a game-changer

Can we put a moratorium on the phrase "filibuster-proof majority"? Yes, Arlen Specter's defection means that Democrats will hold sixty seats in the Senate once Al Franken is eventually seated. But the phrase "filibuster-proof" falsely implies that the party will have no problem passing its agenda through the Senate. In reality, as more sophisticated pundits have pointed out, getting sixty votes will still be very difficult on many issues.

Before Specter's defection, Democrats needed support from all of their caucus, including moderates like Ben Nelson and Evan Bayh, plus two Republican moderates like Specte, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins (with the required number of GOP votes increasing in the number of Democratic defections). That calculus is only slightly more forgiving today. While political science research does show that party switchers tend to substantially alter their voting behavior -- an effect that should be even more pronounced given that Specter faces a Democratic primary next year -- the net effect of Specter's switch is likely to be, say, a .4 vote boost on cloture votes for Democratic legislation in the Senate (i.e. Specter votes with the Democrats 75% of the time instead of 35% or whatever). The optics of the switch may be symbolically important, but contrary to Ron Wyden's claim, the legislative consequences are not likely to be "game-changing."

Comments

[rone]

The media perpetuates the desire for cold, hard, round numbers. You see it in politics (Obama's first 100 days), economics (Dow Jones index milestones), and sports (3000 hits in baseball). People are frightened by odd numers.

[David]

Brendan's point is exemplified by the budget bankruptcy "cramdown" bill. Spector voted to maintain the filibuster, even though he had changed parties.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113493922575179.html

[Jinchi]

I agree that the obsession with the magic number 60 has been over the top and wish Harry Reid was smart enough to pass legislation as a majority leader instead of capitulating at every filibuster threat.

But I think that what the switch does mean is that the Republican leadership can no longer run on a strategy of promising to filibuster every bill that doesn't have 60 votes behind it. It's one thing for Democratic Senators to vote no on a bill or to occasionally join the filibuster on controversial legislation. But its another to join the Republican ranks repeatedly. I expect the number of filibusters to drop dramatically compared to the last session.