Ending the filibuster will only come on the heels of electing more progressive Democrats to the U.S. Senate.

The Democrat Party needs 51 votes to end the filibuster.

Republicans will never vote to end the filibuster.

Moderate Democrats will never vote to end the filibuster.

Only electing more progressive Democrat Senators to office will end the filibuster.

How many progressive Democrats are needed to win in 2022 to meet the 51 vote threshhold to defeat the filibuster in the Senate?

No one knows for certain, because an up or down vote on ending the filibuster has not taken place, giving moderate Democrats cover to lie about their true position on the filibuster.

No where in politics illustrates how conservatism has infected the Democrat Party more than the moderate Democrats who refuse to end the filibuster and vote to keep the filibuster in place.

Moderate Democrats believe conservatism has a place in Democrat Party policy and bi-partisan legislation.

Moderate Democrats repeat conservative talking points in their quest to keep conservatism alive and well inside the Democrat Party.

Moderate Democrats preach bi-partisanship in their opposition to progressive Democrat policies, claiming we must represent all Americans in the promulgation of Democrat Party policy.

I disagree. Republicans have a history of promoting bi-partisanship but in reality, vote primarily along partisan lines. Do I blame Republicans for voting along party lines and not incorporating progressive Democrat policies? NO! Moderate Democrats make the argument that bi-partisanship is necessary and more effectively represents the will of the people.

In the year 2021, I couldn’t disagree more. The American people couldn’t disagree more.

First and foremost of all, it is a FACT our Founding Fathers created a MAJORITY RULE BODY called the U.S. Senate. It is a fact MAJORITY RULE as written and intended by our FF is a 51 vote MAJORITY RULE – Not a 60 vote majority rule; not a 67 voter majority rule.

In 1975, the Senate changed the rules to require a 60 vote majority to pass any legislation. It is this disregard for our Constitutional democratic process along with the

From the progressive Democrat point of view, bi-partisanship means Republicans and moderate democrats working and voting together to water down and/or eliminate progressive Democrat policies.

The filibuster has a dark history of being the weapon of choice for racist Congressmen who used the filibuster to block civil rights bills for decades.

The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It is a centuries-old Senate practice whereupon Senators in the minority could take the floor and talk endlessly, never agreeing to formally end debate so the majority could vote. They’d talk the legislation to death, in the process shutting down all other Senate business. The House never permitted it, always allowing a simple majority to shut down debate.

In the Senate, the idea was to make sure the minority was heard. But over the years, the rule was exploited to actually stop legislation altogether.

Southern Democrats used it to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and civil-rights laws in the 1950s. Not until June 10, 1964, were anti-segregationists able to muster enough votes under Senate rules to cut off a filibuster on a major civil-rights bill — after a staggering 60 days of debate.

Then in 1975, the Senate modified the filibuster. Senators could now close debate and bring legislation to the floor if they had 60 votes to do it. Since then, the minority doesn’t have to monopolize the floor and debate endlessly, shutting down all business. Threatening to do so is enough to hold up a bill.

Call it a fake filibuster.

In recent years, Republicans have benefited from the 60-vote rule. During President Barack Obama’s first two years in office, the Republican Senate minority used it to kill pro-union legislation, the Dream Act, gun control and a federal minimum-wage hike.

Minutes after Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee, Schumer proclaimed that “on a subject as important as a Supreme Court nomination,” there have to be 60 votes to move forward.

That’s politics. But DC insiders talk about the 60-vote rule as if it were sacrosanct, the holy grail of democracy. “It’s the way our founding fathers set it up,” says Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.).

Sorry. That’s not the case.

The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto or expelling a member of Congress. That’s the whole list, and passing laws and confirming nominees aren’t on it.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers considered requiring a supermajority in the Senate to pass laws, but repeatedly rejected the idea.

James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58 that it would give the minority control over the majority. The “principle of free government would be reversed.” Requiring laws to pass two houses of Congress and giving the president a veto were better ways to promote wise lawmaking.

Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would cause “tedious delays,” as it had under the failed Articles of Confederation. Just what we’re facing now.

Meanwhile, McConnell, a Senate lifer first elected in 1984, defends the 60-vote rule, telling colleagues not to “act as if we’re going to be in the majority forever.”

NYU law professor Burt Neuborne deplores these “rules that scratch my back today and yours tomorrow.” They protect career politicians more than the public: The 60-vote threshold dashes voters’ hopes that an election can produce real change.

Some call dropping the filibuster “going nuclear.” Actually, it would be a return to what the framers envisioned — “going original.”