Democrats go Nuclear at the beginning of 2009?

[THE OBSERVER]

What if Harry Reid, having foreknowledge of what the Republicans would do (I know this is ASB, then again he could probably push for reform to make things easier), decides to enact Tom Harkin's filibuster reform proposal at the beginning of 2009? This is what the Harkin proposal would do, according to an article in The Washington Monthly

Harkin proposes a new procedural model: the first go-around, the minority could demand a 60-vote majority, as is the case now. But if 60 votes aren't there to end debate, a week or so later, 57 votes could bring the bill to the floor for a vote. If 57 votes aren't there, it drops again and again, and after a month or so, a bare majority could approve cloture.

How would it affect legislation? Approval ratings? President Obama? The 2010 Midterms?

Tell me what you think guys!

 

[Promita Banik]

Hard for this too pass with still so many social/economically conservative Dems still in office in 2009. Reid will still have to deal with the intractable Liebermans, Baucus, Conrads and Rockefellers of the world. Red State Dems who aren't all too liberal or progressive so I see that failing miserable. The Dems were always due to lose the 2010 midterms, just no other way around it. Even with no Obamacare he owned the terrible economy and hard to blame Bush when he's not in office or running against a neo-conservative. Let's not forget that even with the obstructionist Reps filibustering every bill till they were blue in the face Reid still couldn't get reform at the beginning of 2013. He needed the Reps to show they were so intractable as to refuse to vote for any judicial appointments no matter how qualified to bring the moderates to his side.