I don't know why it takes the likes of a Dianne Feinstein to tell us that the Democrats in the Senate would never get rid of the filibuster. We saw the power the filibuster gives individual senators when they have enough votes for cloture. How many senators would give up that kind of power? Not enough to vote to eliminate the filibuster, we can be sure of that.
Sixty was always a lousy number to have. When the Democrats had 60 votes in their caucus and an important vote drew near, a Ben Nelson or a Joe Liebermann or a Blanche Lincoln had the opportunity to step forward and demand to be paid off (in some way). There was never a need to get a Republican to go along, and the Republicans could not be blamed for the failure to pass legislation. Every opportunist on the Democratic side could take advantage of the vulnerability to get what he or she wanted. If it hadn't been Ben, Joe, or Blanche, any Evan, Diane, or Chuck could have found a reason to interrupt the flow until their needs had been met.
Things weren't much better at 59-41 because that meant getting two Republicans to go along. Getting one is nearly impossible because any Republican senator who strays would get punished by their leadership. And besides, getting one leaves you in the same situation as before except that Ben Nelson looks even worse when he wimps out. So it was necessary to get two, but that means making two senators from Maine into heroes.
Getting two looks like an effort at bi-partisanship, and as we have all seen, seeking bi-partisanship for its own sake makes you look weak and submissive. Obama's appeal in the campaign for President may have been to heal the divisions, but he has only succeeded in highlighting the wounds and making them deeper with his "pre-emptive concessions" on a slew of issues.
Feinstein and the other Democrats have seen how it works, and with the loss of Senate seats virtually assured for November, eliminating or lowering the number needed for the filibuster would not change the equation significantly. If the Democrats wind up with a number in the lower fifties, they would have to eliminate the filibuster entirely because a couple of Blue Dogs plus Ben and Joe could block anything by threatening to vote with the Party of No. If the Democrats wind up with fifty-five or fifty-six, it would be futile to lower the filibuster number to fifty-five. That would merely leave them in the same situation as now.
No Democrat wants to run on a promise to eliminate the filibuster because where does that leave them if in the unlikely event the Republicans win a majority - or, less unlikely, if they win fifty-one and Ben and Joe bolt giving the Republicans a majority? How could they then object when the Republicans eliminate the filibuster to emasculate the Democrats?
Feinstein and the others envy the power individual senators have when a super-majority is required for action. Politicians are in the business of acquiring power, not giving it up.