I probably should have written this before Chambliss won his reelection bid tonight, just so it wouldn't seem like sour grapes. And it's been pretty clear for the several days that he was probably going to win.
But now that he has, I'll pose the question that's been on my mind since November 4th: Do the Democrats really need 60 Senate votes?
First off, just because we would have had enough votes to stop a filibuster doesn't mean we could. That 60 vote count includes Lieberman, after all, who has, shall we say, a tendency to wander off the reservation. In fact, you can say that about many Democratic Senators; they are not like the folks across the aisle, who lived in fear that Karl Rove would come down and threaten them with primary challengers if they did not toe the line. And in general, party loyalty doesn't carry the same weight.
Second, having a supermajority would create the temptation to run roughshod over the remaining Republicans, payback for all the years (including the last two) when they managed to put a chokehold on anything the Democrats wanted to do. That kind of revenge may be satisfying, but it creates more problems in the long run, not the least of which is a desire for counter-revenge.
For the next point, let's look at the 2010 election map:
15 Democratic Senators are up for re-election (not counting Obama's, Hillary's and Biden's replacements). Of these, only two - Lincon of Arkansas and Drogan of North Dekota - are running in states that McCain won. There are 17 Republicans up, and of these, five are running in states that Obama won: Grassley of Iowa, Gregg of New Hampshire, Burr of North Carolina, Voinovich of Ohio, and Specter of Pennsylvania (unless he retires). Martinez of Florida would have on the list as well, but he, for "family reasons," is quitting after one term. Brownback is also retiring.
So we have 5 Republicans who can be made to feel particularly vulnerable if they try to block something that President Obama wants, after their state voted for him. After the beating the Republicans took this election, and the general feeling that the country has for them, look for Democrats playing on these five - and look for Obama in particular to do so - suggesting that they should start thinking about what the country and their state want, rather than the screamers in the rump GOP, if they want to keep their seats.
Martinez might also be counted on. By retiring, and by announcing it now, he may well be signaling that he will not stand in the way of the Democratic agenda merely to help the GOP score points. He doesn't owe them anything any more. And he is one of the few remaining GOP moderates - "moderate" being a relative term - who can be persuaded by reasoned argument to do the right thing.
Finally, the GOP has to consider that the country voted overwhelmingly for Obama and against the GOP, and that even many of those who did not vote for Obama now want him to succeed. If they play filibuster games and stop anything meaningful from getting done, they will please their fundamentalist base, but they will totally piss off the rest of the country - and maybe the corporate part of the GOP as well, which - unlike the fundies and the neocons - actually deals with reality, at least when forced to, and the times right now have forced them to.
On which point, it's instructive that the GOP shill machine's claims that the country is really "center-right" and that the GOP ideals are the country's ideals, doesn't seem to be getting any traction outside of the true believers. Most of the country is very very willing to let Obama do whatever he thinks best, and do it quickly, please.
Now, Reid may not be willing to play hardball with the obstructionists, but you can bet Obama will. He has the full attention and good wishes of the vast majority of the country, and he will not be at all shy about going out there and calling on the country to tell the GOP what for. Just look at the masterful way he is already running the show in many ways.
We don't need 60. We have Obama. We have the country. We can get it done.