First. Elizabeeth Warren is smarter than me and needed no help in last night's debate. Before I come off as a patronizing white guy, I don't think her answer on the bipartisaney-compromisey Republicans question ws a missed op, but it is something we know outside of the debate and I want to articulate it below the coupling ampersands.
Well, David, your question correctly identifies my opponent as one of the rare members of the Republican Senate Caucus who soemtiems votes with the Democratiic majority to end debate on an issue that has clear majority support, but that even without my opponents support nevertheless do not come to a vote.
This is clearly the answer. The Republicans who are open to bi-partisanship and compromise are the ones who are up for reelection in states where the presient's programs are most popular. Senator McConnell, at the beginning of this president's term, announced that his priority would be to make him a one-term president. On the floor of the senate, this has meant blocking even non-controversial bills from comping to a vote if it is perceived that their passage will somehow make the president look good. My opponent voting against his caucus has happened when Senator McConnell still had the votes. It didn't matter, but what does matter is that the caucus itself is a wall of No. Senators Lott and Cornyn and Inhofe and DeMint and Toomey and Paul and the others are going to need to prove in the next senate taht they are capable of working across the aisle. They do not consistently. Senator McCain is famous for working across the aisle, but as often as not, he votes for the filibusters. Senator Grassley, filibusters. Hatch. filibusters. Senator Graham, filibusters.
If you want my best guess for who among these will be open to working with Democrats in 2013, logic tells me one of the ones who will be up for reelection in 2014. Although probably not McConnell. Asking it, though, ignores the wall of No.