Invest your own money, let compound effect be your leverage, and avoid debt like the plague.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 1
I still haven't found the answer to this yet. It's been said here that the republicans could override the 60 vote rule to pass the CR with only 51 votes, but is that really true? My google-fu is failing me.
So, is it only that they don't want to override the 60 vote rule, or that they truly can't in this case?
No. of Recommendations: 4
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2025/10/01/shutdown-...
Democrats have an available response to Republican attempts to shift all the blame onto them: Republicans don’t need us to open the government. They can change Senate rules and suspend or eliminate the filibuster on a party-line vote. And Republicans can’t argue that they think changing the rules on a party-line vote—the so-called “nuclear option”—is a terrible violation of Senate norms because Republicans literally changed the rules on a party-line vote three weeks ago to speed confirmation of judicial nominees. If they don’t go nuclear and kill the filibuster to keep the government open, that shows how little they care about keeping it open, and how much they care about creating excuses for vilifying Democrats.
No. of Recommendations: 5
I still haven't found the answer to this yet. It's been said here that the republicans could override the 60 vote rule to pass the CR with only 51 votes, but is that really true? My google-fu is failing me.
So, is it only that they don't want to override the 60 vote rule, or that they truly can't in this case?
As PF pointed out, the current Senate rules provide for a filibuster for these types of budget votes. So they would have to amend the rules to eliminate the filibuster for budget votes, and then they could pass the budget with a simple majority.
Thune almost certainly doesn't have the votes to amend the Senate rules this way, and Democrats don't actually want this "nuclear option" to be deployed - which is why there's not a lot of discussion about it happening.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 0
As PF pointed out, the current Senate rules provide for a filibuster for these types of budget votes. So they would have to amend the rules to eliminate the filibuster for budget votes, and then they could pass the budget with a simple majority.
So it's a matter of mere preference, not current law? That is, that there are not certain things that MUST be passed by 60 votes and that can't be passed by 51 by overriding the filibuster rule? Something like: it can only be done X times per Senate session, or X times for type Y legislation per session?
No. of Recommendations: 1
That is, that there are not certain things that MUST be passed by 60 votes and that can't be passed by 51 by overriding the filibuster rule?
As suggested before, the Dems could have not invoked a filibuster. Then, they could all vote against the CR, and it would still pass. Then wait for the base to see if they like the impact on their health insurance premiums. If they don't like it, make the Repubs wear in in 26. If the base doesn't care, because it only impacts 7% of the population, then the Dems could say "whew! glad we didn't pick that hill to die on". Now, Trump can burn down every part of the government that benefits Proles, and blame it on the Dems.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Thune almost certainly doesn't have the votes to amend the Senate rules this way, and Democrats don't actually want this "nuclear option" to be deployed - which is why there's not a lot of discussion about it happening.
I thought the “nuclear option” to get around the filibusters only required 51 votes. Currently, there are 53 Republican Senators.
No. of Recommendations: 5
So it's a matter of mere preference, not current law? That is, that there are not certain things that MUST be passed by 60 votes and that can't be passed by 51 by overriding the filibuster rule? Something like: it can only be done X times per Senate session, or X times for type Y legislation per session?
The Senate rules currently require 60 votes to close debate on nearly every matter that comes before them. There are specific exceptions for certain things: many confirmation processes and reconciliation votes, primarily. Everything else requires 60 votes to invoke cloture - the formal term for ending the debate process and ending a filibuster. The budget is not something that is exempt from the rule. So it would take 60 votes to end debate on a continuing resolution.
The Senate rules are binding on the Senate, but they can also be changed by the Senate. Until they are changed, the Senate has to comply with them.
The GOP is loathe to eliminate the filibuster for budget matters - and the Democrats don't actually want them to do so. These types of changes are colloquially referred to as the "nuclear option" for a reason. So although the Senate could amend their rules to allow the CR to pass with only 51 votes, that's not at all a likely outcome, which is why it doesn't get talked about too much as a possible way out of the shutdown.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I thought the “nuclear option” to get around the filibusters only required 51 votes. Currently, there are 53 Republican Senators.
I doubt that as many as 45 of them would vote to nuke the filibuster. Which is why I said that Thune doesn't have to votes to change the rules.
No. of Recommendations: 2
These types of changes are colloquially referred to as the "nuclear option" for a reason. So although the Senate could amend their rules to allow the CR to pass with only 51 votes, that's not at all a likely outcome, which is why it doesn't get talked about too much as a possible way out of the shutdown.
Albaby, I kept seeing that they changed the 60 needed rule just twelve days earlier to push through some appointments they wanted. I never evaluated that, is that statement deceptive? I wondered how they could change the 60 to 51 and then immediately change it back without Dem help.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Got my answer (I hope) :) It looks like the nominee change only required 53 votes to change a rule, whereas the change to the CR would require 60. so it isn't using the same vote count and appears to be a deceptive statement. I'm still puzzled as to why a 53 vote is the nuclear option (If AI is wrong Albabay will enjoy correcting it(me) eversomuchmoreso.
AI Overview
In September 2025, Senate Republicans used a procedural move known as the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules and speed up the confirmation of certain presidential nominees. The change allows for lower-level, non-judicial nominees to be confirmed in large groups rather than requiring a vote for each individual.
The rule change
On September 11, 2025, the Senate voted 53–45 along party lines to establish the new rule.
It specifically applies to executive branch positions that are subject to two hours of Senate debate, such as subcabinet roles and ambassadorships.
The new procedure lets the majority party consider multiple nominees "en bloc" (in a single vote), a change from the previous practice where unanimous consent was required for such group confirmations.
The rule change did not affect judicial nominations or Cabinet secretaries, which still require individual votes.
Context for the change
The move came after Republicans expressed frustration over the slow pace of confirmations, which they attributed to the minority party's use of procedural delays. The rule change was initiated after bipartisan negotiations collapsed.
Recent confirmations
Following the rule change, the Senate confirmed a group of 48 nominees via a single vote on September 18, 2025. Among those confirmed were Kimberly Guilfoyle as U.S. Ambassador to Greece and Jonathan Morrison as the administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Got my answer (I hope) :) It looks like the nominee change only required 53 votes to change a rule, whereas the change to the CR would require 60. so it isn't using the same vote count and appears to be a deceptive statement.
I think where you're getting a bit mixed up is in thinking of what the Senate is currently contemplating as a "change to the CR."
There's two different votes that one needs to think about:
1) The vote on the underlying item (ie. the vote to confirm a nominee, the vote to pass the CR); and
2) A vote to change the Senate rules governing the vote described in #1.
Prior to the "nuclear option," many of Trump's nominees were being held up by filibuster. Because those votes (like nearly all votes) were subject to the 60-vote cloture requirement, they could be filibustered. So most of those votes were failing 45-53 (or whatever).
The Senate GOP decided to change that rule. They voted on an amendment to the Senate rules to exempt nominee confirmations from the cloture requirement. Amendments to the Senate rules require only a straight up majority. They passed that amendment by a 53-45 vote, and created a new rule for confirmation votes. The substantive confirmation votes themselves then proceeded to get voted on and passed by simple majority.
Votes on a CR are still governed by the general rule requiring 60 votes to end a filibuster. So the Senate has been unable to pass the CR itself. The Senate has the ability, as always, to consider a vote to change the Senate rules again - this time, to eliminate the filibuster for CRs (or budget matters more generally). They could pass that rule change by a simple majority vote. But they can't pass the CR (technically they can't invoke cloture on the debate on the CR) by a simple majority vote, unless and until they amend the senate rules first.
Since amending the Senate rules to remove the filibuster for a given matter has vastly more far-reaching consequences than simply voting on the matter itself, there are fewer votes in favor of nuking the filibuster for budget items than there are for simply passing the CR. Although Thune certainly has 50+ votes to pass the CR, he does not have 50+ Senators who would be willing to amend the rules to eliminate the filibuster for CR's.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Although Thune certainly has 50+ votes to pass the CR, he does not have 50+ Senators who would be willing to amend the rules to eliminate the filibuster for CR's.
I'll read that through again. On the second read it began to make sense, but that he doesn't have the votes to change the rules for the CR now makes sense - at least for the next 15 minutes. :)
No. of Recommendations: 2
how they could change the 60 to 51 and then immediately change it back without Dem help.
The rule can be changed for a TYPE of Senate action (i.e. to select judges, for example). That does NOT apply to other types of Senate action needing a vote.
