- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 17,870
- Reaction score
- 8,357
- Location
- On an island. Not that one!
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
I'd like to see the stats for that honestly because that really doesn't seem correct. Not saying you're wrong, but just that the numbers don't sound right at first glance.
Here's one attempt to explain the situation with a paragraph that says why it is actually impossible to determine the actual numbers
The history of the filibuster, in one graph
This is an imperfect measure. On the one hand, it’s susceptible to changes in congressional strategy: If the majority begins trying to break the filibuster more often, you could see more cloture votes, even though the filibuster isn’t actually being used any more frequently. On the other side, it misses the many, many, many filibusters that never receive a cloture vote, either because the majority decides that a cloture vote is too time-consuming — simply holding a cloture vote takes about 30 hours of floor time — or because they won’t win it.
Klein's conclusion is interesting and definitely indicates further study is necessary to understand just what is going on in Congress
... then the practice absolutely skyrockets when Barack Obama takes office.
We can argue about why there were these jumps. But their long-term effect seems to be to raise the bar permanently. Every time filibustering becomes much more common, it pretty much remains at that level, even as Congress and the White House changes hands. So the filibuster becomes more common under Bill Clinton, but remains almost that common under George W. Bush.
I would say Ezra is offering a relatively balanced initial look at the subject of filibusters but that's just me