Below, I’ve examined 22 years of filibusters, and highlighted the 111th congress in more detail. What you’ll see is that there is no clear pattern of one party filibustering more than another. You’ll also see that the data are ambiguous enough that both parties have the ability to spin the message to blame the other party for excessive filibusters. Even though the two charts below definitively prove him wrong, I expect “someone” to spin the data to prove his case against Republicans in the comment thread (in order to avoid embarrassing him, I’ll refrain from naming my detractor).
How to Assign Ownership of a Filibuster
As usual, it’s important to start by defining our terms. The Senate's website doesn’t specifically refer to “filibusters,” but counts motions filed, votes on cloture, and cloture invoked. For example, in 2009-2010 a filibuster motion was filed 136 times, with 91 votes on cloture, where cloture was invoked 63 times. For our purposes, motions filed will count as an attempt to filibuster, and I won’t track the votes or successful attempts to defeat the filibuster (i.e. cloture invoked).
In understanding the filibuster process, you need to know that it takes 60 votes to kill a filibuster. Said another way, a minority party must have 41 votes to sustain a filibuster and avoid cloture. When a party has 41 members, all they have to do is threaten filibuster in order to bring the Senate to a halt. In the modern era, filibusters are, in reality, simply threats to filibuster and not Mr-Smith-Goes-to-Washington-type-speeches. Since the filibuster can only be sustained with 41 votes, my methodology is to credit the minority party holding the 41st vote with the filibusters.
Filibusters Since the 101st Congress
When we examine the Senate record since 1989, it’s clear that filibusters are a way of doing business for the minority party. The 107th congress breaks the pattern as a result of a 50/50 split over the two-year period, but the volume of filibusters is still within normal levels to that point.
The 110th congress was record-setting with its 139 filibusters by the Republicans, but it’s incorrect to say that this was a Republican plan to obstruct President Obama since he had yet to be elected. Consider this another complication in interpreting filibuster data since it’s not realistic to say that Republican Senators were trying to obstruct President Bush’s agenda.
Filibustering the 111th Congress
The 111th congress, during President Obama’s first two years, is a bit of a special case. In terms of my methodology, there were several factors that affected whether or not there were 41 Senators in the minority party at any given time, including: one disputed election, two deaths, one resignation, and one party change. While the 111th congress came close to matching the record-breaking filibuster total of the 110th congress, they are spread across both parties, as the following chart demonstrates.
It’s clear to me that someone who claims Republicans have obstructed President Obama with a record number of filibusters simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Like just about everything in politics, both parties take advantage of the tools at their disposal to accomplish their ends, and prevent the opposition from accomplishing theirs. Sounds like politics as usual to me.


Excellent research, HR (I can see why Mr. Myste has consistently ranked you as his number one conservative). I had no idea that the 110th Congress had that many filibusters (still, it wasn't enough to slow down Mr. Bush's rampant spending spree). Me, I would personally like to see some filibuster reform. Maybe drop the threshold to 55 or, at the very least, make these individuals ACTUALLY filibuster. Hell, HR, maybe we could even put a Jean Arthur impersonator up in the balcony....For the ambiance, I'm saying.
ReplyDeleteAt best, I think I'm John's second favorite (with #1 MIA), but I don't let it go to my head.
ReplyDeleteI started laughing to myself when I read the phrase "unprecedented filibuster" in the first paragraph. Anyone who doesn't think there was a precedent for this sort of thing has not been following Congress for the past two decades.
ReplyDeleteAs soon as someone ascribes a standard political tactic or a standard emotional failing or a standard intellectual failing, to a single party, I always assume error until they prove it. The burden of proof is on them, and it is only logical to consider the statement false until they offer it.
ReplyDeleteThe sheer volume is the worrying thing. Since 2007, the Senate Historical Office has shown, Democrats have had to end Republican filibusters more than 360 times.
DeleteThat's more than ALL the filibusters in Senate history prior to 2007.
Oh my God! You mentioned my MIA conservative again! And just when the wounds were starting heal.
ReplyDeleteNot to ingratiate myself or anything, but if the Republicans elected more people like HR, and the Democrats elected more people like Mr. Myste, then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess that we're clearly in today. Enough already with this whole "the two sides talking past each other" nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI think Bret "Ginx" Alan's head just exploded.
ReplyDeleteThere are one or two topics where John and I still talk past each other, but your point is well made, Will.
Will,
ReplyDeleteNot to ingratiate myself or anything, but if the Republicans elected more people like HR, and the Democrats elected more people like Mr. Myste, then maybe we wouldn't be in the mess that we're clearly in today.
If this happened, I would have to kill Mr. Heathen because of his sick philosophy on taxation and entitlements. I think I could get him to be more reasonable on Gay Marriage, but I don't think he will ever be reasonable on the other two, very similar, issues.
The day Mr. Heathen and I campaign against each other, it's going to get dirty.
If I had to vote for a republican, I would vote for Mr. Heathen, but thank God I am not faced with that choice.
[No offense to Mr. Heathen or his sick tax and entitlement policies. I do have a lot of respect for him because of his more centric views in other areas and his attempt to back up his positions with source data (sometimes) and his attempt to avoid overt fallacies and to call others out on them. If someone is going to be wrong, I prefer they use some reason and logic to backup their wrong views].
Here is a slightly more detailed chart about filibusters.
ReplyDeleteJerry, I assume you're linking to someone else's chart because you find my charts to be inadequate. Linking to other sites is not an acceptable form of debate, so I hope you can engage more fully.
ReplyDelete1) Do you question the data that I've used above? If so, please present your objections so that I might respond.
2) Do you question my methodology? If so, please present your objections so that I might respond.
For those who don't want to click an unattributed link, the chart referenced is at I'm A Smarty Pants and presents the same filibuster data using line graphs. The primary difference is that certain time periods are highlighted, including:
> The Clinton Years
> The Obama Years
The clear implication is that Republicans use the filibuster excessively when Democrats control the federal government. Smarty Pants quotes others who claim that Republicans have initiated unprecedented filibusters and that they have obstructed Obama's agenda. But this simply repeats the left's talking points, which I refute above.
So Jerry...
3) Why do you find the alternate chart more appealing? Does it reinforce what you already believe about Republicans filibustering Democrats? Do my charts put a dent in your liberal faith?
Your contra-evidence does nothing to detract from my post above. Since you are citing Smarty Pants's chart, I expect you to defend it.
4) What is his methodology for claiming that Republicans are the only ones who filibustered Obama and Clinton? Why is his methodology any better than mine?
You see, filibusters are used by the minority party when it wants to obstruct the Senate. Claiming that Republicans obstructed Clinton post-1994 is false because the Democrats were the minority party. Evidence for filibusters during Obama's first two years are above in the second chart.
My conclusion was pretty clear: both parties use the filibuster and the data doesn't support a claim that Republicans use it more aggressively than Democrats. But if you disagree, I've made four points above that you can respond to.
I did not check the accuracy of the "analysis," but here was Burr Deming's short rebuttal:
ReplyDeleteThe Heathen Republican analyzes the history of filibustering and sees no difference between its use between Democrats and Republicans. He points to a high number of filibusters in the last two years of the Bush administration. Oh those pesky facts. Those filibusters in 2007 and 2008 weren't against President Bush. Republicans tied up the Senate against the Democratic majority beginning when Democrats took over the Senate in 2006. Oops.
Exactly right. Mc
DeleteConnell began his reign of terror of filibusters beginning in Jan of 2007, when the democrats won the majority of seats in the Senate. The filibisters just increased dramatically after the election of Obama, because McConnell was a member of the gang of 6 conspirators who decided to ignore the will of the people who had overwhelmingly elected Obama two months before. In the republican tradition of Ayn Rand worship, majority rule did not apply in the case of a democratic victory. Country first became PARTY FIRST at the expense of the country.
Yes, I'm aware of Mr Deming's drive-by shots. Too bad he won't lower himself to our level and comment directly.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the first chart above, he's referring to the 110th congress which served from 2007-2008 (following the Democratic wins in the 2006 election). That has a very high column painted red to represent the large number of filibusters initiated by Republicans.
In other words, while Mr Deming insinuates that I am ignoring "pesky facts", in fact my chart clearly shows that Republicans did obstruct the new Democrats. No dispute. Oops.
What the data do not show, however, is Republicans obstructing President Obama in the 111th congress.
You should fire back!
ReplyDeleteNow you done it! You are always trying to stir things up.
ReplyDeleteTroublemaker.
ReplyDeleteFor the benefit of other readers, Burr Deming refuses to fight his battles anywhere but on his own turf, so read here: http://fairandunbalanced.com/blog1.php/2011/10/19/helping-heathen-republican-with-republic
Troublemaker! I am hurt. I just want to provoke an argument, not stir up trouble.
ReplyDeleteMy motives are pure, I promise.
Interesting! The point I take from this is that, rather than blaming one party, we've had a wholesale breakdown in reasoned debate.
ReplyDeleteNathanael, I'm not sure I agree that we've had a breakdown. The system is specifically designed to move slowly, particularly through the Senate.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a system designed for rapid change. Maybe rapid change is what you want, but that doesn't mean the current system has broken down when it's behaving as designed.
As I say above, filibusters are politics as usual, and both parties make liberal use of filibusters when they are the minority party.
how about a chart on blocked appointments?
ReplyDeleteSure, Singing Giraffe... do you know where to get such data? The Senate website doesn't track that, and the only way I know would be to look through anecdotal evidence from opinion journalists.
ReplyDeleteAre you under the impression that Republicans are blocking more appointments than Democrats did under Bush?
Wouldn't it be easier to track WHO filed the cloture motion. From the senate website it's mostly Reid ... doesn't that tell you which party is trying to break the filibuster?
ReplyDeleteBeorn, I'm not sure that tells us anything new. If you look back at the years when the Republicans held the Senate, you'll see that Republicans filed the cloture motions. It appears majority party leadership files the motions.
ReplyDeleteAfter a quick glance over several different years, all this would do is switch the party colors in the chart above. Also, it doesn't really make sense to credit Reid with the filibusters you're referring to. The Democrats aren't filibustering themselves.
OK, but since a cloture is the motion to stop a filibuster ... since it was filed by Reid (Democrat) it stands to reason it was done to stop a Republican filibuster. Yes?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, which is what the charts above show. Maybe I'm missing your point.
ReplyDeleteEverything above shows that filibustering is not unusual for either party, and nothing about filibusters under Obama is unprecedented. Where do we differ?
Sorry I should have said, that I looked at the senate page for the 111th congress. They list 137 cloture motions
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Reid (Democrat) filed 130 of the motions. Dodd (Democrat) filed 2. Durbin (Democrat) filed 3. McConnell (Republican) filed 2.
So 135 were filed by Democrats, and 2 by Republicans.
Sorry I thought you said:
ReplyDelete"While the 111th congress came close to matching the record-breaking filibuster total of the 110th congress, they are spread across both parties, as the following chart demonstrates."
Which, I took to mean, you thought that within the 111th congress the cloture motions were spread across both parties. If we agree that the filibuster is routinely used to stop a bill by the other party then the discussion should be about the total number of filibusters (which have gone up quite a bit).
No, you're making a good point. I would normally agree with you that if the Democrat files the motion, it must be against a Republican filibuster. But if so, then the 2009 data doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteAs Wikipedia documents the Democrats held the 41st vote for 11 of 12 months in 2009. Basically, Dems held the 41st vote for half of the 111th congress and Republicans held the 41st vote for half of the 111th congress, so why are almost all cloture motions filed by Democrats?
I can only think that who files the motion is irrelevant. Maybe it's customary for the majority party to do it regardless of who initiated the filibuster originally. Since Reid was in charge in 2008, I suspect he just kept the responsibility until the election year fallout settled (recall that's the year Franken won, Specter switched parties, Byrd died, etc.).
Good points Beorn, but I'm not sure how the analysis changes. Your way would make Republicans responsible for every filibuster in the 111th congress, but it ignores the fact that Dems held the 41st vote for half of it.
I think the Democrats officially lost their "majority" on Nov 2 2010. Also remember Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July (2009) and Kennedy died August (2009) ... so it just seems easier to say if Reid filled the cloture motion ... it was to block a Republican filibuster.
ReplyDeleteAlso there are the 13 so called "Blue Dog" Democrats, which didn't always vote on the party lines: Baucus, Bayah, Cantwell, Carper, Conrad, Feinstein, Landrieu Lieberman, Lincoln, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Pryor and Wyden. So I don't think the Democrats have had a clear senate majority since the 103rd congress.
Beorn, you're obviously looking to confirm what you already believe about Republican filibusters under Obama, so no data will dissuade you from your faith.
ReplyDeleteDo you realize the lengths you are going to by claiming that 13 Democrats simply don't count?
"So I don't think the Democrats have had a clear senate majority since the 103rd congress."
This isn't a post about majorities, it's about super majorities and the 41st vote. The Wikipedia link I provided clearly demonstrates the frequent changes of super majority status during 2009.
I understand it's difficult to explain why Reid would file a cloture motion against a Democratic filibuster, so it's easier for you to ignore reality. Feel free to take the easier route and continue believing what you believed before arriving here through your Google search.
I believe you have a point about my having a preconceived opinion. I'm not above being (somewhat) prejudiced. Who is? The only way to really understand each cloture vote would be, in my opinion, read each motion. As an aside I'm not sure I believe in the Republican / Democratic labels ... they don't mean what they used to. And I think that anytime someone cares enough to discuss these issues it's a positive. Thanks for the article.
ReplyDeleteHeres the truth American voters if you want a president to fail and your party is doing its JOB not just collecting off of America people let the President Fail with the policies just do not WORK and collectioning large pay checks, lifetime insurance and benefits and then demonizing the people who may have voted you in this is why our country is failing and the people who has payed attention to the party and congress on these so called games / filibuster/ obstructions are a joke and America is getting tired of it. Lableing without facts is wrong and has gone on long enough. If your that stupid you would just give your last buck to be called a political party remember what you done and stop the games your killing this country. Thats pure fact you done it 2004, 2010 deep down you know it. WISE up and make Congress work or else it time to support your way the highway to foreign country!
ReplyDeleteDH,
ReplyDeleteThe kind of argument you just made is a huge pet peeve of mine.
DH,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making me finally write my pet peeve down. As The Heathen Republican would say, "I am content to let your comment stand for itself." I can say this for two reasons. 1. You were not talking to me. 2. My catharsis is complete.
I know this will not make sense to you, but that's OK. I think we stopped communicating before my comment began.
My child says things like this to me: "gahacuhu" and I reply with things like this: "gichiuabooboo." Different people share ideas at different levels. It's all good.
DH,
ReplyDeleteOne more thing. Ad hominem statements do not advance arguments. Instead they weaken your argument by providing a target for your opponent.
It is not Obama, against whom the Republicans have directed their filibusters; it's the entire Democratic Party!
ReplyDeleteREPUBLICANS STARTED REQUIRING A TWO-THIRDS SENATE MAJORITY FOR PASSING JUST ABOUT ANY LEGISLATION, WHATSOEVER, WHEN THEY MOST RECENTLY LOST THEIR MAJORITY IN THE SENATE.
Thank you for blowing up that Republcan sleight of hand.
DeleteThank you for blowing up that Republcan sleight of hand.
DeleteMr Wexler, the Senate rules cannot be changed arbitrarily. Please show me where the Republicans changed filibuster rules to 2/3. To my knowledge, the rule is still 60 votes and hasn't changed in decades.
ReplyDeleteThe shenanigans started during the Bush administration when Democrats filibustered court appointees for the first time in history.
Well, Mr. Heathen - interesting methodology, unfortunately it is completely flawed: Motions filed DOES NOT EQUAL Filibusters. Period. E.g. 110th Congress had 70 filibusters, not 139 as you state. [See this report from the Brennan Center for Justice: http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/files/documents/Blog/NYUBrennanCenter-FilibusterAbuse.pdf and there are many more sources - just google it]. The 111th congress has actually seen over 100 Filibusters, so yes, it actually was UNPRECEDENTED [http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/majority-does-not-rule-in-filibuster-filled-111th-congress-20101216]. Again, MOTIONS FILED ARE NOT FILIBUSTERS.
ReplyDeleteYour second chart showing the alleged equal spread of 'filibusters' [actually motions filed] of the 111th congress also does not have a source and my gut feeling is you pulled it straight from your, oh well, you know where... Minority does not Filibuster make (Yoda) - maybe you may want to look at the fact that almost all motions for cloture were filed by Harry Reid (D), which is a much much clearer indicator.
My favorite: Republicans filibustered a bill that would help fund health care for 9/11 responders....
@HyrdKiller
ReplyDelete"interesting methodology, unfortunately it is completely flawed: Motions filed DOES NOT EQUAL Filibusters"
I know, and I explained as much about my methodology. The Senate website offers motions filed, votes on cloture, and cloture invoked. I chose motions filed because it was the largest number.
I'll use the PDF link you provided to justify my methodology. "There can be a filibuster without a cloture vote." So counting cloture votes would not give us an accurate count of filibusters.
"Likewise, cloture motions may be filed to preempt anticipated filibusters." So cloture motions would not be a good way to count filibusters.
Finally, "even the viable threat of a filibuster is enough to place a hold on legislation." I've acknowledged as much in the comments here, but there is no way to tally "filibuster threats" over the history of the Senate. So my methodology was to count motions filed. If you can propose a better methodology, I'm happy to try again.
"Your second chart showing the alleged equal spread of 'filibusters' [actually motions filed] of the 111th congress also does not have a source and my gut feeling is you pulled it straight from your, oh well, you know where"
My source, as linked in the first words of the first paragraph, is Wikipedia (here it is again for you). Wikipedia has a page on the 111th congress and clearly documents the various deaths, resignations, and party switches.
From earlier in these comments: "As Wikipedia documents the Democrats held the 41st vote for 11 of 12 months in 2009. Basically, Dems held the 41st vote for half of the 111th congress and Republicans held the 41st vote for half of the 111th congress"
"Minority does not Filibuster make (Yoda)"
Actually, only a minority filibusters. That's the very point, since a majority can pass what it wants. Again, my methodology was to credit the 41st vote, but you are free to propose an alternate methodology.
(I can't help but notice you are full of criticisms of methodology but don't have any better suggestions to offer.)
"maybe you may want to look at the fact that almost all motions for cloture were filed by Harry Reid (D), which is a much much clearer indicator."
This too was addressed earlier in the comments (scroll up to January 2012). A few excerpts:
"If you look back at the years when the Republicans held the Senate, you'll see that Republicans filed the cloture motions. It appears majority party leadership files the motions."
"...it doesn't really make sense to credit Reid with the filibusters you're referring to. The Democrats aren't filibustering themselves."
"I can only think that who files the motion is irrelevant. Maybe it's customary for the majority party to do it regardless of who initiated the filibuster originally."
Well, yes, you explained your methodology, but that does not change the fact that it is flawed. Just because the Senate website does not offer the number you are looking for, does not make it good science to just take one that sounds 'close enough'. I cannot offer a better methodology other than to either go through the records in more detail, or rely on hopefully unbiased publications to give you those numbers, because they spent the time to do so. So if the Brennan Center tells me there were 70 in the 110th and over 100 in the 111th, then yes, I take them by their word and accept the headline that you are trying to refute.
ReplyDeleteYour Wikipedia link for the second graph was not lost on me, however it is NOT a source, it merely provided the data to for your X-Axis of the graph - the rest is pure fantasy and lack of understanding of the process. You are confusing a majority and a SUPER majority. The democrats held the majority (over 50 seats) the ENTIRE TIME (check your wikipedia link), so the republicans were always the minority- their ONLY way to stop the democrats from "passing what they want" was to filibuster and the Democrats did not always have the SUPER majority (3/5) to guarantee a successful cloture. Almost all, if not all (there may have been a few independent)filibusters of the 111th congress were GOP.... sorry, but the obstruction charges are very real.... and I maintain that your argument is 100% flawed.
"I cannot offer a better methodology"
ReplyDelete'Nuff said.
And your belief that unbiased sources exist, or that a place like the Brennan Center is one, is either foolish or naive.
ReplyDeleteThe confirmation bias you accused me of? That's projection. You believe the GOP is obstructing Obama and the filibuster is evidence of it. You found data at the Brennan Center that confirms what you believe. You debate me because I contradict your belief. You have just defined confirmation bias.
I, on the other hand, asked a question (Have Republican filibusters been unprecedented?) and sought out the data for myself. I didn't rely on a secondary source (Brennan Center), I found the primary source (Senate website) and looked at the data for myself.
I then published what I found for the world to critique, and have been open from the very beginning to a better methodology. Instead of offering one, you point me to someone else's analysis and claim your secondary source trumps my primary source.
I'm not impressed, but please stick around and continue to comment. Maybe we can each make the other better debaters.
dude, seriously? " 'nuff said"? What about "I cannot offer a better methodology OTHER THAN [...]" indicates to you that I actually cannot offer a better methodology? I used this rhetorical figure to indicate my disinterest in going through all this effort to first hand confirm a number I have no reason to doubt to begin with. Even your 'smoking gun' 'primary' data confirms that we are right in the ballpark...
ReplyDeleteMay I suggest to re-read the definition of confirmation bias? You seem to like wikipedia... so have at it... i am not favoring information that confirms my hypothesis, I cannot find any information that contradicts it... you certainly have not provided any...
You on the other hand take it to a new level, if you cannot find information that confirms it... you simply CREATE it out of thin air...
Yes, my secondary source 'trumps' your primary source, because your primary data is not relevant to answer your OWN question. I am not arguing that "motions filed" can be a relevant indicator for many things, but NOT YOUR QUESTION. Motions filed DO SIMPLY NOT SHOW the number of filibusters. You are trying to invalidate the statement that there has been an unprecedented number of FILIBUSTERS in the 111th congress. To do that you have to actually look at the number of FILIBUSTERS and NOT the number of motions filed... is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
For your second graph and the much, much more important part of your answer to your own question - you want a better methodology? Here it goes: ANY ONE WILL DO, because yours is completely and utterly INCORRECT. The Republicans and the independents were in the minority in the Senate during the ENTIRE time. THERE WERE NO FILIBUSTERS BY THE DEMOCRATS. PERIOD. Go, look at your wikipedia link... the democrats held 51 or more seats throughout the entire time - with 100 seats, 51 is a majority. Can we agree on that? So they can pass what they want, unless the minority (READ: GOP and maybe the independents) filibusters and thereby requires the democrats to come up with a SUPER majority (5/3, or 60) to invoke cloture to stop the filibuster. Again, this should really NOT be that hard to understand....
So, contrary to your statement that someone who claims Republicans have obstructed President Obama with a record number of filibusters simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.... they actually DO know what they are talking about and even if they do not, they are still correct.
Whether you are impressed or not, is really of very little relevance to me. Seems like a very hard thing to accomplish, anyways, since you seem very busy with being impressed with yourself...
"...the Democrats held 51 or more seats throughout the entire time..."
ReplyDeleteI don't dispute this fact. My methodology is to count the 41st vote, so the number 51 is irrelevant. Why don't you post something on your own blog about majorities since that's what you want to talk about.
I haven't seen that many CAPS in a comment in a very long time. You're getting all worked up over comments on a blog. Time for some introspection and maybe a beer.
Ok, let me try and get this straight.... you do not dispute that the Democrats were in the majority the entire time. You, yourself state: "Actually, only a minority filibusters. That's the very point, since a majority can pass what it wants."
ReplyDeleteHow in the world do you still believe that there is any merit in your methodology that assigns filibusters to the Democrats despite your own admission that they were in the majority the entire time?
As far as CAPS go - not getting worked up at all, just trying to emphasize some important points - kinda like you do in your original post by bolding everything....but apparently I have not even done that enough since you still do not get it.... Are you really that dense?
CAPS are CAPS
DeleteBold is bold
CAPS are not bold
Assuming you are minimally internet-savvy, you know that one conveys emphasis and the other conveys yelling or anger. You know as well as I do that you chose CAPS for a reason.
oh whatever... like i could give two squirts - I emphasize stuff the way I want to emphasize it. What you want to read into it... be my guest. If you want to use HTML tags, again, be my guest...I won't.
DeleteI hate to nitpick, but Are you really that dense? is an illogical question. If someone is dense (in the context you suggest, mistaken), then how would they know? It is like turning to a deaf person who is looking in the opposite direction, and asking, "are you really unable to hear me?"
ReplyDeleteYou made some good points which seem to have been buried in your own personal anger, which is now the most memorable impression you made.
"Remember Hyrdkiller's commentary on filibusters?"
"Yeah, he was really mad."
John - it is only an 'illogical question', if the person actually has the implied impairment, as in your example of a deaf person. If I assumed that he was actually 'dense', then I would have not invested the time to even state my case.
ReplyDeleteI could not care less what impression I leave, or what people remember about me. Fact is that his second graph is based on an incorrect assumption (or if you insist call it 'methodology') that is 100% incorrect. All filibusters in the 111th senate were threatened by the minority (the very purpose of the filibuster) and that was the GOP - the entire time - no exceptions (disclaimer - i do not know if any filibusters have been threatened by independents).
I must admit I am somewhat in awe about the lack of understanding of the subject matter by a person that writes a political blog and that it takes me that many responses to get a IMHO simple point across:
Filibuster - minority -> always
Democrates - majority in 111th -> always
ergo: all filibusters from minority = all filibusters from GOP (and maybe independents)
HyrdKiller, you’ve been lazy. You’ve been combating my research with someone else’s research instead of doing the legwork and putting together your own research. If you were combating my research with your research, it would be a more interesting discussion.
ReplyDeleteThis comment string has grown repetitive, which is usually the point where I stop and let your comments stand on their own. But let’s see if we can’t salvage the discussion.
I tried to answer a simple question: Have GOP filibusters been unprecedented? To answer it, I went to the source: the Senate website. I used Wikipedia to tell me who was in charge of the Senate and when. I also chose a methodology: I defined a filibuster as a motion filed and I credited the filibuster to the party holding the 41st vote since that’s how many votes it takes to kill a filibuster.
For the sake of advancing the ball here, pretend we’re friends and we respect each other. Don’t assume that we disagree and you need to continue with your hostility. Pretend we’re being civil as you consider the following: If you were to do what I did – answer a simple question and choose a methodology – how would you go about doing it?
You don’t get to perform a Google search and refer to someone else’s work (like the Brennan Center). You have to do your own, original research. So, how do you find out how many filibusters have occurred over a long enough period of time to feel comfortable that you can answer the question honestly? How do you define a filibuster? How do you credit a filibuster to a specific party?
You don’t have your pride on the line because you are approaching the question honestly. You don’t care if the GOP filibusters a lot or the Democrats filibuster more. You know the news media is biased in both directions, so you can’t depend on their research. You’re just looking it up for your own satisfaction, and you may never share your results with anyone.
What do you do?
I have no interest in performing research. I look at research - yours and others and have come to the conclusion that your research is completely flawed and unable to provide an answer to your own question.
ReplyDelete1. The way to find out about filibusters is to go into each motion filed and read through it and determine if it was in response to a filibuster or preemptive to avoid a filibuster or may have had yet another reason. People have done that, but apparently you are too paranoid to trust their findings. Again, I have no interest whatsoever to reinvent the wheel. It has been done and it works. There is no real discussion that there has been an explosion of filibusters in the 110th and 111th congress and that that trend continues into the 112th. Whether I go with 'unacceptable' third party information of 70 in 110th and 100+ in 111th, or yours with 139 to 136, the result is in the same ballpark. Either is good enough for me. Unprecedented, or "precedented" minus 3....
2. My real issue is your second graph. Your methodology is completely flawed and I have told you several times already why that is. No "research" required on my end, just an understanding of the process. But since you like to look at the Senate website, go look at who filed the motions for cloture, then think about that: By definition a filibuster is the right of an individual to extend debate (the US Senate allows for unlimited time on any issue), allowing a lone member to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal. It is [...] characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. Senate decisions require a simple majority to pass = 51 votes. With having more than 51 seats at any time, the Democrats were able to pass or vote down any measure they agreed on as a party. The minority (GOP) could threaten to filibuster and thereby extend the debate indefinitely so the vote would effectively be prevented. To stop a filibuster you need to file a motion for cloture, which requires a super majority to pass -- 3/5th of the vote or in our case 60 votes. During the time the Democrats had the 60 seats (with independents), they could successfully cloture a filibuster and force the vote. (sidenote: that however does not stop the other party from threatening filibusters, because it is still a very viable delay tactic since even after a successful cloture 30hours of floor time are allotted to the bill). So here are my questions to you and answering them, maybe will show you where your methodology is flawed:
1. Why would the democrats threaten any filibuster, if they can vote in or out any bill to their liking, because they have a 51+ seat majority?
2. Reid filed 130 of the 136 motions for cloture (and while not all were in response to a threatened filibuster, all filibusters are included in that total). Now IF the Democrats had threatened a filibuster (to delay the vote), why would Reid file the motion to stop that very process? I think even you could agree that that would be too self obstructing even for the Democrats?
So I maintain that your conclusion that Democrats and Republicans use the filibuster to the same extend and that the flood of filibusters (or motions) in the 111th (or the 110th for that matter, just not against Obama) is not obstructionist behavior of the GOP, since both parties used the filibuster about the same amount is entirely incorrect.
Take it or leave it - I am done with this topic. As you said, there is enough information now to stand on its own....
Aww, are we going to let it end here, with arrows in Heathen's heel? Mr. Killer only asked two questions here.
ReplyDelete"I have no interest in performing research."
ReplyDeleteI never asked you to. I've been about as reasonable as I can with you, but you can't even propose a better methodology. Had you done so, I would have offered to do the research using your methodology. I even would have committed to publish the results, no matter what they were. But you have no alternative methodology, even in theory.
I'm sorry, but opening every bill and motion brought to the Senate is not a viable alternative. There is too much room for interpretation and we both know you wouldn't trust my interpretation. Plus any formal filibuster requires a motion anyway, which I've already documented here.
You can maintain your conclusions all you want, but you can't back them up. I think that's clear.
"I'm sorry, but opening every bill and motion brought to the Senate is not a viable alternative"
DeleteThat you do not feel that it is a viable alternative, unfortunately does not change the fact that it IS the only way to achieve what you claim to have set out to do. That is, if you do not want to rely on data from people that have done exactly that...
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteHis last comment did not say what the real answer is, but suggested that unless something is wrong with the two questions he posed, the default assumption would be that the GOP was responsible for those filibusters. In other words, he asked a logical question to that seemed to him to be a flaw in your reasoning and methodology. He wanted to understand that.
As I have learned very recently, there is a difference between logic and fact. He is not questioning your data or facts, not in the last comment anyway, but merely your logic. That legitimate question is not contingent upon contravening data or research. It stands on its own. Therefore, research, unless he did far more research than the standard you set, would not change the nature of his two questions.
Admittedly, I am only half attentive to the discussion right now (very busy), and I may have made a dozen false assumptions in my comment. If so, please forgive.
Yes John, I realize you aren't satisfied with the resolution of this topic, so you have to prod it along.
ReplyDeleteHyrdKiller, if I understand your argument (and it's hard the way you use run-on sentences and haven't learned to use the Enter key on your keyboard), who filed the cloture motion should demonstrate which party is being filibustered. If Reid files the motion, it's a GOP filibuster; if McConnell files the motion, it's a Dem filibuster.
Using that methodology, you're right that the 111th congress (second chart above) would be all GOP filibusters. So let me defend my methodology and poke a couple of holes in yours.
Hypothetical: Senate is 58 Dems/42 GOP. Filibuster occurs with 21 GOP/21 Dems. Reid files the motion. Is it a GOP filibuster? Using your methodology, it would be. My methodology says no. Most reasonable people would agree with me.
Non-Hypothetical: Senate is 59 Dems/41 GOP. Filibuster occurs with 41 GOP/1 Dem. Reid files the motion. Is it a GOP filibuster? Your methodology says yes, mine says yes, and most reasonable people would agree.
Given these two examples, I think my methodology is more consistent with what reasonable people would agree with. But I'm not done...
The problem with that last example is that the one Democrat vote was Harry Reid himself (HR847). Why would he call the motion when he is part of the filibuster? The answer is both political and procedural having to do with his ability to call future votes.
The fact that some votes hinge on procedural maneuvers as well as the possibility that votes are of mixed party means that your method has more to do with who runs the Senate than who is filibustering.
In both cases above, the 41st vote is the one that mattered most. That's why I used the 41st vote for my methodology.
I am unsatisfied with the resolution because it really was not resolved.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see either of you say, "well, you make a good point, ... " which seems surprising with all the good points being made.
Now that's not fair. In my last comment I conceded that the way he counts filibusters would change my second chart just as he said. While I didn't use the words "good point," I did concede his point before defending my method.
ReplyDeleteI will agree that HyrdKiller hasn't acknowledged any of my excellent points, but based on all of his comments this week, I don't know that he can see anyone else's point besides his own. We'll see.
Interesting debate. Except for some of the yelling. Ahem.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to say that I actually watch a fair bit of c span and it's unfortuneate that the modern filibuster is what it is. It's hard to follow who's filibustering what even when watching live because no one debates, as in the classic filibuster, it's a vote thing. A slight of hand of procedure. And I don't like it. I elected your ass (broadly speaking), and if you're going to filibuster, I want to see you do it. Nothing is more American than being bold. Try it on Mr. Congressman.
I'd like to see a rule change requiring a speaker to occupy the floor during a filibuster. There can then be no debate about who is filibustering.
My overrall impression, unsupported by data, as that is, as you have correctly discovered, cloudy, is that, in fact, there is very much more filibustering orchestrated by those who are Republican then I have ever seen. Since no debate ensues on the floor, I cannot say much more than that. Is it a Republican conspiracy from the top? Dunno. Is it 'the new guys'? Dunno.
To me, the issue is not whether it's obstruction. Because it is. Both parties have used it extensively in the recent past, after 1970. I think the issue is becoming one similar to the 'instant replay' situation some years ago in football. When the replay was allowed to influence refs, there was now present a way to effectively call 'time out' whenever one wanted: just demand a replay assessment. The rules were modified to cancel this effect by granting only a limited number of replay assessments that a team can call for. Follow where I'm going here?...
Finally. I would like to point out that, in fact, the majority can filibuster. The minortiy can't break it. No one votes on whether to debate a bill. No one votes on a bill. If you're goal is to block legislation, without having to connect a 'no' vote to it, then a filibuster by the majority makes perfect sense.
We can't change the past, but we can influence the future. Maybe the question should be, should future filibusters be allowed or should they be eliminated? Do they subvert democracy?
DeleteLDave, I appreciate the comments. From a real-world perspective, I agree that a majority can filibuster, although tracking it depends on the ability to track all 41 votes by party. Methodologically speaking, you pick the party who holds the 41st vote.
ReplyDeleteI am not a full time analyst who can evaluate everything that happens every hour on C-Span, so I had to choose a methodology that could be measured relatively easily. Other commenters have found this to be an issue.
Personally, I have no issues with the filibuster as it is or as it once was (with a 2/3 majority). I like having an executive who gets the bully pulpit, a House that is responsive to the people by going up for a vote every 2 years, and a Senate that is slow and deliberative. It's good that bills can be held up in the Senate because it means our government cannot make rapid changes.
I'm a big believer in limited government, so slowing down the process makes it harder to grow government. All of the hopey-changies out there want to "fix" the filibuster because they don't believe in limited government. They want rapid change as long as their guys are in charge.
Sometimes it's a good idea to slow down.
Jerry, I don't know how you can suggest that a filibuster subverts democracy with a straight face. The people elected are done so by a democratic majority. The rules are what our representatives vote them to be. Sounds perfectly democratic to me.
ReplyDeleteOf course, your guy is the one who has been slowed down, so change can't happen fast enough for you. But the system was designed to have fast moving parts and slow moving parts. That makes for good decision making overall. I'm not in favor of changing all branches to be fast moving.
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteYou are quite good at twisting meanings. Did you not see the question mark after my question?
Of course I saw the question mark. Here's a hint: asking the question means you are suggesting something. I didn't say you asserted it; I said you suggested it. Keep twisting.
ReplyDeleteIf you weren't suggesting that the filibuster subverts democracy, you wouldn't have posed the question at all. Nice try.
Ahhhhh.....Heathen.....Heathen......you are trying at times.
ReplyDeletehyrdkiller clearly wins this debate. He's using the right data points. Heathen, the fact that you took the time to track down data yourself is admirable -- I truly respect that vs. relying on soundbytes -- but you just tracked down the wrong data.
ReplyDeletehyrdkiller may not have your robotic tone, but he's more logical.
That you defaulted to making fun of him rather than staying focused on the content of the debate is telling.
If your goal really is to get right information out there, you need to concede this one.
Mr Meter, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. The suggestion that hyrdkiller is more logical is, well... let's just say I needed a good laugh today, so thank you.
ReplyDeleteIf you followed the full debate, you noticed that it was not me who went ad hominem, but hyrdkiller. In the end, the data is what it is.
Data, as I believe hyrdkiller pointed out, is not logic.
ReplyDeleteYou see, data is a collection of variables that have already occurred, provided by past measurements (i.e. your collection of data from the Senate website). The term you would be looking for, to describe your graphs, is "empirical data".
Logic, is not data. Someone can logically conclude that a does not always equal b, given that a=1 and b is a random variable, from [0,100].
I am not trying to prove any specific mathematical equation with that last point, I am trying to prove that logically, a has a very small probability of equaling b.
Now, how does this relate to the entire argument?
Logically, how often is it that a majority would filibuster a minority? Your non-hypothetical is a valid anomaly (Senate is 59 Dems/41 GOP. Filibuster occurs with 41 GOP/1 Dem. Reid files the motion.), but again, logically, how often does that occur?
I would be completely fine with your "data analysis" is you hadn't so brazenly added this to your last paragraph:
"It’s clear to me that someone who claims Republicans have obstructed President Obama with a record number of filibusters simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about."
From data, your god and master? - sure, if you say so, even though hyrdkiller provided other sources of data. From logic? - no.
Also, I feel I should preemptively defend against one of the attacks I anticipate on this according to logic:
ReplyDeletea priori: a probability based on reasoning; logical analysis rather than an observation or personal judgement (the type of logic I explained above)
Empirical: a relative frequency of occurrence based on historical data
Sorry, went out and had a few beers tonight, but still feel I should extrapolate on my last comment. Before you go full off on "logical reasoning" over "observation or personal judgement", you should know that a priori reasoning is supported by factorials (that's math!) such as the multinomial, combination, and permutation formulas provided in many pre-calculus and calculus textbooks. Perhaps even algebraic textbooks, but I can't remember that far back. Cheers!
DeleteHi Jeremy, thanks for the comments. I don't want to get into a debate over definitions of logic and data, although you seem ready for a fight. I'm not going to give that to you.
ReplyDeleteBased on my past arguments with hyrdkiller (including this one), I feel confident claiming that I am the more logical between us. Were you convinced by his arguments? His data? What convinced you?
But back to the point of this post: Don't you agree with me that both parties use the filibuster when they are in the minority? Or what evidence would you offer that one party makes more use than another?
Do you think that Republicans have made unprecedented use of the filibuster against President Obama? If so, what evidence would you offer? How would you change the methodology that I used?
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteYou state in earlier comment:
"Hypothetical: Senate is 58 Dems/42 GOP. Filibuster occurs with 21 GOP/21 Dems. Reid files the motion. Is it a GOP filibuster? Using your methodology, it would be. My methodology says no. Most reasonable people would agree with me."
Most reasonable people would not agree.
In your hypothetical, 50% of the GOP senators chose to filibuster, compared to 36% of the Democratic senators. Although it may be debatable whether it is a GOP filibuster at 50% unity, if it is not a GOP filibuster at 50% unity, it is most *certainly not* a Democratic one at 36%! Perhaps it could be labeled an Independent filibuster as neither party seems to be united on either side of the issue.
Of course, the actuals look nothing like your hypothetical. I propose the methodology of labeling a filibuster a particular party's filibuster when more than 75% of the members of that party vote to sustain the filibuster. I think *that* methodology would match how most people understand the phrase "the X party filibustered the Y Act"
"I propose the methodology of labeling a filibuster a particular party's filibuster when more than 75% of the members of that party vote to sustain the filibuster."
ReplyDeleteDoug, thanks for the comment and for the proposal of a new methodology. Yes, this would be a much better methodology, but it will be time consuming to track down.
I don't know if you clicked through to the Senate website, but the only way to get to that level of detail is to view every cloture vote and hand count the votes by party. I'll see what I can do.
Here's my guess: the results won't change significantly. We have such party unity right now (with both parties) that the methodology of using the 41st vote is a good enough proxy. I bet when I dig into the votes, I won't find an example of a 21D/21R filibuster.
So Doug, if you're still following the comments, let me ask your opinion. I started researching the filibusters trying to apply your methodology and found the following example.
ReplyDeleteIn the 111th congress, a vote occurred on the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. President Obama liked to say that Republicans were standing in the way of his jobs bill, and this is one example.
This bill was filibustered and failed to pass. There were 53 votes to overcome the filibuster, all from Democrats. To sustain the filibuster, there were 40 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting against (2 Senators abstained, one from each party).
My methodology: Because there were 41 Republicans in the Senate, my methodology would call this a Republican filibuster.
Your methodology: Because 88% of the votes to sustain the filibuster were cast by Republicans, your methodology would call this a Republican filibuster.
Complication: But the fact is this was a bipartisan vote against the bill, and the Republicans didn't the votes to filibuster it by themselves. One could make the argument that the filibuster is the fault of one or all five Democrats.
Besides the fact that there was bipartisan opposition and Obama is wrong to blame Republicans, what methodology properly accounts for the five Democrats?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf we take your example provided data, calculate the percentage of each party voting to sustain the filibuster and present it in a *non-partisan* manner:
ReplyDeleteX Party - 40/41 = 98%
Y Party - 5/59 = 8.5%
I think most people would say that this was a filibuster by party X, no one would say it was by party Y and a few people might say this filibuster should be attributed to neither party (i.e. an Independent filibuster).
You could then choose a percentage of the other party voting to sustain the filibuster which would cause the filibuster to be counted as an Independent (i.e. neither Republican nor Democratic). I propose 10%.
Heathen,
ReplyDeleteAre you a chess player?
Heathen, great work here. You've made a real contribution to the debate. And after going through the Senate site and hyrdkiller's links to the Brennan and National Journal articles, I believe your methodology is sound, because it's conservative. If anything it slightly overstates the number of credible filibuster threats. Hyrd's argument boils down to "because you're not absolutely precise, you're 100% wrong" which is absurd - and ironically if you dig into Brennan's underlying data cite (footnote 2), it's also subjective!
ReplyDeleteTerminology may resolve some of the sniping above. "Credible filibuster threats" is what you're really talking about here. In the first year of the 111th, for example, Republicans were sometimes able to slow down proceedings a bit, but the motions were essentially symbolic. That changed when they got the 41st vote.
Which leads me to a major criticism. By using a simple blue/red scheme labeled "Filibusters, By Congress", your graphs are deceptive. They imply Democrats were filibustering during 2009, for example, which isn't at all what your text claims. An easy fix would be to leave the bar uncolored (or black, or purple) when the minority party doesn't have 41 votes. This really just affects the 107th and 111th Congresses.
Thanks for the comments Bill. The problem I have with your "major criticism" is that the Democrats actually held the 41st vote (all the way up to the 60th vote), so disguising that by using a different color, well, disguises reality.
ReplyDeleteAs long as the Republicans didn't hold the 41st vote, a filibuster couldn't be sustained without Democratic support.
That's factually accurate, but "a filibuster couldn't be sustained without Democratic support" is not remotely the same as "Democrat filibusters". Your text says the former, your graph strongly implies the latter, and that's deceptive. It diminishes what would otherwise be a powerful piece.
ReplyDeleteI've shown this piece to several politically-savvy friends, both left and right and they had the same reaction. You are arguing the (solid) facts and logic of your text; I am pointing out that your graphs do not convey them well and open you needlessly to criticism.
This all rests, it seems, on how you define, or to whom do you attribute, a filibuster in which an extremely small number of those in the majority party actually fall in line with the minority party for the purposes of the filibuster. It seems to rest heavily on this legitimately arguable, subjective answer.
ReplyDeleteIf you say "Well, 8% of those who voted for the filibuster were in the majority party. Because it could not have happened without the few senators that crossed over then the few who crossed lines, *and their party*, are responsible."
(Correct me if that's not what happened during the years of your 2nd graph) Then your graphs are correct.
If you say "Well 92% of the support for the filibuster came from the Minority party and it was likely introduced by the minority party, so it must belong to their party" then your graph is wrong. Not only wrong but terribly misleading. Some people might label it painting the facts that suit you best.
Before you can go further with a legitimate debate on the precedent of filibusters you have to agree on that. BOTH SIDES have a point to make there and I don't know which is better. I do know that in my opinion the latter is more "correct". Perhaps simply more "often" correct.
I think Hyrd's point was well made and you ducked the questions he asked. I applaud Myste for very politely pointing that out. MagnoliaBill sums it up well, just noticed that :)
However, if your methodology does not somehow come to terms with the simple fact that just because they don't have 41 seats does not mean they can not get 41 votes then it is not just flawed, it is completely invalid. Your building a house on less than sand and therefore begging for an argument.
You might, however, ask the same question without regard to Obama. In that case If you fix your graph and ADD UP the last 3 terms (110 111 112), the numbers of filibusters by the republicans against the democrats IS unprecedentedly large. But that's not saying it is 1000 times as much as the hyperbole may lead some to think. It is just about twice as much. That amount is, BY DEFINITION, unprecedented.
Yes Ryan, I agree with you: if we change the question, you get a different answer.
ReplyDeleteAs long as we're playing that game, let's ask if one party believes the other party is doing dangerous things and wants to implement bad policies, is it obstructionist to try and stop them? I think it is the duty of Republicans to stop Democrats from implementing policies like ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. Following the 2010 election, Republicans were given this very mandate. When the question is asked that way, the idea of unprecedented filibusters is a positive.
Yet I stick to my conclusion from the post above: "Like just about everything in politics, both parties take advantage of the tools at their disposal to accomplish their ends, and prevent the opposition from accomplishing theirs. Sounds like politics as usual to me."
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteLet me assist, if possible. Firstly, there is no unprecedented Republican filibuster and secondly, the unprecedented Republican filibusters are the fulfillment of a mandate by the American voters, so there is nothing wrong with them.
Hope that helps clarify things.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you continue to stand by "It’s clear to me that someone who claims Republicans have obstructed President Obama with a record number of filibusters simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about"
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you yourself admitted your methodology is not perfect. Throughout the thread, many reasons why were made clear. It seems even that the point you try to make with your graphs, and your ultimate conclusion, rest heavily on that single bar in the 111th congress. This is also the only spot where a more sound methodology would be necessary. It seems using any methodology I've seen other than yours produces only a noticeable difference on that 111th congress. Basically its as though it all HINGES on how you work it out for that year. So, possibly we know as much about what we are talking about as you do, and, possibly, we all simply haven't done enough work to even attempt a non-biased answer for such a national issue. The REAL NUMBERS are out there, with 4's and 7's and 3's and everything. After checking out the Senate website I agree that they have not done anything at all to make it as easy as it could AND SHOULD be to find such a SIMPLE answer. I can tell you are an intelligent person. It's mostly the fault of the people who we have elected being as opaque as possible when it comes to these things.
Of course I stand behind it. My statement is one of moderation, pointing out that Republicans are not the terrorists that Democrats claim; they are not holding America hostage. Instead, Republicans are using the tools available to them, just as Democrats have done and will do.
ReplyDeleteMy methodology is not complicated and was not designed to achieve a certain result. Count the motions filed and attribute them to the party with the 41st vote. The methodology holds up and the charts demonstrate that, given my methodology, the Republicans did nothing unprecedented.
Also keep in mind, when most Democrats claim unprecedented use of the filibuster, they point to the 110th congress -- BEFORE Obama was in office. The 111th congress is little better since Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority for half of the term.
ReplyDeleteI guess, then, my opposition is toward your methodology. Something on which you are obviously uncompromising. This is your prerogative, of course.
Its funny how this can extrapolate to most of today's friction in the press/media.
The symptom is endlessly useless debate, but the illness is in seemingly subjective methodology. Everyone props up a graph or shows a chart or what-not with numbers clearly supporting their position. They defend it with unrelenting vigor and rarely concede to another's position. We hear 2 conflicting "facts" every day on the news and all to often see only polls reflecting the distributors personal bias. Instead of so vigorously defending the process used to collect supposed facts, propping up the extent to which they are relevant and trustworthy, we are presented them as though they should be believed implicitly. Both sides then point to their "facts", which make their case seem as clear as black and white, and it is usually left there. This would be fine and good in a world without fault, without bias or agenda. In the real, very much complicated world which we do actually inhabit, however, this is simply insufficient.
How can anyone have a successful, honest debate with any integrity if everyone is content to call something a fact without ever showing that it is a fact. We often have to fact-check the evening news for gods sake! That doesn't ring ridiculous as it should in most peoples ears. Numbers are easy to come by. Correct, unbiased numbers may be hard to get, but the result is well worth the effort.
This entire debate that has stretched quite a long way down this page is bogus. The only issue here, I believe, is methodology. Debating anything else would be presumptive and conjectural at best. If we cant agree on what color is blue, how can we argue about what color the sky seems?
I am not, by the way, disregarding any merit your methodology may have. This is about the general state of the "news media" at large.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's something I can agree with. In fact, that's the source of many of my posts, including this one. I hear a claim like, "The rich don't pay their fair share" or "Republicans have used the filibuster in an unprecedented way," and I try to seek out the truth. I go to the Senate website, in this case, to see what has really happened.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, it's hard to trust our media to find the facts and report them honestly. And people no longer trust evidence when its put in front of them depending on the source. This post is cited very widely across the internets (it's a top 3 result on Google), but almost every time it's cited, someone rejects it because it comes from a Republican blog.
I, obviously, don't hide my political bias, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of determining facts, even when it hurts my team. Even if no one read my posts, I do this kind of research for myself so that I can combat the lies and the spin.
Incidentally, I understand your earlier point, Ryan. On a year to year basis, Republicans haven't done anything unprecedented, but you're saying that in total, filibusters during Obama's entire presidency have been unprecedented.
ReplyDeleteOn September 28,2012, with a quick glance, I can agree with you. On the date when this post was originally written, however, it was not true. The left has been shouting "unprecedented filibuster" since 2010, but it was always a lie and exaggeration.
It would be like me writing a post on Obama's unemployment record in 2009 and you discrediting it based on data from 2012. Your argument would have been false when this post was originally written, so it's hard to accept your criticism of this post in hindsight.
Ah, yeah I was unaware of that. I am glad we have found some common ground. And your right, I never even glanced at the dates till now.
ReplyDeleteYeah people don't believe anything nowadays for good reason. People see both sides spin the news and shit starts flying and they are so easily caught up in the hype that most people lose sight of what is important. I know it sounds cheesy and cliche but what I mean is we have, or they have, somehow altered what Americans consider "news" and conflated it with opinion, entertainment, and manufactured hype. I'm sure this bias-laden propaganda competition has been going on for centuries in some way, but for some reason I remember my grandparents speak of the news as though it were not a tool to use or a banner to wave or a weapon to be wielded against a rival, but as a proper dispenser of real, trustworthy information. I know they would roll over in their grave if they watched MSNBC or FOX News today.
It must be possible to report the news without any scent of bias. As long as they only report the news... It may be boring as hell but people may learn something. I think they are wildly underestimating the intelligence of the general population. It is surely not an Einstein average, but we can tell when we are being pissed on, eventually. Slowly every day and year they have become more outrageous. It will all be fine for them right up until the day it isn't. One day a nation sweeping epiphany will change our ever-malleable opinion against the purveyors of such garbage.
And I am only 32. For most of my life the media have operated in such a way and I've barely known of anything better. I can only imagine what my parents think.
Doesn't everyone else hate being lied to every day? As though we were a child being told that were not old or smart or mature enough for the _naked_ truth?
I just discovered your article and I find it problematic:
ReplyDelete"What you’ll see is that there is no clear pattern of one party filibustering more than another."
Really!
"The 110th congress was record-setting with its 139 filibusters by the Republicans, but it’s incorrect to say that this was a Republican plan to obstruct President Obama since he had yet to be elected."
Correct, but they weren't obstructions against Bush either. They were obstructions against BILLS — BILLS. And where do bills come from? The Senate in this case, and the full-court press began when the Dems took the majority — duh! Bush wasn't much into vetoes and maybe they thought the filibuster and the blocks were a way to spare his veto pen.
"While the 111th congress came close to matching the record-breaking filibuster total of the 110th congress, they are spread across both parties, as the following chart demonstrates."
Well, the chart is designed by you, on what data no one can guess, because the cloture votes, successful or not, were 137 in number, and all but two were filed by the Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the main, but a handful by Chris Dodd and Dick Durbin. The two outliers were filed by Mitch McConnell. Tell me this: if the Democrats were filibustering, why would all the cloture filings come from the Democratic leadership?
Mr Primate, why so hostile? If you see a pattern of one party filibustering more than another, kindly point it out. The data is clear to me: both parties do it when they are the minority. How do you rebut that?
ReplyDelete"Correct, but they weren't obstructions against Bush either. They were obstructions against BILLS — BILLS. And where do bills come from? The Senate in this case, and the full-court press began when the Dems took the majority..."
Yes, but if you read the opening paragraph of my post, you'll see that the accusation is "unprecedented filibusters against Obama." It sounds as if you agree that this was not the case.
"Well, the chart is designed by you, on what data no one can guess..."
The charts were designed by me using data from the Senate website, which you must know since you clicked through and counted names. So why would you imply that I am being dishonest with the data? Perhaps the only way you can win an argument is to misrepresent the opposition.
"...because the cloture votes, successful or not, were 137 in number, and all but two were filed by the Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in the main, but a handful by Chris Dodd and Dick Durbin. The two outliers were filed by Mitch McConnell. Tell me this: if the Democrats were filibustering, why would all the cloture filings come from the Democratic leadership?"
As for who filed the motions, we have already covered this in the comments above. For my opinion on the matter, kindly scroll up and read for yourself. I dislike repetition, and your demeanor makes me disinclined to go out of my way to help you.
If you're that interested, why don't you also look up filibusters in 2012 and ask yourself why Harry Reid's name is on so many of those. Perhaps then you will have your answer.
So, like many of the above, I applaud the diligence of actually going and getting your own numbers and facts. I did have two lines of questioning.
ReplyDeleteFirst, so you will agree, that in these times of a Republican minority in the Senate (the last 3 Congresses), the number of filibusters (or threat of filibusters) as defined by cloture votes has increased significantly? If so, isn't it easy to understand how liberals interpret that as proof of Republican obstructionism?
On a related note, how do you interpret the fact that your methodology gives what looks like a 50/50 split in the party filing for cloture in the 111th Congress, but that this kind of distribution occurs nowhere else on the graph except for what looks like the 107th. I know that seems like a loaded question, but I honestly think a comparison of those two Congresses will give us insight into the disparities between your methodology and the liberal perception that Republican have been extraordinarily obstructive as well as shed light on my first point (why a rise in filibusters may not always be the minority's fault).
Also, I disagree with the opinion expressed that the (indefinite) filibuster is a neutral tactic. In all but the most divisive of issues, it's the legislative equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum because someone asked you to share your toys. These are grown adults, and it's their job to find middle ground. And if they can't, then they must cede the majority position, regardless of who is in power.
Hi JMZ,
ReplyDelete"First, so you will agree, that in these times of a Republican minority in the Senate (the last 3 Congresses), the number of filibusters (or threat of filibusters) as defined by cloture votes has increased significantly? If so, isn't it easy to understand how liberals interpret that as proof of Republican obstructionism?"
I understand the liberal charge of obstructionism. I reject that it is unprecedented.
"...how do you interpret the fact that your methodology gives what looks like a 50/50 split in the party filing for cloture in the 111th Congress, but that this kind of distribution occurs nowhere else on the graph except for what looks like the 107th..."
Maybe I don't understand the point you're making, but I don't feel any need to explain it. By counting the 41st vote, the split in the 111th congress is explained by "several factors that affected whether or not there were 41 Senators in the minority party at any given time, including: one disputed election, two deaths, one resignation, and one party change."
Sorry I'm a little late to the party, but I stumbled across this post as I was researching this very topic and I felt the need to comment on a few things. If you've already addressed these in the comments, I apologize, but I haven't gotten all the way through them yet, and I'm typing things out as I see them.
ReplyDeleteTo start with I have a serious issue with your methodology. Either that, or I just don't understand it properly. My major problem is that your premise for the assignations of filibusters appears flawed. You state, "Since the filibuster can only be sustained with 41 votes, my methodology is to credit the minority party holding the 41st vote with the filibusters." Except that isn't technically correct, is it? The default mode of operation of a filibuster is to continue until a cloture vote succeeds. So, in truth, it doesn't require 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, it takes the lack of 60 votes for a cloture to sustain a filibuster. These are not the same thing. In the 111th Congress, for reference, see vote Nos. 189, 211, and 320 in the first session, and Nos. 22, 194, 204, 240, 242, 270, 258, and 259 from the second session. All of those clotures failed despite the filibuster not securing 41 votes.
With that in mind, I'm not sure where the assignations for the 111th Congress are coming from. If you're using the 41st vote as a metric, why are there still 135 filibusters assigned when not all 135 clotures went to a vote? Where did the 41st vote come from in clotures that passed or were withdrawn? I think the fatal flaw in your methodology there is where you state, "For our purposes, motions filed will count as an attempt to filibuster, and I won’t track the votes or successful attempts to defeat the filibuster (i.e. cloture invoked)." Why not? If your metric is 41 votes, shouldn't it actually matter whether the 41st vote is ever even cast?
As near as I can tell all the filibusters before February '09 and January '10 are assigned to the Democrats because, by default, the Republicans could not have had the (flawed) 41st vote until Scott Brown was seated in February and they had the required 41 votes. Is that correct? Because this ignores the fact that in the vast majority of the filibusters, there either was no vote, or the cloture was invoked, so where is the 41st vote coming from to warrant their assignations in those cases? As I mentioned above, I think your fatal flaw comes from your unwillingness to delve into to actual votes.
So, I did just that. My argument here is that a vote against a cloture is the same as a vote for a filibuster, so it's important to see who's actually voting for filibustering. Using the Senate's website, I combed through the cloture votes from the 109th-112th Congresses with "Nay" votes. The results seem to contradict your own.
Between both sessions of the 111th, there were 90 cloture votes with Nays. Overall, there were 2743 Nay votes, with 2565 cast by Republicans (93.51%), and 178 by Democrats (6.49%).
Between both sessions of the 110th there were 105 cloture calls. Overall, there were 3033 Nay votes, with 2490 (82.10%) by Republicans and 543 (17.90%) by Democrats.
I think an in-depth look at the actual voting patterns reveals two things. First of all, that the President does appear to matter. When President Bush was in the White House and the Senate was still Democrat controlled (110th), Senate Republicans were 4.58 times as likely to support a filibuster than Democrats, but under President Obama (111th), they were 14.41 times more likely to support a filibuster than Democrats.
However, the fact that the numbers were so skewed even with a Republican President suggests that the filibuster is primarily a tool to undermine the majority party in the Senate, regardless of the President, though the Presidency may affect the vehemence.
To double-check that assertion, I also looked at the 109th Congress, which was Republican-controlled and had a Republican President. More in comment reply.
Between both sessions of the 109th, there were 49 non-UC cloture calls. Overall, this meant 1068 Nay votes were cast, 226 (21.16%) by Republicans and 842 (78.84%) by Democrats. In this Congress, Democrats were 3.77 times as likely to support a filibuster as Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe data would tend to support the assertion that the minority party does use the filibuster more often than the majority, regardless of the President. However, given the sheer number of Nay votes to continue filibusters lately, I think it's also fair to say that Republicans have transformed the use of the filibuster from a way to merely slow the process into an outright effort to block legislation that might otherwise pass. As evidence, the average number of Nay votes by the minority party have gone from 17.18 in the 109th Congress (D) to 23.94 in the 110th to 28.5 in the 111th (both R)
For the sake of completeness, I looked at the 112th Congress's cloture voting as well. It does appear as though the hyper-partisanship has decreased slightly, at the very least. In 68 non-unanimous cloture votes (so far), there have been 1910 Nay votes - 1707 (89.37%) by Republicans and 203 (10.63%) by Democrats. This lowers the ratio from Republicans being 14 times more likely to cast a Nay in the 111th Congress to only 8.4 times more likely to cast a Nay in the 112th. The average has also decreased slightly, from 28.5 to 25.1.
That's about all I have time for at the moment (typing out all the vote totals took more time than I expected). Take a look and let me know what you think.
@Vicious Chops, glad you stopped by.
ReplyDelete""For our purposes, motions filed will count as an attempt to filibuster, and I won’t track the votes or successful attempts to defeat the filibuster (i.e. cloture invoked)." Why not?"
I chose to count motions filed because that was the highest number of the three available. I thought if I chose one of the other two, I would be accused of cherry-picking the lower metric. I chose the highest possible metric so that no one could accuse me of distorting the results.
"As I mentioned above, I think your fatal flaw comes from your unwillingness to delve into to actual votes."
Agreed. I have a day job and simply don't have the time to open every bill and every vote. I came up with a proxy -- the 41st vote. Since you've done the legwork, I'm happy to link to your post, but my time is more valuable than to do what you did. (Not to say that your time isn't also valuable...)
"The data would tend to support the assertion that the minority party does use the filibuster more often than the majority, regardless of the President."
I don't think this is any kind of revelation. The majority party has no need to filibuster, so naturally the minority party uses it more often.
I believe your analysis validates the point of my post: while Republicans have used the filibuster, their use of it hasn't been unprecedented.
I'll read your post and see for myself.