Pollster on Filibuster: “A Lot of Ground to Cover”

Photo used under a Creatives Commons license by Flickr user <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/midgetbusdriver/3662945409/" target="_blank">Erica Reid</a>

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

On Friday I highlighted the public’s chronic ambivalence about the issue of the filibuster. After 12 months of filibuster-powered obstruction, only a quarter of Americans know much about it, which is roughly how things played out in 2005 as well, when Republicans unsuccessfully pursued the “nuclear option” to end the procedure. Today I talked to Pew’s Andrew Kohut to get his explanation of why the filibuster might not be the winning argument some Democrats seem to think it is.


The takeaway is this: While progressives bind the filibuster to specific issues like health care (for the GOP in 2005 it was abortion), the public by and large approaches it from a much different perspective. “I think what happens in those situations is that the public seems to think that they’re somehow losing the check of one party against the other,” Kohut told me. “I don’t want to exaggerate this point but people take comfort in the fact that Republicans are looking over the shoulder of the Democrats and vice versa. Changing the rules to deal with [gridlock] I think raises some anxiety.” (No kidding: here’s what we wrote back in 2005).


As for turning the issue into a populist barnburner, Kohut’s prognosis was less than optimistic: “I don’t have a crystal ball on this one,” he said. “But when you have only 26 percent of the public that knows how many votes it takes to break a filibuster, you’ve got a lot of ground to cover.”


Follow Tim Murphy on Twitter.



Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend