From the NYT, some observations about the consequences of Dems having 60 senators:
With 60 votes (including those of two independents) now most likely aligned with the Democrats, the party could avoid filibusters.
But Mr. Franken swiftly made it clear that he did not view himself as the Democrats’ No. 60. “That’s not how I see it,” he said, adding that he was “going to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that’s how I’m going to do this job.”
Though Republicans expressed disappointment at the outcome, they had in recent weeks become increasingly resigned to Mr. Franken joining the Senate.
On Tuesday, they joined Mr. Coleman in acknowledging defeat and immediately sought to raise expectations for Democrats.
“With their supermajority, the era of excuses and finger-pointing is now over,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Cornyn said it was “troubling to think about what they might now accomplish with 60 votes.”
But whether Democrats can consistently rely on 60 senators being present is in question. Two veteran Democrats, Senators Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, are ailing and have regularly been absent from the Senate. In addition, a handful of moderate to conservative Democrats have shown a willingness to break from the party, and even liberals will do so on some issues.
Democrats are known for being difficult to organize in some coherent manner, especially in the Senate. Conversely, as Republicans decrease in size, they become more cohesive and more disruptive. It will interesting to follow the dynamic between the respective parties.
