Caroline Wren

So that was a rule-making decision I think in 1913 that then kind of – but it is like nowhere in the Constitution.

It says you need 51 votes.

So it is ridiculous.

We have 60.

60-vote threshold.

threshold came along with lobbying.

Why?

Because corporations did not want, think if you're a big pharma company and Elizabeth Warren or someone just goes and gets to drop a bill that says that we need to lower insulin prices and you only need 51 votes and all of a sudden these senators actually really do have to be on record on a vote like that.

When you do the 60 vote threshold and no one's ever had more than I think 56 or 57 of one party, then you can always blame the other side or whoever else and claim this bipartisanship, but really it's a massive corporate lobby trying to keep this filibuster to exist because

These senators would not be able to survive in their jobs if they were actually taking votes that we the people wanted them to take on things such as an 80-20 issue like voter ID.

So then it goes to the Democrats said we will lift the filibuster.

This was to pass H.R.

1.

That was Nancy Pelosi's big – their election bill, basically the same thing, that now they're saying you can't federalize elections.

It's like, OK, you all –

All of you went on record saying you would nuke the filibuster to pass your H.R.1, which was federalizing elections in the way you want.

Two senators didn't, and that was Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

They are no longer senators because of that one vote alone.

Democrats only had 52 seats, so they couldn't get it passed to nuke—you had to actually vote and get 51 to nuke the filibuster.

And in fact, Sinema couldn't even go to like a wedding in Arizona.