I wrote a short article on this subject last July, and even then the number of filibusters had reached the point where we were approaching the record. I haven't checked since then but there absolutely no doubt that the 110th Congress is the most obstructed in U.S. history.

There could be some sense to this if the filibuster was being used to support deep-seated beliefs, but the only purpose behind the tactic was to prevent government from acting, and this strategy was seized upon by the Republicans after the landslide 2006 election as a way of hamstringing the new Democratically controlled Congress, as seen below in a comment by Sen. Kent Conrad.

"-I had a Republican colleague tell me it is the Republican strategy to try to prevent any accomplishment of the Democratic Congress. That is set in their caucus openly and directly that they don't intend to allow Democrats to have any legislative successes, and they intend to do it by repeated filibuster."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_07/011693.php

Statistics don't begin to tell the story of the depth of the Republican obstructionist efforts. Those of us who watch Congress on CSPAN observed the belligerent Republican attempts to prevent Congressional action by any means. House rules regarding the introduction of non-germane amendments were frequently ignored, as Republicans employed delaying tactics designed to prevent Congressional action and cloud issues with an endless variety of red herrings.

For instance, the debate on S-CHIP was marred by repeated Republican claims that the funding of S-CHIP (which Bush supported, but not to the same degree) would remove many people from Social Security, even though the programs are separate and the claim is false. Being gaveled as out-of-order didn't deter them, and debate often continued for only seconds as the Chair had to stop the proceedings several times for each minute of debate. The only purpose behind these tactics was to prevent Congress from considering the bill. And in a moment of supreme irony, many of these same Republican representatives would later go public with complaints about a "do-nothing Congress," even though they were doing everything possible to obstruct Congressional action.

Posted at August 1, 2008 8:13 PM in response to Republican Obstructionism: A Refresher

There are some issues besides the lack of comparability between caucuses and primaries.

The Democratic Party bases delegate allocations on Democratic strength, although many of the open primaries include crossover voters who, in some cases, are party raiders that have no intention of voting for the Democrat in the general election. Normally, the addition of extra voters is considered a benefit, and proportional allocation makes it difficult for raiders to have much effect (unlike the winner take all systems used by the Republicans), but treating the votes in a hotly contested open primary as fungible with a caucus state's votes is absurd.

Unlike the general election, there can be huge differences in turnout due to factors other the caucus v. primary difference. Contests fluctuate when seats are open, and when referendums and initiatives are on the ballot, and the variability is so high at the nomination stage that some states would find their influence outweighed by a state with higher turnout and lower population.
States that hold late contests would find their voice in the process dramatically reduced because their contest occurs after the nomination has has been decided. Inequities like these have led to the apportionment formulas currently used by both major parties.

A system that allowed states to inflate their 'weight' would suffer even greater problems than the already large problem we have now, as states vie to join the first-tier contests in order to increase their importance.

One of the biggest problems with a state unilaterally deciding to queue-jump lies in the possibility that its move could be part of an effort to improve the chances of a "favorite son" candidate. As is usually the case, setting the rules for oneself, whether in regard to when the vote is held or how it is measured, tends to result in a corruption of the process. Changing the rules after the fact is usually transparently so.

Posted at June 5, 2008 7:59 AM in response to Popular Vote

I believe he said "pledged delegates," or am I mistaken? And, of course, that doesn't include MI and FL. The upcoming R&B committee hearing will presumably accept the MI Dem. party's plan to split 69-59, and FL could then be allocated as per the election. However you look at it, Obama is on the brink of becoming the presumptive nominee.

The one thing that puzzles me is how some Clinton supporters can say they support the ideas she advocates but won't support Obama as nominee. I can understand hard feelings but that seems hypocritical.

Posted at May 21, 2008 6:54 AM in response to If Hillary can say she's won the pop. vote, why can't Obama say he's won a majority of delegates?

Agit prop? I suspect that's true for No Quarter, and I don't recall the level of nastiness existing in any prior Democratic nomination contest -- so it is suspicious, and I've noted it before. I go back a long ways, too.

Posted at May 21, 2008 6:35 AM in response to Goodbye Twenty-Three Percenters

Thanks, the humor is appreciated. I'm only sorry that more people didn't watch the video and get the joke.

Posted at March 29, 2008 8:55 PM in response to Clinton Told The Truth!

Considering that Obama leads Clinton in both delegates and votes, is there any reason to suspect that Clinton supporters need a tortured rationale for arguing that she should be leading?

What's interesting about this imaginary exercize is that it's premised on disenfranchising voters.

I'm always wary of plans that purport to represent the people by removing their voice from the process.

Posted at February 16, 2008 6:28 PM in response to Hillary Would Have Benefitted From Winner-Take-All Primaries