On the question of changing the filibuster, not only can it be done, but it has been done. In 1975, the post-Watergate Congress, which had 61 Democrats, lowered the number you needed to break a filibuster from 67 votes to 60. It used to be that 33 Senators could block legislation. Now you needed 40. It was a major change, and democracy somehow survived.And recently, the filibuster changed again. It transitioned from a rarely-invoked rule into an everyday tool of business, as this McClatchy graph shows:
That said, it's not necessarily clear that the filibuster will prove a powerful obstruction this time around. In 1964, at the dawn of Johnson's historic legislative push, Democrats had, if I remember correctly, 66 senators, of which a good handful were Dixiecrats. Come January, they'll have 58 or 59, none of whom are particularly far from the party's mainstream. Those are the sort of numbers where skilled legislators and steady presidential leadership should be able to break through minority obstruction. The real danger now is Democratic disunity and fractiousness. Happily for the Republicans, Evan Bayh seems aching to throw some of that into the mix.
That said, it's not necessarily clear that the filibuster will prove a powerful obstruction this time around. In 1964, at the dawn of Johnson's historic legislative push, Democrats had, if I remember correctly, 66 senators, of which a good handful were Dixiecrats. Come January, they'll have 58 or 59, none of whom are particularly far from the party's mainstream. Those are the sort of numbers where skilled legislators and steady presidential leadership should be able to break through minority obstruction. The real danger now is Democratic disunity and fractiousness. Happily for the Republicans, Evan Bayh seems aching to throw some of that into the mix. 
