Reid claims his caucus is behind him on the act, which would give some undocumented students and military service members a change to gain legal status to remain in the country. “We all support the DREAM Act,” he said on Univision in an interview that aired Sunday. “I just need a handful of Republicans to help me.”

Kirk has said he wouldn’t, despite exhaustive efforts by DREAM Act supporters to convince him otherwise. “This is not the time to do that,” Kirk said in a debate.

How important is Kirk’s vote for passing the DREAM Act? It depends on who Reid means when he says “we all support the DREAM Act.” There are 59 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 41 Republicans. Kirk will change those numbers to 58 and 42. Reid needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if he hopes to pass the DREAM Act.

If Reid’s right about his caucus, he would only need two Republicans to vote “yes” on the DREAM Act. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) co-sponsored the bill and would almost certainly vote for the it as a standalone measure, although he voted in September to filibuster the defense authorization bill that included it. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has also said he would vote for the act as a standalone bill.

But if either of them or any Democrats fall through, other Republicans are tougher to pin down. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act, seems likely to vote against it now because he favors a borders-first approach to tackling immigration problems. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said when he announced plans to vote against the DREAM Act’s inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

Lugar, Hatch and Bennett were two of twelve Republicans who voted for the DREAM Act in 2007. The others still in Senate — Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — have been vague about whether they would support the measure as a standalone this year.

When the bill came up as a possible addition to the defense authorization bill, a few Democrats said they were not sure they would support it this time around. Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The Hill in September they might vote “no” on the DREAM Act.

Which Republicans may come around? In 2007, 12 Republicans voted for the DREAM Act’s passage. Only seven are still in the Senate, and they all voted to filibuster the defense authorization bill last week. While some objected to the bill being inserted into the defense bill, others seem more likely to now oppose the DREAM Act in general — meaning passage as a standalone is far from a sure thing.

Utah Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch are in the “secure the borders first” camp, arguing immigration reform must be preceded by stricter enforcement efforts. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said to explain his “no” vote on the DREAM Act.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) may also be tough to sway. He is running for Kansas governor and has said he opposes “amnesty” for illegal immigrants even though he supported paths to legal status such as the DREAM Act in the past.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Texas) focused her criticism of the defense authorization bill on the inclusion of non-defense items in the bill. (The DREAM Act would have an impact on the military and would likely ease recruitment.)

Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe could be more likely to vote for the DREAM Act as a standalone bill. Collins said she joined the filibuster because Majority Leader Harry Reid unfairly limited Republican amendments to the defense authorization bill, not because she opposed the substance of his planned amendments. Snowe also stayed quiet on the DREAM Act when discussing her decision to filibuster.

Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) seems like a likely “yes” vote for the DREAM Act if it is pushed as a standalone bill. Lugar is a co-sponsor of the bill in its current iteration and has indicated he would support the bill’s passage this year.

When the defense authorization bill failed to clear cloture Tuesday, Democrats needed a measure to fill floor time before the weekend, and the DISCLOSE Act was one of the few measures in their legislative arsenal that was quickly available.

Having failed cloture once, the campaign bill only requires a less strict “motion to recommit” from Reid to call another cloture vote. New legislation likely would need 30 hours after being filed, 30 hours the Senate doesn’t have.

So even if Democrats know they’re likely short of votes Thursday, the alternative was practically nothing

Shiner’s logistical insight is revealing, but not mutually exclusive, of course, with other reasons Democrats felt compelled to call another vote on the bill. As far back as July, when the DISCLOSE Act first failed to overcome a GOP filibuster in the Senate before recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to bring it up again because the bill’s a win-win, as far as Democratic strategists are concerned: pass it, and enact much needed campaign finance reform, or fail to pass it, and gain more ammunition to target Republicans as in the pockets of big business and special interest groups. With that kind of non-deficit increasing card in his back pocket, it makes perfect sense for Reid to play it during every moment of Senate downtime.

Democrats need one Republican crossover to break a filibuster and move forward to an up-or-down vote on financial regulation. Right now, it is unclear who that crossover will be, with all 41 Republicans signed on to a letter of opposition written by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the last signer of the letter, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a strong proponent of the bill, is due to meet with her this afternoon.

Dodd, the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, predicted that Republicans would not stick together to filibuster the bill. “I don’t really believe Republican members want to be with their leaders when they’re talking about filibustering a bill that would allow us to address [regulatory reform],” he said. Still, Republican leadership has repeatedly indicated that it plans to filibuster to force substantive changes to the legislation.

(As an aside — I doubt that the Senate would move the bill to the floor by Wednesday, given that Obama plans to make his banner speech on the subject at Cooper Union on Thursday.)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia) dashed Democratic hopes for a filibuster-proof majority.

With the reelection victory of Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss in a special election last week, hopes that Democrats would command a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the upper chamber next year were dashed.

The number 60 has attracted enormous attention because it represents the votes required to defeat a filibuster in the Senate — the dreaded tactic that allows opponents of a bill to kill it by debating it ad infinitum. If they had secured 60 seats Nov. 4, Democrats could have prevented Republican filibusters and had their way legislatively.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

But many experts on Congress have a message for Democratic leaders: The failure to get 60 members probably won’t matter.

“[It's] insignificant,” said Michael L. Mezey, political science professor at DePaul University. “There are very few straight party-line votes on cloture, on cutting off debate … This whole 60-Democrat argument has been really overblown.”

GOP leaders have used the filibuster with great success since 2006, when Democrats won a slim 51-49 advantage (including two independents who caucus with the Democrats) in the Senate. House Democrats passed a long list of party priorities — including slashing carbon emissions and protecting journalists’ rights — only to see the legislation filibustered to death by Republican senators.

The goal of picking up nine additional Senate seats in the November elections was a rallying cry for Democratic supporters eager to end what they saw as two years of GOP obstructionism. Chambliss’ win in Georgia means that Democrats, at best, could muster 59 votes next year. The Senate contest in Minnesota remains too close to call.

No president has enjoyed a filibuster-proof Senate majority since Jimmy Carter.

Many of the experts contend that the Democrats’ belief that securing 60 seats would have been the key to legislative success ignores the regional and ideological nuances that influence voting patterns on both sides of the aisle. So much media attention has been focused on the entrenched partisanship on Capitol Hill that it has been easy to forget the handful of moderates who frequently cross party lines on a wide range of controversial issues and determine legislative outcomes.

Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both Republicans from Maine, have a long history of bucking their party to support such Democratic causes as expanding health coverage and protecting the environment. Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is another moderate Republican who, in avidly supporting government-funded stem cell research, has defied the Bush administration. Specter has also voted with Democrats on bills battling pay discrimination and strengthening workers’ rights.

There are others. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has backed Democratic bills to reform immigration policy. More famously, he was also the chief sponsor of a successful effort — wildly unpopular among Republicans — to limit the influence of campaign contributions in elections.

If these and other GOP moderates support him, President-elect Barack Obama could build early political momentum next year by putting together a string of big legislative victories.

Obama says he plans first to tackle an enormous economic stimulus package that would pump hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure projects and social programs. House Democrats passed a similar, though much smaller stimulus bill in September. It was killed in the Senate by a Republican filibuster, but Snowe, Collins and Specter all voted for it, as did moderate Minnesota GOP Sen. Norm Coleman, who might be back next year as well.

Even with 60 seats in the Senate, Democrats would not be assured of victories on everything. Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an independent who tends to vote Democratic but became a pariah in the eyes of Democrats after endorsing McCain for president this year, has been a loud supporter of the Iraq war, voting consistently with Republicans against Democratic efforts to withdraw troops.

And Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a hawkish Democrat, has alienated many liberals with her votes on the war. Her push to expand offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico angered environmentalists.

The Progressive Patriots, a liberal group that rates lawmakers’ voting records, grades Landrieu a 19 — meaning she’s voted in support of progressive bills just 19 percent of the time.

This kind of cross-party voting undercuts the significance of a 60-seat majority for either party.

“On most issues, [Democrats] would have had to get some Republicans anyway,” Mezey said.

The current economic turmoil might help the party overcome its failure to secure 60 upper-chamber seats. Former GOP Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.) said the deepening recession could force Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other GOP leaders on Capitol Hill to abandon their filibuster strategy for fear of alienating a public already angry at years of partisan bickering.

“The party’s discipline has been so strong, but with the country in such bad shape, I’m not sure that discipline can remain,” said Chafee, a visiting scholar at Brown University. “[Republicans] can’t keep losing seats. And if you look at 2010, I don’t see any vulnerable Democrats. They [Republican leaders] will probably have to change their behavior.”

One Republican who might become receptive to the Democratic appeals is Ohio Sen. George Voinovich, who faces reelection in 2010. With Ohio suffering disproportionately from the economic downturn, Voinovich has been one of the few GOP senators to jump on board the Democrats’ plans to bail out Detroit’s sputtering auto industry — a show of support that will likely continue if the economy continues to tank.

“Voinovich will be under a lot of pressure not to obstruct things,” Mezey said.

There are still weeks to go before Democrats can begin to enjoy their newly expanded Senate majority. As party leaders prepare this week to push through a bailout package for Detroit, some Republican opponents are already vowing to filibuster it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (BiggerPictureImages flickr)

When Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) switched from Democrat to independent in 2006, Democrats needed him to remain in their caucus to control the Senate with 51 votes.

Yet many Democrats openly disdained Lieberman for championing the war in Iraq. The disdain escalated this year, when Lieberman campaigned tirelessly for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the Republican nominee for president.

It was something of a surprise, then, when a newly configured Democratic Senate caucus — no longer clinging to a one-vote majority — decided Tuesday, by a vote of 42-13, to keep Lieberman as one of their own. He will even retain his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which is responsible for oversight of the executive branch.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The vote appears to be less about Lieberman and more about Democrats and President-elect Barack Obama building a consensus. While highly critical of Lieberman’s straying allegiance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was careful never to cut him loose. And Obama signaled that that he wanted Lieberman to remain in the caucus.

“The Democrats wanted to string up Lieberman by his toes and hit him with a broom,” said Kenneth Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut. “But by extending this olive branch, they’ve learned to overcome their emotional response and not be vindictive.”

“The result of the vote is not because the Democrats want to forgive him,” said Dautrich. “It’s because he’ll be an important vote.”

The 55-member Democratic Senate caucus — including at least five newly elected members — also allowed Lieberman to hold onto his chairmanship of an Armed Services subcommittee. But it stripped him of his chairmanship of a subcommittee of the Environmental and Public Works Committee.

After the caucus meeting, Lieberman said the vote “was done in a spirit of reconciliation.”

The vote came after 11 months of Lieberman stumping for McCain. The Arizona Republican even wanted Lieberman as his running mate before GOP strategists persuaded McCain to choose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

That didn’t stop Lieberman from delivering a speech at Republican National Convention exalting McCain and blasting Obama.

“Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man,” Lieberman said in his Sept. 3 address. “But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times. In the Senate, he has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.”

Two days after Obama won the presidency and Democrats widened their margin in the Senate, an aide to Reid told the Associated Press that Lieberman would likely lose his chairmanship of the homeland security committee. Reid himself told a CNN reporter that, “Joe Lieberman has done something that I think was improper, wrong — and if we weren’t on television, I’d use a stronger word of describing what he did.”

The statement made headlines but Reid also hinted at reconciliation. “Joe Lieberman votes with me a lot more than a lot of my senators. He didn’t support us on military stuff, and he didn’t support us on Iraq stuff. But you look at his record — it’s pretty good.”

Then last week Obama informed Reid that he held no grudges toward Lieberman and wanted him to remain in the Democratic caucus.

“Once Obama intervened on this, it made it more likely that Democrats would treat Lieberman gently,” said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Julian E. Zelizer, a history professor at Princeton University, praised Obama’s support for the Connecticut independent as consistent with the president-elect’s calls for post-partisanship. “The Obama strategy of wanting to keep broadening his coalition is genuine,” Zelizer said. “Obama’s aware of the political flack he’ll take. But it’s a pragmatic move. He’s a non-ideologue.”

With Lieberman in the fold, the Democrats still have an outside shot of a 60-member caucus that could end Republican filibusters. That possibility hinges on yet-to-be decided races in Georgia and Minnesota.

“Lieberman will be a senator until 2012,” said Dautrich. “In the next four years, there will probably be votes on health-care reform legislation and Supreme Court nominees. … The Republicans will try to filibuster and the Democrats will need 60 votes.”

Lieberman, a senator since 1988, has had a rocky relationship with Democrats since he lost to Ned Lamont in the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut. After declaring himself an independent, Lieberman went on to defeat Lamont in the general election. He vowed to continue to caucus with Senate Democrats.

His chairmanship of the homeland security committee was largely viewed as both a reward and an incentive to prevent his defection to the GOP.

But the same issues that cost Lieberman in the Democratic primary also made him an oft-criticized chairman, especially his unflagging support of the Bush administration’s strategy in Iraq and overall “war on terror.”

It is unlikely that Lieberman will provide tougher oversight of an Obama administration that has welcomed him back into the Democratic Party.

“Lieberman is a very calculating politician,” said Zelizer. “I don’t think he wants to spend his political capital on investigations.”

Lieberman is thus expected to tread carefully. Thanks to the new configuration of the Senate, he needs the Democrats at least as much as the Democrats need him.