The main hope of progressive filibuster opponents lies in the next time their party possesses the White House, House and Senate. Democrats can’t be very hopeful about the Senate elections in 2024, when the map tilts in the opposite direction: All three of the Democrats’ seats from Trump-won states will be on the ballot, and no Republican seats in Biden-won states will be. So the next Democratic trifecta could be at least several years away. Will that Democratic majority be homogeneous enough to muscle through filibuster abolition? Will filibuster abolition even be top of mind at that point in time? It’s impossible to know.

Even today, the 48 Democrats who voted in favor of the rule change did not vote for permanent abolition. They did not even vote for a permanent rule change. What Schumer proposed was a one-time change that would effectively put a finite end on Senate debate and lead to a simple majority vote on the Democrats’ voting rights bills. Manchin and Sinema resisted on the knowledge that if you change the legislative filibuster by simple majority once (which requires exploiting a loophole in the rules known as the “nuclear option”), then you have set the precedent that the filibuster can be waived anytime a majority feels like it, and the filibuster is effectively no more. Some of the other 48 have previously expressed reluctance to get the rid of the filibuster, but concluded that voting rights merited an exception.

But what if the next time Democrats control the White House and Congress, voting rights isn’t the big issue on their agenda? Would all of those in the 48 who are still in the Senate at that point still commit to filibuster reform or abolition by simple majority vote? Or will they have been in the Senate long enough — probably after experiencing at least one more stint in the minority — to take the institutionalist position?