God bless John Thune. At the moment, the majority leader from South Dakota is the only thing standing between a historic catastrophe and a stampede of short-sighted Republicans. It’s a familiar position for the man at the helm of the Senate, who has to contend — not only with a fractured caucus day-in and day-out but also with the demands of a president whose big-picture goals sometimes conflict with the broader good of the chamber. Such is the case with the SAVE America Act — which is quickly turning into the vehicle that will do anything but save America.

Look, we’re all sympathetic to the Republicans’ frustrations. Passing a bill that would safeguard our elections from fraud and overhaul the loopholes that have allowed leftists to cheat and manipulate is one of the most important things Congress could do. But the political realities that are currently making that goal difficult aren’t something that conservatives can simply outmaneuver or outsmart. There is no magic wand, no enchanted pixie dust, or silver bullet that can overcome the fact that the GOP is seven votes short of the 60 it needs to make this proposal law — not even the current savior du jour, the “talking filibuster.”

It’s difficult to break through the noise around this idea — especially from conservatives we all respect — to get to the real issues with the talking filibuster. But anyone who takes the time to peel back the layers of what this would mean for the future of the Republican Party (and the Senate as a whole) would quickly see what a terrifying prospect it would be.

Let’s start by explaining what the talking filibuster is, beyond everyone’s romanticized ideas of Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” No one does that better than the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, who, last month, desperately tried to get people’s attention about the damage this would do to Congress. 

To bypass the 60-vote threshold Republicans would need to pass the bill, the strategy President Trump and others are pushing is not to abolish the filibuster but to instead force Democrats to block the legislation the old-fashioned way — by holding the floor with speeches. 

“Sounds simple, right?” Strassel asks. “Sounds heroic, yes? It’s not. The supporters of a cinematic moment are either unaware of — or unwilling to address — the false promises and huge problems that come with the talking filibuster. (Not the least of which is that Stewart, the ‘hero’ of that movie, will be the Democrats in this scenario.) A talking filibuster will not prove a difficult lift for Democrats. Quite the opposite. It will give Minority Leader Chuck Schumer the whip hand over the Senate’s time and topics, and the power to extract enormous GOP concessions as a price of passing any bill.”

If I’m a Senate Democrat right now, I’m salivating at the prospect of Republicans actually going through with this idea. Why? Because it hands the keys of the U.S. Senate to Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for as long as he and his caucus want. We’re talking days, weeks, even months. If they had the stamina and resolve, which his party certainly does, the minority leader could hold the Senate floor hostage until the midterm elections — grinding all work to a complete and utter halt. Want to pass Homeland Security funding? Too bad. An emergency bill on the Iran war? Tough luck. Confirm a Supreme Court vacancy? Sorry. The schedule would be under the complete control of Schumer’s Democrats for as long as they could hold out. 

Here’s why. Under Senate rules, each Democrat would be allowed two speeches of unlimited length in a talking filibuster. With 47 Democrats, that’s 94 speeches, Strassel notes. That could mean two, four, or eight hours a piece — or it could mean a marathon 25, like Senator Cory Booker’s (D-N.J.) recent grandstanding. 

And while Democrats only need a single person on the floor at a time — meaning they could fly in and out of D.C. on an arranged schedule to keep the microphone occupied — Republicans would be forced to hunker down in the city in case Schumer called a quorum vote or a vote to adjourn, which 51 GOP senators would need to block or else their entire effort is dead. Remember, this is a chamber that thinks they’re overworked if they have to stay in session on Thursday. Imagine getting 51 Republicans to stay within a walk’s distance of the chamber, 24/7, for weeks on end. 

If, by some miracle, they stick together and survive the speeches, there’s another mountain to climb: the amendment process. With a talking filibuster, Democrats can offer an unlimited number of amendments. They don’t have to relate to election reform, and they only need a simple majority to pass. “That’s dicey in today’s GOP Senate,” Strassel warns, “which includes vulnerable Republicans (Maine’s Susan Collins), moderates (Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski)” (who opposes the SAVE America Act), “populists (Missouri’s Josh Hawley) and North Carolina’s Thom Tillis (who’s a bit miffed at Donald Trump these days). Democrats will make this painful and could win some.”

“Are there 51 votes to revive ObamaCare subsidies?” she wonders. “To kill Trump’s tariffs? Fifty-one to raise taxes on the wealthy, or hike the minimum wage, or coddle unions, or saddle tech companies with a punitive regulatory package?” Anything and everything would be on the table in a preview of what destroying the legislative filibuster would actually look like: a simple majority to do anything on the Left’s wish list. 

The only way to move on to the underlying bill is to hold votes on every amendment. That’s like serving up Schumer’s agenda and messaging goals on a silver platter. “If Democrats got these wins, they might be willing to swallow the SAVE Act. Are Republicans willing to give that much for a bill that essentially repeats the existing federal prohibition on noncitizens voting in elections?” Ironically, even if Senate Republicans could swallow the poison pills Democrats attach, the amended bill would still have to return to the House, where Republicans hold the narrowest of margins, and Democrats have shown zero inclination to help them pass anything.

Proponents of the talking filibuster claim that all Senate Republicans would have to do to prevail would be to hang together and vote strategically against the Democrats’ radical amendments, even those that have some Republican support. But will they? As any longtime movement conservative knows, such lock-step party discipline is much more common among Democrats than Republicans, making the talking filibuster a much more potent weapon for the Left than for the Right.

“Republicans,” Strassel adds, “in theory could themselves filibuster individual amendments — potentially forever — but, again, that just delays a vote on their own underlying bill.”

This is a drama, let’s not forget, that the media will be all too eager to amplify, painting Democrats as the selfless heroes trying to stop a “Trump election takeover.” There’ll be endless coverage of Schumer’s brave fight in critical months leading up to an election that will decide if he becomes the next majority leader. Free advertising for his party that far outshines any two-minute TV spot.

There’s a reason the Senate hasn’t resorted to the talking filibuster in decades: the short-term gain is not worth the long-term pain. Practically, it’s never going to be a viable option for breaking through the procedural barriers of the GOP’s small majority, because of the extremely high price it exacts. 

The reality is, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told me on Thursday’s “Washington Watch,” GOP leaders have been doing an incredible job with very difficult margins. “I do think the Republicans, for the first time in my time in Washington, have shown boldness and strength in holding their positions. The House speaker has [kept] the Republicans together in a remarkable fashion, which we have not seen. The president is taking bold leadership. But I’m concerned that the Democrats would take full advantage of the … filibuster, [and] Republicans would not,” he cautions, either by eliminating the 60-vote threshold through the legislative filibuster or attempting to walk this dangerous landmine of a talking filibuster.

“What people need to understand,” he warned, is that “this bill could be about a lot more than just the SAVE Act.” And frankly, he continued, “I think we have to be very, very careful when we change things that have been around for a long time, because there’s usually a reason they’ve been there.”

Is the real goal to get rid of the filibuster altogether, Strassel asks, by using this untenable strategy as cover? “Because the only way the GOP uses a talking filibuster to pass a clean SAVE Act is a situation in which it also strips Democrats of opposition-party rights. And Democrats will do the exact same to Republicans when they take power,” she warns. 

And she’s right. At some point, whether that’s next year, or in three, five, or seven years, Senate Republicans will be back in the minority. And while manipulating the situation so that the majority can ram through policies with just 51 votes sounds like a great idea now, eventually, the shoe will be on the other foot. Once the precedent of overcoming the filibuster is set, undoing the SAVE America Act will become that much easier.

The real solution, Perkins argues, is not an easy one, nor is it a route to the immediate gratification so many Republicans want. But eventually, we have to change the make-up of the Senate the hard way. That means getting more Christians registered “and out voting so that we can cross that 60-vote threshold with conservative Republicans — because I think we could.”