No, but it means you have to work with the opposition to find a at least somewhat of a compromise position. For decades, that was the norm in the US on most legislation. At the beginning of the 111th Congress, Democrats made it clear their #1 priority was universal healthcare. There were several plans put forward, and the only one that looked like it could pass the 60 votes required was the ACA. Universal single payer was put forward and it wasn’t going to get the votes. The Republicans reneged on the deal and the ACA only squeaked through 60-39 along party lines. McConnell said at the time:
It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.
As it was, it took removal of the public option to even get f*%&$&0! Joe Lieberman to sign on as the 60th vote. The window of opportunity was narrow, as it ended up. The only way to even get the ACA passed was in the half year between the swearing in of Al Franken and the election of Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy.
Look, I REALLY wish they’d been able to get single-payer passed in 2009, or at least a Federal public option. But that ignores the reality at the time and laws and rules on cloture in the Senate.
Other than breaking with traditional rules on nominees (especially w.r.t. SCOTUS nominees), they do, because the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires 60 votes to pass appropriations bills.
