That doesn't matter in the context of the post. A veto makes it 67 percent.
Which is why we need a staunch 2nd-A nominee.
Oh, it matters a great deal, as I will show you.
A veto makes it 67 percent.
Okay, now suppose, just suppose, that to pass a law with a friendly President required 80 votes, and to pass a law over a President's veto required 81. Would it still be so critically important that we get a President who'd wield that veto pen? Would you consider the thread that there would be exactly 80 (not 79, not 81) anti-gun Senators to be sufficiently dire to justify overlooking all other considerations?
I sure as hell hope not. I sure as hell hope that you'd consider a candidate's likelihood of winning, his merits relative to his opponent, his managerial ability, and so forth.
There's a certain risk that between 51 and 67 Senators will want an anti-gun bill. There's a certain risk that between 60 and 67 Senators will want an anti-gun bill. The latter risk is lower than the former. There's less chance of it happening. Which means the risk that President Guiliani will sign an anti-gun bill is lower, with a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster. That's why your false statement that a Guiliani presidency would mean a 51-vote majority would enact anti-gun legislation was both relevant and false.