He'll never do it. Because today he can hide behind the democrats blocking things ("well we need 60 votes and we only have 52 so what can we do?") but the dirty secret is that if they had a simple majority rule it would become obvious that the "GOP" actually won't do the things they promised even when there is absolutely no impediment.
>>...if they had a simple majority rule it would become obvious that the “GOP” actually won’t do the things they promised even when there is absolutely no impediment.<<
I don’t agree. Not only would more bills be passed, but they’d be better bills because they wouldn’t have to deal with the reconciliation procedure. The healthcare bill, for example, could have been much better written by the House if they didn’t have to try to fit it in under reconciliation in the Senate.
Besides, if majority ruled instead of that ridiculous 60-vote supermajority, we’d have a much better chance of coaxing just one or two Democrat Senators to cross the aisle and support key pieces of legislation, even if they had to be bought off in some way. Right now, so many have to cross to beat the filibuster that it just isn’t going to happen (unless it’s a terrible bill from a conservative perspective, that is.)
McCain’s lost vote, for example, might be replaced by Manchin’s or another middle of the road Democrat. Ditto for Collins and Murkowski. We could lose all three of them and still pass legislation if just one Democrat could be convinced to cross over. Put another way, dropping the filibuster would generate a push toward more bipartisanship, not less, as is often claimed.