The legislative filibuster must stay

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The Senate is about compromise. The filibuster encourages bipartisanship and sets the Senate apart from the House. It ensures protection of the minority so that change isn't too radical, promoting stability in government. There are many things Democrats can do without removing the filibuster, such as reconciliation and judicial confirmations. If the filibuster is removed, Democrats are at the mercy of Republicans when the balance of power changes hands. Since it is likely Democrats will constitute the minority of the Senate for much of the future, it would be unwise for them to erode their power.

Why is it the Democrats' problem that the Republicans be able to implement their agenda? It should be as hard as possible for them, which the filibuster helps. And what policy would make Democrats so popular that it is worth removing the filibuster? The main thing people want right now is stimulus, which can be done by reconciliation. The only thing I can think of is a minimum wage increase, which states can do anyway.

It would also cost Democrats a lot of political capital to remove the filibuster since it would be seen as a power grab. Conversely, if Republicans are seen as obstructionists, that could tarnish their image.

The thing is that, policy-wise, Democrats have much more to gain from the abolition of the filibuster than Republicans do. Why do you think Mitch McConnell didn't abolish the filibuster when he was in the majority and is now fighting tooth and nail to preserve while in the minority? There are two main reason for this:

First, today's GOP has little agenda beyond confirming conservative justices (which they can already do with a simple majority since the filibuster was abolished on judicial nominations) and passing tax cuts (which they can do through reconciliation), so the filibuster isn't really problem for them.

Second, several items of the Democratic agenda would be very hard to roll back by a future Republican Congress. Take a hypothetical Democrat-established universal healthcare system, for example. Attempting to dismantle it would be the Obamacare repeal and replace debacle on steroids, a massive backlash would ensue. Rather, the GOP might be forced to do what the British Conservative Party did in the 1950s, which was accepting the welfare state created by Clement Attlee's Labour government (in spite of previously claiming that it would take "some sort of Gestapo" to function).

About the electoral consequences Democrats would face if they removed the filibuster, I have to say I disagree with you. Most people don't care or don't even know about the filibuster, so its abolition would take little political capital. Also, all evidence suggests Republicans do not get punished for being obstructionists, as was seen in 2010 and 2014.

It's not like Democrats have 55 seats and the filibuster is the only thing standing in Democrats' way of passing policy. They would have to have their entire caucus united to pass anything, which is never a guarantee. I do think Democrats would face consequences if Republicans hammer that Democrats are refusing to work with the other side. If Democrats lose their slim majority in 2022, they won't be able to do anything. I would not say that Republicans are immune to political consequences. There is a reason McConnell's favorability ratings are so low. In fact, obstructing additional stimulus is the only reason Democrats have the Senate in the first place.

They might lose a lot of seats. But (if I was a progressive) I'd be fine just sitting there for 2-6 years with nothing being done if priorities I like were already implemented.