It's times like this when you really expose yourself. Obama never had a supermajority in the senate, it just didn't exist. Between Franken's seat being contested, Kennedy dying and Byrd being hospitalised, he never got over 59.
Anyone who was around back then knows and remembers that (it was a massive, discourse dominating story for over a year), anyone who just parrots GOP talking points he picked up off youtube will repeat the lie he had one.
I don't expose myself over anything.
I'm quoting Krystal Ball on the 'supermajority'. As a political pundit who does that research for a living, I'll take what she says as fact. What she's saying is this could have been dealt with, into law, years ago.
Just like Sanders has also said, of late.
Maybe they BOTH don't know what they're talking about being political animals and all...
Lots of “intimation” but so little factual evidence. Post facto circumstantial punditry should be the red flag that helps you understand your position.
Or, do I need a failed political wannabee TV/Podcast host YouTube video to “strengthen” my personal opinion???
I’m tired of explaining that a 60 vote “supermajority” is great, IF you have all your legislation literally waiting to be voted on, approved by the House, with no markups, and Congress is in session.
Do I have to go into all the ways the party out of power can slow things down?
You act like it’s all just a matter of bringing some boilerplate bill to the Senate floor for a vote, et voila!?!
I don’t have the time, or inclination, to argue BS minutae about things that never happened and were probably never going to happen.
You enjoy your contemplation…
A fleeting, illusory supermajority
Their majority was smaller than some remember.
Sept. 3, 2012, 3:42 PM EDT
By Steve Benen
It's in Republicans' interest right now to characterize the Democrats' congressional majority in 2009 and 2010 as enormous. As the argument goes, President Obama could get literally anything he wanted from Congress in his first two years, so Democrats don't have any excuses.
The stimulus wasn't big enough? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There's no comprehensive immigration reform? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. There was only one big jobs bill? Blame Dems; they had supermajorities in both chambers for two years. And so on.
The right continued to push the line over the weekend.
I realize memories can be short in the political world, and 2010 seems like a long time ago, but it's unnerving when professionals who presumably keep up with current events are this wrong. Even if various pundits lost track of the specific details, I'd at least expect Fox News hosts to remember Sen. Scott Brown's (R) special-election win in Massachusetts.
Since memories are short, let's take a brief stroll down memory lane, giving Wallace a hand with the recent history he's forgotten.
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama's presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still "only" 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy's vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd's health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems' "filibuster proof majority in the Senate" lasted 24 months. In reality, he's off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
####
So, let me help you out…
There were 44 days where Congress was in session and Dems SUPPOSEDLY had this 60/40 vote count.
The above timeline helps explain why the RIGHT WING BULLSHIT BRIGADE OF LUARS AND HYPOCRITES is full of it, yet again.
Now, I’m done.
She's lying or stupid.
It's really that simple.
I don't really care which. It is a simple fact that Obama had a supermajority for less than 24 non-concurrent days and couldn't have passed this if he wanted to.
So I don't care who you queue up to say otherwise, the facts aren't going to change.
Not according to your mate, Chicago.
Cheers.
Chicago didn't mention Byrd being in hospital, so he's got 44 days, but it was in fact 24.
Extreme Idiocy!!So... Krystal Ball DIDN'T lie. The Dems had a supermajority.
You, yourself, point this out to be a factual event.
It's not down to me to explain anything else regarding laws, voting or whatever.
Cheers.
Extreme Idiocy!!
It’s like having a Lambo…with no gas or ability to drive it!
I explained this ad infinitum, but you chose to run with Krystal.
What I love/loathe are the people who blame the Dems for not doing more when the GoP are doing all they can to hurt women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, the less well off and those with health issues.It's times like this when you really expose yourself. Obama never had a supermajority in the senate, it just didn't exist. Between Franken's seat being contested, Kennedy dying and Byrd being hospitalised, he never got over 59.
Anyone who was around back then knows and remembers that (it was a massive, discourse dominating story for over a year), anyone who just parrots GOP talking points he picked up off youtube will repeat the lie he had one.
….in the ass!What I love/loathe are the people who blame the Dems for not doing more when the GoP are doing all they can to hurt women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, the less well off and those with health issues.
Every single time they blame the wrong party. It’s like blaming the girl in the skirt for not dressing more modestly as opposed to the bloke going around raping them.
Surely not. Surely the former gang banging drug pusher is better versed and has a far better grasp of life and the realities of politics than half a dozen successful professionals who are always diametrically opposed to his views and vice versa.You know he doesn't believe any of this shit, he's just a bad troll.
If the GOP came out tomorrow and banned grapefruit he'd write long posts about why grapefruits are evil and the democrats would have enshrined the right to eat a grapefruit in law if they were a real political party.
He's not always on the wrong side of everything by coincidence, it's because he seeks out positions to argue with you and @SWP's back and @FogBlueInSanFran
Done.Surely not. Surely the former gang banging drug pusher is better versed and has a far better grasp of life and the realities of politics than half a dozen successful professionals who are always diametrically opposed to his views and vice versa.
Seeing as I only ever see his posts when a) someone quotes him and b) I’m particularly bored and want to amuse myself, his trolling would be much less effective if people simply stopped interacting with him. There’s not a chance he’s debating in good faith as you say.
Not a great effort.When l see what happens in the nut job USA with their left wing fascists and their hopeless and helpless government, l look out of the window and feel happy to look on this green and sceptered Isle.
Whoever called them the leaders of the free world? I would not have them on Handforth Parish Council. In fact Jackie Weaver would make a better president than poor old Joe who should be in a Florida rest home.
You sound SO well informed. I should listen to you more often!When l see what happens in the nut job USA with their left wing fascists and their hopeless and helpless government, l look out of the window and feel happy to look on this green and sceptered Isle.
Whoever called them the leaders of the free world? I would not have them on Handforth Parish Council. In fact Jackie Weaver would make a better president than poor old Joe who should be in a Florida rest home.
Apropos of nothing I think I’ll post some shiteWhen l see what happens in the nut job USA with their left wing fascists and their hopeless and helpless government, l look out of the window and feel happy to look on this green and sceptered Isle.
Whoever called them the leaders of the free world? I would not have them on Handforth Parish Council. In fact Jackie Weaver would make a better president than poor old Joe who should be in a Florida rest home.