• UnderpantsWeevil
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    they’re not wrong.

    Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?

    • 🌞 Alexander Daychilde 🌞
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Republicans historically do not fucking govern. They give tax cuts to the oligarchs and otherwise have a concept of a plan in two weeks. They lie and lie and lie. They are the ones pushing the “gummit is borken” lie - and making sure it appears to be true.

    • Ensign_Crab
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.

      • UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        6 hours ago

        People hate when you say it, but the Democratic Party is Controlled Opposition.

        A bunch of them are just paid to lose.

        • Serinus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          “A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh… I’m sure there’s one more.

          It’s easier to stop things than to pass things. You’ll notice Republicans aren’t getting a lot done right now, exactly. At least not through Congress.

          They’re doing so many blatantly illegal things, largely with the blessing of the DoJ and the Supreme Court. But they can’t get the SAVE Act through to stop us from voting.

          It turns out every bit matters.

          • UnderpantsWeevil
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            “A bunch” is roughly three. Sinema, Fetterman, and, uh…

            If you can’t name more than two Senators… Jesus, dude. Maybe start with Henry Cuellar and Bob Menendez. Ritchie Torres. Elissa Slotkin. Eric Swalwell. Josh Gottheimer. Do I really need to make you the full list?

            • AWistfulNihilist
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Whenever there is a democratic majority, just enough Democrats will turn to make any actual change impossible, like a public option with Obama. Or when the blue dog Democrats fucked healthcare reform under Clinton. It’s happened every time and will continue to happen because the ratchet effect is a feature that always ends in facism and oligarchy, which is where you make your real money.

              • Serinus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                The ratchet effect is real, but it’s because when the Dems have a majority they’re relying on West Virginia. Republicans kiss the ring or they’re kicked from politics, just look at Ted Cruz.

                • AWistfulNihilist
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  12 minutes ago

                  Yeah it’s always something, and it’s always gonna be something. And that thing is oligarchy.

    • BeefGyro@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Because they also have the office of the president.

      Currently anyway.

      If one party controls both houses of congress and the president and has a sympathetic Supreme Court majority they can do a lot more than if they only have one or 2 of those things.

      • UnderpantsWeevil
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        Because they also have the office of the president.

        “We need a supermajority” was a response Democrats gave in 2009 and 2021.

        If one party controls both houses of congress and the president

        Did Republicans pass legislation they supported between 2011 and 2017 5? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?

    • Optional
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Executive Summary

      The evidence shows multiple plausible answers depending on how one defines “dominate.” Recent sources most commonly point to the Democrats’ control of both chambers during the 117th Congress (January 3, 2021–January 3, 2023) as the last time they held unified congressional control, while earlier notable periods include the 111th Congress (2009–2011) and historically larger majorities like the 89th Congress after 1964. The statement therefore requires clarification of terms—“dominate” can mean simple majority, large supermajority, or sustained multi-decade control—to be answered precisely

      https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-congress-1833b0

      Contemporary records and syntheses within the provided analyses indicate the 117th Congress (Jan 3, 2021–Jan 3, 2023) as the latest period when Democrats held both chambers, with a House majority and a Senate majority realized through a 50–50 split and the Vice President’s tiebreaking vote. This configuration coincided with the Biden administration and enabled the Democratic leadership to pass key legislation during early 2021, illustrating functional control despite narrow margins. Reliable repositories of congressional composition and institutional histories corroborate this timing as the most recent instance of unified party control in Congress cited across multiple analyses, making the 117th the default answer when “dominate” is used to mean holding both chambers —————————————————-

      That was after the republicans facilitated a global pandemic. The time before that was after the republicans destroyed the global economy. The time before that was before most of you were born: —————————————————————

      3. Earlier high-water marks: 111th Congress and the 1964 landslide

      If “dominate” implies a more comfortable majority or a legislative supermajority enabling broad agenda-setting, earlier periods fit better. The 111th Congress (2009–2011) provided Democrats with substantial House and Senate margins that facilitated major policy initiatives during the Obama administration, and analyses explicitly call this a recent example of decisive Democratic control [4]. Going further back, the 89th Congress following the 1964 electiondelivered the largest Democratic majorities since the New Deal era, enabling the passage of transformative legislation associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s agenda. Historical accounts position the 1964–1965 period as a classic instance of one-party dominance in Congress, distinct from the narrow 2021–2023 control