• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    when Obama was elected. democrats had the presidency, the house and senate, with a supermajority. guess what they did with it: dick.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        yeah really, idk whay that is but a table only gives you a snapshot. 111th congress I believe had at one time majorities in both houses, and a 60-40, including the democratic caucusing independents.

        • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          But when the 111th congress voted on Public Option Healthcare it came up 1 vote short because the Caucusing Independent Joe Liebermen voted Nay alongside every republican.

          They effectively didn’t have 60, despite the caucus.

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            yeah that’s exactly my point, hence my original comment about general election majority not meaning anything without voting for actual progressives if not leftists in primaries

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                it doesn’t, i repeated the same thing. you can’t vote harder in general elections to make change without voting local and in primaries for actual progressives first. let’s see if someone gets confused again so I can rephrase the same thing a fourth time

            • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Every DNC voted Yay for actual progressive policy.

              I’m saying we need to put 60 of them in the Senate, and you made some stupid point about how 58 of them is basically 60.

              • pyre@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                that’s distinction without difference. Bernie is independent, Sinema and Manchin were democrats. getting democratic seats no matter who it is won’t change anything.

                  • pyre@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 days ago

                    it wasn’t because he’s independent. it’s because he’s joe fucking lieberman, obama’s best bud… again, Sinema and Manchin were democrats. they still fucked over progressives.