My count is 59…I’m guessing you guys don’t consider Lieberman a Dem , even though he generally caucuses with them…
(isn’t there another ‘Independent’ that also caucuses with the Dem’s usually as well?)
-XT
But, since they don’t control the presidency or either house, they have very few resources to throw.
Oops - you are correct (actually 58 + Lieberman). Still not very razor thin.
Regards,
Shodan
Bernie Sanders.
This quite simply false.
But the point of my argument is that, operationally speaking, it is thin despite the fact that it looks like a commanding lead on paper. This would be equally true if the republicans were in the majority and the situation were reversed.
Lieberman is a perfect example. God only knows what the democrats have to throw at him to keep him from defecting at a critical time. Whatever resources are required to pay him off cannot be used to keep, say, ten junior representatives in line.
God would extend the majority that the dems hold.
Even though you’re right and Shodan, per usual, is wrong, that served you right. Even without the misspelling, that was embarrassing to read. He’s wrong on the merits; there’s no need to drag spelling into it.
Or anywhere else, for that matter.
And their resources are . . .? They certainly can’t offer Nelson Medicaid money for Nebraska for voting against health care.
Reminder:
Please don’t change peoples words inside the quote tags. No warning issued.
Gfactor
Pit Moderator
Maybe this is better suited for a separate thread, but was there ever really such a time? I can certainly remember pre-Gingrich era and honestly I don’t remember a time when the cycle of majority set agenda, minority attack it didn’t hold true. Certainly there were isolated legislative exceptions but when wasn’t that the pattern?
It’s complicated. Legislative politics is not really my field, so despite my temptation to wave my hands, I will defer to some of the experts. The issue here is less around cash out of pocket than what bargaining power the minority can exercise and, as such, what power it can credibly commit to trade away in exchange for some result. For example, Krehbiel and Meirowitz derive the following result:
The article is fairly interesting. It tackles the more specific problem of the motion to recommit though its findings are somewhat more broadly applicable. I can suggest a few good books (one especially by Krehbiel) if you are interested.
How does it say anything about the Dems’ agenda that vote #60 is absolutely required just to move anything forward? Is the opposition’s dedication to obstruction somehow proportional to the quality of the party in power’s agenda
And it’s not just the Democrats’ agenda, the Republicans are requiring cloture votes on bills that they vote for themselves, just to make it impossible for the Senate to do anything. Just because the Democrats can pass everything without a Republican vote doesn’t mean that the Republicans have no power. Just requiring all 60 Democrats to be in the chamber to invoke cloture on non-controversial bills is already a pain in the neck for them. And there’s still a day between when a petition for cloture is made and when it can be voted on, and thirty hours of debate allowed after the motion passes.
Personally, if it was me running the Democrats’ strategy, I’d have created rumors of Byrd being in ill health in the runup to the vote to raise the debt ceiling. Then pretty much dared the Republicans to actually stick together to filibuster it as the prospect of the US defaulting on its debt loomed. Invite people to watch C-Span as the cloture vote was taken with only 59 Dems in the chamber. But my willingness to play chicken with the nation’s economy is one of many reasons I’d make a shitty Senator.
The Constitution doesn’t provide for a Senate that requires a supermajority to pass legislation, and for most of history it’s functioned without such a requirement. In recent years, 60 votes has become necessary in more and more circumstances. The Democrats were pretty bad during several of the Bush years, reaching 60 cloture votes in a session, but the Republicans almost doubled that in the 2007-2008 session with 112. I can’t find a figure for the current session, but I think it’s pointing to a similar total.
The repubs were threatening with the nuclear option during Bush. They would vote to kill filibuster or change it to a lower number. Some dems joined a coalition of dems and repubs to preserve it by what turned out to be mostly capitulation. Foe some reason the dems are not threatening to destroy the filibuster. They are living with it. The results are a greatly watered down health bill with no public option.
Many have a grudging respect for a party that is willing to go all the way for its beliefs, regardless of how wrong they may be.
Obama should have mad a series of speeches demanding the dems have a public option in health care. He should have made it clear what he wanted from them. Instead he sat on the sidelines and let the bill get watered down .
Oh, the irony: it doesn’t just burn, it incinerates.
Well, it certainly seems to allow the opposition to use the filibuster on routine, non-controversial issues with little political consequence. I mean, sure the Democrats can get their agenda passed, they won an overwhelming majority. They’re supposed to be able to get their agenda passed. But the number of procedural roadblocks the Republicans have thrown up is unprecedented. And I seriously question their commitment to the responsible governance of the country.
If the Republicans actually could succeed at filibustering defense spending or raising the debt ceiling they wouldn’t do it. As it is, the Democrats can scramble and make sure they’ve got the votes available before the troops miss a paycheck or the US defaults on loans. The Republicans tried shutting down the government once, back in the Clinton years, and it backfired on them. And if it’s a 59-41 vote along party lines to let the military run out of money for the week, it doesn’t take much to figure out where to place the blame.
The Democrats don’t control the Supreme Court. If anything, the current court is more conservative than the one that decided Bush v. Gore (Rehnquist replaced by Roberts is a wash, O’Connor replaced by Alito is a move from center-right to far-right, Souter replaced by Sotomayor is a move from center-left to a little further left of center)
Agreed. But if he doesn’t clean up well then THAT’s hus fault
I disagree with it, but it’s funny.
Come on, figure of speech here dude.
He still is Numero Uno guy.
When the minority threatens to filibuster everything, yes. Hell, look at the healthcare bill - everything the Democrats wanted was taken out of it and the Republicans still opposed it.
Imhofe’s quote about how he opposed the bill even though he hadn’t actually read it and didn’t have any idea what was in it pretty much sums up current Republican strategy.
Caucuses with, but votes against. You seem not to know that even Lieberman doesn’t consider himself a Democrat.
[/QUOTE]
First off, I’ve been corrected (very properly) - it is 60-40, not 70-30. Second, that is the point - 60 is enough to shut off the filibuster.
The Senate has 58 Democrats and two independents, one of whom is Lieberman and the other a socialist. Both Lieberman and Sanders caucus with the Dems.
This is what I mean - control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and even enough of a majority to cut off a filibuster. And they still can’t enact their agenda.
So? What do they want to do that’s un-Constitutional that the Court is going to stop?
Regards,
Shodan