Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Winning

Obama did not "own" the Senate for two years. It was actually just a few months, because of Republicans delay in seating Franken, and then Kennedy dying. Just long enough to get that herd of cats to pass a severely compromised ACA.


When Obama had "Total Control" of Congress

That "Two Years" is a Republican meme used to negate Democrats desire for positive changes: IE. "If Democrats really wanted X, then Obama could have passed that when he had control of congress for two years.

In the senate the democrats did have their 60-40 advantage from 7 Jul 2009-25 Aug 2009 and then a 59-39 advantage through 9 Sep 2009, then back to a 60-40 advantage 25 Sep 2009-4 Feb 2010 then a 59-41 advantage until Nov 2010. If I read that graph right.

In the house the Democrats held a 256-178 advantage with each party gaining and losing a seat now and then throughout that 2 year period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

Anyway you look at it, the democrats controlled both the house and the senate for Obama's first two years. Although not two years of filibuster proof senate, regardless they still controlled the senate and the house along with the presidency.

Now what does total control mean? The Democrats had total control of government for the entire two year period, the presidency, the senate, the house. Does total control mean filibuster proof senate also? Do the Democrats have total control of the government today? They have the presidency, the house and the senate. Granted the house is 222-213 and the Senate a 50-50 tie with VP Harris the tie breaker.

Regardless, even today the Democrats control the agenda and make up the rules for each chamber to operate under.

Yeah, I remember republicans saying that, asking why didn't Obama and company pass this or that when they controlled both chambers of congress and the presidency. Immigration reform was a big one. I think the reason why is the democrats put health care as their number one priority and not immigration reform. Which in my opinion the Democrats decided to tackle the toughest to get passed first, healthcare while all other things waited.

Election wise, that was a huge mistake. Although the ACA is fairly popular today, it wasn't through Obama's entire presidency.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

It took Trump to make the ACA popular.

I remember when he was trying to pass Obamacare. The big, and very long, fight wasn't with the Republicans, it was with the Democrats! By the time that got done there wasn't a whole lot of time left to do anything else. Its really pretty strange. This time its happening again! They could get the house and the senate for 4 straight years and have to fight their own party to get anything passed. Right now they have two bills to pass. One that everybody wants and the other is, literally, thousands of pages of Democratic wet dreams. The first can actually passed but a contingent of the Dems are going to fight it tooth and nail until they get their heart's desires and I doubt that's gonna happen but, then, who really cares?

If the Dems actually cared the small one could pass so they are fighting the passage playing "my way or the highway".

I remember watching some of the fight over Obamacare. Watching the votes on C-Span. But that's about all. The ACA didn't affect me, so I paid little attention to it. What I did pay attention to, for my forecasts was the polls of those in favor and those oppose. When it passed, I knew the GOP was in for a red wave. I just didn't realize how big a red wave that was to be. 63 house seats lost, 8 senate seats lost. Like I said before, don't make independents angry at you if you want to win elections and in this case, retain huge majorities in both the House and the Senate.

As for the infrastructure bill and the 3.5 trillion budget. Americans want the infrastructure passed. The 3.5 trillion budget, not so much.

72% are in favor of the infrastructure bill, 28% oppose
3.5 trillion budget, 49% in favor, 51% oppose

my opinion, failure to pass the infrastructure bill would hurt the Democrats big time among independents. That bill is how most independents think congress should work, bipartisan, compromise, coming to a mutual agreement. The 3.5 trillion budget is no big thing to them. Passing it or not is kind of irrelevant, the budget bill is the kind of bill that comes from a congress that won't work together, won't compromise. So what happens to that, passed or not, it won't hurt or help the democrats either way as far as independents are concerned. Just my take.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...pport-for-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill

When the Senate minority leader says "We are going to block everything Obama tries to do.", then "Total Control of the Senate" means having a filibuster-proof majority. "Control of the Senate" is what Democrats have now: A 50:50 split with the VP breaking the ties. Huge difference.

lf the dems don't pass the infrastructure it will probably cost them next year's election. They are, of course, working on muti-fronts just to make sure they won't win. They will sacrifice the infrastructure bill for their wet dream 2+ trillion dollar plan. When its all set and done, nothing will get passed and the dems have made some kind of point. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

Its really amazing! The Republicans seem to be working very hard to anger everybody but the Dems just seem to do it better and I just don't get it.

I would say looking at the numbers, failure to pass the infrastructure bill would hurt the democrats in the midterms, especially among independents. Due to many reasons I've already stated. Failure to pass the 3.5 trillion budget, that wouldn't hurt the dems at all. Election wise that is.

Now if we have a government shutdown due to a budget not being passed or a continuing resolution, I may have to backtrack on the statement above.

Its all just part of the deal and they REALLY gotta start paying attention and doing their damned jobs instead of public wishful thinking that tend to make many uncomfortable.

Yeah, we don't want to make anybody uncomfortable.

We don't want any wishful thinking either.

Best to keep quiet and do nothing as the founders intended.

Well, only if you want to win which you have already said you don't .............