they’re not wrong.
Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?
BluescreenOfDeath@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
I’ll be the first one to say that the current Democratic party needs replacing, but they’re not wrong.
Or did everyone forget that you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
Is anyone truly naive enough to think that Donald Trump would sign anything the Democrats put forward? The man who told Republicans to tank legislation with things they wanted in it to avoid giving Democrats a win?
Unless you’re advocating for a revolution, you have to work within the system. And it’s not the Democrats fault that is easier to break a thing than to fix it.
It’s always easy to point out a problem. Solutions are what we need, and all this kind of post does is discourage left-leaning people from voting, which is what the Republicans want.
So unless you have something resembling an actual solution, this just seems like virtue signaling to me.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 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@lemmy.world 10 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.
BeefGyro@lemmy.zip 14 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@lemmy.world 14 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? Did they pass legislation they supported between 2023 and 2025?
daychilde@lemmy.world 11 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.
RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Probably because the Rs are more loyal overall.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 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
factually.co/…/when-did-democrats-last-dominate-c…
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
SwingingTheLamp@piefed.zip 12 hours ago
I will say that there’s immense value in symbolism, performative values, and simply being caught trying by voters. Yes the President will veto anything good, but fucking make him do it. Go on social media and the talk shows to rip him a new one for all of the good things that he’s actively preventing. Move the Overton Window. Change the terms of the public discourse.
Governing long ago moved beyond mere parliamentary procedure; it also needs to be a show that the people in the cheap seats (a.k.a. low-information voters) can watch.
AppleTea@lemmy.zip 10 hours ago
Careful, that almost sounds like something a competent opposition party would do.
Rentlar@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
The thing is that you are looking too short-sightedly for the internal (non-revolution-like) reform path. The goal for change is 2028, but change in 2028 can’t get off the groind running, if a 2026 sweep doesn’t.
What Congress can do is to compel Trump administration officials to get their asses into the chamber. They can put articles and lawsuits with appropriate standing to:
- Halt ballroom construction.
- Halt reckless and unnecessary tariffs.
- Halt the endless war spending on the unauthorized military adventure Iran.
- Halt funding for Israel.
- Abolish/stymie/revoke funding from ICE.
- Have the DoJ release the Epstein files.
Congress under leadership of feckless Republicans and sometimes Democrats haven’t asserted the power of the purse. For budgetary matters, votes can be held removing the cloture rule. And if Trump refuses to sign a bill voted on D-party lines to fund the government while implementing changes, the government will shut down once again and the bill will await him on the desk until he signs it. He will try to shift blame, but the government has shutdown led by Republicans or Democrats, the common thread is his incompetent ass in charge.
inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
I don’t think that OP is expecting Democrats or Progressives to get things through the Trump administration without a supermajority that can override his veto. What we are hoping for/expecting is that Democrats and Progressives to say “Fuck you, we’re passing this bill and sending it on.”
Medicare for All? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto it motherfucker!”. Taxing rich people? “Fuck you we’re passing this bill, veto this PDF”. Repealing the Medicare cuts? “Hey, asshole, we passed it, oh and go fuck yourselves”. Repeal the procedural filibuster? “Fuck it, we’ll do it live!”. Impeachment? “Hey, it’s Tuesday, this asshole just did something unbecoming of the office, guess it’s time to have another impeachment hearing, oh and fuck you, that’s why.”
Just try instead of rolling over on day one, what we’re asking for even if you know it’s destined to fail and show that you’re willing to do the work. Back your shit up with actions instead of just words of “Well it’ll never pass so we’ll never try”. Say what you will about Republicans, when they get in power, they do not give a fuck and will introduce every bad idea in their head and dare the President to veto it and that’s why their base votes for them consistently.
That’s what OP I think is asking people to remember.
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
You’re expecting a lot from people who’d rather stay home and claim some moral high ground while the world burns around them.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 hours ago
You’re just judging people based on your imagined stereotypes.
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
No, I’m judging people from their own actions I’ve observed myself. It’s the same ones who wouldn’t vote for Harris because of Gaza because getting Trump elected again has worked out so well for them. It’s the people who, when starving to death and presented with a bowl of dried dog shit or some overboiled broccoli, will choose to starve because the broccoli is too soft.
isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 hours ago
A little reading comprehension would indicate that the current discussion is clearly talking about cases where Democrats also control the presidency. Your whole comment is a non sequitur.
daychilde@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
you need a supermajority in the Senate to get past the Presidential veto?
And the threat of filibuster, it’s a double-whammy
granch_bibblyfibble@piefed.social 11 hours ago
They can make the filibuster be an actual Mr-Smith-Goes-To-Washington event again and fucking FORCE those fucking assholes to stand up there and talk for 24 hours straight. The change in filibuster behavior, which Republicans enacted, to just table anything that the other side said would be filibustered, should end. And spineless Democrats should do it and take credit for doing it, and looking like they give a damn again.
daychilde@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I’m Alexander Daychilde, and I support this ↑ message.
Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
They never, ever need a super majority. EVER.
That rule can be changed at any time by majority vote. That rule is a parliamentary rule and is not law.
Don’t be duped. Please look at what they call “the nuclear option.”
There are over 180 exceptions to the super majority so far (last time I checked, a year or two ago).
(fun fact: the “nuclear option” was called that be Trent Lott, a Republican, in the 2000s. Both parties immediately adopted the term because it scares the shit out of voters. What was it called before that? “the nuclear option”.
Don’t be a sucker. If they want to pass something, viola! It’s an exception (like our budgets). If they don’t want to pass something, but they want the voters to think they do, “oh no, super majority, super sorry we tried”)
BillyClark@piefed.social 14 hours ago
You are thinking of filibuster, which I agree is just like you’re saying.
However, they were talking about overriding the presidential veto, which is specifically defined in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution as needing a 2/3 majority in both houses. Not a simple majority. You also cannot adopt a rule that supersedes the Constitution.
Here’s the specific paragraph that I copied from Wikipedia
zbyte64@awful.systems 13 hours ago
I remember how the current congress led us to a government shutdown only to fold like lawn chairs in return for a pinky promise that was later broken. There are options that don’t require overriding the president because congress has the power of the purse and the power to investigate.