they’re not wrong.
Why can Republicans govern with a slim majority while Democrats consistently need a supermajority?
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.
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?
So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
The house can pass a bill with a simple majority.
So can the senate. In the event of a tie, the vice president casts the tie breaking vote.
However, the senate rules are such that in order to get to a vote you need vote to close debate, which takes 60 votes.
There are exceptions to the 60 vote rule using what’s called budget reconciliation. Matters pertaining just to budgetary items can bypass the 60 vote threshold and be voted on by a simple majority. These items must be cleared with the senate parliamentarian.
Once a bill has passed both the senate and the house, the president can either sign it or just wait 10 days and do nothing, at which point that bill becomes a law. He can also veto the bills at which point it gets sent back to both the house and senate which can override his veto with a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate.
If you want to pass a bill over the objections of the president you need two thirds of both the senate and house to agree to do it. If you want to get a bill through the senate that goes beyond budget reconciliation you need 60 senate votes.
When people talk about a supermajority they may be referring to the 60 votes needed to pass unrestricted bills in the senate, which the democrats had in 2008-2010 when they got Obamacare passed. Or if they are talking about overriding a veto they may be talking about the 2/3 of the votes you’d need in the house AND senate.
I’m not interested in debating who said what about what when, it just seemed like some people were unaware of the actual rules of how the US federal government functions and hoped to clear that up. If you have any questions about how that stuff works I’m happy to address it with the best of my knowledge. But I have no interest in actually debating politics online.
So here’s some basics on how the American government works.
None of this seems to apply when a Republican is in office
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.
Probably because the Rs are more loyal overall.
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
Republicans are willing to use blatantly illegal tactics and control enough courts to make a mess, you know the whole “it’s easier to break things” part.
Democrats need a supermajority, then they need the courage to invoke 14A3 disqualification backdated to at least J6 and declare everything the admin did legally null and void. Make every Republican politician personally legally liable for everything, all the theft and destruction, as the immunity of the political positions gets fully erased.
That’s the only fast way to fix things. Anything less will mean it’s going to drag out for decades.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The democratic party accomplished all of its goals during the biden administration: they sold weapons for genocide.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 month 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 1 month 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@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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?
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Jeffries, Schumer, Pelosi, Kaine, pretty much anyone not in the squad or otherwise on the AIPAC tiddy
DarkFuture@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I like it when people focus on one thing and ignore all the actual accomplishments. Or maybe you aren’t ignoring them. Maybe you’re entirely ignorant of them.
Doc_Crankenstein@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Petty concessions do not obscure the overt imperialist oppression.
“I don’t care about the fact we support genocide so long as I get better quality of life.”
What a fucked mentality. Go find your solidarity with the oppressed.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 month ago
He doesn’t care about quality of life as long as he gets his genocide.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You like it when Palestinians die.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
“Hitler made the trains run on time though!”