hoodlem@hoodlem.me 9 months ago
Yeah, it happens pretty frequently actually. Right now it is Executive + Senate vs House.
It means deadlock but not total deadlock. Just more compromise.
Now if it is Executive + House vs Senate, that has some new conflicts. The Senate confirms judicial appointments, so often in this situation the president’s nominees have a very hard time getting confirmed.
mipadaitu@lemmy.world 9 months ago
It can be more complicated than that depending on exactly what the breakdown is for senate and the house.
Historically, if a senator is from a swing state, they’ll need to compromise a little more than one from a more uniformly political state. So if it’s a very close senate split, there wouldn’t be so much deadlock.
If the Senate had 60+ from the opposing party though, then basically they can stop everything. They would have a supermajority and wouldn’t need to worry about filibustering, and moderate senators could still vote against the party line safely for questionable votes.
Then there are situations where upcoming elections can change voting strategy.
Really, the question is extremely point in time and can’t be answered on a general sense. Just compare the end of Obama’s term to the end of Clinton or Trump to see how different splits and political climate can have wildly different outcomes.