Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg’s plan to spend $20 million to primary older Democratic incumbents in Congress has sparked intense anger from some lawmakers.

  • eldavi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    you owe it yourself to read up on american political history and; if you did; you would learn that every time they’ve had control of all 3 branches of government; they’ve squandered it by letting a one or 2 democrats derail all of their plans, meanwhile republicans steamroll over their own dissenters every time they’re in control.

    you’d start to see that this pattern keeps happening again and again.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      What times are these?

      As I said, they have only had control for 4 months in my lifetime. Before that you need to go back to 1961-1969 with Kennedy and Johnson. I would actually need to do more research to find out whether they had a Supermajority or not, but it’s not even worth looking up because going that far back in time shifts the politics of the parties significantly and is not very relevant to today. The Democratic Party still has plenty of Southern Conservatives all the way into the Carter years.

      So I would love to know what pattern you are seeing.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        democrats had full control from 1993–1995, 2009–2011, 2021–2023 and majority control from 2011-2015 & 2023-2024. in other words: 12 years of complete or majority control out of the last 33 years.

        every single time their agenda was thwarted by one or two lone dissenters within their caucuses; where republicans completely steamrolled over their own dissenters.

      • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        I think they’re including technical majorities that failed to effect meaningful change because of DINO shitbags like Manchin and Sinema.

        • paultimate14@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Even without those DINOs they still didn’t have a Supermajority. Honestly I think most people just don’t understand the difference between a majority and Supermajority and mistakenly believe 50 is enough in the Senate.