General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFDR had filibuster-proof majorities in the Senate in three of his first four Congresses
A Quick Note On One Reason Why FDR Was Effective In Ways Obama Is Not(Or why we should stop with FDR/Obama posts that don't acknowledge these simple facts.)
Senate: 59 Ds, 36 Rs
House: 311 Ds, 117 Rs
74th Congress:
Senate: 70 Ds, 23 Rs.
House: 322 Ds, 103 Rs.
75th Congress:
Senate: 75 Ds, 16 Rs.
House: 334 Ds, 88 Rs.
76th Congress:
Senate: 70 Ds, 22 Rs
House: 256 Ds, 173 Rs.
These all come at the beginning of each term and carry us through January, 1941. So, for his first two terms, FDRs smallest majority in the Senate was 21 23 and his average majority was 44.
In case you missed that: his average majority was 44 (bolded just f@#$#$$ because).
Number of votes needed to invoke cloture in the Senate during FDRs first two terms: 64. So, for three out of four Congresses during FDRs first two terms, he had a filibuster-proof majority.
In the House, FDRs smallest majority was 83 and his average majority was 186.
Yes, he had to deal with a lot of conservative Southern Democrats during this period who would be Republicans now. You can, however, lose a lot of people and still win the vote when your majority is in the Holy @#$#, How Large Is Your Majority? range.
Its easier to be a great President when your party owns the legislative branch.
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/edgeofthewest/2013/04/22/a-quick-note-on-one-reason-why-fdr-was-effective-in-ways-obama-is-not/
frazzled
(18,402 posts)that would raise hackles today.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I mean, obstructionists.
WTG, 'merica.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Did Republicans twist his arm to make him to that?
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Ho hum, whatever, yo!
Tralalala.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)a practice that was challenged by an advocacy group- the League of The Physically Handicapped
yurbud
(39,405 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)They should have rammed through the fixes that we needed. We could be at full employment, had card check, had at least a public option, raised taxes to where they should be, jailed the banksters and war criminals, had a proper stimulus, infrastructure, Wall Street oversight, real financial reform, real voting reform and so on and so on. But our majorities were wasted because of the corporate sell out pieces of shit in this party and because the President wanted so badly to get along with the assholes on the other side. 2009 was no time for bipartisanship or co-operation. It was a time to fix the very serious problems and tell the regressives and neo-cons to go fuck themselves. After they did what was needed they could consider compromise. But it has to be the other way around when you're in power. You make them come to you, you don't go to them. You make them slide to the left instead of always sliding to the fucking right.
2010 would have been much different if we would have done what the People wanted done. Every time you do great things, you gain seats.
I hate the way the Republicans can always walk and vote in lockstep but we can't get together to cook dinner because of some bought off scumbag. A strong leader would have threatened the Blue Dogs with whatever was necessary to gain their votes. Twist their fucking balls until they scream. We needed a ramrod and we got a wet noodle.
I'm disgusted, all of this teabagger bullshit could have been avoided with three simple words, Medicare for All.