Obama has Supermajority through first term

[GeographyDude]

if they don't like it then 2 years later they can go vote against it at the ballot box

Do you agree that there's a cost in that we can have abrupt swings back and forth? like some parliamentary systems do have.

I personally think the cost is well worth it. For example, we haven't really addressed the slow erosion of middle-class jobs since the 1975 Recession, maybe early. Not enough different things have taken the place of the large number of good-paying manufacturing jobs which have been lost.

And even if only some of the predictions of the coming automation crisis come true, such as self-driving trucks, it's going to get worse. So, yes, I very much concur, we have to be able to move relatively quickly with 51%, mistakes and all.

 

[Roger II]

Even without the filibuster it'd be hard to actually get a clean slate to pass legislation-you'd need unified control of the house, senate, and white house and I'm not sure how common that actually is. Plus a trifecta often conceals actual difficulties in passing legislation if the governing party is internally divided(See: all healthcare legislation this congress and Obamacare).

 

[RousseauX]

Do you agree that there's a cost in that we can have abrupt swings back and forth? like some parliamentary systems do have.

I personally think the cost is well worth it. For example, we haven't really addressed the slow erosion of middle-class jobs since the 1975 Recession, maybe early. Not enough different things have taken the place of the large number of good-paying manufacturing jobs which have been lost.

And even if only some of the predictions of the coming automation crisis come true, such as self-driving trucks, it's going to get worse. So, yes, I very much concur, we have to be able to move relatively quickly with 51%, mistakes and all.

Sure, but unlike in a westminister system you have three additional checks off the top of my head on sudden swings:

-a president elected independently of congress who can veto bills
-a independent judiciary which can strike down laws as unconstitutional
-the staggered nature of senate elections meaning only 1/3 of the senate is up at at a time

and you can also argue unlike some parliamentary systems the US has a really strong federal system in which states have a lot of control over their own domestic policy which makes it difficult for whatever majority in the federal government to implementing legislation they pass without cooperation of the states

basically i think sudden swings in the US system is pretty rare

 

[Wallet]

This thread has not yet addressed the OP's question

What would be the impact if the Democrats had 60 senate seats from July 7, 2009 (Franken takes seat) to January 20th, 2012?

That would mean the Democrats did not lose any senate seats in 2010. This is unlikely since the ruling party usually loses seats. In 2010, you had backlash against Obamacare and that Democratic voters don't vote in midterms.

Here is the PODs. Harold Ford wins in 2006 in Tennessee. Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky in 2008. And Franken wins a clear victory in 2008. The Democrats have 62 votes in the senate after Arlen switches. The Democrats pass a larger stimulus meaning a faster recovery. They also pass a clearer version of Obamacare. Democrats win in the MA senate race. Scott Brown won campaigning that he would be the 41th vote to filibuster OTL, which is wouldn't happen ATL.

The big POD is that Osama Bin Laden is killed before the midterms. OTL Democrats loss 6 seats. Democrats win in IL, WI, PA. They still lose AR, ND, and IN. This gets them at 59 votes.

While its a small loss, Democrats don't see Obamacare as the cause of their defeat like in 1994. So they pass more liberal bills until 2012. With Obama's liberal cottails, they regain their super majority in 2012.

This has huge effects in the future. Even if the GOP wins 9 seats in 2014, Democrats will still have a majority. In 2016, they would gain 2 seats so Trump has a Democratic senate.

 

[CountDVB]

This thread has not yet addressed the OP's question

What would be the impact if the Democrats had 60 senate seats from July 7, 2009 (Franken takes seat) to January 20th, 2012?

That would mean the Democrats did not lose any senate seats in 2010. This is unlikely since the ruling party usually loses seats. In 2010, you had backlash against Obamacare and that Democratic voters don't vote in midterms.

Here is the PODs. Harold Ford wins in 2006 in Tennessee. Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky in 2008. And Franken wins a clear victory in 2008. The Democrats have 62 votes in the senate after Arlen switches. The Democrats pass a larger stimulus meaning a faster recovery. They also pass a clearer version of Obamacare. Democrats win in the MA senate race. Scott Brown won campaigning that he would be the 41th vote to filibuster OTL, which is wouldn't happen ATL.

The big POD is that Osama Bin Laden is killed before the midterms. OTL Democrats loss 6 seats. Democrats win in IL, WI, PA. They still lose AR, ND, and IN. This gets them at 59 votes.

While its a small loss, Democrats don't see Obamacare as the cause of their defeat like in 1994. So they pass more liberal bills until 2012. With Obama's liberal cottails, they regain their super majority in 2012.

This has huge effects in the future. Even if the GOP wins 9 seats in 2014, Democrats will still have a majority. In 2016, they would gain 2 seats so Trump has a Democratic senate.

Well, Obamacare probably wouldn't be gimped like it was OTL and maybe they might even do better than planned (given how Obamacare is based off a Republican idea from Nixon's time).

Also, maybe the Obama adminsitration can fill in all the empty judge spots without being stonewalled by McConnell and his stooges

 

[GeographyDude]

Sure, but unlike in a westminister system you have three additional checks off the top of my head on sudden swings:

-a president elected independently of congress who can veto bills
-a independent judiciary which can strike down laws as unconstitutional
-the staggered nature of senate elections meaning only 1/3 of the senate is up at at a time

.
.
.

Just for the record, I think my America would be a better country if we did have a UK parliamentary system. And I’m quite aware that would take a MAJOR Constitutional Amendment. And yes, I’d favor a single broad-stroke Constitutional Amendment rather than a Constitutional Convention.

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . (given how Obamacare is based off a Republican idea from Nixon's time). . .

It’s amazing how the ACA devours the discussion, even here. We’re mirroring what happened in real life.

 

[Maeglin]

This has huge effects in the future. Even if the GOP wins 9 seats in 2014, Democrats will still have a majority. In 2016, they would gain 2 seats so Trump has a Democratic senate.

 

[Maeglin]

Abolishing the filibuster is a dangerous move. Remember u will necer hold tthe senate forever...and it basically makes the minority party helpless. I would argue in an era of increased polarizatiin, the filibuster is more important than ever to prevent increasingly radical any bills from being passed.

Elections have consequences.

 

[RousseauX]

This thread has not yet addressed the OP's question

What would be the impact if the Democrats had 60 senate seats from July 7, 2009 (Franken takes seat) to January 20th, 2012?

That would mean the Democrats did not lose any senate seats in 2010. This is unlikely since the ruling party usually loses seats. In 2010, you had backlash against Obamacare and that Democratic voters don't vote in midterms.

Here is the PODs. Harold Ford wins in 2006 in Tennessee. Mitch McConnell loses in Kentucky in 2008. And Franken wins a clear victory in 2008. The Democrats have 62 votes in the senate after Arlen switches. The Democrats pass a larger stimulus meaning a faster recovery. They also pass a clearer version of Obamacare. Democrats win in the MA senate race. Scott Brown won campaigning that he would be the 41th vote to filibuster OTL, which is wouldn't happen ATL.

The big POD is that Osama Bin Laden is killed before the midterms. OTL Democrats loss 6 seats. Democrats win in IL, WI, PA. They still lose AR, ND, and IN. This gets them at 59 votes.

While its a small loss, Democrats don't see Obamacare as the cause of their defeat like in 1994. So they pass more liberal bills until 2012. With Obama's liberal cottails, they regain their super majority in 2012.

This has huge effects in the future. Even if the GOP wins 9 seats in 2014, Democrats will still have a majority. In 2016, they would gain 2 seats so Trump has a Democratic senate.

No McConnell in the senate alone is a HUGE butterfly

otl McConnell was responsible for whipping up a lot of the resistance to Obama's agenda at every single turn, remove him and the senate is very different

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Or, the new Senate on Jan. 6, 2009 votes to abolish the filibuster. And they so do by simple majority. They might even stop counting after 51 votes in order to make a very definite point. Now, even though the filibuster is just an internal Senate rule,

You can't pass new legislation without 60 votes, filibuster or not. All the current GOP action being done with 50 votes is technically budgetary, not creating new law.

Ergo, when they repealed the individual mandate they didn't really kill the existence of the tax they just made the tax 0%.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Anyways if you wanna max out Democratic success in the Senate come 2008, the Democrats came very close in Tennessee in 2006 with Harold Ford (50.7 R - 48 D) and have them win Kentucky (53 R - 47 D) and Georgia (49.8 R - 46.8 D) that'd give them 63 votes. If Scott Kleeb (the 2008 Senate candidate in Nebraska) had won his 2006 House Race, perhaps he could take Hagel's open seat.

64 seat majority.

 

[Wallet]

Anyways if you wanna max out Democratic success in the Senate come 2008, the Democrats came very close in Tennessee in 2006 with Harold Ford (50.7 R - 48 D) and have them win Kentucky (53 R - 47 D) and Georgia (49.8 R - 46.8 D) that'd give them 63 votes. If Scott Kleeb (the 2008 Senate candidate in Nebraska) had won his 2006 House Race, perhaps he could take Hagel's open seat.

64 seat majority.

Of course, would Arlen still switch ATL? I’m sure he was given lots of nice things by Reid when he became the 60th vote

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Of course, would Arlen still switch ATL? I’m sure he was given lots of nice things by Reid when he became the 60th vote

Maybe. He endorsed Obama and I got the vibe he was driven out by the GOP too.

 

[writofcertiorari]

Just for the record, I think my America would be a better country if we did have a UK parliamentary system. And I’m quite aware that would take a MAJOR Constitutional Amendment. And yes, I’d favor a single broad-stroke Constitutional Amendment rather than a Constitutional Convention.

You can't just implant the Westminster system into a completely different country. The US is very different culturally than even the UK, and most of the country wouldn't accept an amendment like that even without a full convention. A much easier way to reduce some of the gridlock would be to abolish the filibuster for most bills. That's doable under Senate rules.

 

[GeographyDude]

With a Democratic Senate in 2016, Trump is less likely to nominate ideological radicals like Scott Pruitt to head EPA or Betsy DeVos the Dept. of Education, or get them confirmed if he does.

In my universe hopefully we’ll get people who more highly value a good healthy interplay between theory and practice!

 

[GeographyDude]

You can't pass new legislation without 60 votes, . . .

My political coming of age was the 1970s and ‘80s, I turned 18 in 1981.

And my memory is that Senators played it relatively straight. If you had a serious moral objection, you might consider filibustering. It was not common.

 

[Wallet]

Can we stop debating Obamacare, filibuster, and British form of government?

4 pages in and we haven’t discussed the OP’s question on the impact if the Democrats maintained their supermajority

 

[GeographyDude]

Can we stop debating Obamacare, filibuster, . . .

I'm probably the main culprit. But I think matter-of-factly ending the filibuster the beginning of the 2009 term would have given Pres. Obama an easy working majority. (And the filibuster was almost ended in '75, as well as '59)

And I also added my judgment call that such would feel coup-ish, and so it would be important to have middle-of-the-road legislation.

 

[GeographyDude]

Plus, I added to an idea you started my idea that with a Democrat Senate in 2016, Trump isn't able to get confirmed radicals like Betsy DeVos and Scott Pruitt.

Yes, butterflies!