I’ve been wondering for a bit why during the time the Democrats controlled the legislature, executive, and judicial branches during Obama’s first term in 2008 more wasn’t accomplished. Shouldn’t that have been the opportunity to make Row V Way law and fix the electoral college? I understand the recession was going on but outside of Obamacare getting passed which didnt go far enough it seems like they didn’t really do much with all that power. Are there other important accomplishments from this time that didn’t get the news they deserved? It seems like the voters have done their job in the past to elect people to fix things and yet we are still here begging people to vote to fix issues like abortion rights.

  • Boozilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Routine abuse of the filibuster rules by Republicans was a big part of it. Not the only reason, but a fairly major one as I recall.

    And while I am a Democrat and I vote that way, I very readily admit the Democrats often bring a book to a gun fight when it comes to politics. They have good intentions but then they get steamrollered on things like SCOTUS appointments…

    • Twinklebreeze @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Democrats have been playing by the rules and norms for far too long. Norms only matter if both teams follow them. Same thing with the rules. If Republicans will change the rules so that they win Democrats have to follow suit or make it illegal. When one side plays dirty, the other can either play dirty or lose. Moral high ground gains us nothing.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        The main difference is:

        Republicans do stuff then Democrats challenge it thru the courts.

        Dems challenge their own stuff first, and if they think it’s right after a year or two, they start talking about if they should do it. And Republicans will still challenge it thru the courts.

        You can argue over which path is morally the right one.

        But no one has a legitimate argument that says republicans aren’t more effective.

        They’re skipping steps that take us years to complete.

        I mean, Biden talked about all types of shit he would do when elected. And his first day he said he’d start looking into if he was allowed to do any of it.

        trump ain’t waiting to ask anyone if he can do something. He’s just going to do shit, and we’re going to have to try and fight a bunch of battles at once, all the while his policies are in effect.

        It’s not that they’re fighting dirty and we’re fighting clean.

        It’s that when the gun goes off to start the race, we start stretching so we won’t cramp up.

        Doesn’t matter how slow Republicans are if we give them a 10 minute head start on a 100m sprint.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          trump ain’t waiting to ask anyone if he can do something. He’s just going to do shit, and we’re going to have to try and fight a bunch of battles at once, all the while his policies are in effect.

          That IS fighting dirty

    • TheJack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Though if I recall correctly, filibuster rule can be removed with 51% majority but obviously Democrats are too nice to remove that.

      • NotNotMike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Less nice, more realizing that would remove their ability to stop the Republicans when the political winds inevitability shift the other way

        • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 months ago

          Right, which is why I’ve been saying that the Democrats should restore the filibuster. What they have now is not a filibuster, in practice, it’s more akin to an administrative hold. One Senator indicates an intent to filibuster via email, and they move on to other business.

          Make 'em do it. Pick a popular issue, and lean into it. Make the Republicans actually stand up there at the podium and talk for hours. Get them on camera on the news every night as obstructionists, blocking the will of the people. Yes, it will waste Senate session time; that’s a perfect opportunity for all of the Democrats to roast them non-stop to reporters. It’ll be painful for a while, but at least has a chance of breaking the log jam. (And if the GQP doesn’t take the bait, hey, popular thing gets passed!)

          • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Filibustering is dumb and it shouldn’t exist - if we want the ability for a narrow minority to block law making we should just increase the threshold to pass laws - we shouldn’t allow a weird procedural rule to block discussion of a law whether through talking a long time or just doing so by email.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

            Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

            What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

            When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Democrats had the ability to change procedural rules and prevent filibustering - they chose not to.

      Unfortunately, the lack of progress when Dems controlled all three branches is because conservative democrats didn’t want that progress. While Democrats controlled all three branches liberals did not.

      We need to understand that there’s a strong conservative presence in the DNC or else we’ll be blindsided by this issue again. The lack of progress was on Democrats - we can’t shift the blame to Republicans (though they’re definitely more shitty).

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        One of things that annoys me most is people on the Left who act like the overwhelming majority of people in the country agree with them.

        According to the best estimate I’ve seen, 44% of the people “somewhat agree” with Socialism, and about 6% are “strongly” in favor of Socialism.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not certain what your point is - we’re not talking about socialism here and that word is a misunderstood flashpoint to Americans. If you ask Americans if they want to live in a socialist country I wouldn’t be surprised if only 6% said yes - but when you describe Scandinavian democratic socialism purely by stating policy stances it tends to be pretty popular.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            And yet, Obamacare barely passed and Trump managed to pass a huge tax cut for the rich.

            Look how many people were outraged when AOC wore a dress that said ‘Tax The Rich.’

            I wish I was in the majority, but I know I’m not.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly, it’s not that they bring a book to a gunfight.

      It’s that they keep bringing a book to a gunfight, and expect a different result every time.

        • dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No, it’s like the base expects perfection at every turn and it just isn’t possible. A Republican fucks up and people rally to him, a Dem fucks up and they are expected to resign or recuse or whatever. The D always has to be the bigger person and our “big tent” is full of about 50 issues that can’t sit the hell down for two minutes to let something get done.

          It’s a bunch of whiny little bitch kids that won’t punch for the throat because precedent and social issue du jour. What is really necessary is to put on some teeth kicking shoes and step up to the plate, but my other compatriot Dems just don’t allow that sort of behavior. They go low and we should start kicking… But we don’t.

    • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      The current state of US politics is a direct consequence of Mitch McConnell’s campaign of obstruction and spin. When we go to civil war in November and your fellow Americans are bleeding out in the streets because we wouldn’t get on board with support for Zionist genocide, think of him.

  • GamingChairModel@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    I disagree with your premise. The 111th Congress got a lot done. Here’s a list of major legislation.

    • Lily Ledbetter Act made it easier to recover for employment discrimination, and explicitly overruled a Supreme Court case making it harder to recover back pay.
    • The ARRA was a huge relief bill for the financial crisis, one of the largest bills of all time.
    • The Credit CARD Act changed a bunch of consumer protection for credit card borrowers.
    • Dodd Frank was groundbreaking, the biggest financial reform bill since probably the Great Depression, and created the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, probably one of the most important pro-consumer agencies in the federal government today.
    • School lunch reforms (why the right now hates Michelle Obama)
    • Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP or SCHIP): healthcare coverage, independent of Obamacare, for all children under 18.
    • Obamacare itself, which also includes comprehensive student loan reform too.

    That’s a big accomplishment list for 2 years, plus some smaller accomplishments like some tobacco reform, some other reforms relating to different agencies and programs.

    Plus that doesn’t include the administrative regulations and decisions the administrative agencies passed (things like Net Neutrality), even though those generally only last as long as the next president would want to keep them (see, again, Net Neutrality).

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not to mention he got that all done with a majority that was actually “guaranteed” to be able to do stuff for all of a few weeks, during which his senate majority actively sabotaged Obamacare from being a public option healthcare act, because fuckin Manchincrats just have to be the singularly most determined to be killjoy assholes on the face of the entire fucking planet

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not to mention this was the first 2 years, the years an administration is typically least effective.

      If Biden gets years 4-6 with a democrat majority in the house and senate it will be a big deal.

    • BackpackCat@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thanks for this info. I always kinda felt like I must be missing something. That is a significant amount of stuff to get done especially in the face of the insane amount of filibustering the Republicans did during this time that others pointed out. I mean I still wish more was done but it gives me hope that if we can somehow weather the storm of fascists that some good legislation can be passed in the future even in the face of opposition.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    2 months ago

    because those are conservative democrats who thought there was still a sensible republican party “to work with”

    most of Obamas “accomplishments” were republican sourced ideas.

    the democrats haven’t acted progressively in many decades. Obama was a lame duck from day 1

  • The Uncanny Observer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because Democrats aren’t progressives, and maintaining the status quo is good for them. They get easy paychecks from lobby groups, and don’t have to fight too hard for anything. And if something bad happens, like Roe v. Wade, they can use it as fodder to get reelected. It’s not really in their best interests to work on making things better, at least from a personal financial standpoint.

  • dumples@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    Also a very important point here was how much more non-political the supreme court was then. No one would ever consider Roe vs Wade could be overturned or even want it. There were generally agreed upon rules that the supreme courts and courts in general were populated with the most qualified people. Judge appointments were scrapped by gentleman agreements if the Senator from the state where the judge was from didn’t support the nomination. Same if any of the non-partisan law associations said the person wasn’t qualified enough. So most judges were well qualified and if they were more conservative or liberal wasn’t as big of a consideration. There were plenty of “conservative” judges appointed judges nominated by democratic and vice versa. This all change with Mitch McConnell blocking Merrick Garland appointment to the supreme court who was suggested as the more moderate alternative. This lead to the hyper partisanship of the supreme court we see now with the trump appointees. This is why trust in the organization has eroded so fast. Since it all happened so fast and judges are acting much more politically instead of following law and precedent

    • draneceusrex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Looks at the current SCOTUS roster, notices both Alito was appointed to the court in 2006, and Thomas was appointed in 1995 (after a huge sexual harassment fiasco no one seems to ever bring up any more). Finds their records are even worse than the Trump appointments.

      Nope, sorry doesn’t line up…

      The gross politics of the GOP started with Nixon, and was driven to overtime after they lost power when Clinton took office by Rush Limbaugh, Murdock, and the like. That was the real turning point. Where we are is a progression to the GOP going more and more radical, but the seeds were always there. Honestly, I think Roe stood for so long because they weren’t stupid enough to actually appeal it back then.

    • slickgoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      To me, making political appointments for the judiciary always made this a possibility. It happened in the old days, and it might happen again. And it did.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    This falsehood has been a right-wing talking point all the way back since 2013.

    When Obama had “Total Control” of Congress

    Lies are easy to get away with if they are repeated often enough and given voice by many different people. Repeat a lie often enough and that lie often becomes conventional wisdom. Repeating a lie doesn’t change the lie into the truth, it changes the people hearing the repeated lie. They begin to accept the lie as truth. One huge example: ‘Iraq has WMD.’

    The truth…then…is this: Democrats had “total control” of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had “total control” of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.

    Did President Obama have “total control” of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.

    Did President Obama have "total control’ of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary…as you can plainly see in the above chronology…is a lie.

    EDIT:
    This is the archive of the original chronology link.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20130307230207/http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com:80/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html

    • blargerer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      The question still stands, this just reframes it. He had a majority, just not a filibusterer proof one, so why are the Republicans so willing to remove the filibusterer when it gets in there way and the Democrats not?

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        “Why is the political party that actively wants to destroy our institutions ok with destroying our institutions?”

        That’s your question, reframed.

        If you want a real answer, it’s because Roe v. Wade “was” settled law & the Democrats are a “big tent” party with a lot of disparate views that always don’t mesh together. They should be 3 parties working as a collation, but our stupid FPtP election system won’t allow that.

        Following that, note which party has made RCV illegal in 5 states.

  • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    American politicians mostly argue over issues as a way to earn votes. It’s like the story of the young priest.

    Every week he listens to the old priest talk about the church’s roof and how badly it needs repairs and has been for years. He asks the congregation to give generously as the quotes to repair it have been quite high. The young priest decides to call around and eventually finds a religious contractor who agrees to repair the roof at a steep discount! The young priest walks into church one morning to see the old priest outside in shock that the roof has been fixed. The young priest proudly explains how he was finally able to fix the bad roof that had been a pain for years. The old priest says “You idiot! Now how will I get people to donate!?”

  • TheJack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Like it or not, the United States are of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

    Now I totally disagree with Republicans on almost everything especially since 2014 but one thing I like about them is, how to pass the actual laws, and how to put justices in supreme court.

    No matter how wrong are they, or who paid (directly or indirectly) to pass the laws… when they have majority, they just steamrolls.

    Democrats on the other hand are just talks.

    Edit: Though, on a larger scale, I think Democracy is a failed experiment. But that’s entirely a different debate.

    Look at just one example:

    In Europe, Apple was told accept outside payments. Apple made mockery of the wish of the people they are making money from… and made it more expensive to use outside payment system.

    Now take a guess, if it was China asked Apple to implement something serious… do you think Apple would be able to make mockery of Chinese government and still survive in China?

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because “control” doesn’t mean much in the Senate unless you have 60 votes to break a filibuster.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      And that they’ll actually follow through with breaking that filibuster,

      Fuckin’ Manchin and Sinema, the fuckin’ bootlicking little tagnuts.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    You can’t ‘fix’ the electoral College. It’s in the Constitution and will never be overturned because getting rid of it means that the small states lose a lot of power. As for the rest, Obama was trying to be a Left Center leader, not a radical Leftist.

    • hime0321@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      If only we could, idk, amend the constitution. And small states having the power to make a more popular voted candidate lose is fucking ridiculous. Also something like 80% of Americans votes will basically be ignored because they don’t live in closely divided states. So fuck the electoral college.

  • Aux@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because in a two party system both parties are just sides of the same coin.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Because back then the democratic party didn’t really tow the party line as well as republicans. They’ve gotten better at it, but still behind. When the R voted NO in unison on most things championed by Obama, D couldn’t be relied upon to counter with enough YES votes. The party was too fractured, and while they still kind of are, they at least present a somewhat unified front nowadays.