3 ms·
The ironic part about your statement is the fact that the Republicans took back both houses of congress in the mid-terms. Even if they were detached from reali
by at-fates-hands 10y ago
The ironic part about your statement is the fact that the Republicans took back both houses of congress in the mid-terms.
Even if they were detached from reality, I'd say that was a huge punch in the nuts for the Democrats after re-electing their president to a second term, and holding a super majority for 2 years.
You wanna know why Donald Trump has swept the Republican establishment? Because after all the promises by the Republicans about what they were going to do after being elected, they've done almost nothing they promised and their constituents are pissed and sending a message - time for the establishment to go.
It doesn't matter if Trump wins or not. The message has been sent, and if the "establishment Republicans" don't get it, and get in line, then they might as well hand the Presidency back over to the Clinton political machine.
- extra88 10y agoNot ironic at all, it's a common occurrence in mid-terms for the party opposing the president to do better. You seem to be calling holding a majority in the House and Senate a "super majority," that's not what a super majority is. Generally in the U.S. federal government a supermajority requires 2/3rds in the respective body (e.g. a party holding 67 seats in the Senate would have a supermajority there) [0]. Senate rules also make 60 seats a magic number to reach on many votes but one party hasn't held that many seats since 1979. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#Federal_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority#Federal_governme... [1] http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm http://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm
- at-fates-hands 10y agoI was referencing the fact they held both houses of congress as well as the presidency.