3 ms·

My impression was that Obama wanted to be more progressive-- domestically if not internationally. But he got derailed spending 2 years of a supermajority on a s

My impression was that Obama wanted to be more progressive-- domestically if not internationally. But he got derailed spending 2 years of a supermajority on a single issue (healthcare) partly because more centrist democrats objected to the more progressive ideas, and partly due to special interests. After the midterms he had little chance at passing more progressive policies, leaving a fairly centrist foreign policy agenda.

cjsplat 5y ago
First, the ACA passed in March 2010, so not really 2 years on health care. The tweaks folded into reconciliation were not a major distraction. Second, if by super-majority you mean filibuster-proof, then in reality this was nowhere near 2 years. Al Franken (the 60th vote) was not seated until the court challenges finished on June 30th. Ted Kennedy died August 25. So that is about 8 weeks of super-majority. Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24, and Scott Brown took over on February 5th. So a little over 4 more months. That is a total of about 6 calendar months of filibuster proof majority. A glance at the legislative calendar shows a total of a little over 110 total Senate legislative days, out of a total of about 350 legislative days in 2009/2010. So in reality, Obama had a filibuster proof majority for about 1/3 of his first 2 years.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  You're correct, I meant filibuster proof. On everything else you mention, the major pieces of the ACA-- given it was a #1 priority-- could have been laid down well in advance so that things were ready to go once the people were in place. I am probably being unfair though: cleaning up the end of the financial crisis took significant effort as well, so managing that and any single piece of significant legislation should be counted as a productive half-term. I suppose that even if all pieces of the ACA had been in place for the earliest possible vote, it still would not have left a lot of time for another significant bit of progressive legislation. However I stand by my core point, which was perhaps not well expressed: Obama's campaign message conveyed a significant progressive agenda (at least on the domestic front). I don't think that was false on his part. I think the extent to which that agenda was not achieved is because after the mid terms there was no chance of passing progressive legislation. Again, I think I botched my prior comment by not making that clear. I may have botched this one as well... Let me know, I like to know when I'm wrong.

cjsplat 5y ago

First, the ACA passed in March 2010, so not really 2 years on health care. The tweaks folded into reconciliation were not a major distraction. Second, if by super-majority you mean filibuster-proof, then in reality this was nowhere near 2 years. Al Franken (the 60th vote) was not seated until the court challenges finished on June 30th. Ted Kennedy died August 25. So that is about 8 weeks of super-majority. Paul Kirk was seated on Sept 24, and Scott Brown took over on February 5th. So a little over 4 more months. That is a total of about 6 calendar months of filibuster proof majority. A glance at the legislative calendar shows a total of a little over 110 total Senate legislative days, out of a total of about 350 legislative days in 2009/2010. So in reality, Obama had a filibuster proof majority for about 1/3 of his first 2 years.

ineedasername 5y ago
You're correct, I meant filibuster proof. On everything else you mention, the major pieces of the ACA-- given it was a #1 priority-- could have been laid down well in advance so that things were ready to go once the people were in place. I am probably being unfair though: cleaning up the end of the financial crisis took significant effort as well, so managing that and any single piece of significant legislation should be counted as a productive half-term. I suppose that even if all pieces of the ACA had been in place for the earliest possible vote, it still would not have left a lot of time for another significant bit of progressive legislation. However I stand by my core point, which was perhaps not well expressed: Obama's campaign message conveyed a significant progressive agenda (at least on the domestic front). I don't think that was false on his part. I think the extent to which that agenda was not achieved is because after the mid terms there was no chance of passing progressive legislation. Again, I think I botched my prior comment by not making that clear. I may have botched this one as well... Let me know, I like to know when I'm wrong.