3 ms·

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 su

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.

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.