4 ms·
FWIW, your post prompted me to take a bit of time to research. I found this interesting: "According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr.
by geoka9 2y ago
FWIW, your post prompted me to take a bit of time to research. I found this interesting:
"According to The New York Times, "Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate ... Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others."[146] During his time in the Senate, he had lower legislative effectiveness than the average senator, as measured by the number of sponsored bills that passed and successful amendments made.[147] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
- Eumenes 2y agoThats the conclusion I came to. It seems like he'd be more effective as a consultant/advisor or non-elected official. Taking up a valuable senate seat to make amendments seems like a waste of influence.
- geoka9 2y agoMy take is that he's still a successful lawmaker, it's just that he is more successful implementing his agenda with amendments rather than standalone bills.
- Eumenes 2y agoEh, I was curious and did some more research. Look at Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), all of whom have been serving similar amount of time - they have sponsored bills over 1k, co-sponsored ranging from 3k to 8k. Compare that to Bernie's ~ 200 co-sponsored and 3 sponsored ... I'd say thats a very weak performance compared to his peers.