The myth of the Obama Super majority is back.

[rogue emissary]

To help my fellow DU'ers out. I wanted to repost these articles as this republicans talking point is being thrown around.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

But here's the deal -- the real deal -- there actually wasn't a two year supermajority.

This timeline shows the facts.

President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda.

He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken's election in Minnesota and he didn't get seated for seven months.


The President's cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania's Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties.

That gave the President 59 votes -- still a vote shy of the super majority.

But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission.

So while the President's number on paper was 59 Senators -- he was really working with just 58 Senators.


Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 -- but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out.

In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy's seat in September.

Any pretense of a supermajority ended on February 4, 2010 when Republican Scott Brown

. . .

The second source might not be verified but it follows the first and makes a point that the first does not approach. The 2 too 4 months still doesn't encompass how many days congress was in session.

https://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/#.YriVJ80pA0E

. . . In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he will, however, lose this November to Elizabeth Warren, and all will be right with the world again).

During those four months and one week, Congress was in session for a total of 72 days. So for 72 days the Democrats held a 60 seat, filibuster-proof supermajority in the United States Senate. But wait! There’s more! As Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn points out, even that was unreliable. “Even in this window Obama’s ‘control’ of the Senate was incomplete and highly adulterated due to the balkiness of the so-called Blue Dog conservative and moderate Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas

.” . . .

I remembered that Kennedy was pretty much on his death bed but forgot byrd was in the same shape.

So as people try to blame Obama for not seeing into the future and codify abortion rights into law during his super majority. Remind them of the facts.

[betsuni]

1. This drives me crazy.

[TwilightZone]

2. The president can only sign what ends up on his or her desk.

I find it curious that some are (intentionally) missing Congress's role in the process. Some right here on DU.

[rogue emissary]

3. Yeah, you can also point out a few Dems that keep tweeting

that Biden should take certain actions. Yet, they won't write and get passed the legislation in their chambers for him to sign.

[TwilightZone]

4. I know what you mean.

I also found that...curious.

As I noted in a thread insisting that Biden can codify Roe unilaterally, it simply doesn't work like that. It kind of amazes me how many people seem to sincerely believe otherwise, but it just makes me feel like "we" aren't as politically savvy as I sometimes think.

That being said, nerves are frayed and people are frustrated and I think some are grasping at anything, regardless of how far-fetched it might be. I try to look at things through that lens, but struggle a bit.

[rogue emissary]

5. 100 percent agree and sympathize with your last paragraph.

[Hekate]

6. Same ones are blathering on about Executive Orders, which are political ping-pong. Anything done

… by EO by President A can be undone by President B the moment he is sworn in. That’s exactly what Bush the Lesser did with the “global gag order,” which I remember vividly because I almost swerved off the freeway when I heard it on NPR. 20+ years on I am sadder and wiser.

[rogue emissary]

11. Exactly.

It's such a band aid using EO.

The idea Biden would give women back their rights till a Republican President, or court take them right back would lead to chaos.

[MerryHolidays]

7. Thank you for explaining this. A lot of us forget the reality

And this myth is probably perpetuated by the MSM, making it "real."

[rogue emissary]

8. Indeed, but both article point out Republicans weaponing it.

If the MSM would just fact check them, it wouldn't spread.

[mcar]

9. It isn't Republican talking points

it is unfortunately coming from the far left.

[rogue emissary]

12. Okay, I should have said it started with Republicans.

I would have said something about the left using it, but I've been alerted on a lot in the last two months.

[mcar]

13. Understood

I'm seeing it all over Twitter since Friday and every post is from a Sarandon/Nina Turner type.

[groundloop]

10. Don't forget that the "super majority" included the likes of Joe Lieberman....

who was beholden to the health insurance industry.

[rogue emissary]

14. Would have added the DINO'S but didn't want tobe alerted on.

[brooklynite]

15. Also, that supermajority was made of Senators people love to hate.

Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Mary Landrieu, Mark Begich....I doubt any of them were prepared to radically change Senate procedures or rush controversial Bills through.

[paleotn]

28. Exactly. The supermajority was a myth....

A different political reality back then. They seem to forget that our party was, and still is to an extent, a "big tent". Lot of center right Dems in the Senate back then who'd never have been in line with codifying Roe.

[moose65]

32. Better check your facts!

While there are many reasons to dislike Manchin, he wasn’t a Senator until November 2010 - after Scott Brown had knocked out the 60-Dem-Senators group.

Heitkamp wasn’t elected until 2012.

[BumRushDaShow]

33. Um no... not that group.

McCaskill, Landrieu, Begich were there (Manchin was still governor of WV when the reconciliation, which was the final piece of the ACA, was signed at the end of March 2010, and Heitkamp wasn't there yet either although her predecessor Kent Conrad was anti-abortion/anti-Public Option). Others including Evan Bayh of IN.

The biggest one was the then-head of the Senate Finance Committee - Max Baucus - who was key to removing the Public Option (as controller of that Committee and had the power to do it). Lieberman was along for the ride and made a show of it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. Any chance to take a swipe at Obama is reason enough for some people. It amazes me....

how quickly some folks have either forgotten the circumstances surrounding the "super majority", or they just don't care when they misinform. There's another thread about the loss of Civics education in our schools, and that is the one subject that needs to be taught most of all.

[EarnestPutz]

17. Thank you for the refresher course on all this. I'll consider myself reminded of these realities....

.....but, if you don't mind, I'll probably just continue to just blame it all on that big-toothed asshole Norm Coleman. Somehow it just feels better.

[SouthernDem4ever]

18. thanks for posting this

I have dem friends hearing RWNJ's with this crap, now I can just send them this link instead of arguing.

[SouthBayDem]

19. Plus with the unemployment the way it was in 2009-10

It would've been politically unthinkable to introduce legislation that could've been seen as not helping people's finances whether unemployment insurance or affordable health care. And anti abortion Democrats like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson were still in Congress back then.

Similarly today with COVID and inflation dominating the news, Congress simply didn't have the time to spend on Roe this session.

[Mad_Machine76]

22. But they still tried

To take a vote

[electric_blue68]

20. Thank you for the detailed time line!

[SunSeeker]

21. Obama had only 24 WORKING DAYS of a super majority.

[betsuni]

36. It's a miracle the ACA passed.

But he was supposed to magically fix everything in those 24 days.

[SunSeeker]

38. It was the brilliance of Obama and Pelosi that pushed the ACA through.

And, at the same time, they pushed through the stimulus package to get us out of Bush's Great Recession and they passed the bailout of the US auto industry, which was on the verge of collapse.

[Samrob]

23. And Byrd was a shaky vote at best on Roe and other progressive matters.

[3auld6phart]

24. Thanks

for that update. Had wondered about that short period of
Democratic majority.

[PatrickforB]

25. If we had gotten rid of the filibuster, we could have had

Medicare for All Americans, which would have ensured continued Dem majorities. Get rid of the filibuster now, and codify abortion access, and people like Manchin and Sinema won't be able to impose a stranglehold on legislative progress with the Dem agenda. In addition, nuts like Lummis and Barasso (both WY, each representing ~300,000 people) won't be able to threaten filibuster and keep legislation that will actually help all of us from passing.

Manchin (WV) represents about 700,000 people.

Alex Padilla (CA) represents around 29 million.

That's just wrong.

Time for some change.

[packman]

26. O.K.- but still---

Something should have been done, you can't convince me even one or two of those Repukes couldn't have been arm-twisted enough to pass some meaningful legislation.

[paleotn]

30. HA!!! Absolutely NOT!

A significant number of Dem senators back then wouldn't have been on board. The thinking would have been...why tackle such a controversial and politically dangerous topic legislatively when Roe was as likely to be overturned as Brown? You see, there was a severe shortage of crystal balls back then. Luckily, we have 20/20 backwards vision now.

[Autumn]

31. Obama did have a supermajority long enough to pass the ACA. nt

[KG]

35. word.

seems that was kinda sorta overlooked.

[uponit7771]

39. Ah, I figured this ... not one MAGA voted for ACA

[CentralMass]

27. Just to note in all of that. He did have a supermajority long enough to pass ACA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2014/03/26/a-look-back-at-how-the-president-was-able-to-sign-obamacare-into-law-four-years-ago/

"But on April 28, 2009, the dynamics changed when Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Spector changed parties, giving Senate Democrats that coveted 60th vote.

Now the Democrats had a safe majority in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 in the Senate. That scenario lasted only four months before fate intervened. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died on August 25, 2009, leaving the Democrats, once again, with 59 seats (counting the two Independents). Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special election set for January 19, 2010 – once again giving the Democrats that 60th vote. But the intrigue was just beginning.
[
With the supermajority vote safely intact once again, the Senate moved rather quickly to pass the ACA – or ObamaCare – on Christmas Eve 2009 in a 60 – 39 vote&quot "

[True Blue American]

29. Byrd was at the bottom of the Capitol Steps

In a wheelchair to salute Kennedy in his casket as it drove by.

[treestar]

34. even had it lasted longer

the list of demanded items could not be accomplished - there always had to be prioritization.

[Polybius]

37. Even 58 seats sounds like an impossibility these days

The best we can hope for this year will probably be 54 at the high end.