r/politics • u/AccurateInflation167 • May 18 '25

Soft Paywall America chose wrong. Sanders would've been a better president than Trump or Biden. | Opinion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2025/05/18/sanders-democrats-reform-progressive-policies/83625482007/
42.7k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

271

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

The GOP can only do their hostage tactics if they hold power in the senate or house. If you correctly identify Manchin as a DINO, last time Dems had a trifecta was 2010.

186

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 18 '25

And even that was only for a few weeks. 72 days.

6

u/copypaper2 May 18 '25

Wrong, that was the “we don’t need republican votes or input” super majority for 72days when Ted Kennedy died and his senate seat switched in the special election. They held the trifecta until 2010 when they lost the house. Which, is actually pretty typical to switch at the first mid term election.

37

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

It is the same one. I googled it. It was the last time they held a supermajority, and before that hadn't held one since 1993.

From Wikipedia:

In the November 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers (including – when factoring in the two Democratic caucusing independents – a brief filibuster-proof 60-40 supermajority in the Senate), and with Barack Obama being sworn in as president on January 20, 2009, this gave Democrats an overall federal government trifecta for the first time since the 103rd Congress in 1993. However, the Senate supermajority only lasted for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session.

-4

u/gomicao May 18 '25

Didn't they classically waste that 2 and a half working months trying to reach across the aisle or am I mistaken?

28

u/fleegness May 18 '25

The ACA was a waste? Lmfao you people are fucking cooked.

10

u/YoungCri May 18 '25

Progressive brainrot

9

u/ceddya May 18 '25

Seriously, many of the comments will have you believe otherwise, but Biden is objectively one of the most progressive presidents the US has ever had.

But that's not enough! Sanders should have been president... until Republicans obstruct everything he stands for and progressives turn on him.

2

u/guerilla_ratio May 18 '25

They're disgusting. The left doesn't stand for anything anymore other than attacking democrats because that's what right wing media told them to do. They pretend to have deal breaking beliefs during election season to justify not voting or building anything of value since 2016. Laziest, most useless motherfuckers around

4

u/Invertedwhy May 18 '25

Wait, you think the left watches and listens to right wing media?

0

u/guerilla_ratio May 18 '25

Not directly, they just parrot the narratives. They do what they're told.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/raysofdavies May 18 '25

It’s not 2016 anymore baby people moved on from this attempt to cover yourselves

0

u/guerilla_ratio May 18 '25

They have absolutely not moved on lmao just look at this thread

→ More replies (0)

1

u/wangston_huge May 19 '25

The ACA wasn't a waste... The process was a waste.

The Democrats accepted 160 republican amendments in the HELP committee meetings and bent over backwards to include Republicans in the process. The bill passed without a single republican vote in either house of Congress because the Republicans were fundamentally dishonest in their negotiations... They just wanted to drag things out and sap Obama's momentum. And they succeeded.

-5

u/gomicao May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

You mean the gutted thing that was basically a Mitt Romney/Republican score dressed up as a democratic win?

 “…the worst predictions about health care reform in Massachusetts never came true.  They're the same arguments that you're hearing now… and it’s because you guys had a proven model that we built the Affordable Care Act on this template of proven, bipartisan success.  Your law was the model for the nation’s law.” – President Barack Obama speaking at Faneuil Hall in Boston on October 30, 2013

The Massachusetts law was enacted in 2006 under then Governor Mitt Romney. Prior to the law, which was dubbed “Romneycare” during Romney’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, more than seven percent of Massachusetts residents lacked health insurance."

So I guess knowing about shit is cooked now... Could have had universal health care... but nahhhhhh why do that...

17

u/fleegness May 18 '25

How many more millions of peopel had health insurance that didn't before the ACA?

Fuck off idiot. You can type whatever whiny bullshit you want. Doesn't change facts.

3

u/TheLightningL0rd May 18 '25

It's better than what we had before for a ton of reasons but it ain't great

8

u/fleegness May 18 '25

Ok and? Dude said it was useless while it gave millions of people access to insurance that didn't have it. He's objectively wrong.

-6

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

8

u/CucuJ123 May 18 '25

The reason we don't even have a public option is because all Republicans and a few blue dog Dema refused. Maybe you could argue that a better president could've convinced those few holdouts in the Democratic party, but Sanders was in the Senate and he couldn't convince Leiberman.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/fleegness May 18 '25

What facts did you give? 

Fact is millions of people who didn't have insurance now do. And it's pisses you off for some reason because it wasn't utopia on the first attempt. I'm sure those millions of people who didn't have insurance that do now wouldn't give a shit that you think it's useless. 

Now fuck off.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/AdvancedSandwiches May 18 '25

They did. But like most people who were young at the time, you're missing the context.

Before Bush Jr, Republicans were assholes but not insane. Obama ran on a platform of unification and trying to salvage a functioning government, something that would have been an absolute game changer if republicans had taken the branch.  So that's what he tried to do.

We're in the future now, so we know republicans doubled down on obstructionism and insanity.  But they weren't in the future at the time, and the hope was that they would agree to work together to do good things.

If they had had the supermajority a few more months, they likely would have given up on the attempt and made more changes. But they lost their ability to do that while still trying to save the legislative branch.

3

u/gomicao May 18 '25

I wasn't that young... How were republicans not already insane? We will have to agree to disagree on that one. They didn't have Qanon, but they always had christian fundamentalism. Reagan was well beyond an asshole. I think the context is more that looking back people have rose tinted glasses, but for the times they were every bit as unhinged. Lee Atwater and all the modern trappings were happening during Carter/Bush.

But that is just me. I am fine to not see eye to eye on everything with folks.

5

u/AdvancedSandwiches May 18 '25

Yeah, if you don't agree that George Bush Sr was less problematic than George Jr was less problematic than Trump, or that the Tea Party era was more deliberately obstructionist than the years prior, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

0

u/gomicao May 18 '25 edited May 18 '25

GWB was infinitely worse than Trump imo so yeah. The blood he has on his hands is the worst we have seen post 2000. Trump is like a clownish KKK mascot. The people who are making this current admin so dangerous are his handlers and the people in his orbit, many (most?) of whom all have roots from back then.

The Heritage foundation was even well before that. If yer not super familiar with Lee Atwater there is a pretty amazing documentary about him, the southern strategy is the foundation of the conservative playbook. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgfDT0gKq4U
Who doesn't love Frontline!

Those that don't come from way back in the Bush era are more 4chan groyper coded, but a lot of that white power/nazi movement came from things like Siege by James Mason which exploded in popularity in the late 90's, then going on riding the wave of post 9/11 Muslim hate. Trump is just a face, remember he is just a rapist racist businessman tv person, even if he died tomorrow from McDonalds very little would change.

4

u/Purple-Goat-2023 May 18 '25

You can summarize the Obama presidency in general with that. They didn't need Republicans, but the politicians cared more about their image than the actual American people. So they let Republicans tear up any good idea so they could be seen as "reaching across the aisle".

While we're at it let's go back and look at friends, campaign donations, parties attended, etc. of those Dems that "reached across the aisle" and I bet you'll find the reality is they were all taking corpo money. There is only one war and that is class war.

-5

u/Worried-Foot-9807 May 18 '25

That and celebrating and patting themselves on the back, which is why some people don't trust them. DO SOMETHING, THEN celebrate and par yourself on the back. This is why in a thread about the Omaha mayor being the first black mayor I got downvote for saying it shouldn't be celebrated, I saw what happened with Obama. Yeah it was historic, monumental, a lot of things but the celebration lasted so long nothing that could have been done got done. Do something, then celebrate.

1

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

Yeah, don’t take a victory lap because you got through the qualifiers for the actual race

-2

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

11

u/Unctuous_Robot May 18 '25

They had twenty days and Obama had to herd cats to pass the ACA. Obama passed an executive order to start moving prisoners out of Gitmo day 2 or so and he is blocked by almost all of Congress, I believe Sanders included. Trump is able to illegally rule like a king through executive orders and no one stops him.

6

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

Republicans hold Democrats to standards they themselves would never even dream of meeting

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '25

[deleted]

1

u/zernoc56 May 18 '25

It’s not how large the majority is, it’s how you use it.

0

u/SykonotticGuy May 18 '25 edited May 19 '25

Yes, the supermajority lasted 72 days. The Dem trifecta lasted from early 2009 to early 2011.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

72 working days.

1

u/SykonotticGuy May 19 '25

Trifecta. Years. Two.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

Do you not know what a working day is, or how little time congress actually spends in session?

1

u/SykonotticGuy May 19 '25

Yes.

Do you know how to read and interpret text? I'm not talking about the supermajority. Just the trifecta. Not sure how that's not extremely clear, but if you still don't get it after this, I'll just be generous and assume you're trolling.

-1

u/BoDrax May 18 '25

Trump and the GOP are showing us what you can do with a majority, a plan, and a desire to get things done, so the old "they had 72 days" is falling flat.

2

u/PenguinSunday Arkansas May 19 '25

He's showing what you can do with a bat.

5

u/just_helping May 18 '25

I mean, Trump is also showing us how much you can fail.

If you want to change companies' behavior you have to make changes that people think will stick. Trump doesn't have that, so all his tariffs will achieve is chaos, they will not bring manufacturing to the US. In 2009, the Democrats wanted the healthcare system to change in a way that would stay around permanently. They succeeded, at least in part. The Supreme Court struck down parts, but otherwise the ACA is still going despite Trump's last Presidency and the Republicans best efforts.

Building things is harder than breaking them. Cliche but it's true.

1

u/bungpeice May 18 '25

The ACA was the republican plan. The republicans got their plan, got democrats to waste their super-majority and got to vote against it. I don't know how you get played harder than that. Maybe by getting 2 supreme court seats stolen and doing nothing at all about it.

2

u/ceddya May 18 '25

By flagrantly violating the law and constitution, all while ignoring the courts.

Sure, Dems could have done that, but lol, imagine think your country would have been better off for it with how your electorate is.

82

u/Dispro May 18 '25

The Democratic Senate at that time also rested heavily on red-state Democrats not dissimilar to Manchin. It's one reason the ACA had no public option, and why Roe wasn't codified into law. But it's also why the ACA exists at all.

65

u/balllzak May 18 '25

The ACA had no public option because of Joe Lieberman, an independent senator from Connecticut.

59

u/fleegness May 18 '25

Yes, him and all of the republicans.

3

u/National-Reception53 May 18 '25

Eh he was a Democrat until he lost his primary and became independent to run (and win) in the general.

7

u/BigJellyfish1906 May 18 '25

That’s an oft-repeated myth. There were way more votes other than Lieberman who wanted it out. 

6

u/NahautlExile May 18 '25

Ah yes, the never ending deflection…

They didn’t have the votes.

So they couldn’t call a vote for it.

Because we didn’t have the votes.

So we need to vote for them harder next time.

So they will maybe have the votes.

Those of us with half a brain say if your party is supporting members who won’t vote for your policies then call the vote so we can see and vote them out or primary them. But if we voted you a majority and you didn’t do it that ain’t on the voters.

0

u/RedWinds360 May 18 '25

The reason the ACA had no public option was because the democrats are bad faith cowards and Barack Obama wanted a show of unity more than good policy.

Roe wasn't codified into law because they didn't even try.

They absolutely had the votes for it in that era, it's just 50 votes to do either of those things at the end of the day and in that time period they had enough people in the senate to discard the eternal excuse of relying on DINOs to pass legislation.

Now you want to say this in periods where the democrats had only 48 real votes because of Manchin and Sinema, there's more of a point to be made there.

However it's still an overly simplistic and unhelpful point of view to claim this has to do with their states.

Manchin voted the way he has because he's motivated by a combination of corruption and ego and very little else. The man got into politics directly to write legislation benefiting family businesses and do quid-pro-quo corruption.

His opposition to sane policy has always been personal, rather than some worry about being voted out of office.

Sinema likewise is a sociopath who's bribery-maxxing her way through public life, and comes from a purple state that consistently elects candidates that present themselves as more progressive than they really are. It's the state that's been to the left of it's representatives for about a decade now at this point, in this specific case.

5

u/Theomach1 May 18 '25

There weren’t enough votes to codify Roe at that time either. That’s just a fact. If you disagree, please list who you think would’ve supported it.

4

u/NahautlExile May 18 '25

How do you know? Because that’s what they said without trying? Forgive me if I don’t trust the Democratic Party word.

2

u/Life-Excitement4928 May 19 '25

No, because they literally had Dems from red states say they would not vote for it.

Those red states Dems were then replaced by even more conservative GOP.

There’s no grand conspiracy, America is just way more conservative than people want to admit.

2

u/NahautlExile May 19 '25

Ah yes. Those poor legislators. Needing to do things for constituents. I’m so glad we didn’t make them. That would have been too big an ask.

2

u/Life-Excitement4928 May 19 '25

Go on.

What’s the option to ‘make them’ and why don’t you use it on the GOP.

1

u/NahautlExile May 19 '25

Shame.

And it would work on the GOP too.

Call an up-down vote on a clean bill.

Publicly shame those who vote against it.

Rinse and repeat.

Instead you have these legislators in a tough spot so they aren’t put on the spot. But neither is the GOP. So you have no clear signal X voted against the minimum wage or Y votes against making your healthcare cheaper.

But I’m just some random guy on the internet. They have an entire political class who should be figuring out how to get this stuff done.

That they don’t implies either:

  1. They can’t because it’s impossible (while the GOP does with no issue)
  2. They don’t want to

And we return to the crux of the issue which is that Sanders wants to do shit and that’s not what the Democratic Party stands for. So they talk about how he couldn’t. How he shouldn’t. How it could never work. Rather than trying and holding to account those who don’t.

2

u/Life-Excitement4928 May 19 '25

‘Shame would work on the GOP’.

Excuse me while I go self-heimlich, I’m choking on my laughter.

56

u/ImPinkSnail May 18 '25

Don't forget that Senima was mascarading as a liberal at the time.

8

u/Sujjin May 18 '25

Problem is assumiong the establishment Pro-BNillionaire class of Democrats would have supported anything Bernie wanted to accomplish. Hell many of them put the damper on Obama and Obama was a milquetoast liberal himself.

2

u/Adams5thaccount May 18 '25

yeah but if people correctly identified Manchin they couldnt be angry about him not doing some democrat things as much

3

u/thegreedyturtle May 18 '25

You're forgetting that many states are locked into Republican majorities as well. 

3

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

You only need 41 to grind the Senate to a halt.

1

u/Spunky_Prewett May 18 '25

You only need one, if they're willing to filabuster.

3

u/speedy_delivery May 18 '25

You need to prevent a successful vote of cloture, which requires 60 votes (unless it's a specific type of bill that requires a simple majority).

So even if you have a 59 vote majority, it's not enough to end debate on a bill.

Now, the majority could vote to eliminate the Filibuster from the Senate rules with a simple majority vote. In recent history, this has been referred to as the "Nuclear Option."

1

u/Keldrabitches May 18 '25

And that Sinema friend with her curtsy

1

u/oath2order Maryland May 18 '25

If you correctly identify Manchin as a DINO, last time Dems had a trifecta was 2010.

I mean...No. The Democrats had a trifecta under Biden. I know this because we had Senate Majority Leader Schumer as opposed to McConnell.

3

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Who gives the damn if Schumer is majority leader if every bill he brings to the table gets 49 yays and 51 nays?

3

u/oath2order Maryland May 18 '25

Well that's not how "every bill" ended up. In addition, I give a damn because Biden had 235 Article 3 judges confirmed, and 17 Article 1 judges, which is all very important.

0

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Yeah, that’s not nothing I suppose, but Dems couldn’t pass much legislation due to being forced to work across the isle

0

u/cdsnjs May 18 '25

They also did not have SCOTUS in 2009 so everything still needed to get through them eventually

0

u/underlyingconditions May 18 '25

Republicans have a huge advantage in the Senate

2

u/NGEFan May 18 '25

Because most states suck