304
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

The White House threw cold water on the prospect of a sit-down between President Biden and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), arguing Wednesday that there’s nothing to negotiate and the Speaker should bring a bipartisan national security funding bill up for a vote.

“What is there to negotiate? Really, truly, what is the one-on-one negotiation about, when he’s been presented with exactly what he asked for?” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a briefing with reporters.

“He’s negotiating with himself. He’s killing bills on his own,” she continued. “And if he were to put that bill that just came out of the Senate — the national security supplemental that doesn’t have border security in it because he said he didn’t want it, he changed his mind — it would pass. It would pass in a bipartisan way.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 31 points 8 months ago

The Dems lost control of the house at mid-terms, and they only have a razor-thin margin in the Senate of 51-49 if you count the 3 independents as Dems (which is fair as they caucus together).

I don't see any domination, at least on a national level.

[-] holycrap@lemm.ee 12 points 8 months ago

Gerrymandering is a hell of a drug

[-] frezik@midwest.social 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There also hasn't been a test of it on the national level yet. The November election will be that test. Some of the little elections that have been popping up since the Supreme Court's abortion ruling have gone hard for Democrats when we might not otherwise expect it to. It still remains to be seen if that pans out on a larger scale.

The thing about gerrymandering is that there is a trap built into the math. The way it works is to give your opponent a few very safe districts (like +40 for them), and then give yourself a long list of fairly safe districts (like +15 for you). However, if the vote trends hard for your opponent, those fairly safe districts are no longer safe and you lose everything. This is a real possibility with how badly votes have gone for the GOP in those smaller elections, but we'll have to see.

If just one of Trump's criminal trials hands down a guilty verdict before the election, it becomes a likely possibility.

[-] paultimate14@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Oh yes of course that all makes sense, but it's also all just speculation. The Dems have not dominated yet. In more than the 3 decades I've been alive, the Dems have only had a filibuster-proof majority of Congress, plus the presidency, for a handful of months.

I've seen them win the popular vote and lose the presidency twice.

I hope the Dems do dominate and shift the Overton window left. But I think we also need to be careful about the expectations and narratives carried online. Fascists love to spread the lie that the Dems have been in control for decades and accomplished nothing. So saying Dems have dominated elections when they haven't (at least not nationally) is dangerous.

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

The reason it's a domination is because historically, the party in the white House loses seats in Congress during mid term elections. Did Democrats lose seats in the house? Yes, but Republicans barely gained a majority, so not a large loss.in the Senate? Democrats gained even more control which is the exact opposite direction it should have gone.

That in conjunction with abortion being a hot button issue that Democrats across the board support, and the electorate (even in conservative states) has supported as well doesn't bode well for Republicans.

Lastly, Republicans are a mess in the house which isn't good at giving reasons for the electorate continue to vote for you.

We'll see how things go though.

this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
304 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3834 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS