I never said the DNC had 60. I said Obama had a supermajority for four months.
You are technically correct about the strict party label, but I never argued that or stated that in my reply. I simply said Obama had a supermajority for four months, even if only technically.
Sanders and Lieberman formally caucused with the Democrats. In the U.S. Senate, caucusing means you organize with that party to determine leadership, committee assignments, and—most importantly—the voting threshold needed to break a filibuster.
So I’m technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
The Caucus had 60 votes to pass the watered down ACA. The DNC had 58. Two independent senators were needed to pass it.
The DNC have not had 60 senators since 1979 anf have had 48 or less for over 13 years.
I never said the DNC had 60. I said Obama had a supermajority for four months.
You are technically correct about the strict party label, but I never argued that or stated that in my reply. I simply said Obama had a supermajority for four months, even if only technically.
Sanders and Lieberman formally caucused with the Democrats. In the U.S. Senate, caucusing means you organize with that party to determine leadership, committee assignments, and—most importantly—the voting threshold needed to break a filibuster.
So I’m technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.
Where did I ever say the DNC specifically had 60?
They demonstrably did not have a supermajority because they could not pass the original ACA during the less than 80 days in session.