Why do they call it "gridlock"

[orangecrush]

When Democrats have a sitting President and the Senate?

Fuck you, corporate media.

That is all.

[drray23]

1. well its gridlock regarding any passage of legislation.

if the repubs refuse to put reasonable bills on the floor and only push crazy stuff nothing will get passed. it will either not make it out of the house or die in the senate.

[orangecrush]

2. I get that

Ut they seem to be putting it across as a "tie" for Democrats.

It isn't.

[Amishman]

12. It's probably the closest to a tie the federal government has ever been

We hold the White House
They hold the SCOTUS.
The Senate is ours by a seat.
The House is theirs by a couple seats.

Three branches of government. Each party has firm control of one and the third is almost perfectly split.

[Ocelot II]

4. Spending bills originate in the House, which means the GOP can block funding for everything.

[unblock]

5. Where bills originate rarely matters. What matters is both houses must pass for it to become law

For the most part, republicans in the house won't pass senate bills and the idiotic bills they do pass in the house, the senate would never go for.

"Must pass" legislation will pass after ridiculous Republican drama, that's about it.


Spending bills must originate in the house, but that only applies to the final form. The senate can originate and pass a spending bill, the house can then pass a similar but slightly different bill, then they form a joint committee to reconcile the differences. The compromise bill that emerges from that is technically a new bill and *that* passes the house first and then the senate.

[unblock]

7. The politics of being a republic is too toxic. One "wrong" vote can end their career

If the pack turns on you, you're done.

This is why so many reporters and even democratic politicians think there are reasonable, non-insane republicans. There are, in the sense that you can talk to them privately and they may be reasonable and legitimately trying to find a compromise or do something reasonable. But when it comes to the actual vote, their hands are tied, they have to go along with the pack no matter how rabidly insane they may think the pack is.

In the end it hardly matters if they're sane on an individual level. They're part of an insane pack, end of story.


We can't pry them loose until it's clear the pack itself is going away. And that's not any time soon....

[Silent3]

8. They don't have to go along with the pack. They can do the right thing, then lose reelection.

I hate this built-in assumption that losing reelection is the worst possible of all fates, and that it's perfectly understandable when politicians do anything to remain in office.

It's not understandable. It's corrupt.

[unblock]

9. Oh absolutely.

They could and they should.

But they won't. Pretty much the only time a Republican find a conscience or a sense of ethics is when they realize their career is over anyway.

The Liz cheneys and Adam kinzingers are few and far between, and the Republican Party continues to purge itself of anyone who might think of such things.

[treestar]

13. Very true, and there were a couple of examples

Can't recall any right now, by name, but they decided not to run for re-election based on some vote.

[tritsofme]

10. The Senate can also take an unrelated House passed bill

Strip it of its text, and replace it with whatever they want, and use that as a “legislative vehicle” to move a revenue bill, which of course the House would have to pass again. Formal conferences have become less common in recent years.

[unblock]

11. Yes, I think that was done as part of the passage of Obamacare

Could be wrong, I used to know the details....