Baby steps for Tea Partyistas and Occupiers

Greater support = higher preponderance of support. It's called simple division, a.k.a. percentages. There was a higher likelihood of support for the bill among Republicans than among Democrats.

And just for the record, you might want to reconsider your Senate numbers and what it takes to pass a bill.

Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
Greater support = higher preponderance of support. It's called simple division, a.k.a. percentages. There was a higher likelihood of support for the bill among Republicans than among Democrats.
65% of the support came from Democrats. You can deny that, but you're wrong.
Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
And just for the record, you might want to reconsider your Senate numbers and what it takes to pass a bill.
When a bill comes up for vote in the Senate, a majority of those voting must vote "yea" for it to pass.

97 senators voted. 49 Democratic senators voted yes. What the other 48 did is irrelevant because of the support of those 49 Dems.

Nevertheless, I'll play your little game though and note that there was 100% support among independent senators for President Obama's health reform act.
No game, Chil, just watching the partisan game continue to spin here for you usual suspects.

However, since you asked. Divide the votes by party. Republicans were more likely to support the bill than Dems. My original statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, pretty interesting you thinking a plurality could carry the day on that Senate vote.
Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
No game, Chil, just watching the partisan game continue to spin here for you usual suspects.
Please don't rewrite history. You are the one who felt the need to pit Democrat versus Republican. I'll quote you:
Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
Trivial Reminder Du Jour: The Voting Rights Act of '65 had greater support in the House and Senate from Rs than Ds.
"Rs than Ds". Don't pretend you're above partisanship.
Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
Republicans were more likely to support the bill than Dems. My original statement. Nothing more, nothing less.
But that's not what you said.

You didn't say that "Republicans were more likely to support the bill than Dems." You said that the bill had "greater support . . . from Rs than Ds."

That is false, as my numbers above show. 65% of the support came from Ds.
Quote

Originally posted by: ken2v
BTW, pretty interesting you thinking a plurality could carry the day on that Senate vote.
I only think that because it's absolutely true.

In the U.S. Senate, when a bill is up for vote, the side that gets the most votes wins.

That day, a majority of the Senators present voted "yea". Moreover, there were enough Ds who voted "yea" that it didn't matter how all the Rs voted.

I'm proud that so many Ds and Rs voted yea that day. I wish we could replicate that sort of bipartisanship now.


Regarding Chilcoot's observations and the vote on the Voting Rights Act of 65: Just my two cents, but what do I know I am just a dumb lobbyist...probably did need the Republicans to get the necessary 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. In the Senate without the 60 cloture vote, a measure can go on indefinitely. With the 60 vote margin, a measure can only be debated for 30 hours. So the Ds needed the Rs to hit the magic number of 60.

Regarding the 49 votes to pass, I would bet that 3 Ds were asked to not show up, the term we use is "walk" so they were not recorded as yea or nea, thus allowing 49 Ds mto pass the measure. Could be wrong, way before my time.

BCFahren
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now