196

Man I've been debunking that argument for years now. Yay propaganda power.

So the long story short is, he had the count on paper, but a series of different members from his party being incapacitated due to injury, illness, and old age, as well as a few DINOs (Democrats in name only) who preferred to vote with the Republicans, meant he never really had an actual majority on the hill. But yes on paper.

Centrists: “Bro why are all these old people ass at governing” FIFY

Granted, I think there are certain things Dems suck balls at governing in. But that stuff is largely at the local level in progressive cities where Dems easily hold the power.

Local Dem governments tend to be infested with NIMBYs and everything bagel liberalism, which ends up exacerbating the housing crisis and everything that comes along with that. As an example, look at the NIMBY rat nest that is San Francisco politics. Not that Repubs are better locally, either; they also tend to be infested with NIMBYs, on top of all the usual GOP malarkey.

All that to say Dems are almost universally better than GOP at state and federal level, but you really gotta go on a candidate-by-candidate basis amongst Dems at the local level. Many are great, while many others are hot NIMBY garbage.