Media Fail: Reports Say Brown Win In MA Cost Dems Their Majority (It Didn't)

Exactly. They lost their majority by their own admission.

Simple. Before the balance of power was tipped to Lieberman, now it's tipped to the GOP.

They don't actually "control" Washington, they'd need a real majority which would give them the committee chairmanships, BUT they do hold a very sharp knife to the neck of any legislation that the Dems want to pass. Call it a "negative" control maybe. They can't pass any of their bills, but they can make damn sure the Dems can't pass any either.

My Dad had a quote above his desk attributed to Will Rogers - it read:

"I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat."

There is a lot of wisdom there. The Democrats have never been able to establish a lock-step front - everybody has a say, very democratic, but not very effective.

Check your math - it's not 2/3 it's 3/5. Also the House has no such rule, they use a simple majority. The one thing in the Constitution that does require a 2/3s vote in the Senate is the removal of the President. I have heard that it would require 2/3s to change the filibuster rule, but I don't believe it. The Democrats could find a technicality if they wanted to get rid of the filibuster (which technically is not even really a filibuster but merely the threat of a filibuster, which is enough to make the majority back down), but they don't.

Perhaps your post should be titled SLEEPY COFFEE FAIL now go back to sleep.

Right, Run, it's 3/5. 2/3 is usually only required in the Senate for a vote to change the rules of the body. The exception is use of the "nuclear option", a point of order that effectively supersedes the rules of the Senate to only require a simple majority.

3:2? If you're having problems figuring that out, you might want to stay away from advanced math or calc, Sleepy. Just sayin'

OK, so if it isn't apparent, the US Senate IMHO is intended to be the more deliberate (slow) and somewhat conservative (the Club) as a balance to the House. Not liking the slow effect at the moment, but that's the way it is designed.

BTW, Sleepy, a simple majority is 51 when all 100 Senators are present, not 60. 60 is referred to as a supermajority. 2/3 refers to Senate rule 22. So maybe you seem to be the one who is ignorant of the system of government.

You are factually incorrect. The Senate does not operate on a two-thirds rule except for special cases such as treaty ratification and impeachment. In all ordinary matters the majority is supposed to rule (with the Vice-President casting the deciding vote in rare cases of a tie). The filibuster began to be used on rare occasions in the 19th Century but was never codified in any law. Cloture, the power to shut off debate, sometimes required a 2/3 vote but was set in 1979 to a 3/5 vote, i.e. 60 votes: the so-called 'supermajority'. But this is simply a Senate rule (Rule 22, to be exact) which can be changed -- and which a determined majority leader, fed up with blind opposition, can simply ignore. Pass the damn bill with 51 votes and let the opposition try to enforce their anger in the courts.

It's really entertaining to be lectured by someone who clearly does not even have a third-grade grasp of either math or civics. Thanks for the laughs, Sleepy.