The ACA was passed with 60 Democratic Senate votes and not a single GOP vote in House or Senate.

Biden had a 50–50 Senate, counting Manchin and Sinema among the 50. If you think he "should have" passed similar legislation and consider his failure to do so to be some kind of failure of willpower, then you fundamentally don't understand how our political system works. If the Dems don't have the votes, it's nonsensical to blame them for not being able to pass legislation that is opposed by 100% of the GOP.

The ACA was a big accomplishment, and it managed to go through during the exactly 72 working days since 1980 when the Democrats had such a majority in Congress and the Presidency. (We all owe an incredible debt of gratitude for that to Nancy Pelosi, who was personally responsible for getting it over the finish line after Ted Kennedy died in office.) If the Dems consistently had large congressional majorities, they could make much more progress. If you want to see that happen, make sure they get the votes.

▲

raw_anon_1111 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I have repeatedly said what I think he should have done - announced after the mid terms that he wasn’t going to seek re-election, let there be a real primary and if another Democrat could have been elected they could have solidified the foundation he set.

Excusing that is like commending a surgeon for saving a life and then not washing his hands during follow up and killing the patient allowing the wound to get infected.

And why haven’t the democrats had a platform that could convince enough people to vote for them in the Senate since then?

The Democratic majority didn’t happen by accident. Howard Dean pushed for the “50 state strategy” in 2008. The current Democrats are feckless

▲

jacobolus 18 hours ago | parent [-]

In other words, you think the Dems "should" have won the election in 2024, and that they didn't was entirely down to on Biden's personal decisions. Because they didn't win that election, everything that the GOP and voters do afterward is now Biden's fault personally.

The first part is a counter-factual hypothesis that seems wrong, which you keep insisting on without any evidence. The second part is thoroughly fallacious.

To first order, the summary is that you don't think Biden or his administration deserves credit for anything they actually did, while simultaneously thinking they deserve blame for a large number of things that other people did that they were personally opposed to and worked against.

	▲	raw_anon_1111 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Do you really think that if there had been a real primary Kamala would have been the nominee? She was part of an unpopular administration and she couldn’t distance herself from it. You did see the first debate didn’t you? Could there possibly have beeb a worse strategy than what the DNC did? Biden doesn’t get a participation trophy for doing things that were innaffective.