Are you sure you want to delete this post?
As Nate Silver points out:
"When F.D.R.took over the Presidency in 1933, the Democrats controlled 64 percent of the Senate seats and 73 percent (!) of the House seats, counting independents who were sympathetic to the party. And those numbers only increased over the next couple of midterms -- during their peak during 1937-38, the Democrats actually controlled about 80 percent (!) of the seats in both chambers."
Comparisons are often made of how effective Roosevelt and Johnson were versus Clinton and Obama. When you have the overwhelming support of a Congress, then it is much easier to get legislation passed. Without the majorities, presidents by necessity have to compromise.
Clinton never enjoyed a veto proof majority.
Obama's slim majority in the Senate was very short lived. With Colman challenging the results in Minnesota, Al Franken was not sworn into the Senate until July 7, 2009. That gave Obama a veto proof 60 seat majority in the Senate if you count Josef Lieberman as caucusing with the Democrats. With Ted Kennedy's death on August 25, 2009 Obama again lost his majority. Patrick Kirk filled the vacancy on September 9th but only served until the end of the term. At that time, however, the more pressing issues were the decline in the economy (Great Recession) and the campaign to pass the Affordable Care Act.
If Bernie Sanders is elected he will be ineffective as a president unless the stay-at-home voters turn out in huge numbers to give him not only majorities in both houses, but also a 60 vote veto proof majority in the Senate. The Republicans are absolutely ruthless and anything goes. They will filibuster, filibuster, filibuster.
And then they will place the blame on Sanders for not getting his proposed legislation passed. And many of his liberal supporters in frustration will cry, "Sanders promised!!" And then they won't vote in the midterm of 2018.