Talk:Lame-duck session

What?

WAT DOES IT MEAN EXACTLY

The article's first sentence is not enough? How about reading Lame duck (politics). Astronaut (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 Lame Duck Session

What is/will be the mechanism used for the 2010 lame duck session? 71.98.66.197 (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This section should be added, especially since significant business (the tax deal) took place in it. Contributor tom (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

lead rewrite

I see a number of issues with this article's lead section:

- the section is very long: are we sure we cannot prune it further?

- it should explicitly say it's about US politics; it's not enough to merely include "congress" in the definition.

- what does it mean? The lead section doesn't quickly explain what the significance of a lame duck session is; how it changes politics.

- the "what makes a lame-duck session" contains a great sentence: "The significant characteristic of a lame duck session is that its participants are the sitting Members of the existing Congress, not those who will be entitled to sit in the new Congress." Something this clear should be in the lead!

- only problem is that while defining what a lame-duck session is, it again does not explain what it's for. Why political experts even use the phrase.

Why are lame-duck sessions significant? Does it affect the power of congress to make decisions? Does it make a difference regarding a president wanting to force laws through the system? Or what?

All of this needs to be in the lead. A summary of how the quality of "lame-duck" changes politics. CapnZapp (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)