Despite your lazy grammar police nonsense and lack of recognizing my mocking you, I have a question for you:
You seem energized by a once 70% unity in the Senate. You contrast that to today's "pretty sizable" fracture "at around 40% on each side". Now, obviously, "around 40% on each side" implies only two sides exist - a third 40% side would be too much - so that leaves an unaccounted for 'around 20%'. Now, if that 20% were evenly divided between the two already established sides, then you probably would have typed "at around 50% on each side" or some other number, but you didn't. This assumes, then, that the 20% might flip between agreeing with either 40% side. That, of course, leads to a very possible 60%/40% split.
So the question, then, is how dramatically different is a 70/30 split from a 60/40 split to you? The first you paint as the glory days and the second you portray as how bad the country has become. This isn't even getting into the fallacy that just because the Senate was 70/30 on this issue in the past means that they worked together 70/30 all of their time, or that just because the Senate of today is 40/40/20 means they are incapable of achieving 70/30 or greater on any issue.