Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
A Horse Named Stranger

US Politics: CPAC - Finding new ways to bring America to Rune.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Karlbear said:

The problem is not that we have Manchin. The problem is that we only have one of him. We need 10 or more senators like him - people who can get elected in red states, who vote with the party on most things but not everything. 

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I find your lack of purity test disturbing.

What is this, a purity test for ANTS?

 

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

Those are great too, but realistically dems don't have many more of those that they can attain. But places like WV where there is a massive red state and super polarization and a dem wins? Those are the kinds of places that give you a lot of extra power for the next 6 years and possibly more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

And yet, if the Dems did 6% better than they did in November, they would have only picked up NC and ME.

If the Dems ran the table like they did in 2008 (which is what I said), then they should have picked up Iowa is well, where Ernst only got 51.7%, and perhaps Texas where Cornyn got 53.5% against a weak challenger.  And obviously still won the Georgia seats.  Hence, 53-54.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

If the Dems ran the table like they did in 2008 (which is what I said), then they should have picked up Iowa is well, where Ernst only got 51.7%, and perhaps Texas where Cornyn got 53.5% against a weak challenger.  And obviously still won the Georgia seats.  Hence, 53-54.

I understand where your math came from, I'm just pointing out that Biden did only 3% worse than Obama in 08, and yet Democrats weren't even close in states like IA and TX (let alone their more optimistic targets like SC and KS). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

10 more Manchins would be good, but I'd rather have 10 more Kellys, Warnocks, and Ossofs

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Centrist Simon Steele said:

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

It's the price you may have to pay to possibly collect seats in TX, OH, MS etc. Better voter registration and giving Democrats from Red States a long leash is how you try and counter the unfairness of the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Walter the Singing Wildcat said:

Man, I had thoughts on this Cooper column on the Dems finding a spine, but y'all don't really do politics in y'all's own politics thread?  

WTF did 4 pm do for anyone?  I heard about a little after 4 pm

I think the Dems aren't doing a great job of showing their spine. They are doing some really good things that can almost be defined by purely polemic descriptors in opposition to how Obama tried to rebuilt after the GR. I think their messaging sucks though. A lot of this, I think, has to do with Biden partially defining himself by not being Trump--for example, not putting his name on the next round of checks. I'm fine with that, but so many of the good things such as his boosting of the earned income tax credit...that's huge. But people have no idea about it. It's a type of branding that evokes nothing (despite doing TONS). I'm fine with him defining himself (to some degree) in opposition to Trump, but to borrow a phrase from him: "Come on, man!" Hasn't he been paying attention? Americans are fickle as fuck. He needs to be selling this shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's the price you may have to pay to possibly collect seats in TX, OH, MS etc. Better voter registration and giving Democrats from Red States a long leash is how you try and counter the unfairness of the Senate.

I think some of the "red" states are actually blue states waiting to happen while WV is a mess. If Manchin has to pretend to be Republican, then he's useless to us (I also think this is a false narrative and a Democrat could be elected there and not have to pretend to be Republican). But you look at Mark Kelly in Arizona (Sinema is...a riddle, and that's about all I'm going to say about her) who acts freely and votes like a Democrat. Texas seems on the verge of actually making a turn to purple and, I bet, full blue much like Colorado. But, you're right, voter registration is the sticking point. And the Manchins of the world have shown me zero evidence they're willing to do much to fix that.

And then there's the Supreme Court which will just undo any progressive voter legislation--so that needs to be dealt with too by, reaching back into the summer, stacking the court. Which, again, Manchins oppose. Of course, Manchin has maybe revealed he's inconsistent and has no values, so who knows.

Edited by Centrist Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

He needs to be selling this shit.

Biden plans media and travel blitz to sell relief plan -- and make the benefits permanent

Quote

His first venue will be a primetime address Thursday night, a direct-to-camera reckoning on a year of pandemic that aides say will still lean heavily into positive signs the country is slowly emerging from crisis -- fueled along, he'll say, by the contents of his new law. [...]

Biden will spend the ensuing weeks firing up Air Force One to fly around the country highlighting where the bill's effects will be most felt, an effort designed to sell people outside Washington that it is in part because of his plan that vaccinations are speeding up, schools are reopening and life is starting to look like normal, according to people familiar with the plans.

After avoiding one, Biden will likely convene his first formal news conference in the coming days to help advance his ideas. He's waited longer than any president in the past 100 years to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/challengers-seize-nevada-democratic-party/2021/03/10/3b846226-80ef-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html

Quote

....The weekend developments were remarkable in part because Nevada Democrats have been highly successful in recent years, winning four straight presidential elections and holding almost every prominent statewide position, including both U.S. Senate seats. Reid, who declined an interview request, receives much of the credit within the party for building a powerful apparatus that relies upon turning out union-heavy areas around Las Vegas and Reno....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think at a certain point, the law of diminishing returns starts to come into play with Manchin where his act becomes counter productive. Obviously at this time his vote is important since it is what secures the majority, but his status as the swing vote is extremely problematic because it impedes the major structural changes that need to happen in this country. Denying the other side power is not enough, because it leaves you vulnerable to attacks regarding the fact that you have held power without anything to show for it. In a country where people don't seem to recognize the fact that killing the poors is basically the GOP platform, if the party in power is not able to actually achieve concrete victories that people can see the effect of in their every day life (or that Dems can convince them they can see) you tend to lose that power.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case right now (I think we're starting to butt up against it), but eventually Manchin is going to be a real problem if he is not willing to play ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think some of the "red" states are actually blue states waiting to happen while WV is a mess. If Manchin has to pretend to be Republican, then he's useless to us (I also think this is a false narrative and a Democrat could be elected there and not have to pretend to be Republican). But you look at Mark Kelly in Arizona (Sinema is...a riddle, and that's about all I'm going to say about her) who acts freely and votes like a Democrat. Texas seems on the verge of actually making a turn to purple and, I bet, full blue much like Colorado. But, you're right, voter registration is the sticking point. And the Manchins of the world have shown me zero evidence they're willing to do much to fix that.

I doubt they're waiting to be blue, but they can become competitive, and that alone drains GOP resources. But it would be a mistake to try and push liberal candidates for those seats, at least in the meantime.

And no, Manchin is not useless, because he helped us retake the majority and that's more important than fighting ideological battles in tough Senate races. Win first, fight about policy afterwards.

Quote

And then there's the Supreme Court which will just undo any progressive voter legislation--so that needs to be dealt with too by, reaching back into the summer, stacking the court. Which, again, Manchins oppose. Of course, Manchin has maybe revealed he's inconsistent and has no values, so who knows.

Just invite a few on the right to visit a biological preserve for their legal opinions. Give them a free tour through the park. What could go wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, I think at a certain point, the law of diminishing returns starts to come into play with Manchin where his act becomes counter productive. Obviously at this time his vote is important since it is what secures the majority, but his status as the swing vote is extremely problematic because it impedes the major structural changes that need to happen in this country.

You don't want Manchins in seats where other Democrats can win, but there are plenty of seats where no other Democrats could win. There is no diminishing return because there is no other option, it's a Manchin or nothing. I'd be thrilled beyond belief if we had 10 more Manchins like that.

Also, part of the idea is that these 10 Manchins would not be identical to each other. There'd all be frustrating to work with, but presumably on somewhat different issues. So for any given bill, there'd probably be at least 1 Manchin willing to cut a deal. Which is better than the current situation of a single Manchin, where if he doesn't want it, it has no chance of happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

10 more Manchins would be a nightmare! I just find him...repugnant. He's no centrist. 

He is very repugnant.  But if there were ten more or even 5 more DINOs in thoroughly red states, we probably have a $15 federal minimum wage right now.

I mean he pretty won a narrow victory in 2018 and it's difficult to separate that from his Kavanaugh vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I see the leftish wing of the Democrats has swept all positions in the Nevada party. Seems to me that there is a lot of support for the leftish wing in the state come election time. The old guard seem to be taking it hard. I guess they now know how the royal family feels today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Manchin's seat is worth so much to the democrats right now, it is a bit baffling that he still gets the hate that he does from the left.  If the Democrats had four more Joe Manchins in 2015, we'd have a liberal majority in the Supreme Court right now (Obama would have seated Garland and Democrats would have held RBG's seat for Biden).  Instead we have Roberts in the "liberal" wing of the court. 

Just because Manchin isn't on board with every liberal thing you want to do doesn't mean he's part of the problem. 

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Just because Manchin isn't on board with every liberal thing you want to do doesn't mean he's part of the problem. 

Several threads back I cited a podcast on the innerworkings of WV politics and how Manchin juggles them. Basically just because something at first doesn't mean his mind can't be changed. It's his negotiation strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, I think at a certain point, the law of diminishing returns starts to come into play with Manchin where his act becomes counter productive. Obviously at this time his vote is important since it is what secures the majority, but his status as the swing vote is extremely problematic because it impedes the major structural changes that need to happen in this country. Denying the other side power is not enough, because it leaves you vulnerable to attacks regarding the fact that you have held power without anything to show for it. In a country where people don't seem to recognize the fact that killing the poors is basically the GOP platform, if the party in power is not able to actually achieve concrete victories that people can see the effect of in their every day life (or that Dems can convince them they can see) you tend to lose that power.

Alternately, when you have just the barest grasp of power, the idea that you should reject the reason you have that grasp because it's not enough is really stupid. 

The US isn't going to realize that 'killing the poor' is a bad platform for a long, long time. Either accept that or get used to never getting anything you want, ever. Those are your options. 

55 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm not saying that is necessarily the case right now (I think we're starting to butt up against it), but eventually Manchin is going to be a real problem if he is not willing to play ball.

As opposed to what, a Republican senator in WV who has zero reason to play ball ever with Dems and will be re-elected easily unless they fuck a dead hooker on live TV?

I mean, really - what are your options here? You're not going to get a very progressive or even mildly progressive candidate elected in West Virginia when they're like Trump +25. You'll just keep losing that over and over again. You have two basic options - go with a dem who can win in a state like WV and may not play ball all the time, or go with a GOP candidate who will never talk to you and will actively encourage people to kill you. Again, those are your options. You may not like them but that's what you got. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, isn't this discussion rather self-evident?  If there were 10 more Manchins then the filibuster wouldn't be a problem - even if they didn't vote for the policy MCs do not break with their party on cloture in this day and age.  And it'd be almost a certainty you could get one of the 11 Manchins on board for virtually all of the Democratic agenda items - minimum wage, climate change, infrastructure, health care, immigration reform, DC statehood.  Because, as Fez mentioned, the pivotal vote would be defused from one Manchin to 11, meaning there'd be competition among them to be that pivot and extract carrots/pork.

And if there were 5 more Manchins, then they would presumably be similarly reticent to abolish the filibuster, so Biden would have to do the same thing he's doing now - going through through the motions of "bipartisanship" to convince the Manchins to bend on filibuster reform and/or using reconciliation to pass key agenda items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Manchin's seat is worth so much to the democrats right now, it is a bit baffling that he still gets the hate that he does from the left.  If the Democrats had four more Joe Manchins in 2015, we'd have a liberal majority in the Supreme Court right now (Obama would have seated Garland and Democrats would have held RBG's seat for Biden).  Instead we have Roberts in the "liberal" wing of the court. 

Just because Manchin isn't on board with every liberal thing you want to do doesn't mean he's part of the problem. 

He's still a problem, he's just not one that anyone can do much about anytime soon.  Better than the alternative, but still bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...