US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

If Manchin wants the Infrastructure bill to pass, he must vote for the 3.5 trilion spending.

Does that satisfy your demand for must have must in a leverage definition?

No.  Because that isn’t really a “must” for Manchin if his real goal, above all others, is re-election.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

You asked what was the leverage to get Manchin on board with the reconciliation bill.  The leverage is, obviously, that he wants the infrastructure bill to also pass.  If he didn't want either to pass, he wouldn't have been one of the main drivers of the infrastructure bill.  That's manifestly observable, not subject to some "should" or "must" bullshit you're conjecturing.

Then why isn’t Manchin pushing the existing package through?  Why is he deliberately delaying this.  If his number one “must” was passing this bill… wouldn’t it be done by now?  Clearly there is some other over-riding priority  to Manchin that supercedes his desire to have this bill passed.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then why isn’t Manchin pushing the existing package through?  Why is he deliberately delaying this.  If his number one “must” was passing this bill… wouldn’t it be done by now?  Clearly there is some other over-riding priorities to Manchin that supercedes his desire to have this bill passed.

....Scot what the hell are you talking about?  You seem to be confused.  The infrastructure bill was passed by the Senate nearly a month ago.  But it has not been passed by the House.  The House can still tank the bill -- and they will if Manchin remains this obstinate.  Manchin himself isn't "deliberately delaying" the passage of the infrastructure at all.  Pelosi is -- precisely because she's using it as leverage to get Manchin to comply with the reconciliation bill.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Because that isn’t really a “must” for Manchin if his real goal, above all others, is re-election.

A few presuppositions in your statement.

1. The office in itself is the reward. Otherwise, the natural follow up question is. To get re-elected to do what exactly, pass an infrastructure bill?

2. That his vote on the spending would sink his election chances. Which is a dubious claim. The longer he drags his feet and throws an tantrum, arguably the more existential it becomes his electoral chances. Has he managed to box himself into that corner, yet? I'd argue if both bills die, and it's entirely on Manchin, that's what'd kill his re-election prospects.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

....Scot what the hell are you talking about?  You seem to be confused.  The infrastructure bill was passed by the Senate nearly a month ago.  But it has not been passed by the House.  The House can still tank the bill -- and they will if Manchin remains this obstinate.  Manchin himself isn't "deliberately delaying" the passage of the infrastructure at all.  Pelosi is -- precisely because she's using it as leverage to get Manchin to comply with the reconciliation bill.

I’ve got the bills confused.

[DMC]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’ve got the bills confused.

Fair enough.  To be clear, that's why I refer to one as the infrastructure bill and the other as the reconciliation bill.

[Varysblackfyre321]

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's much lower than Morning Consult at 47 or Rasmussen at 46, yes.  Even IBD/TIPP at 44.

Ah my mistake; I should have said lower than most but not substantially lower than one other recent poll where Biden’s approval is 41 percent. 
 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I don't know what this means.  If Manchin doesn't move off a $1.5 trillion posture, the infrastructure bill will not pass.  That's the leverage, bottomline.

The problem here is this is not a straight tradeoff, everyone wants the infrastructure bill to pass. The disagreement is with the reconciliation bill, and that’s why the progressives will get blamed if they spike the former. The right and the center will bury them, and while the left will largely blame Manchin, there will still be plenty of Democrats banging their heads on desks complaining that $2.5T is better than nothing. This is a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation, and a likely end result of it is handing over both chambers to Republicans, which in turn kneecaps Biden’s 2024 chances.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

The problem here is this is not a straight tradeoff, everyone wants the infrastructure bill to pass.

Nope, that's not true.  The center wants the infrastructure bill to pass.  The left cares much more about passing the reconciliation bill and the right cares much more about killing the reconciliation bill - and, frankly, the infrastructure bill if they could.  We've been over this before.  Your position is feckless capitulation to Manchin and a handful of other holdouts based on a pathetic understanding of public perception.

[Zorral]

Why, yes, as we say, we all say, so says AOC of Abbot

‘He is not familiar with a female body’ "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/08/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-greg-abbott-texas-abortion-ban

Quote

 

Cortez went on to explain the basic biology surrounding pregnancies, and that many pregnancies are often undetected at six weeks. She said: “In case no one has informed him before in his life, six weeks pregnant means two weeks late on your period. And two weeks late on your period, for any person with a menstrual cycle, can happen if you’re stressed, if your diet changes, or for really no reason at all. So you don’t have six weeks.”

Cortez added: “He speaks from such a place of deep ignorance, and it’s not just ignorance. It’s ignorance that’s hurting people.”

 

Remember another New York woman waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day who said, "If men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament."? That was Gloria Steinem They (the blobmedia) were determined to tell us.  Steinem herself said it was NYer Floryence (Flo) Kennedy, who told Steinem she'd heard it in Boston from an elderly Irish lady taxi cab driver.

Abbot's information about women's bodies and reproduction probably comes from the blobmedia too.

[DMC]

31 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Remember another New York woman waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the day

Neither here nor there, but when I think of New York female icons from WAY back in the day, I think of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Neither here nor there, but when I think of New York female icons from WAY back in the day, I think of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

They were the mothers.  Gertrude Stein and Virgil Thompson's opera re Anthony, "The Mother of Us All."  The staging of that at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in February 2020, was the last time I've been there.  Sigh.

[Mindwalker]

Just so y'all know, if Newson doesn't get recalled, it'll have been voter fraud. I learned it from Fox & 45.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I understand this is now the Republican playbook, cast doubt on the election beforehand by implying there is going to be massive fraud and then claim said fraud when the results turn out the way everyone rational expected. But claiming this in a Democratic stronghold where Newsom is now easily polling +10 points is too much even for them.

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I understand this is now the Republican playbook, cast doubt on the election beforehand by implying there is going to be massive fraud and then claim said fraud when the results turn out the way everyone rational expected. But claiming this in a Democratic stronghold where Newsom is now easily polling +10 points is too much even for them.

Nothing is too much even for them, and this continues to be the massive failure of the anti-authoritarians.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

Nothing is too much even for them, and this continues to be the massive failure of the anti-authoritarians.

This isn't really relevant to the California recall.  Red states may be reverting back to Jim Crow, but at the same time voting accessibility is actually expanding in blue states.  Every Californian voter was sent a ballot for the recall.  Of course there's still mishegoss about that generated by the right, but it's not anything to worry about.  If Newsom loses the recall it will be because of asymmetric turnout, not due to the failure of anti-authoritarians.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

This isn't really relevant to the California recall.  Red states may be reverting back to Jim Crow, but at the same time voting accessibility is actually expanding in blue states.  Every Californian voter was sent a ballot for the recall.  Of course there's still mishegoss about that generated by the right, but it's not anything to worry about.  If Newsom loses the recall it will be because of asymmetric turnout, not due to the failure of anti-authoritarians.

I'm not talking about what the actual result is in California - I'm talking about what will be said. @IheartIheartTesla was saying that if he wins by 10+ points they won't cry voter fraud, and that's obviously incorrect, and the notion that that would be too far because the numbers are so high is also obviously incorrect. If Newsom wins as projected, the very first thing we'll hear from the mcbigski camp is how they were letting all these illegal aliens vote and how horrible mail-in-balloting is, etc, etc. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

@IheartIheartTesla was saying that if he wins by 10+ points they won't cry voter fraud, and that's obviously incorrect, and the notion that that would be too far because the numbers are so high is also obviously incorrect.

Fair enough.  I agree they're gonna cry voter fraud in basically every high profile election for the foreseeable future.  It still doesn't really matter when it comes to Californian elections.

[Week]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

They made a shit ton of promises last year that they’re barely keeping, so why should Democrats turn out if the party doesn’t turn out for them?

What is the solution between an arthritic center-left party and barely veiled religious fascists? I'm seriously asking -- the GQP is a short-term threat to democracy and individual freedoms for women and minorities while Democrats are a frustrating long-term threat via inaction/limited action in the face of climate change, racial / reproductive / LGBTQIA / economic justice, etc . It seems to me like the solution is to keep pulling Democrats to the Left and deal with the bullshit rather than try to fight both as a third party. Which is, admittedly, frustrating as fuck. Is it the only potentially successful way forward though?

[Mindwalker]

 

FBI Releases New Video Of Jan. 6 Pipe Bomb Suspect. I hope others can see more than I do...

I think we can't even be sure of their gender. Otherwise... lanky, probably very young... They'll never get them, will they?