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

US Politics: Maniac Manchin

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know if that's true.  I also don't know if Manchin wants to risk changing parties and then obviously being heavily primaried as a Republican if he runs again.  It is a risk, I'm not denying that, but it is also a legit card to play.

Neither do I, but I know if I was a cynical Minority Leader in a 50/50 Senate I'd make that deal in 5 seconds if it was offered, and I would also be so kind as to help fight off any primary challenge back home. The price is literally nothing meaningful with everything to gain. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So what makes Manchin a Democrat in the ideological sense? Or is he just a "cultural" Democrat who is much more a natural Republican? Why would he switch parties in a fit of pique unless he is ideologically Republican?

He's one of the more classic Southern Democrats. He does believe in more government spending, more programs for working people, and he believes in socialized medicine. He's also a classic West Virginia Democrat, which means he believes in a LOT of pork headed towards his state. 

He's also a bit old. And 20 years ago West Virginia was pretty close to a lock to being a Dem state. He's stayed Dem while his state has moved much more Republican. But he's still winning elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So what makes Manchin a Democrat in the ideological sense? Or is he just a "cultural" Democrat who is much more a natural Republican? Why would he switch parties in a fit of pique unless he is ideologically Republican?

Out of spite.  I'm not sure he's actually that ideologically or culturally beholden to anything other than the fossil fuel industry and being seen as an independent force.

 

Share this post


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

Neither do I, but I know if I was a cynical Minority Leader in a 50/50 Senate I'd make that deal in 5 seconds if it was offered, and I would also be so kind as to help fight off any primary challenge back home. The price is literally nothing meaningful with everything to gain. 

I think it's naive to think McConnell can just handout committee chairs like it's bingo night.  Whether McConnell wants to do it is a fundamentally different question than whether he can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think it's naive to think McConnell can just handout committee chairs like it's bingo night.  Whether McConnell wants to do it is a fundamentally different question than whether he can. 

Maybe in other circumstances, but the pitch would be easy to the caucus. Manchin would stay in his position, so in effect nothing changes and his positions would be fine with the party, and in return a lot of ranking members become chairs. Doesn't seem like a hard sell, and you can always fuck him over and not offer any help in reelecting him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...when it comes down to the 1.5 - 2 trillion* bill or nothing, do the Democrats wail loudly and go for it, or wail loudly and tank it?  

 

*assumes last minute negotiating session.

 

Share this post


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

Maybe in other circumstances, but the pitch would be easy to the caucus

John Barrosso is the ranking member of Energy & Natural Resources.  He's also the third ranking member of the GOP Conference.  As in behind only McConnell and John Thune.  Would he give up being in line for the Energy post?  Maybe, probably even, if you can offer him a better alternative.  Which then means you have to oust somebody else, and then...

It's not as simple as you think.  And the closest comparison to this - Jeffords in 2001 - left on his own accord.  He was not forced out of the GOP or threatened by their leadership, he initiated the switch.  And, pointedly, he never ran for election again.  That's an important difference in terms of leverage.

Share this post


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

Because being chair of Energy & Natural Resources is vital to his influence on the Hill.

And his donors might not like that. He's more useful as their minion in the Democratic party, the Republicans are pro-Corp anyway.

I still think his main goal may not just be to get the numbers down, but to get everything out that is anti-fossil fuels etc., and anti-Big Pharma (negotiating prices etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DMC said:

John Barrosso is the ranking member of Energy & Natural Resources.  He's also the third ranking member of the GOP Conference.  As in behind only McConnell and John Thune.  Would he give up being in line for the Energy post?  Maybe, probably even, if you can offer him a better alternative.  Which then means you have to oust somebody else, and then...

It's not as simple as you think.  And the closest comparison to this - Jeffords in 2001 - left on his own accord.  He was not forced out of the GOP or threatened by their leadership, he initiated the switch.  And, pointedly, he never ran for election again.  That's an important difference in terms of leverage.

Obviously there would be a lot of working parts that would cascade down the line, but the overall prize would be worth it, if not for anything else but to block all of Biden's judicial appointments. Not everyone would be happy, but there would be enough space to cut the deals necessary to make this hypothetical work for Republicans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Obviously there would be a lot of working parts that would cascade down the line, but the overall prize would be worth it, if not for anything else but to block all of Biden's judicial appointments. Not everyone would be happy, but there would be enough space to cut the deals necessary to make this hypothetical work for Republicans.

Again, you are ignoring what I'm saying.  Is it possible Manchin would flip?  Yes, that's why I brought it up in the first place.  Does that mean leveling the threat isn't worthwhile?  Not necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, you are ignoring what I'm saying.  Is it possible Manchin would flip?  Yes, that's why I brought it up in the first place.  Does that mean leveling the threat isn't worthwhile?  Not necessarily.

I'm not ignoring what you said, just pointing out in this hypothetical that McConnell would jump at it and worry about everything else after he became Majority Leader again.

Honestly I'm not sure what Manchin would do if such a threat was made, and I don't think Schumer has the stomach to even try it. In the end all roads lead back to having to work with this miserable fucker, which is why the last two times we discussed this I said progressives will probably have to eat a deal they like but don't love, assuming Manchin stops making such absurd demands. And I fear he won't and they'll in turn put their foot down, and where things go after that, I wish I knew. Still have a hard time seeing how this ends well unless everyone puts down their swords and accepts a reasonable compromise. 

Share this post


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

Honestly I'm not sure what Manchin would do if such a threat was made, and I don't think Schumer has the stomach to even try it. In the end all roads lead back to having to work with this miserable fucker, which is why the last two times we discussed this I said progressives will probably have to eat a deal they like but don't love, assuming Manchin stops making such absurd demands. And I fear he won't and they'll in turn put their foot down, and where things go after that, I wish I knew. Still have a hard time seeing how this ends well unless everyone puts down their swords and accepts a reasonable compromise. 

I'm aware of your feckless position.  That's different that acknowledging Manchin has vulnerabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maga era political races are at this point so dumbed down that we are at a point where we should just run a bunch of "planted" candidates across the red south.

They could campaign as maga idiots, tossing all the red meat bait to the voters, get elected, then promptly switch to dropping all the inbred and white supremacy positions and finish their terms as adult Democrats. Like an army of Manchurian soldiers we could unleash into the red state contests.

If the red staters will only elect haters, maybe we need to flood the market with our own fake haters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scoop: Sources say Beto plans Texas comeback in governor’s race

https://www.axios.com/scoop-beto-plans-texas-comeback-governors-race-33a3ae1a-4c58-4e7a-9e44-26342d3128c9.html

Quote

 

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke is preparing to run for governor of Texas in 2022, with an announcement expected later this year, Texas political operatives tell Axios.

Why it matters: O'Rourke's entry would give Democrats a high-profile candidate with a national fundraising network to challenge Republican Gov. Greg Abbott — and give O’Rourke, a former three-term congressman from El Paso and 2020 presidential candidate and voting rights activist, a path to a political comeback.

But he would be running in a complicated political environment. Immigration is surging at the southern border and Democrats at the national level are bracing for a brutal midterm election and potentially losing the House of Representatives in 2022.
A new poll for the Dallas Morning News shows that O'Rourke has narrowed the gap with Abbott in a hypothetical matchup, down, 37%-42%. In July, O'Rourke faced a 12-point deficit, 33%-45%.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Maga era political races are at this point so dumbed down that we are at a point where we should just run a bunch of "planted" candidates across the red south.

They could campaign as maga idiots, tossing all the red meat bait to the voters, get elected, then promptly switch to dropping all the inbred and white supremacy positions and finish their terms as adult Democrats. Like an army of Manchurian soldiers we could unleash into the red state contests.

If the red staters will only elect haters, maybe we need to flood the market with our own fake haters?

Hell just find some generic Democrats who happen to have the last name "Trump" (no relation needed) and they've got a decent chance of winning at least some state legislative races in deep red areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Maga era political races are at this point so dumbed down that we are at a point where we should just run a bunch of "planted" candidates across the red south.

They could campaign as maga idiots, tossing all the red meat bait to the voters, get elected, then promptly switch to dropping all the inbred and white supremacy positions and finish their terms as adult Democrats. Like an army of Manchurian soldiers we could unleash into the red state contests.

If the red staters will only elect haters, maybe we need to flood the market with our own fake haters?

Leaving aside the ethical problems with the above strategy -- where are you going to get these candidates to "plant"? Where are you going to find people who would "finish their terms as adult Democrats" who are going to be able to convincingly "toss the red meat" during a Republican primary? Anyone who's really interested in running for Congress at all is very likely to already have a track record as to his or her positions on issues that the media can easily find, and when that is brought up by primary opponents who have been vocally Trumpian for years how are the "plants" going to convince voters they are not really "plants"? This seems like a fantasy scenario which is not at all workable. But maybe you aren't really serious about it. 

Quote

Hell just find some generic Democrats who happen to have the last name "Trump" (no relation needed) and they've got a decent chance of winning at least some state legislative races in deep red areas. 

I really don't think there are enough people dumb enough to do this in any election where there is a "D" by the name Trump. Maybe in western Nebraska this could work since our state senators are elected on a "nonpartisan" basis with no party designation on the ballot, but even that's a stretch given how much media attention would be focused on a Democrat with the name Trump running in such an election.

Edited by Ormond

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I really don't think there are enough people dumb enough to do this in any election where there is a "D" by the name Trump. Maybe in western Nebraska this could work since our state senators are elected on a "nonpartisan" basis with no party designation on the ballot, but even that's a stretch given how much media attention would be focused on a Democrat with the name Trump running in such an election.

I am joking, but not entirely. There's a Democratic member of the Arizona legislature that almost certainly first got elected because his name is Cesar Chavez; though that's a bit different since the name and the alignment match up. There's also been multiple cases of people with names like John F Kennedy and not campaigning at all doing surprisingly well. There was one race in either 2018 or 2020, I think in Texas though I'm struggling to find the news story about it, where someone like that won their primary even; lost the general election though.

Find some person named Trump, get them to run as a Republican in a lower tier race, but not campaign or say anything ever; and I'd be very curious as to what vote share they ended up getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Maga era political races are at this point so dumbed down that we are at a point where we should just run a bunch of "planted" candidates across the red south.

They could campaign as maga idiots, tossing all the red meat bait to the voters, get elected, then promptly switch to dropping all the inbred and white supremacy positions and finish their terms as adult Democrats. Like an army of Manchurian soldiers we could unleash into the red state contests.

If the red staters will only elect haters, maybe we need to flood the market with our own fake haters?


Three near-identical Boris Vishnevskys on St Petersburg election ballot
Real Vishnevsky battling two doppelgängers who seem to have changed their appearance as well as their names

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/06/three-near-identical-boris-vishnevskys-on-st-petersburg-election-ballot

Quote

 

Russian opposition politicians are used to finding spoiler candidates with identical surnames running against them in order to confuse voters at the polls. Now it appears that the impersonators are changing their faces as well.

That’s what Boris Vishnevsky, a senior member of the liberal Yabloko party, is facing in his district in St Petersburg before municipal elections later this month.

Vishnevsky already knew that two of his opponents had changed their names so that they were also called Boris Vishnevsky, an update on the common tactic of nominating a “double” to split the vote and deliver victory to another candidate.

But when a district voting poster was revealed on Sunday, it showed something far more shocking: three nearly indistinguishable Boris Vishnevskys, all balding, greying, and sporting matching goatees. As a Facebook friend of Vishnevsky’s pointed out, the simplest way to spot the real Vishnevsky is that he was the only one who bothered to wear a tie.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know if that's true.  I also don't know if Manchin wants to risk changing parties and then obviously being heavily primaried as a Republican if he runs again.  It is a risk, I'm not denying that, but it is also a legit card to play.

I agree--stripped of the committee, and then having to switch parties, hoping McConnell would help him out, then all the fallout from this in his own state is a huge calculation of risk most of us would assess as "not worth the risk."

I also don't see Republican control of the Senate as any different than it is now. No Supreme Court Justices? What's it matter at this point? With Manchin and Sinema, Biden's not getting his plans through anyway. Mitch could try to hold until Biden was out of office, I guess, but the chances of the Senate flipping again before the next Republican pres is a pretty high risk. And, let's be honest, the moment to hold the line on the Supreme Court was five years ago.  

Edited by Centrist Simon Steele

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...