US Politics: Maniac Manchin

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

This country is so fucked.  We're not going to do shit on climate change until we build walls along the beaches where the refugee camps start popping up.

By the time we have the desire to build walls chances are good we'll also have the desire to simply shoot people. 

But yes, this is Yet Another example of why I'm so pessimistic. The US can do nothing fast except give rich people breaks. Rich people do not, as a rule, care that much about climate change and likely see it as an ability to get even richer. And people will oppose things like vaccines for shitty reasons already - what happens when we have actual emergencies and problems?

The only way the US will act well on climate change is if somehow it's revealed to be a radical islamic plot. 

[Ormond]

10 hours ago, Fez said:

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.

Of course one of the two U.S. Senators from Louisiana right now is John Kennedy. I just looked up his career and he was a Democratic office holder in Louisiana until he switched to the Republicans in 2007. Louisiana is a special case because of its jungle primary, but I think he must have more going for him than just the name.

As a name expert I know that names have an influence on voters, especially in elections where there is no incumbent and where there hasn't been much publicity. The most notorious case was the 1986 Democratic statewide primary in Illinois, where two Lyndon LaRouche devotees named Mark Fairchild and Janice A. Hart defeated George Sangmeister and Aurelia Pucinski for the nominations for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State. Not only were Fairchild and Hart very "nice" sounding names compared to Sangmeister and Pucinski, but they got particularly large votes in African-American areas because it was a lot more possible that a Mark Fairchild and Janice Hart could be Black than a George Sangmeister or Aurelia Pucinski could be Black. Neither of them was Black, but there hadn't been any discussion of those two races in the media or any ads to speak of, if I remember correctly. But that was a special case, I think.

But I think in any race with a good amount of advertizing that whatever advantages a nice or well-known name gives by itself could be easily overcome. Actually being related to Donald Trump in a Republican primary (or actually being related to Barack Obama, the Kennedys etc. in a Democratic primary) would be a different matter, as then we have real nepotism and family worship operating rather than just a name factor. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Ormond said:

But I think in any race with a good amount of advertizing that whatever advantages a nice or well-known name gives by itself could be easily overcome. 

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

Yes, it's definitely the case that we routinely rule out idiots in elections and vote for the smart one

[Ormond]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How would you contrast this with something like the taller candidate in a race typically has an advantage? People support candidates for all kinds of silly reasons.

Also, I'm not sure Kennedy has anything going for him other than his name. Almost every time he speaks he reveals to the world that he's an idiot, despite his impressive CV.

I believe that almost all the "cosmetic" factors operate most strongly when there is no incumbent running. I don't think that you defeat a well-known incumbent who has no recent scandals or gaffes simply by nominating someone who is taller and has a "nicer" name.  And the advantages we're talking about are small factors compared to party affiliation and other political beliefs and are only going to change outcomes in close elections, even when there isn't an incumbent. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I believe that almost all the "cosmetic" factors operate most strongly when there is no incumbent running. I don't think that you defeat a well-known incumbent who has no recent scandals or gaffes simply by nominating someone who is taller and has a "nicer" name.  And the advantages we're talking about are small factors compared to party affiliation and other political beliefs and are only going to change outcomes in close elections, even when there isn't an incumbent. 

I'm sure that's accurate, but unless there's been a change in the data I still think it's true that superficial things like height, weight, baldness, etc. play a big enough role that they can swing an election. Even having a name that starts with the earliest letter in the alphabet can make a difference, all of which is silly. If we're looking at various cosmetic factors, just look at the first presidential debate in 1960, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

[TrackerNeil]

11 hours ago, Kaligator said:

The only way the US will act well on climate change is if somehow it's revealed to be a radical islamic plot. 

If we make conservatives believe that Obama thinks climate change is caused by God, Republicans will promptly start legislating the other way. 

[Fez]

18 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I’m curious to see where the progressives’ demand is that the reconciliation bill must be passed before the infrastructure bill, because both bills will have outsized effects on both my business & industry at large and I haven’t seen anything other than progressives saying they’ll tank the infrastructure bill if moderates tank reconciliation - which, of course progressives should do that in that instance.

ETA: And this is Sinema weighing in on what the HOUSE is doing, and saying that if things don’t go exactly how she wants on the infrastructure bill, then she’ll tank reconciliation in the Senate, when she knows goddamn well what progressives will do. If she really wanted this fucking bill passed, she already knows goddamn well what will make sure it’s passed. So this is absolutely moderates, including Sinema, holding both bills hostage and expecting progressives to fucking bail them out. 

From yesterday:

 

[DMC]

14 hours ago, Ormond said:

As a name expert I know that names have an influence on voters, especially in elections where there is no incumbent and where there hasn't been much publicity. The most notorious case was the 1986 Democratic statewide primary in Illinois, where two Lyndon LaRouche devotees named Mark Fairchild and Janice A. Hart defeated George Sangmeister and Aurelia Pucinski for the nominations for Lt. Governor and Secretary of State.

My favorite is an anecdote one of my old advisors loved recounting of a guy named Bob Evans running and winning as a judge in Florida basically entirely because of his name (I don't know if this is true, but my advisor claimed to know Evans personally).  Looking it up - he indeed has a ballotpedia page.

Anyway, while names may help in low salience elections, I don't think they'd help with any federal office - particularly these days with the coinciding nationalization of elections and polarization of the electorate.  (The Louisianan John Kennedy, of course, lost two Senate campaigns before finally prevailing.)  A more interesting experiment would be switching the party affiliations of two candidates and observing how many voters didn't even notice/just voted for their party.

[Zorral]

 

The Only Former U.S. Senator Currently on Tour Tour,” which pokes fun at several of Franken’s former colleagues. Actually, make that many.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/al-franken-comedy-tour/2021/09/20/ee5a0534-165b-11ec-a5e5-ceecb895922f_story.html

Quote

 

Two years ago, Franken told the New Yorker that he “absolutely” regretted his resignation. Today, what does he miss about the Senate? Almost everything.

“The job is so friggin’ great,” he said onstage.

 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

Surely Franken saying his experience was great is in jest right?

I can't imagine him missing that experience when he has the ability to just carry on as a wealthy celebrity.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Surely Franken saying his experience was great is in jest right?

I can't imagine him missing that experience when he has the ability to just carry on as a wealthy celebrity.

Well, I doubt he's referring to the fact he was forced out of office by his own party, but before that he clearly enjoyed being Senator - and worked harder as a legislator than many of his colleagues.

[TrackerNeil]

29 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well, I doubt he's referring to the fact he was forced out of office by his own party, but before that he clearly enjoyed being Senator - and worked harder as a legislator than many of his colleagues.

I read Franken's last book, and at the time he seriously loved being a US senator.

He got a raw deal from his own party.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

He got a raw deal from his own party.

I remember when it happened saying on here it was inevitable - as did most IIRC.  The onslaught of accusations made it appear rather untenable.  Schumer forced his hand and the climate in both parties forced Schumer's.

[Gorn]

Can we please stop defending and excusing serial sexual harassers because they have similar political views? Thank you.

[Fez]

And now some drama over the CR funding bill. Progressive are stripping out $1 billion that was intended to fund Israel's Iron Dome system, saying they wouldn't vote for it. But not sure if the votes are still there to pass the bill without it either.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Fez said:

And now some drama over the CR funding bill. Progressive are stripping out $1 billion that was intended to fund Israel's Iron Dome system, saying they wouldn't vote for it. But not sure if the votes are still there to pass the bill without it either.

Stack that on top of Republicans playing dirty politics with raising the debt ceiling. The next week and a half or so will define the rest of this congressional term, and Democrats are still at each other's throats. Wonderful.

And on the news just now I heard it confirmed that Pelosi is bring the bill up for a vote on the 27th, seeming with no guarantee that it's going to pass. I'm still curious if Republicans will help it over the line, sowing further division in the party.

9 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This isn’t the same thing…at all. AOC is wanting both bills to be passed simultaneously, which has always been the plan all along. Sinema and other moderates are saying that IF the plan that everyone agreed on is stuck to, THEN they won’t support reconciliation, which would also tank infrastructure.

The end result either way is that both bills will fail. How we get there doesn't really matter.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This isn’t the same thing…at all. AOC is wanting both bills to be passed simultaneously, which has always been the plan all along. Sinema and other moderates are saying that IF the plan that everyone agreed on is stuck to, THEN they won’t support reconciliation, which would also tank infrastructure.

Umm, what? 

AOC is very clearly saying she'll tank the first bill if the reconciliation bill isn't passed beforehand. Which was never the deal. The deal was simply that both bills would be passed.

Sinema is saying if the first bill is tanked then she'll pull the plug on the reconciliation bill.

If anything, AOC's position is the more damaging one; but I'll be magnanimous and say both sides are at fault here and are potentially going to cause the whole thing to collapse.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm still curious if Republicans will help it over the line, sowing further division in the party.

That'd also sow division within THEIR party.  The right is going to go after any member supporting the infrastructure bill (and already is) - even if it's a "standalone" bill.  Hard to see more than two dozen of their members supporting it no matter what.  This is still the House Republican Conference we're talking about.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Umm, what? 

AOC is very clearly saying she'll tank the first bill if the reconciliation bill isn't passed beforehand. Which was never the deal. The deal was simply that both bills would be passed.

Sinema is saying if the first bill is tanked then she'll pull the plug on the reconciliation bill.

If anything, AOC's position is the more damaging one; but I'll be magnanimous and say both sides are at fault here and are potentially going to cause the whole thing to collapse.

Hum, no?

That's AOC reaffirming what's been said all along. If Manchin doesn't come around the reconciliation bill, they won't vote through his infrastructure bill. You know, what good is a threat if you are not prepared to follow thru?

That is a direct response to Manchin, who wants to delay the vote on the former. If the house votes through the latter, they'll give up on pretty much all the leverage they have. Manchin can then happily demand changes to the reconciliation bill and hold the entire party hostage (which he and Sinema are trying to do right now, anyway). All they would achieve is to embolden Manchin further.

This will be entirely on Manchin (and Sinema), if the thing collapses. If he wants to set the agenda, he should run for President.

Bottom line is, Joe Manchin can go and eff himself.