US Politics: Don't Manchin the war...

[Martell Spy]

Democrats dial back drug-pricing plans to win over moderates
It’s a sign the drug industry is bending a potential compromise in manufacturers’ favor after spending more than $171 million lobbying in the first half of this year.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/30/democrats-moderates-drug-pricing-514747

Quote

 

Top congressional Democrats are acknowledging for the first time that they’ll have to scale back their drug pricing plans to win centrist votes for their giant social spending package.

Leadership may drop efforts to have the government directly negotiate the prices for medicines in private insurance plans and make fewer drugs subject to negotiations in Medicare, among the changes under consideration.

It’s a sign the drug industry is bending a potential compromise in manufacturers’ favor after spending more than $171 million lobbying in the first half of this year, including fighting House leadership's set of proposed price controls. But a more industry-friendly outcome could slash hundreds of billions of dollars in projected savings from the Democrats’ social spending bill, H.R. 5376 (117), and antagonize progressives who promised they'd enact tough new measures to reel in pharmaceutical costs.

“It is alarming that a very modest bill could become even weaker,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who chairs the health subcommittee of House Ways and Means. “I’m aware of how tight our vote is, but I don’t believe any of the changes … do anything other than make it approach meaninglessness.”

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

So accomplish nothing, lose power, and let the increasingly radical fascist party gain control of the government again?

But hey at least the Democratic Party would be more woke before it’s dissolved by the fascist party.

 

[Week]

48 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

What……the……flying…….was that?

Hot Fuzz is one of the greatest movies of the 21st century.

41 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

On the talk of a potential 51-49 congress doing better or just as bad, I'd add that if Democrats had just one more seat, then they would avoid having a single senator able to sabotage anything.  If one senator is being unreasonable, then you can aim the pork faucet at a different senator and the intransigent one gets nothing.  That's an incentive to make a deal.  Democrats don't have that luxury, instead Manchin and Sinema think they have all the leverage, and are playing games with it.  A 50/50 senate is a recipe for inflating the egos of "maverick" senators. 

One other point, not to defend moderates, but can we stop calling Manchema "moderates"? "Moderate" with respect to what? They have no ideological bent. They have no substantive policy disagreements with these bills that can be articulated. There are *MANY* moderates that are in favor of the bill. It's a mistake to frame this solely as "progressives vs moderates" when it should be "Democrats vs Manchema". IMO at least.

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Week said:

One other point, not to defend moderates, but can we stop calling Manchema "moderates"? "Moderate" with respect to what? They have no ideological bent. They have no substantive policy disagreements with these bills that can be articulated. There are *MANY* moderates that are in favor of the bill. It's a mistake to frame this solely as "progressives vs moderates" when it should be "Democrats vs Manchema". IMO at least.

Not to defend him too much, but I think Manchin does fit the moderate framework. He's an old school tax-the-rich, support-the-unions, call-it-a-day Democrat. And it's hard to get him to go much beyond that, but he can usually support the party in the end. Plus he's there on the procedural votes and the judicial confirmations.

It's Sinema that it's impossible to figure out. She changes positions constantly and without any apparent guiding framework of beliefs, and she's much less of a team player. One of the first things she said *after* getting elected in 2018 was that she wasn't sure if she'd vote for Schumer as majority leader whenever that issue came up. Now she did in fact do so in January 2021, but that she said it all was ridiculous; even moreso since it wasn't in the context of a pre-election debate where she's pandering for votes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I think the only explanation is Sinema is still drunk from her internship at a winery.

Seriously, WTF was that crap?

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the only explanation is Sinema is still drunk from her internship at a winery.

Seriously, WTF was that crap?

One theory is that Sinema simply wants attention, in her continuing quest to be the new John McCain (missing the part that McCain was legitimately charismatic and became a press favorite, which led to all the positive coverage), and that'll she'll go to 'yes' when/if Manchin does.

That's the optimistic viewpoint.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Fez said:

One theory is that Sinema simply wants attention, in her continuing quest to be the new John McCain (missing the part that McCain was legitimately charismatic and became a press favorite, which led to all the positive coverage), and that'll she'll go to 'yes' when/if Manchin does.

That's the optimistic viewpoint.

She 100% craves attention. It’s the most consistent part of her political career, one that has been wildly inconsistent over the last two decades.

I do think she’ll probably get on board if and when he does, but it’s far from certain, and it’s clear either way she’s not taking this seriously. Look at her responses yesterday when she was confronted with the question that people are asking where she is. What a joke.

[Fez]

If this is true, and Manchin has simply been ignored until the past few weeks, it's political malpractice by Schumer:

If you want to change his mind, fine. But if he told you his red lines and you moved forward under the assumption that he didn't really mean it, that's absurd.

ETA:

ETA2: and here's the document: https://static.politico.com/1e/ef/159cabd547868585f9b1a8f06388/july-28-2021.pdf 

[Fez]

Also, it's worth pointing out that as much as Manchin and Sinema can suck; they aren't actually Republicans, who suck much worse.

Earlier today the Senate defeated by a 50-50 vote an amendment by Cotton to the CR that would've cut off most federal assistance to the Afghan refugees who were evacuated to the US last month. 

The CR ended up passing in a 65-35 vote and goes to the House now; so it looks like a shutdown tomorrow at least won't happen. But the debt ceiling remains a problem, plus, ya know, the entire Democratic agenda.

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Now, to be fair, a number of progressives are willing to compromise at this point. It's funny you threw out that number when it's almost exactly what I spit balled in mid August, a number you said at the time was not acceptable. If both sides could have worked to meet in the middle from the start we'd probably already have both bills passed. 

You said, and continue to say, that they have to accept whatever Manchema offers.  This has always been my problem, as I've stated repeatedly.  You said progressives would be blamed if things blow up, and that's certainly not how it's currently being portrayed.  You're saying if only they had negotiated with Manchin maybe we'd have a deal by now, but the document he released to politico includes him suggesting they start debate on the bill on October 1 - which means he never intended to negotiate in good faith over the last two months to pass the two bills concurrently.  Nothing about what you said is what has happened.

6 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

What……the……flying…….was that?

An awesome movie depicting an absurd cult-like understanding of "the greater good."

5 hours ago, Week said:

There are *MANY* moderates that are in favor of the bill. It's a mistake to frame this solely as "progressives vs moderates" when it should be "Democrats vs Manchema". IMO at least.

Moreover, it is those same moderates that will suffer the electoral backlash if Manchema continue to remain obstinate.

[DMC]

Interesting poll showing Harris more popular than Biden:

Quote

A Gallup poll last week showed 49 percent approved of Harris’s job as vice president, 6 points higher than Biden’s 43 percent approval rating. It’s a significant change for both Biden and Harris. The president fell 6 points since August and 13 points since June. Harris’s current approval rating is the same as Biden’s in 2009, when he served as Barack Obama’s vice president.

The Sept. 22 Gallup poll — conducted earlier in the month — also revealed that the vice president performed better than Biden with independents, a stunning revelation for a man who was catapulted to the White House because of support from that demographic.

 

[Fez]

Legislating like an undergrad group project assignment

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

You said, and continue to say, that they have to accept whatever Manchema offers.  This has always been my problem, as I've stated repeatedly.  You said progressives would be blamed if things blow up, and that's certainly not how it's currently being portrayed.  You're saying if only they had negotiated with Manchin maybe we'd have a deal by now, but the document he released to politico includes him suggesting they start debate on the bill on October 1 - which means he never intended to negotiate in good faith over the last two months to pass the two bills concurrently.  Nothing about what you said is what has happened.

Lol, way to selectively mentioned and/or misrepresent things while ignoring the inconvenient things you've said. I never said they have to accept whatever they offered, no questions asked. I said they needed to know what they wanted and then try to add as much as they could to it, but at the end of the day he has the real leverage, not this insane brinksmanship strategy progressives have been trying (and I think we can also conclude they probably had a much better idea of what Manchema wanted than they've been letting on). Democratic leadership is looking pretty bad here. And yes, if progressives blow up a potential deal they will get more blame than Manchema, because they are at least offering something. It was the threat to walkaway if they didn't get exactly what they wanted that was always going to put the progressive wing in a bad spot. And that's before you even factor in that the media overall typically is softer on moderates, at least outside of MSNBC. And if you want to talk about good faith, what the hell do you call repeatedly going on TV telling people you'll get a $3.5T deal knowing full well nothing even close to that was ever going to happen? Talk about over promising and underdelivering. Lastly, I said their strategy was never going to work, and that has all but 100% happened. They are going to have to capitulate by a good amount or risk blowing everything up.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yes, if progressives blow up a potential deal they will get more blame than Manchema

I don't know what planet you're living on, but the progressives are not getting any of the blame right now.  The conflict is being depicted as Manchema vs. the rest of the Democratic party, because that's what it is.  The White House is encouraging the progressive efforts to kill or delay the BIF.  Neither the party nor the media is blaming progressives for this.  Which leaves what, the Republicans?  Who gives a shit?  I mean, if anyone is getting "blamed" today, it's obviously Schumer. 

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And if you want to talk about good faith, what the hell do you call repeatedly going on TV telling people you'll get a $3.5T deal knowing full well nothing even close to that was ever going to happen?

This is your problem, you simply don't understand that holding firm at $3.5 trillion is a negotiating position.  How you still don't get this is beyond me, so I'll try to have Pramila Jayapal explain:

Quote

“Our number is $3.5 [trillion]. If somebody has a different offer then they can put it on the table. You don't negotiate against yourself,” Jayapal told a gaggle of reporters. “If you go to buy a house, you don't put down an offer and then before an offer has even been put down on the table suddenly say, ‘OK, I'm willing to go down another $100,000.’

“Anybody done that? I don't think so. That's not how we negotiate.”

Now, it does appear Manchin did put an offer on the table, but it seems not many people beyond Schumer and (presumably? hopefully?) Biden knew that - as evidenced by Manchin distributing the document to colleagues today and pretty much all of them saying they were not aware of it until today.  

[ThinkerX]

if only it were possible to flip one or two republican senators on the reconciliation package...maybe offer Murkowski a totally free hand in ANWAR as part of the deal, no oversight or pesky regulations? Is there some similar white elephant that might sway Collins or Romney? And how would such a deal sit with the progressive caucus? 

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Is there some similar white elephant that might sway Collins or Romney? And how would such a deal sit with the progressive caucus? 

Again, the problem with taking it to Collins or Murkowski is it's going to be paid for by essentially repealing the 2017 tax bill.  Collins and Murkowski voted for that - and the latter is running for reelection next year - Manchin didn't.  Romney wasn't there yet, but no way he'd agree to that either.

[Mindwalker]

 

[Martell Spy]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, the problem with taking it to Collins or Murkowski is it's going to be paid for by essentially repealing the 2017 tax bill.  Collins and Murkowski voted for that - and the latter is running for reelection next year - Manchin didn't.  Romney wasn't there yet, but no way he'd agree to that either.

I'd love to see Romney forced to vote for a tax raise on the wealthy. Maybe hold his car collection hostage.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know what planet you're living on, but the progressives are not getting any of the blame right now.  The conflict is being depicted as Manchema vs. the rest of the Democratic party, because that's what it is.  The White House is encouraging the progressive efforts to kill or delay the BIF.  Neither the party nor the media is blaming progressives for this.  Which leaves what, the Republicans?  Who gives a shit?  I mean, if anyone is getting "blamed" today, it's obviously Schumer. 

I'm living on the planet where the headlines average people are seeing is "Progressives threaten to tank the bill." You have to view it through what low information citizens are likely to see, not someone like yourself who lives and breathes this stuff and understands the nuances of everything. If you recall I did say that progressives probably won't deserve the bulk of the blame, but they'll likely get it if they walk away and everything collapses, because again, low information voters will also see that and also that Manchin was offering a smaller deal.

Quote

This is your problem, you simply don't understand that holding firm at $3.5 trillion is a negotiating position.  How you still don't get this is beyond me, so I'll try to have Pramila Jayapal explain:

I understand it. My position has always been that it's a really fucking dumb negotiating strategy, and once again progressives have made the mistake of overpromising, which is always going to leave their supporters feeling like they got screwed. It's way better to just say you're going to fight for every inch of that, not promise that you're going to hold the line. That at least allows you to save face if nothing else. Now progressives are going to have to either walk or look like they caved, and cave they will have to do, by a lot. Sen. Chris Murphy just gave an interview saying that now that the bill is going to be closer to $1.5T Democrats will have to start prioritizing what they want it in. I suspect most senators reluctantly feel the same. It's now going to be so hard for the CPC to eat that because they've spent so much time negotiating something that almost always was doomed from the jump. 

Quote

Now, it does appear Manchin did put an offer on the table, but it seems not many people beyond Schumer and (presumably? hopefully?) Biden knew that - as evidenced by Manchin distributing the document to colleagues today and pretty much all of them saying they were not aware of it until today.  

Manchin said he told both of them. And it's on him for not telling more Senators roughly where he was at. It's also on Chuck and Biden to have told Pelosi that he was drawing the line at $1.5T. If they didn't they fucked her over. And if they did and she didn't tell the CPC leadership, she made them look like fools. I get you can't tell everyone, but at some point you have to pull people aside and let them know where things really are so they don't risk embarrassing themselves.

Cynically I'm sure it was kept rather quit because Manchema wanted to secure to infrastructure bill before going to the mat on the reconciliation bill. 

28 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

if only it were possible to flip one or two republican senators on the reconciliation package...maybe offer Murkowski a totally free hand in ANWAR as part of the deal, no oversight or pesky regulations? Is there some similar white elephant that might sway Collins or Romney? And how would such a deal sit with the progressive caucus? 

No Republicans will support the reconciliation bill, full stop, in either chamber. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

I'd love to see Romney forced to vote for a tax raise on the wealthy. Maybe hold his car collection hostage.

You'd be better off threatening to ban the sale of milk in the US. That would break the man!