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

[Ran]

9 hours ago, Kaligator said:

Again, we need 10 more senators like Manchin. Maybe not sinema. But Manchin, sure. 10 more people who largely vote democrat and can win in deeply red states. 

In this vein, Matthew Yglesias tries to turn the focus on the real trouble spot in the Senate, putting Manchin in proper perspective;

Quote

Kyrsten Sinema must be stopped

Progressives should love and cherish Joe Manchin. If you look at West Virginia’s underlying partisanship, he is clearly the person with the highest Value Over Replacement in the whole Senate.

Beyond his stellar VOR, though, Manchin is clearly yesterday’s man. I can remember when Al Gore’s performance in West Virginia in 2000 was considered surprisingly weak in a traditionally Democratic state. Very recently, Dems held two Senate seats there despite the state’s sharp rightward tilt in national politics. Democrats are lucky Manchin got re-elected in 2018, and realistically, it would take a miracle for him to win again in 2024.

And then there’s Kyrsten Sinema.

Her home state is much less red than West Virginia. And her electoral performance is unimpressive compared to the partisan fundamentals. Beyond that, her objections to the Biden agenda — as far as we can tell — don’t really come from a standpoint of political prudence or electoral calculation at all. Instead, she largely seems to object to the most popular, most populist ideas that Biden has.

 

[Ormond]

I have a 67 year old friend who is now walking with me through Omaha's zoo many Thursday afternoons. He is a gay man who I believe has considered himself a Democratic party member his whole life and who voted for Biden.

And he spontaneously told me that he admires Manchin and Sinema because they are "standing up for their beliefs and not giving into pressure."

I don't know how many other people in the general public think that way. But I am just giving this as an example of how people who consider themselves to be "liberal" but who are not as engaged with politics as those who post on this thread might have very different views of Manchin and Sinema. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

1. They're also fucked if it does fail. Like really seriously fucked.

2. A total package of $2.7T is still a big win, even if it's a let down from the big prize of $4.7T. That's still a ton of spending on good things, and walking away with nothing is not acceptable and anyone that supports that can never call themselves a progressive again. 

The progressives won't be fucked--they'll just be showing the people who voted for them that they, indeed, aren't willing to let the status quo of nothing happening in the face of catastrophe stand. It will empower the progressive coalition for the long-term and hurt the moderates. It's a game the moderates are absolutely going to lose.

10 hours ago, Fez said:

Except Schumer did sign it. That signature didn't mean he was agreeing to Manchin's terms, but he was agreeing that Manchin wouldn't guarantee his vote if the terms weren't meant. And Manchin's vote is needed, you can't tell him to fuck off. Schumer should've focused entirely on getting Manchin on board before doing anything else, because he knew the vote wasn't there yet. No press statements, no telling Sanders and Wyden to go all out, no raising expectations, or letting every liberal nonprofit shove every pet project of theirs into the bill. All that does is cause everyone to get pissed off later on (and it does make things worse; if you told liberals last December that Democrats would get a $1.9 trillion bill passed, followed by a $1.2 trillion bill and then another $1.5 trillion bill most of them would be thrilled; whereas now it's an utter disappointment).

This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats. When McConnell really wanted something to happen, like the 2017 tax cuts, he got a majority on board before doing anything. Deficit hawks like Corker or moderates like Murkowski could've been problems, but whatever deals or arm twisting needed to happen did happen before anything else.

I was using a turn of phrase when I said "sign on" with Manchin. Schumer's made it clear he knew about Manchin's proposal, but he didn't accept it as workable. Maybe it's a failing on his part, but it doesn't matter. Schumer's decided he wants to be part of systemic changes to our dying government--McConnell may look smart only bringing things to pass that he could get the votes for, but what did Trump accomplish (aside from judges) in terms of long-term policies? Tax cuts were the big one.

10 hours ago, ants said:

Well, that's all fine but you haven't explained to me how the Dems are then getting 50 senate seats. 

They are losing their majority in the house already, and I think the senate is likely too. This has nothing to do with the treatment of the poor moderates--it has everything to do with the ridiculous nature of why the the Dakotas have four senators with just over a million people between them, while places like California with 34 million people, get two senators. The population is represented in the house, not the senate, and this is why the Republicans--an unpopular party--have found substantial ways to reshape the country.

Sinema and Manchin can fuck off, or we can play pattycake with them, it literally does not matter.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

....No, they're not.  The coverage has primarily focused on the conflict between Manchema and the rest of the party, which is obviously what Manchin wanted by releasing that document today.  Beyond that, they're just gonna read the vote got delayed again.  Low-information non-partisans are overwhelmingly going to vote based on the economy and I guess these days covid.  They are not going to give two shits about an intraparty squabble.  High information voters are the only ones who give a shit about who's to blame, and you've basically admitted if you're paying attention, the progressives are not to blame.

 

I think Ro Khanna and a few others have really been getting this message out effectively lately too. Really done well here on CNN: Ro Khanna on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 discussing infrastructure and reconciliation - YouTube

[A Horse Named Stranger]

The root of the problem is really going back to Gideon being unable to oust that absolute dimwit Susan Collins. If she had been able to take that seat, we'd be in a different place, with needing just one of Manchema to come around. Synema will hopefully be primaried, but that's quite a few years away. Manchin is for better or worse untouchable.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Purity doesn't want to consider reality.

Such an interesting take on Purity to, as Ro Khanna said, draw a line in the sand after the progressives already jettisoned nearly half of what the Democrats wanted for the never ending demands of two senators. I've heard you accuse leftists around of "purity politics" before--and I thought it was just you being a dick. Now you're doing it to centrists like me, so I know it means nothing to you except that you're being a dick.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Even if both bills are passed, and Dem MOCs are proud and slapping each other in the backs, we aren't doing anything remotely sufficient on climate change.  The time for these moderated efforts was 30 years ago.  Yes, defintely better than nothing.  Actually doing anything to turn things around?  Not so much.

 

I do believe the infrastructure bill has plans in place to be carbon neutral by 2030, which is huge.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

The progressives won't be fucked--they'll just be showing the people who voted for them that they, indeed, aren't willing to let the status quo of nothing happening in the face of catastrophe stand. It will empower the progressive coalition for the long-term and hurt the moderates. It's a game the moderates are absolutely going to lose.

I’m sorry this seems like progressives being willing to shoot themselves and everyone else in the foot if they don’t get everything they demand.  Then clap themselves on the back for doing so.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

They are losing their majority in the house already, and I think the senate is likely too. This has nothing to do with the treatment of the poor moderates--it has everything to do with the ridiculous nature of why the the Dakotas have four senators with just over a million people between them, while places like California with 34 million people, get two senators. The population is represented in the house, not the senate, and this is why the Republicans--an unpopular party--have found substantial ways to reshape the country.

Sinema and Manchin can fuck off, or we can play pattycake with them, it literally does not matter.

And stomping your feet about the Senate is going to help… how?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The root of the problem is really going back to Gideon being unable to oust that absolute dimwit Susan Collins. If she had been able to take that seat, we'd be in a different place, with needing just one of Manchema to come around. Synema will hopefully be primaried, but that's quite a few years away. Manchin is for better or worse untouchable.

Can a leftist Democratic Senate Candidate win in Arizona?  If they can’t how is “primaring” Sinema helpful?

[IheartIheartTesla]

The answer is yes, because Arizona isnt as red as West Virginia. Further, Sinema probably did worse than the 'fundamentals' in her Senate election so there is some room for a candidate to be a bit further left than her positions (whatever they may be, its a bit hard to get a read on what they are except that she isnt a progressive)

[Gorn]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can a leftist Democratic Senate Candidate win in Arizona?  If they can’t how is “primaring” Synema helpful?

FYI, there are two Democratic senators in Arizona. The other, while not a "leftist", is middle-of-the-road Democrat who isn't actively obstructing his party's agenda.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The answer is yes, because Arizona isnt as red as West Virginia. Further, Sinema probably did worse than the 'fundamentals' in her Senate election so there is some room for a candidate to be a bit further left than her positions (whatever they may be, its a bit hard to get a read on what they are except that she isnt a progressive)

In a profoundly “purple” state… going left is the winning move?

[Maithanet]

Sinema isn't particularly left or center or anything that makes sense.  The Democrats need to replace her with someone who is reliable, but not necessarily a leftist.  Perhaps Mark Kelly can convince his brother Scott to run?  That would be fun. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In a profoundly “purple” state… going left is the winning move?

How do you think the other Democrat from Arizona is voting on the bill(s), and do you think he (who outperformed Sinema in the same state) is doing when it comes to polling?

[Gorn]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In a profoundly “purple” state… going left is the winning move?

Raphael Warnock won in Georgia with solidly left-wing political positions. So did Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.

Most "purple" states aren't actually filled with moderates, and instead have a roughly 50:50 split of leftists and rightists. Pissing off "your" side and then expecting them to vote for you is not a winning move either.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Raphael Warnock won in Georgia with solidly left-wing political positions. So did Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.

Most "purple" states aren't actually filled with moderates, and instead have a roughly 50:50 split of leftists and rightists. Pissing off "your" side and then expecting them to vote for you is not a winning move either.

Senator Warnock won with Trump fanatics promoting a boycott of the election.  That’s why he won in Georgia not because Georgians have suddenly embraced the far left.

[Altherion]

So it looks like they're finally getting down to negotiating the topline number in earnest (the $3.5T was obviously way too large to go anywhere):

Quote

While there isn't a final document, the outline circulated between key players on Thursday evening targeted a topline number of $2.1 trillion, and laid out the baseline elements of the climate, social and health care areas, according to two people with direct knowledge of the efforts.

...

"I'm at $1.5 trillion. I think $1.5 trillion does exactly what we need to do to take care of our children, take care of people at the end of life," Manchin said.

7 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Most "purple" states aren't actually filled with moderates, and instead have a roughly 50:50 split of leftists and rightists.

Some are and some are not. The Senators know where they come from and behave accordingly. The Democrats aren't going to primary Manchin in West Virgina or Sinema in Arizona.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can a leftist Democratic Senate Candidate win in Arizona?  If they can’t how is “primaring” Sinema helpful?

WV is a red state. So there the narative that only Manchin can win a senate seat as a Democrat is utterly believable.

AZ is not as red as it used to be. Sinema won her senate race, but so did Kelly, and Biden also won AZ last year in the GE. So a claim that only Sinema can win a state wide election is obviously not true.

Kelly is obviously not a leftist candidate, but he is not an obstructionist piece of work like Sinema. So there I'd be more than willing to take my chances by replacing her with Kermit the Frog and have him try to keep that seat blue. Sinema is not irreplaceable. I don't think Kermit would do worse than her.

Now then, why do you think she would?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

WV is a red state. So there the narative that only Manchin can win a senate seat as a Democrat is utterly believable.

AZ is not as red as it used to be. Synema won her senate race, but so did Kelly, and Biden also won AZ last year in the GE. So a claim that only Synema can win a state wide election is obviously not true.

Kelly is obviously not a leftist candidate, but he is not an obstructionist piece of work like Synema. So there I'd be more than willing to take my chances by replacing her with Kermit the Frog and have him try to keep that seat blue. Synema is not irreplaceable. I don't think Kermit would do worse than her.

Now then, why do you think she would?

All I can figure (is it Synema or Sinema?) is that she trying to “stand out”.  Or, maybe she is sincere in her personal belief that the bill is too large?