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

[Fez]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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

It depends on how left they go. Mark Kelly isn't as far left as Warren or Sanders, but on almost every issue he is comfortably in the mainstream of the party (there's been a couple border related bills where he's broken away). And he won by 2.4% in 2020 against the exact same candidate that Sinema beat by 2.4% in 2018; so at minimum he's done as well as her. But I'd argue he's actually been more impressive since 2020 was a more challenging year than 2018 had been.

I would never, ever in a million years support a primary against Manchin, no one else can win West Virginia. But I'd absolutely support a primary against Sinema, depending on where they position themselves ideologically.

I think Sinema is behind the times when it comes to Arizona, she thinks she needs major Republican cross-over support. But the state has changed rapidly the past several years. If 2022 is a good year for Democrats, it's not out of the question that they'll take the trifecta in the state. They are very close to legislative majorities already (though couldn't get over the hump in 2018 or 2020) and a very credible candidate for governor, the current State Secretary of State.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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?

Nah that was simply me not checking her name, and ballsing u her name in the process. Mainly due to her first name being written with y, instead of an i. So I involuntarily turned Kyrsten Sinema into Kirsten Synema. Just me falling for the familiar writing of her first name, and placing the y somewhere else.

Not some 4d chess type joke, just mere lazyness leading to a stupid mistake.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

26 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Nah that was simply me not checking her name, and ballsing u her name in the process. Mainly due to her first name being written with y, instead of an i. So I involuntarily turned Kyrsten Sinema into Kirsten Synema. Just me falling for the familiar writing of her first name, and placing the y somewhere else.

Not some 4d chess type joke, just mere lazyness leading to a stupid mistake.

Not at all.  I was too lazy to look it up.

@Fez

Fair enough.

[DMC]

Sinema is dangerously out of step with her own reelection constituency.  The Arizona Democratic Party just overwhelmingly took a vote of no confidence in her, and are threatening to pull their support for her reelection.  She is only viewed favorably by 56 percent of Arizona Democrats - with 30 percent unfavorable.  If she does not drastically change her behavior, she most certainly will be primaried.

[Martell Spy]

Inside Manchin's search for GOP votes on elections reform
Some Senate Republicans are engaging in preliminary discussions with the West Virginia senator in his longshot effort for a bipartisan compromise on voting.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/01/inside-manchins-search-for-gop-votes-on-elections-reform-514876

Quote

 

While Manchin played a key role in reaching a deal on the bipartisan physical infrastructure package and a coronavirus relief bill last year, bridging the party’s gaps on voting is a heavier — and potentially impossible — lift. At the moment, it’s hard to see an agreement that would both get 10 Republicans on board and satisfy the 50 member Democratic caucus, many of whom view the elections and ethics bill as an existential issue.

“Joe’s just thinking: is there anything we can agree on,” said one Senate Republican. “The problem with most of what he wants to do substantively has to do with taking over the state role, and we can’t go there because we don’t believe in it.”

 

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not at all.  I was too lazy to look it up.

@Fez

Fair enough.

Tho, you still haven't answered the question why you think that Sinema has better chances of winning a senate election than a generic Democrat, likesay Kermit the Frog. Altho, I admit Kermit is not from Arizona. So just a random Democrat from AZ then.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

25 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Tho, you still haven't answered the question why you think that Sinema has better chances of winning a senate election than a generic Democrat, likesay Kermit the Frog. Altho, I admit Kermit is not from Arizona. So just a random Democrat from AZ then.

I didn’t realize Arizona has two Democratic Senators.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours 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.

The stance that they should get all their demands or else is literally a guarantee that nothing will happen. How can you not get that? Progressives just have to get their priorities straight. If the $2.1T number holds Democrats will have gotten over $5T in new spending between their three major bills. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

The stance that they should get all their demands or else is literally a guarantee that nothing will happen. How can you not get that? Progressives just have to get their priorities straight. If the $2.1T number holds Democrats will have gotten over $5T in new spending between their three major bills. That's nothing to sneeze at.

I don't think that's their stance and I think we're all pretty tired of you saying that over and over again. Their stance is best set by Jayapal, who said that they are not interested in lowering their demands without actual negotiation or dealmaking in order to look slightly more appealing, and they are not interested in passing the bipartisan bill before the reconciliation.

That all said, I think progressives also learned their lesson from the ACA 10 years ago, where they did not hold the line, they did cave, and they ended up getting hosed anyway for it. I think they figure now that holding the line on their demands, at least mostly, is an important part for them to establish that they do have limits on where they can be pushed and by how much, and they cannot be taken for granted by others - even if it means threatening to lose it all. And that has to have teeth, or they will just be expected to cave and cave again. 

Now, I happen to agree that the results of this are going to be really shitty. For progressives, for moderates (who are almost certainly the ones who are going to lose if this doesn't pass), for the country, for the world, for my kids. But I absolutely get that they are done caving early, are going to be hardcore in bargaining, and are not remotely interested in bowing down to pressure when they have the POTUS and the actual support of the country on their side. 

[Wilbur]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn’t realize Arizona has two Democratic Senators.

The National Republican Party funded a candidate, Martha McSally, who both of the current AZ Senators defeated in elections in the space of nine months because of a vacancy.

McSally appeared to be a bad choice and not capable of governing as an adult to a lot of Republicans, who then voted against her (again) in the general election.

Martha McSally had been fairly sane until she had to run against Fervent Trumpkin Kelli Ward and weird goblin Sheriff Joe Arpaio, King of the Baloney Sandwich at Tent City.  In that quick succession of two elections she made all kinds of strange, far-right dog-whistle statements and suddenly embraced Trump, who she had criticized in the past.  In doing so put off a lot of Republicans who aren't Trump supporters or who want consistency in their elected officials.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Kaligator said:

I don't think that's their stance and I think we're all pretty tired of you saying that over and over again. Their stance is best set by Jayapal, who said that they are not interested in lowering their demands without actual negotiation or dealmaking in order to look slightly more appealing, and they are not interested in passing the bipartisan bill before the reconciliation.

Read what I was responding to, and FYI, yes many members of the CPC up until recently have said $3.5T or bust, including Jayapal. Her messaging changed after Pelosi made it clear it wasn’t going to happen.

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Read what I was responding to, and FYI, yes many members of the CPC up until recently have said $3.5T or bust, including Jayapal. Her messaging changed after Pelosi made it clear it wasn’t going to happen.

I really don't want to call you a liar as well, but this has not been what I've seen and ultimately it doesn't really matter in the least. 
ETA: here's an example from last week, before Pelosi supposedly put her foot down:

Quote

 

But progressives said again Friday they are prepared to tank the infrastructure bill unless there is a firm agreement between House and Senate Democrats on the size and shape of the broader reconciliation package. The infrastructure bill "cannot pass," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “I don't bluff. I don’t grandstand. We just don’t have the votes for it."

Jayapal told reporters that her caucus wouldn't be satisfied with considering the House's reconciliation package, or an edited version of it, unless there's buy-in from Senate Democrats like West Virginia's Joe Manchin III and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, who've raised concerns. 

"It's not going to give us any comfort to pass a bill that then the Senate, you know, that doesn't satisfy our requirements," Jayapal said, adding that she might be convinced to vote for it if "every single detail is worked out [between the chambers] they're signed in blood, you know, public commitment."

 

That doesn't specify 'bust' - that says that there needs to be a firm agreement from both sides. And that's what I've been seeing for a while. 

[aceluby]

1 hour ago, Wilbur said:

The National Republican Party funded a candidate, Martha McSally, who both of the current AZ Senators defeated in elections in the space of nine months because of a vacancy.

McSally appeared to be a bad choice and not capable of governing as an adult to a lot of Republicans, who then voted against her (again) in the general election.

Martha McSally had been fairly sane until she had to run against Fervent Trumpkin Kelli Ward and weird goblin Sheriff Joe Arpaio, King of the Baloney Sandwich at Tent City.  In that quick succession of two elections she made all kinds of strange, far-right dog-whistle statements and suddenly embraced Trump, who she had criticized in the past.  In doing so put off a lot of Republicans who aren't Trump supporters or who want consistency in their elected officials.

 

McSally ran in 2018, was appointed the vacant spot in 2019, and then lost that spot in 2020.  I'm not really sure where you're getting your timeline from, but it - and your analysis - does not seem to be correct.

[Larry of the Lawn]

11 minutes ago, aceluby said:

McSally ran in 2018, was appointed the vacant spot in 2019, and then lost that spot in 2020.  I'm not really sure where you're getting your timeline from, but it - and your analysis - does not seem to be correct.

?  What's wrong that Wilbur wrote? She definitely pivoted into crazy Trump territory.

The nine months thing is the only thing in there that sounds off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kaligator said:

I really don't want to call you a liar as well, but this has not been what I've seen and ultimately it doesn't really matter in the least. 
ETA: here's an example from last week, before Pelosi supposedly put her foot down:

That doesn't specify 'bust' - that says that there needs to be a firm agreement from both sides. And that's what I've been seeing for a while. 

What I was referencing was an interview from early last week. I went to her Twitter to see if it was there and my god, Idk if I've ever seen an account that tweets that much (but I'm not on the app, so maybe it's not that uncommon for high profile EOs). I listened to a few and gave up because there are so many clips and I couldn't find the one I was looking for in which she was pretty firm she meant both bills had to pass together and that meant an unchanged reconciliation bill. I also gave up trying to find the last time she explicitly tweeted (so not a RT of support) the Senate had to pass a $3.5T reconciliation bill for anything to pass the House when I got to this RT from Tuesday of last week:

It's worth noting she retweeted several similar headlines and quotes from other Democrats in the days that followed heavily implying that when she's talking about the BBB Act, she specifically meant the $3.5T package. I only found one tweet while combing through all of that in which she acknowledged that the overall number isn't as important anymore and that came from Sunday. Now to be fair, she was consistent the entire time that nothing was going to happen unless both bills passed together, but prior to Sunday I saw no mention that she meant anything other than the $3.5T bill was required for anything to pass. 

[ants]

11 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

22 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.

Well, if you believe Democrats won't hold the Senate for the next ten years anyway, then I agree ditching those you don't like from the middle won't cost you as much. Whining about states having two Senators each seems pretty pointless.

It also seems strange though that if you think this is the only time Dems will hold all three houses for the next ten years, that you wouldn't prioritise getting a deal done now, rather than standing on all or nothing. Since there will be no re-run in your view, so what you can get now is all you can get. I would have thought prioritising getting the maximum you can (e.g. by trading off the top line number for prioritisation of the spending on your priorities) would be the focus.

5 hours ago, Kaligator said:

I don't think that's their stance and I think we're all pretty tired of you saying that over and over again. Their stance is best set by Jayapal, who said that they are not interested in lowering their demands without actual negotiation or dealmaking in order to look slightly more appealing, and they are not interested in passing the bipartisan bill before the reconciliation.

.....

I don't think that's the progressive Dem's stance either. I do think its Simons and the @The Great Unwashed's views! 

[Wilbur]

6 hours ago, aceluby said:

McSally ran in 2018, was appointed the vacant spot in 2019, and then lost that spot in 2020.  I'm not really sure where you're getting your timeline from, but it - and your analysis - does not seem to be correct.

You are right, it was further apart than nine months.  It seemed like it was one election right after another, for some reason, probably because of the off-cycle appointment.

Anyways, McSally seemed like a normal politician until she suddenly jumped the tracks and ran off into Trump territory.  I guess she thought that was the politically expedient move to make at the time, but it made her seem wildly variable, and it killed her when the general elections rolled and her opponents were an astronaut and a "political maverick in the mode of John McCain", both of which were easier to swallow.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Anybody been following this, the attorney who won a judgment against Chevron who has been under house arrest on a contempt of court charge and has now been sentenced to 6 months in prison?  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/steven-donziger-lawyer-sentenced-contempt-chevron

Fucking hell.

[Fragile Bird]

14 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Anybody been following this, the attorney who won a judgment against Chevron who has been under house arrest on a contempt of court charge and has now been sentenced to 6 months in prison?  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/steven-donziger-lawyer-sentenced-contempt-chevron

Fucking hell.

This kind of terrorism is what people around the world expect from the US. Chevron was holy and pure drilling in South American, how dare a foreign court bring judgement against them! (I have no idea if they actually have evidence of what a shit-show the trial was). The US breaking international law? Fuck no, international law is irrelevant and doesn’t apply, it’s a sovereignty issue!

And in the meantime, I actually came to comment on a story I just glimpsed on CNN. The Governor of Alabama just signed a law that directs Covid relief funds received from the federal government to be used to build prisons. I cannot express how American I find that sentence to be.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Who even knows what it'll take it get Sinema on board.  Sounds like she's just not into it.  Guessing she's getting some cushy private sector job in the future.