U.S. Politics / bounced checks and negative balances

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

I wouldn't believe Manchin if he told me water was wet. That's not to say the story is true, but who cares which threats exactly he made? Point is they worked.

I think it'd only help Dems if he did it (sooner rather than later). They could campaign on obstruction by an infiltrator. 

[Mindwalker]

I just love the title of Mehdi Hasan's segment on this (on YT): Honey, I Shrunk Biden's Agenda.

I imagine Manchin saying it to Sinema, and her reply: "Hold my beer, hon!" (Well, we know she prefers wine, but...)

[Martell Spy]

Senate Dems hunt for new elections reform strategy after failed vote
The Senate failed to move forward on Democrats' elections reform bill Wednesday, the latest in a series of setbacks for a major party priority.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/20/senate-democrats-elections-reform-failed-516333

Quote

 

Senate Democrats are searching for an elusive plan C on elections and ethics reform after facing yet another setback Wednesday.

In a 49-51 vote, the Senate failed to move forward on Democrats' latest elections reform bill, which amounted to an intraparty compromise between Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and a group of seven Democratic senators. While Manchin spent weeks seeking GOP input, in the end no Republicans voted to begin consideration of the legislation, effectively killing the bill in the Senate.

Democrats privately hoped that if they gave Manchin the time to reach out to Republicans and he received no buy-in, he might be more open to shifting from his dug-in position against nixing the legislative filibuster or creating an exception to the rule for voting rights. But so far, there's no public evidence that the West Virginia Democrat will change his mind, and Democrats seem to have no other options.

 

 

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Altherion said:

In more current news, it looks like the reconciliation package it is slowly being negotiated into form. This CNN article has a long list of things that are in, out or fluid, but if you just want the overall number:

Looks like they're taking the progressive-preferred approach of funding more programs for shorter periods.  Things completely out are free community college (not surprising) and the CEPP (very disappointing).  I'd think the best tack is to try to reach an agreement with Manchin in the next week or so - liked how adamant he was about getting a picture with Sanders yesterday - and put pressure on Sinema.

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

I wouldn't believe Manchin if he told me water was wet. That's not to say the story is true, but who cares which threats exactly he made? Point is they worked.

Well actually water isn’t wet. It’s a liquid. So you’d be right lol.

9 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

I think it'd only help Dems if he did it (sooner rather than later). They could campaign on obstruction by an infiltrator. 

No it’d virtually render democrats impotent to do anything substantive before the midterms in which they’re likely to lose at least one chamber of congress.

I don’t get this idea on the left of making political parties that are more sympathetic to them powerless and hand the reigns of power to those further on the right.

Especially when there’s an increasing hostility to the template of democracy by those on the right.

[ants]

On 10/19/2021 at 6:14 AM, Maithanet said:

That speech was by far the most consequential thing that Colin Powell did.  Yes, he did other things, many of them quite laudatory, but in the end, he's the guy who sold his reputation to puff up the fraudulent case for war with Iraq.

Really? The speech was to the UN. The UN told the USA to take a hike. Whereupon the USA, UK and Australia went into Iraq without UN sanction.

I'd argue the speech is one of the least consequential things he ever did. It had zero consequences or impact at all. If he'd never given it, history wouldn't be changed one iota, except in how he himself is regarded. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Well actually water isn’t wet. It’s a liquid. So you’d be right lol.

No it’d virtually render democrats impotent to do anything substantive before the midterms in which they’re likely to lose at least one chamber of congress.

I don’t get this idea on the left of making political parties that are more sympathetic to them powerless and hand the reigns of power to those further on the right.

Especially when there’s an increasing hostility to the template of democracy by those on the right.

First, I'd ask what of substance are they going to accomplish with him? An extra 1.5 trillion, and I say "extra" assuming the bipartisan bill goes through. But that will be stripped of the meaningful climate provisions and include heavier restrictions on the child tax credit than what Republicans were calling for. 

I'd argue nothing of significance is happening at this point. No matter what is in the 1.5 trillion "compromise" will be drowned out by what was removed from the 3.5 trillion bill. Dems need to play the long game with some strategy. Democratic voters seem demoralized a year out from primaries, and if you want something like Georgia to happen again, you can't be demoralized. The Dems, if they can't pass anything, if it looks like they control the Senate, then that is worse, in my opinion, than the narrative of betrayal. 

The Dems are not seen sympathetically right now. They're seen, as they have been for decades, as a blundering mess of mistakes, missteps, and snatchers of defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Varysblackfyre321]

30 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

First, I'd ask what of substance are they going to accomplish with him? 

One thing is recalibrating the judiciary. Without him the dems can’t appoint any judges. Unfortunately Conservatives recognized the value in specifically targeting the judiciary

30 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

An extra 1.5 trillion, and I say "extra" assuming the bipartisan bill goes through.

 which is considerably better than what republicans would give.

30 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Dems need to play the long game with some strategy.

Sure which is why for the time being keeping on Manchin is vital. Least until/if the get a stronger majority.

30 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

The Dems, if they can't pass anything, if it looks like they control the Senate, then that is worse, in my opinion, than the narrative of betrayal. 

They’re likely to pass much less without Manchin, they’d lose control of the senate without and this narrative would perhaps sound sympathetic  to a subset of progressives

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

First, I'd ask what of substance are they going to accomplish with him? An extra 1.5 trillion, and I say "extra" assuming the bipartisan bill goes through. But that will be stripped of the meaningful climate provisions and include heavier restrictions on the child tax credit than what Republicans were calling for. 

I'd argue nothing of significance is happening at this point. No matter what is in the 1.5 trillion "compromise" will be drowned out by what was removed from the 3.5 trillion bill. Dems need to play the long game with some strategy. Democratic voters seem demoralized a year out from primaries, and if you want something like Georgia to happen again, you can't be demoralized. The Dems, if they can't pass anything, if it looks like they control the Senate, then that is worse, in my opinion, than the narrative of betrayal. 

The Dems are not seen sympathetically right now. They're seen, as they have been for decades, as a blundering mess of mistakes, missteps, and snatchers of defeat from the jaws of victory.

Simon, many Democrats are demoralized right now because so many people are saying that a giant $3T combined package is a loss when in fact it's a giant win. The problem is some people are setting totally unrealistic expectations and never delivering on them, then calling a good compromise a bad thing.

[sologdin]

yeah, i'm saying this as a bolshevik--make the legislative compromise and then push forward from that basis for the next thing. good policy preferences without a tactics for implementation are dangerously utopian, and ultraleftist failure to compromise is less childish than enabling of fascism.

[DMC]

I really wouldn't give David Corn's reporting too much attention.  While I'm sure someone close to Manchin told him that, Manchin party-switch rumors pop up all the time.  Moreover, Corn isn't even clear if Manchin would actually effectively shift in terms of caucusing - if he switches to Independent but still caucuses with the Dems it doesn't matter.  Most importantly, there is no rational reason for Manchin to switch parties before the midterms.  Now, that might not matter if we were talking about Sinema considering some of her confounding behavior, but Manchin's behavior - whatever else it might be - has usually been rational.

Speaking of Sinema, breaking news that five military veterans resigned from her "advisory board":

Quote

"You have become one of the principal obstacles to progress, answering to big donors rather than your own people," the veterans wrote in a letter to Sinema. The letter will be in a new ad from the progressive veterans' activist group Common Defense, The New York Times reported Thursday. "We shouldn't have to buy representation from you, and your failure to stand by your people and see their urgent needs is alarming."

Sinema told the Times in a statement that she would "always remain grateful for these individuals' service to our nation," and had valued their input to her work.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Simon, many Democrats are demoralized right now because so many people are saying that a giant $3T combined package is a loss when in fact it's a giant win. The problem is some people are setting totally unrealistic expectations and never delivering on them, then calling a good compromise a bad thing.

You're talking about the Biden campaign, here, correct?

[Fez]

I don't agree with Manchin on cutting the size of the bill. But I do agree with Manchin that if the bill is smaller, it should focus on establishing a few programs long-term rather than a lot of programs that will all expire in a few years. Because with the later, the likelihood is that all of them will simply end whenever Democrats don't have a government trifecta. Whereas making a few things permanent puts the onus on Republicans to actually end them the next time they have a trifecta. Maybe Republicans do accomplish that, but they did fail at their last big repeal attempt with the ACA.

Sadly, I think the difficulties of progressive coalition building, and no one wanting to see their favorite idea not be included, means this won't happen.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Fez said:

Because with the later, the likelihood is that all of them will simply end whenever Democrats don't have a government trifecta.

If we're basing it on past behavior it's far more likely Congress will continue to fund popular programs.  Obviously divided government will involve more brinksmanship, maybe some means testing or other forms of watering down, but a lot of the programs in the bill - expanded Medicare, child care, child tax credit, paid family leave, universal pre-K - all promise to be very popular.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

59 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

You're talking about the Biden campaign, here, correct?

Yes, it’s absolutely true that Biden campaigned on promises he probably wasn’t going to be able to keep. He likely wouldn’t have been able to deliver on 10% of his agenda if Democrats didn’t get lucky in GA. We also have to acknowledge that many of these promises were made because candidates to the left of him were promising even more unlikely to pass policies. And frankly part of the reason the Republican party has gone completely insane is because the establishment has been promising their base policies they never had any intent of pursuing, and now Frankenstein’s monster is running amuck.

[argonak]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes, it’s absolutely true that Biden campaigned on promises he probably wasn’t going to be able to keep. He likely wouldn’t have been able to deliver on 10% of his agenda if Democrats didn’t get lucky in GA. We also have to acknowledge that many of these promises were made because candidates to the left of him were promising even more unlikely to pass policies. And frankly part of the reason the Republican party has gone completely insane is because the establishment has been promising their base policies they never had any intent of pursuing, and now Frankenstein’s monster is running amuck.

No one would vote for someone whose campaign was "look, I won't be able to accomplish anything because the system is so broken if my party doesn't get a 2/3 majority we can't accomplish anything.  Oh and by the way half the states are so gerrymandered that the minority party has a DOMINANT majority in their legislatures.  So yeah, vote for me and I'll at least keep them from completly destroying our democracy for a couple years before you all get complacent and your moron neighbors vote for an actually intelligent authoritarian (probably by accident.)"

All the democrats have to sell is "hope" at this point because things are so freaking boned at the congressional level.  We've all let the GOP do this to us over the years through our inattention, and at this rate we'll see the end of any real democracy in 2024.  With the court in their pocket all they have to do is get the executive office back and any reasonably intelligent authoritarian will just do whatever the hell he wants until the whole system falls apart, while the media "discusses both sides of the issue" or gets off on filming the fire.

Caveat:  I may be a bit bitter and hopeless today.

[Jace, Extat]

Just now, argonak said:

 

All the democrats have to sell is "hope" at this point because things are so freaking boned at the congressional level. 

Caveat:  I may be a bit bitter and hopeless today.

Hope clouds observation. Bitter and hopeless is the appropriate state of mind from which to observe our proceedings.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Outside of a tiny handful of commentators there has never been a question of whether to compromise but how much and how to get the best possible compromise. 

Would Joe Manchin be willing to compromise at 1.75 trillion if 3.5 hadn't ever been put on the table? If Biden hadn't run on the platform he ran on? If the House Progressive Caucus hadn't blocked his infrastructure bill? 

These are the pertinent questions, not some fake choice between compromise and no compromise, which bears no relation to reality.

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, Babblebauble said:

Hope clouds observation. Bitter and hopeless is the appropriate state of mind from which to observe our proceedings.

Andy Dufresne, Gandalf, Professor Xavier and Star Wars all disagree with you.

[sologdin]

yeah, no eeyoring on the slog.