Jump to content

US Politics: Manchin Shin Drinks the Blood and Cracks the Bone


A True Kaniggit

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

 

The Democratic party isn't a vehicle for social change or progress, it is the last obstacle to overcome.  

Why would they give up what little power they do have?  

I don’t imagine they would.  What I don’t understand is the pearl clutching over having no leverage over Manchin.  

Is this really a surprise?  I have said for months there is no real leverage over Manchin because of the way the Senate works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t imagine they would.  What I don’t understand is the pearl clutching over having no leverage over Manchin.  

Is this really a surprise?  I have said for months there is no real leverage over Manchin because of the way the Senate works.

There may have been, depends on whether or not he wanted anything.  Did he really want the bipartisan infrastructure deal?  In that case, yeah, that was the leverage.  If he doesn't actually want anything, and is just there to protect pharma and petrol $, then there's probably not much you can do.  Maybe slice him off a big slice of holiday ham?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is Sanders losing South Carolina and the rest of the Southern States being “knifed”?  Didn’t he have an obligation to win over those voters too?

He was such a strong candidate that he couldn't defeat the awesome power of three mediocre centrist Democrats stacked in a trenchcoat.

If he had -- it would mean he actually built a coalition beyond his base which would bode well for his success governing*. He didn't, so that's a pipedream for the good timeline (we're clearly in the bad timeline of a simulation).

*I imagine 1/6 would have been worse if a communist of Jewish descent had beaten thein fuhrer.

15 minutes ago, IFR said:

What's the big picture here?

>50 is probably a more appropriate cut-off for what you're talking about. That crowd has a LOT of "don't rock the boat" as they glide into retirement. Losing that nest egg, or the purchasing power of it (inflation), is terrifying, real, myopic, and extremely selfish from those of privilege. That IMO, is the constituency that best aligns to your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

The only interest ask Manchin has had throughout this process was the BIF; they should have used leverage over both bills to make sure they didn’t get split. They also believed a promise from Biden, who has apparently been getting high off his own supply.

Do I think it would have worked? Maybe, maybe not, but I do think progressives in the Democratic Party need to start coming to terms with the fact that establishment Democrats view progressives as 2nd-tier members of the party. I think progressives need to ask themselves what that means in the long term, especially since Democratic leadership is a bunch of corrupt dinosaurs who don’t have the slightest beginnings of a plan to deal with the Republican descent into fascism.

Would not passing the BIF be better for the US ar large?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I think you’re misunderstanding me - since it’s not guaranteed that Democrats will hold Congress next year anyway, progressives should forget about trying to retain control of Congress and should instead start targeting Democratic leadership/vulnerable moderates with primaries.

Alternatively, progressives could just sit out the next election and teach the party that it needs the progressive wing now far more than it needs the Blue Dogs.

 Don’t get me wrong - I don’t expect any quick fixes. I’m talking about projects that will take several election cycles, but Democratic leadership doesn’t have what it takes and the country doesn’t have the time to wait for them to get their shit together.

Fair enough.  Regardless Progressives do not have the numbers to control Congress on their own.  In a European style Parliamentary system they would be in coalition with another party and would likely be in exactly the same position they are in now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Here’s the thing about politics Scot - if you don’t have leverage, you find it it make it. If you’re not trying to do that, you’re not serving your constituents. Everyone has leverage points. It might not work, but you better goddamn try.

You think they didn’t try?  You think they didn’t put as much pressure as they could on a Senator who, because of the vagaries of elections, is literally sitting in the catbird seat?

What else could have been done to push Manchin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Not in my opinion - I work in the CRE industry and trust me when I say that people are ridiculously excited over the BIF. That’s not a good thing because they’re all a bunch of real estate developers. The BIF is a corporate boondoggle that is mainly just a corporate giveaway and won’t end up doing half of what they claim it will. The reconciliation bill would have been far better for the country at large.

It was also politically stupid for Democrats to pass the BIF without passing the BBB, because people won’t start noticing the provisions of the BIF until several years down the road. Some of the BBB stuff would have been implemented immediately.

So Democrats effectively ACA’d themselves again. It doesn’t inspire confidence.

Perhaps.  We will all see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You think they didn’t try?  You think they didn’t put as much pressure as they could on a Senator who, because of the vagaries of elections, is literally sitting in the catbird seat?

What else could have been done to push Manchin?

They could have had AOC, Harris, Warren, Sanders go down to WV and do speeches plugging the bill.  They could have sat Manchin down and said "what do you want?"*.  It's also possible that other Senators were lukewarm on the whole thing but would have suffered electorally for backing it.  Maybe he's carrying water for them.  

Biden should have been on he phone with Manchin everyday using his amazing Senatorial powers of compromise to pressure him to come to a deal.  

 

*yes, I know he kept moving the goalposts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I’m not saying they have the numbers to control Congress on their own. But they have more than enough to leverage more control over proceedings, and if they were more vocal speaking out against leadership it would be a step in the right direction.

100%.  If you look at a lot of foreign policy votes its almost as if the squad gives rotating cover to stuff.  I get there's a real-politik thing there, but would be cool to see a progressive bloc solidly fighting military spending at the very least.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

They could have had AOC, Harris, Warren, Sanders go down to WV and do speeches plugging the bill.  They could have sat Manchin down and said "what do you want?"*.  It's also possible that other Senators were lukewarm on the whole thing but would have suffered electorally for backing it.  Maybe he's carrying water for them.  

Biden should have been on he phone with Manchin everyday using his amazing Senatorial powers of compromise to pressure him to come to a deal.  

 

*yes, I know he kept moving the goalposts

I can’t believe they didn’t have the “what do you want” conversation in private.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I can’t believe they didn’t have the “what do you want” conversation in private.  

I can't either, but at some point you have to realize you're either being played, or really being played.  I also wouldn't put any gross incompetence past the Dems.  The shit with Schumer's secret letter seems like the kind of BS cover that lends credence to Manchin not being the only one who didn't support it, but the only one who wouldn't suffer for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

But they have more than enough to leverage more control over proceedings, and if they were more vocal speaking out against leadership it would be a step in the right direction.

I think you're discounting the much more influential/increased role the CPC has played throughout this saga.  They held the line for quite some time, it's just Manchin outlasted them.  When Pelosi struck a deal with House moderates to hold a vote before October, the CPC stood up to the Speaker and she was forced to delay the vote.  And, most importantly, Biden eventually gave them a commitment that he could deliver Manchin.  At that point it's difficult to continue - while progressives would have been right to doubt his ability to do so, Biden clearly was acting in good faith and, however delusional, believed he could deliver Manchin.

Plus just generally in terms of numbers, the CPC is one of the the three largest caucuses in the House now - its 95 members is virtually identical to the New Democrat Coalition's 94 and is only bested by the Republican Study Group's 153.  Moreover, the bill was shepherded by Bernie Sanders as Budget Committee chair.

All this is to say that while I understand you feel the progressives are not as influential as they should be, it's certainly the case they have much more influence than they ever have before.  In other words, the progressive movement is making concrete, tangible..progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 1066 Larry said:

They could have had AOC, Harris, Warren, Sanders go down to WV and do speeches plugging the bill.  

He did.

Quote

They could have sat Manchin down and said "what do you want?"*.  

I promise you they did several times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...