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

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Babblebauble said:

You're trying to reason with people who are deliberately choosing not to acknowledge reality. Such phrases as "I have to believe." And "that seems defeatist." In response to remindings of observable facts indicates that a wishful attitude and disregard for the practicalities of the situation is a prerequisite for achieving the stated goal. 

The idealistic ends justify any misstep in its pursuit, no matter how predictable the errors or impossible the goal. 

Start with what you wish to be possible and lash out wildly from there. Anything less is a failure of personal will, circumstances be damned. 

Hmm, where have I seen this kind of attitude before?

In fairness people would never achieve anything if they never attempted the unreachable.  I think WV is a lost cause but if others think a leftist Democrat can win there, God go with them.  If they pull it off they look like a genius.

I will absolutely tip my hat and offer congratulations if I am shown to be wrong.

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In fairness people would never achieve anything if they never attempted the unreachable.  I think WV is a lost cause but if others think a leftist Democrat can win there, God go with them.  If they pull it off they look like a genius.

I will absolutely tip my hat and offer congratulations if I am shown to be wrong.

You're good people Scott. 

[Tywin et al.]

It's worth noting that Manchin is polling well in WV. Latest one I could find had him at 61%. Biden meanwhile is in the low to mid 30's. Good luck replacing him, especially from the left.....

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Babblebauble said:

You're good people Scott. 

Thank you.

[Jaxom 1974]

59 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's worth noting that Manchin is polling well in WV. Latest one I could find had him at 61%. Biden meanwhile is in the low to mid 30's. Good luck replacing him, especially from the left.....

Manchin doesn't need to be replaced.  Let him have his little WV fief.  Concentrate elsewhere and win more Senate seats, thus marginalizing any power Joe Manchin has.  Georgia and Arizona need to be retained.  Wisconsin and elsewhere need to be picked up.  Get yourself 55-56 seats in the Senate in '22 and start cranking out legislation, large and small, and then see if there isn't some leftist Democrat that comes out of the woodwork to challenge Joe Manchin...

[Tywin et al.]

40 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Manchin doesn't need to be replaced.  Let him have his little WV fief.  Concentrate elsewhere and win more Senate seats, thus marginalizing any power Joe Manchin has.  Georgia and Arizona need to be retained.  Wisconsin and elsewhere need to be picked up.  Get yourself 55-56 seats in the Senate in '22 and start cranking out legislation, large and small, and then see if there isn't some leftist Democrat that comes out of the woodwork to challenge Joe Manchin...

Yep. It's fair to complain about Manchin, but that's not getting anyone anywhere. And while I think there's no chance of retaining both chambers in 2022, Dems need to worry about elsewhere and just hope they can retain power and that Manchin will be there for procedural and judicial nominee votes. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Babblebauble said:

You're trying to reason with people who are deliberately choosing not to acknowledge reality. Such phrases as "I have to believe." And "that seems defeatist." In response to remindings of observable facts indicates that a wishful attitude and disregard for the practicalities of the situation is a prerequisite for achieving the stated goal. 

The idealistic ends justify any misstep in its pursuit, no matter how predictable the errors or impossible the goal. 

Start with what you wish to be possible and lash out wildly from there. Anything less is a failure of personal will, circumstances be damned. 

Hmm, where have I seen this kind of attitude before?

Look, if Manchin is the only option, fine.  It's not even clear he's running again, as far as I know.  But in the meantime, it IS defeatist to just say "well there's no other option, live with it".  

There's absolutely nothing about "deliberately choosing to not acknowledge reality" when you're talking about an election over two years away.

Is Manchin likely the best shot there?  Sure!  But why the fuck should you be satisfied with that or not want to do better?

  And pretending like it's impossible to find someone else there while also running good candidates in other states is some utter bs and whataboutism.  

[DMC]

I think this is a pointless conversation.  As Jaxom emphasized, focus on picking up PA, WI, NC, OH, and holding AZ, GA, NV next November.  Manchin isn't on the ballot in 2022, and it's not even clear he's running for another term in 2024.  Absolutely no reason to argue about his seat til after the midterms.

In actual Senate election news, Trumpists are coalescing around Dina Powell's husband, Doug McCormick, in the PA senate race.  Hope Hicks and Stephen Miller are reportedly on board as advisors, and he apparently has the support of Conway and Sanders.  Have to imagine all he has to do is kiss the ring (or whatever) for the Don's endorsement.  Poor Dr. Oz.

[Tywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Poor Dr. Oz.

He's got a cure for this, just buy more supplements! 

[Kalbear]

Again, the problem isn't that there is one Manchin. The problem is that there are not 10 - red state dem senators who can win and regularly do dem things. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How many Statewide and Federal elected positions are held by leftist Democrats in West Virginia?

It doesn't matter. We will see who is or isn't a good choice in the next couple of years.

[DMC]

We need 10 Jon Testers, not 10 Joe Manchins - which wouldn't change much.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

We need 10 Jon Testers, not 10 Joe Manchins - which wouldn't change much.

10 Joe Manchins would likely mean a non reconciliation bill with a decent amount of stuff could pass, along with no worries about judges or other things, and it would be far more likely to pass more ambitious things on recon. But sure, more Tester types are fine too! 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

It doesn't matter. We will see who is or isn't a good choice in the next couple of years.

Why do pragmatism and a recognition of facts on the ground in WV make you so angry?

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

10 Joe Manchins would likely mean a non reconciliation bill with a decent amount of stuff could pass, along with no worries about judges or other things, and it would be far more likely to pass more ambitious things on recon.

Considering all the things we know Manchin has blocked from the actual reconciliation bill - and his true preferences may well be to pass no reconciliation bill at all - this is a very dubious assumption. 

As for policy items outside the purview of reconciliation, maybe you could get ten (really eleven) Manchins on board with minimum wage, but almost certainly it would be on his terms - what was it something like $11?  And again, that's assuming that's his true preference when he knew it it wasn't going to get in reconciliation nor passed through regular order.  With immigration, again, I suspect he hasn't position-took on that much at all because he knows MacDonough won't allow any of it through reconciliation.  With a filibuster-proof majority I suspect the Manchins would insist on doing it in a "bipartisan" fashion.  Same story with voting rights - while Schumer did get him to write his own bill on that, this was under the pretext that Manchin knew it was never going to pass cloture.  I suspect at least one of the 11 Manchins would insist on doing that in a "bipartisan" fashion as well.

And that's the rub - Manchin finds the least objectionable way possible to block passage, with his go-to/trump card being completing "bipartisan" legislation.  He even wants to engage in changing the Senate rules via bipartisan negotiations - when the entire point of changing the rules is because the GOP is wholly obstructionist.  I was willing to give Manchin the benefit of the doubt in the first hundred days/throughout the spring - especially after he passed the stimulus bill with minimal resistance - that if Biden and Schumer showed a good faith effort to seek "bipartisanship," and then it obviously failed on everything but infrastructure, he would relent on some of this.  But the last six months have demonstrated he's not negotiating in good faith and the idea that eleven of him would just because they wouldn't have to go through reconciliation simply doesn't follow.

Another aspect, I think, is that Manchin voted for the stimulus bill because Biden was in a strong position at the time - and feels much more secure in blocking the reconciliation bill now because Biden is in a weak position.  In addition to his rather apparent obstructionism, that's exactly the wrong type of copartisan you want ten more of.  Give me ten Testers, or even ten Sherrod Browns or Warnocks or Ossoffs or Kellys - all Senators with even-to-conservative constituencies that are actually going to negotiate in good faith and stand up for/actually believe in the Democratic platform.

As for judges, just one Manchin is perfectly sufficient.  I guess if there were ten more of him it'd be far less likely all of them would die than just one which would lose the majority.  Yay?

[Varysblackfyre321]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why do pragmatism and a recognition of facts on the ground in WV make you so angry?

Same reasons a lot magats get flustered at the idea they’re ideas are not overwhelming popular in some areas.

They’d like it if promoting their ideological views in the way they’d be receptive towards, always won the day. So it must.

If the party is pure than victory is assured.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Why do pragmatism and a recognition of facts on the ground in WV make you so angry?

Why do you think I'm angry? I'm just bored with this question of yours (paraded as "pragmatism"--which it is not). I think you're projecting your own feelings about things onto my tone. Please don't!

[Centrist Simon Steele]

16 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Right. And when this reasonbable, realistic trifecta loses the House and/ or Senate, I'm sure it has less to do with said government and Manchin and more with progressives because... reasons.

If those losses start to look very real closer to midterm elections, we'll start hearing those reasons. I'm interested to see how progressives botched this one. Maybe if they hadn't tried to do anything, they wouldn't have forced Joe Manchin to obstruct everything? I think it could be that simple. It'll be a simultaneous reforming of Manchin's public persona while the pundits try to stomp the Squad and Bernie into the ground for being "so unrealistic." 

In a way they're right--asking for incremental change back to the center in this country is extreme behavior. We only shift right until people who have been lifelong Republicans are suddenly like, "Hey, I'm a Democrat now!" 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

22 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Why do you think I'm angry? I'm just bored with this question of yours (paraded as "pragmatism"--which it is not). I think you're projecting your own feelings about things onto my tone. Please don't!

What have I said that is inaccurate?  Is it possible for a leftist Democratic candidate to win the US Senate seat from WV?  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible.  The better questions are whether it is likely and worth a significant outlay of limited resources?

What say you to the second and third questions?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What have I said that is inaccurate?  Is it possible for a leftist Democratic candidate to win the US Senate seat from WV?  Sure, it’s hypothetically possible.  The better questions are whether it is likely and worth a significant outlay of limited resources?

What say you to the second and third questions?

Why did you say I was angry for your responding to your question? Is it possible for Manchin to lose the seat to a centrist Democrat? I'd say that's more than a hypothetical possibility. You create a strawman of progressivism, but the reality is Manchin is a Republican masquerading as a Dem, he'll be changing parties soon enough, and a moderate Dem, a progressive, etc. will be the only option the Dem party has to support there. 

What limited resources are you worried about activists in WV wasting? Are you worried the Dem party will funnel money into a longshot challenger against Manchin? Don't worry, they won't. The people of WV who are mobilizing (much as Stacy Abrams did these last few years) are working hard to improve the truly squalid living conditions leadership such as Manchin's has brought. 

Mainstream Democrats have long campaigned on shutting coal mines down--and that's literally the only option people there have for work. Instead of offering support and help while we transition, Hillary and Obama treated this as a war to win.

The right isn't helping them, and the Dems certainly didn't help them. Organizers in West Virginia are looking for elected leaders who want to help them not be in the top 3 poorest countries in the U.S. 

Ultimately, the Senate itself is the problem. North and South Dakota have 4 senators representing 1.4 million people. California has 2 senators representing 40 million people. 1.4 million people get twice as many votes in the Senate--which is the more powerful of the two branches of Congress. 

The Senate, in its current form, needs about 60 Dem senators to probably do anything meaningful--and by "meaningful" I mean incremental shifts back to the center. 

So, to bring this back round to your original question: there aren't resources being wasted on this question. Nationally, we have a right to criticize and hope for the removal of a single person obstructing the majority of the party he claims membership with. Many of us would love to see him get his due because he's corrupt, gets lots of money donated to him right before he makes these "tough stands against spending," his children are financially well off due to his position and they exploit workers in WV, etc. 

Sitting here saying, "but who else" is either a dense question that misses the entire point, or an antagonistic question posed against those you don't agree with ideologically. I know you're not dense.

Who is there? Who cares--many of us hope WV finds someone to replace Manchin for the harm and pain he causes the people there and, now, in the rest of the country. 

ETA: And please, by all means, read this post in the tone in which I wrote it--my natural, monotone voice that's not conveying much of any emotion at all.