US Politics Thread (2021-24)

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by DemonOfWrath

That's the world of a 50/50 senate. Any one democrat senator can shut something down entirely. And the centrist democrats in heavily right-wing states have a lot more room to play hard ball because the choice is basically them or a republican (see Montana last year for an example for how hard it is to win/keep those few seats). The other democrats can potentially be replaced by other democrats, so have more to lose.

So, yeah, there isn't actually much choice with the current senate composition. You compromise and keep those centrist senators happy or you get nothing. Unless you can come up with something that would make them back down.

So the party will just be forever hostage of specific individuals that happen to represent key states. Let's talk a bit about what it means when people like Manchin are voting against party line. About what it means when one senator threatens to sink a bill because they value their personal interests higher than those of the people they should serve. About what it means to grovel before someone who cosplays as republican whenever it's convenient for them. About what it means when having to negotiate with someone whose stance is appease me or I'll have millions of citizens suffer instead.

You are right in one point that to pass any bill in the current state of affairs the democrats have no choice than to appease these individuals. That doesn't mean that their behavior is not absolutely disgraceful as well. A party doesn't or at least shouldn't consist of a mass of individuals but ultimately they should speak as a group.

[Key Board]

Ideally you want to primary people like Manchin

But when the challenger is a progressive, they start to parrot Fox News .

To be brutally honest it seems we’ll just have to wait for the older generation to die off.
The future political landscape will be inherited by the progressive youth and the fascist youth
The “culture wars” will go on. Qanon will go on.
. There will be much less room for centrists. Especially since bipartisanship is dead

//

[Guardian Enzo]

It makes absolutely no sense to primary Manchin. He’s literally the only Democrat who would have any chance of winning in WV. If you primaried him two things could happen - either he wins and is weakened in the general, or he loses and the Rs win the general by 30+ points. Don’t like Manchin? Great, I don’t either. How about the alternative? That’s a R Senator and Mitch McConnell being the majority leader and Biden’s stimulus not even coming up for a vote.

I could see primarying Sinema. She’s especially obnoxious and Arizona is at least a swing state, and a moderately more progressive D might have a chance there.

[DemonOfWrath]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

So the party will just be forever hostage of specific individuals that happen to represent key states. Let's talk a bit about what it means when people like Manchin are voting against party line. About what it means when one senator threatens to sink a bill because they value their personal interests higher than those of the people they should serve. About what it means to grovel before someone who cosplays as republican whenever it's convenient for them. About what it means when having to negotiate with someone whose stance is appease me or I'll have millions of citizens suffer instead.

You are right in one point that to pass any bill in the current state of affairs the democrats have no choice than to appease these individuals. That doesn't mean that their behavior is not absolutely disgraceful as well. A party doesn't or at least shouldn't consist of a mass of individuals but ultimately they should speak as a group.

Not that I don't agree with you (I'm not exactly a fan of Manchin myself), but it is a fact that he represents a very red state. His interests, and those of his constituents (whether or not you believe they're going against their own best interests) are going to be different to that of every other democrat senator, and so will what he thinks are good or bad ideas.

He did ultimately vote yes however, for the exact reasoning of he didn't want nothing to happen and that was the alternative.

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by DemonOfWrath

Not that I don't agree with you (I'm not exactly a fan of Manchin myself), but it is a fact that he represents a very red state. His interests, and those of his constituents (whether or not you believe they're going against their own best interests) are going to be different to that of every other democrat senator, and so will what he thinks are good or bad ideas.

He did ultimately vote yes however, for the exact reasoning of he didn't want nothing to happen and that was the alternative.

Yes, Manchin represents an unbelievably red state. It’s frankly a testament to what a good West Virginia politician he is that he’s still in office. He’s not going to espouse positions that are going to get him defeated in a landslide.

As bad as Manchin is, let’s look at reality. He voted for the stimulus. He voted to convict Trump. He voted not to dismantle the ACA. Things would be a whole lot worse if a WV Republican were in that seat. In point of fact Manchin has usually voted the party line on the really big issues, and tended to buck the party when he can do it for grandstanding purposes without causing a huge party crisis. The filibuster is a major test of that, since that’s going to be the only way to get any kind of bill passed to stop the GQP state parties from effectively terminating democracy in their states.

[coded321]

^so what, does voting for those things make Manchin immune from criticism? Mitt Romney and Susan Collins also voted to convict Trump, are they immune to criticism? Attack progressives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the democratic party floundered what should have been the easiest f**king political and legislative win for the party, all to let one democrat larpering as a republican pointlessly grandstand. Instead of taking the easy win, the party shot itself in the foot for no damn reason. But of course, its progressives' fault for trying to stop the party from screwing itself over.

[coded321]

Originally Posted by DemonOfWrath

Again, that doesn't answer the question of what would make him back down. He basically said "if you want my vote, change it in this way". Because it's 50/50 he can do that and make things bend to what he wants. Heck if he's not even considering re-election then there's even less you can use to try and convince him to back down from what he believes is best.

If he walks away, as much as you could say it's his fault, it can also be said it's your fault for not budging on ideological purity. You think voters are going to sympathise if you go back to them next year and say "we got nothing done for 2 years because Manchin wouldn't cave in when we refused to compromise with him, sorry"?

You can at least go back and say "ok, we got THIS when it was 50/50 and we were compromising with Manchin, give us a few more senators and we'll be able to get even more done!" the way it's turned out.

Heck, getting it through at 50/50 isn't exactly unimpressive either, other presidents have had way way more trouble getting things through with actual senate majorities. Remember how the republican's attempt to remove the ACA went a few years ago?

And in appeasing Manchin, democrats created a loss from what should have been the easiest political win. Really, how are democrats suppose to win in 22 & 24 when they keep self sabotaging, turning easy wins into unnecessary losses? Its almost like what happened to Obama. He kept sabotaging himself to appease Republicans, and nothing was gained for his efforts.

[Ithekro]

"Should have" is not the reality of the situation. A partial win is better than no win at all. This is the reality of a 50/50 Senate and there is nothing that can be done about it by the Progressives because they are not the majority. If they were the majority, without centralist and moderates, or with a larger numbers advantage over the Republicans, than they could do what they want. But that is not how American politics works. American politics has always been the "Majority rules, Minority rights" And in this case, the Democrats do not actually have a majority in the Senate. There are 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, and 2 independents (Sanders and King), just that the two independence caucus with the Democrats and the Vice President is a Democrat is the only reason they hold a majority at all...and only tipped by the Vice President in her office as President of the Senate. Thus the Democrats cannot get an easy win in the Senate at this time with an all Progressive agenda. It just a the reality of the situation.

If the small wins and the various backlashes of the Trump presidency continue to the 2022 election there will be 34 seats up for grabs. 14 Democrat and 20 Republican (4 of which are retiring) There currently isn't much of a shift projected for that election, with maybe 1 or two tossup in the 8 battleground elections, everything else is fairly solid. 2024 has 21 Democrat seats, both Independent seats, and 10 Republican seats up for election. Its too soon to see what will happen there, but that will also tie into the Presidential election.

If someone could swing in both D.C and Puerto Rico into becoming states by 2024, than there would be four more Senators and a possible shift in power.

[Guardian Enzo]

Which is why the Rs will never allow statehood for those two places as long as it’s in their power to prevent it.

Ironically, there are a lot of cultural conservatives in Puerto Rico and it’s entirely possible the GQP could do well there in the fairly near future. But the party seems to have decided they’re incapable of winning any election fairly and is going all-in on voter suppression and outright cheating.

[DemonOfWrath]

Originally Posted by coded321

And in appeasing Manchin, democrats created a loss from what should have been the easiest political win. Really, how are democrats suppose to win in 22 & 24 when they keep self sabotaging, turning easy wins into unnecessary losses? Its almost like what happened to Obama. He kept sabotaging himself to appease Republicans, and nothing was gained for his efforts.

The above two echo my thoughts, but I really don't think you're treating Manchin the right way in this discussion.

No, I don't mean don't criticise him. I mean you're treating him as if he has the same priorities and... let's call them win conditions, as the rest of the democrat party. You're basically going "why doesn't he vote the same as the rest of the democrats it's so stupid!" and ignoring he just isn't the same as the rest of the democrats, and that's just the wrong angle to approach this from.

What Manchin considers a win, is different from what you consider a win. That's what it all boils down to.

THAT is why he has be appeased, because he needs something that he'd consider a win, for whatever reason that may be.

Honestly, treat him like he's in an entirely separate party to the rest of the democrats, or an independent. And then it makes way more sense why he has to be dealt with separately like this.

Besides, name a viable alternative to appeasing Manchin...

[Guardian Enzo]

Who set up this rule where everyone in a party (again, it’s the DEMOCRATIC Party, btw) has to vote the same way on every issue? That’s never been the way it’s worked in American politics, and frankly I don’t think it should be. I don’t think the Democrats should aspire to jack-booted lockstep uniformity like the Republicans. Fight to win majorities on the strength of your ideas and reform the fucking electoral system.

[Magin]

So on one hand, Manchin at least is up for shifting the filibuster back to the way it originally was: you have to WORK for it to be used. Can't just say, "I filibuster" and kill the bill. So that's... progress, at least.

Meanwhile, Manchin has literally become the lynchpin for the Democrats. Normally one Senator wouldn't matter but... because the Senate is literally a 50-50 deadlock, Every. Vote. Counts. That's why the Dems HAVE to vote the same way on everything... otherwise, it doesn't get passed. Is this a good thing? Definitely not. But unless any of the seats currently held by Republicans are up for election soon... well, that means we have to deal win a razor-thin margin for every bill that comes up.

[Guardian Enzo]

Manchin seems to be telegraphing his position here. He wants to be able to campaign on standing up to the party and preserving bipartisanship (rofl), but is willing to partially gut the filibuster as a legislative weapon. He’s also indicated his openness to passing HR1 through reconciliation, though the leadership will likely have to ignore the parliamentarian if they do that.

[SeijiSensei]

There's no way H.R. 1 would qualify for consideration under reconciliation. Most of its provisions are regulatory and do not involve taxing and spending.

[Guardian Enzo]

Manchin disagrees.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-senate-474197

[SeijiSensei]

From that article:

It's not clear how Manchin envisioned that H.R. 1 could potentially be passed through reconciliation, as it is not budget-related, and Democrats' proposed minimum wage increase was tripped up by the process' strict rules and left on the cutting-room floor.

It's not clear to me either.

[Guardian Enzo]

The parliamentarian’s advice is non-binding. The majority can pass anything they like through reconciliation and hope it stands up to later challenges.

[cyberdemon]

Apparently if minimum wage was adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would be $24/ hour right now... 15 an hour doesn’t look so bad now does it Congress? Many Republican arguments are that they made less in their time and did fine... boomers...

[AnimeFan188]

The Entire Nevada Democratic Party Resigned After DSA Candidates
Swept Their Elections

"After a group of progressive candidates backed by their local Democratic Socialists of
America chapter swept all five elections for leadership roles in the Nevada Democratic
Party, every single staff member in the party quit.

News of their resignations came shortly after Saturday’s elections, according to the
Intercept, at which time the party’s executive director emailed the incoming chair to
announce that she and all of her colleagues would be resigning. The other vacated
positions are the party’s directors of operations, communications, research, and finance."

See:

https://theslot.jezebel.com/the-enti...a-c-1846436091

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

Apparently if minimum wage was adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage would be $24/ hour right now... 15 an hour doesn’t look so bad now does it Congress? Many Republican arguments are that they made less in their time and did fine... boomers...

Their real argument is that minimum wage isn't supposed to be fine, it's supposed to make you want to get a better job, like Congressperson. And if they managed it, why can't anyone who sets their mind to it?

Their real real argument is probably "screw the poor".