by liberal japonicus
Well, folks might want to talk about this cave in. Have at it.
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
"This is the Voice of Moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've actually SEIZED the radio station . . . "
by liberal japonicus
Well, folks might want to talk about this cave in. Have at it.
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
Gosh he got vilified for years by party activists. And then decided not to run again. What a stunning surprise. Why would anyone pass up a chance for more of that?
/sarcasm
Yup, vilified simply for being a moderate. Manchin never did anything to offend anyone who wasn’t a horrible activist lost to their political delusions.
@#$%ing activists. So unfair.
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
If you don’t care about what’s good for congressional Democrats, that’s one thing, but it doesn’t have to mean you can’t recognize the point of view of congressional Democrats or the people who vote for them.
Manchin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Manchin
A mixed bag, but definitely not a consistent (D) vote on some important stuff.
Probably not a big deal when the overall mix of Senators includes middle of the road (R)’s as well. Also probably not a big deal when there is a clear majority for one party or another.
When the majority margins are really slim and your opposite party includes a caucus leader who vows that nothing presented by a (D) POTUS – including SCOTUS nominees – will get a single (R) vote, it’s a bigger deal.
The days of Tip ‘n Ronnie are long dead. It’s a hyperpartisan time, and that is not a world the (D)’s have created. It’s just the world they have to work in.
So Manchin was not a helpful guy, net/net. I understand that he was representing one of the most hard-core red areas of the country, but he nonetheless did not do the (D) caucus many favors.
I’m not sure his being replaced by a hard core conservative makes that much difference.
Manchin screwed his own party not long before deciding not to run for another term and his senate seat is now held by a Republican. How is that supposed to be good for Democrats?
The man would have been 77 on election day if he had run again. Can’t we let the olds retire? The fact that no Democrat who doesn’t have the sort of name recognition that Manchin had in WV (his uncle held statewide office for years; Joe was WV Secretary of State and Governor before he was a Senator) can win is a different problem.
Manchin voted for every nomination Obama and Biden sent to the Senate. While Biden was in office, Manchin eventually voted for every major bill. Sometimes he needed an earmark: the price for his vote on the infrastructure bill was to approve a NG pipeline that ran from the gas fields in WV to a market hub in Virginia. He wasn’t nearly as bad as, eg, Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.
The man would have been 77 on election day if he had run again. Can’t we let the olds retire?
Again, my point wasn’t “how dare he retire?” It was, given that he was retiring, why oppose Dem legislation? Maybe there was a reason, but it wasn’t to keep his seat in the senate to maintain a majority for the Dems.
I have no problem with everything else you wrote, Michael Cain. Points taken.
The point being, wj, that he wasn’t securing a seat for the Democrats by voting with Republicans on critical issues, but that probably won’t get through the radical centrism or whatever it is that makes you want to defend the guy.
No. The point being that, in a very narrowly divided Senate, a vote which can change who is majority leader, and thus in control of what business gets done, is important. Having someone who provides a critical vote on that is important. Even if he sometimes, or even routinely, doesn’t vote the way you (or I!) would like on various issues.
I’m not defending the guy. I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
wj – I’m arguing that sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all. And while there’s certainly no obligation to embrace someone like Manchin, it is a bad idea to get loudly worked up about his shortcomings. If you have a real chance to replace him with someone better, fine. But when you don’t, save your invective for the other side. Screaming “treason!” is counterproductive.
…would that the grumpy moderates and reactionary centrists could take this to heart with the progressives and social democrats in their own caucus as well, especially when those progressives and social democrats have shown more solidarity with their colleagues than the centrist border reivers.
“No. The point being that…”
The point I was making is what I was referring to, so yes. I know what point I was trying to make. You have a different point.
And I don’t think it matters one iota what I say on a blog. It has nothing to do with anything other than sharing thoughts with a small number of people. I’m not helping or hurting the Democrats one bit, so I’m not concerned about electoral strategy or legislative maneuvering or anything like that when I complain about politics here.
The world doesn’t care.
sometimes you have to settle for imperfect in order to get anything at all
TBH, at this point I’m holding out for “not utterly shitty”.
i’d be fine if Manchin was still there, and I’m fine if he’s not.
Maybe someday folks in WV will figure out that coal is not their future and voting for people who are all about coal because $$$ is not in their best interest. I’m not holding my breath.
in the meantime i’m just tryna get through it all. And i have it damned easy. house paid off, Enough money to satisfy my pretty modest needs, Medicare.
if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
russell – if I was, say, 30 or 40 years old I’d be seriously pissed right about now.
And they are.
And it gets more dire the younger you go. My 17-25 year-olds in my class are even more cynical and pissed than I was as a young punk in the 1980s, but with more of a sense of powerlessness because they are watching all of the progress we had get taken away.
We have to give them some reason to hope or else we are ceding the most angry and nihilistic of them straight to the alt-right.
I’m not trying to bust anyone’s chops here, but it is interesting to start at the beginning of the comments, and search for instances of ‘Manchin’ and see how the discussion takes on a life (or perhaps multiple lives) of its own.
I saw a thread over on Bsky arguing that the job of the Dem Senate leader is not to be a popular leader, but to be the one who can talk to everyone and hold together the largest possible number of senators for a coalition. Their claim was that Schumer was the one best suited to that task and that to change now was to make someone else learn the hardest job in government on the fly. Who, they asked, would be able to replace him and do as well?
I don’t know. But I also don’t think that is the right question or the right way to think about this situation. It’s not just about maintaining a coalition, it’s about communication and leadership and moral presence as well. Schumer has never been half of what Pelosi was in the House.
I think Klobuchar could probably do at least as good a job, and has enough experience that she would not be learning from scratch. She’s about the center of the Democratic spectrum. She could still hold presidential ambitions, but they aren’t going to go much of anywhere. This would be her peak.
I’d prefer Booker. He’d give the Dems a younger presence with more charisma, but he’s also probably a bit farther left than some of his colleagues might prefer, and he may want to take a shot at running for president himself. Still, he’s been effective at working with others and has a lot of leadership experience for someone with fewer than ten years in the Senate, and I think he’d be more inspirational than either Schumer or Klobuchar.
Whatever the case, I think the Dems are about to hit a tipping point where the leadership starts to age out, and the prominent younger members are going to be trending more progressive and more willing to fight. Best to start reflecting that a bit more with the public face of the party in the Senate.
nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good. In the imaginary reality that plays in my head, In my dreams, I imagine Bernie changing to Dem and getting put as minority leader, which is why I don’t like waking up in the morning now…
lj – nous, is it out of the realm of possibility to imagine Elizabeth Warren? I was looking at seniority and Patty Murray is actually the most senior, I’d like to think that a woman would send a message, though youth is also good.
I don’t think Warren is out of the realm of possibility. If we look at current Democratic leadership, and we eliminate Schumer and Durbin (retiring), then we have Klobuchar (MI), Booker (NJ), Warren (MA), Warner (VA), Sanders (VT), Baldwin (WI), Cortez Masto (NV), Schatz (HI), and Murphy (CT).
If you want to elevate a woman, then I’d eliminate Cortez Masto right off the bat over the shutdown votes. Think what you will of the practicality of it, her decision is not going to help change the impression of the Dems or inspire anyone who is disillusioned. Warren is great, but her media presence reinforces the liberal wonk image. She also reinforces the elitist image a bit by virtue of her still sounding like a professor. That leaves Baldwin and Klobuchar. If Klobuchar still plans to run for President, then Baldwin would be the best choice IMO. She’s a bit more vulnerable on the electoral front (WI is very purple and their GOP is deeply awful), but that also positions her as someone who has overcome a lot of prejudices and still succeeded in a rural state in the middle of the country.
Murray has served a long time, but despite this she isn’t in party leadership. That makes me wonder if she would be a good choice.
Otherwise, looking at the existing leadership, I think Booker, Schatz, or Murphy. Warner isn’t as reliable a D vote. Sanders is great, but older and seen as a socialist. Schatz is less well known, but is seen as a future leader. Murphy is solidly in the middle of the party and is usually supporting the party in his votes.
Demonstrating my own biases, Klobuchar wouldn’t have a chance. The BosWash urban corridor Democratic mafia hated that Reid and Pelosi attained the top positions in each chamber. They’re not going to allow that to happen again.
I realize this is pretty much OT, but is politically related. Just seeing on social media in the last two hours that a friend of mine has announced he is running for Congress in Georgia’s 11th district. He is a lawyer and has been working mostly in the family law, situations where children have been put in state supervision, that kind of thing. He drew up my first estate documents 12 years ago when he was a newly minted lawyer, I had contacted him in the last few weeks about getting them updated.
Getting messages from a mutual friend about this as I type. I had joked about calling our friend Don Quixote, since a Democrat can’t win that district, my friend acknowledged that, but said it’s important for contributing to overall statewide turnout, more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
Chris Harden for GA 11!!!
It’s important to have a candidate in every race, because you never can tell when the GOPer is found dead in a sleazy motel room, hog-tied, wearing TWO wet-suits, a ball-gag and a butt-plug.
It’s scandalous how many hyphens are required to recall that true event.
Warren is currently 76.
i thought we were trying to get new blood into leadership?
To cleek’s point about age, take a look at the webpages of the four biggest Democratic names amongst the current US congressional delegation from NY (Schumer, Gillibrand, Jeffries, and AOC). Schumer’s website looks like crap. The photos are undynamic and low res, and there is little to draw anyone in or to reach out. It’s very passive. Gillibrand’s site is better, but it again looks dated, and the pics all seem aimed at an older constituency. Jeffries site is more current looking, but is a bit formal and generic. AOC’s site is the most current and dynamic, with lots of pics of her actively helping out her constituents, opportunities to get involved, and ways to get help with basic needs that are presented by name.
If Schumer were to retire in the near future, then which of these sites seems like the sort that would project an image of a dynamic and people focused party that listens and cares, and that understands the needs of young voters?
And when I say “young voters,” I note alarmingly that for a lot of the political discussions I read online, that translates to Millennials, and Gen Z. We have a problem when the upper end of “young voter” is in their 40s.
We are rapidly approaching a tipping point in Democratic politics. It would be best to guide that transition and start it now rather than letting it be an abrupt and seismic shift.
We have a problem when the upper end of “young voter” is in their 40s.
Well, look at the age of the indiscreet “Young Republicans” 😉
Chris Harden for GA 11!!! (6) | Facebook He seems like a very nice, reasonable guy. I’ll follow him and I sent a small donation.
… more Democratic votes in that district won’t win the seat, but those will be votes to re-elect Ossoff to the Senate.
But consider, if a strong candidate could move the district from 65-35 last time to 60-40 (or better), and then we see the sort of blue wave election in 2026 which looks increasingly possible? Might actually happen. Probably temporarily, but still worth doing if it happens.
i thought we were trying to get new blood into leadership?
Ossoff is 38 followed by Lujan and Schatz (both 53) After that, it is Warnock and Booker (56) and Duckworth (57). It’s not like there is a lot of choice.
Thanks wonkie, I’ll note that I a saw a post yesterday with a photo of Chris and the two other Democrats running in the primary for that House seat, everyone looking very jovial. So possibly more practical to wait until after the primary to donate to whomever ends up being the general election candidate. But I don’t know anything about the mechanics of running a campaign, campaign finance, etc.
I can’t even remember why I get Axios newsletters, but I thought this might be of interest – I know lj pays attention to Klein:
New York Times columnist Ezra Klein isn’t content with opining about the Democratic Party — he’s positioned himself as a powerbroker inside of it.
Why it matters: Klein’s columnist-turned-operative role is raising concerns inside the Times and the Democratic Party, people familiar with the matter tell Axios.
Driving the news: Klein has spoken privately this year to potential 2028 candidates such as former Vice President Harris, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, people familiar with the conversations told Axios.
Klein’s column in early September urging Democratic senators to shut down the government to confront Trump’s expansion of executive power was influential in the senators doing just that for an unprecedented 43 days, according to Senate Democratic officials.
The intrigue: Klein also privately briefed Senate Democrats at their summer retreat.
Jill Abramson, the paper’s former executive editor, told Axios she doesn’t see a conflict.
Klein’s large audience and brand has endeared him to some of the Times leadership.
What they’re saying: Some Democratic officials advising potential presidential candidates are worried about Klein’s influence with party elites at a time when the party is trying to win back working-class votes, having suffered from being cast as too elite and coastal.
Copied and pasted something about Ezra Klein from Axios, but didn’t notice it contained several links so it’s awaiting approval. If anybody wants to rescue it, that would be great – sorry!
Klein and Newsom are a match made in Democratic donor class heaven, and I agree that that is a recipe for being seen as elitist and out of touch by most of the places that the Dems should be on an atonement tour for having neglected for at least two decades. And hearing Shapiro’s name dropped so often in these sorts of conversations, I fear that he too may be trying to astroturf his way to a populist image.
Dems – no more skipping leg day. You have to get out there and meet with people, and actually listen to them as people you are there to serve, not just as focus groups you can use to craft your marketing campaign.
The Axios piece is a bit strange, it suggests that Klein was a driver in having the Democrats not vote for the budget, but fails to mention that it looks like he was left high and dry when the 8 senators did the deal.
Klein is certainly stretching for the middle of the road credibility, he had on Ben Shapiro immediately after the Charlie Kirk assassination, which is a bit like interviewing a stagehand who built the sets about how a play went down.
He also had Amit Segal on about the I/P conflict and prefaced the interview with basically a trigger warning about the views, saying that Segal is ‘far to the right’ of Klein.
You could ask me what do I expect Klein to do, well, that’s his choice, but if it were me, I wouldn’t want to cosplay Gen Z David Broder.
LJ channeling Atrios, interesting!