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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
I didn't say moderates can't get elected. I think our problem is the word "moderate" which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue--temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.
Manchin didn't seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government--apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.
Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn't expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn't want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.
THAT kind of "trying for the middle" is the kind that doesn't work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.
Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won't help her win.
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
wjca,,, I meant that it doesn't work to get "moderate" Dems re-elected. Sellouts aren't respected by anyone and eventually get replaced by a Republican.
The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked.
I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
Would it have been nice if he'd been on board on a few (let alone a lot) more things? Sure. But a) he was on board with some things that, however imperfect, would not have passed at all, and b) he was one more vote to keep control of the Senate at times (e.g. 2021-2024) when the Democrats "majority" was the VP's tie breaking vote. No Manchin, no control.
I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus--betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes--never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I'm fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don't see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He's in GA. He sees the fire.
Well, technically the Epstein Files were (and are) a MAGA hobbyhorse rather than a GOP one. Or maybe the conspiracy theory enthusiasts among the MAGAts.
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Spelunking for fun and profit”
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.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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.
"
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
"
That's a terrific speech, nous. Thanks for posting 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?
"
Here is an antidote to the weak rhetorical sauce being offered up by Shaheen and her turtling pals. Rep. Adelita Grijalva speaks at her swearing in today, and dances all over the GOP's buttons with every one of her minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhEeqOu8Ts
Granddaughter of a Bracero - check.
Speaks Spanish with no translation - check.
Smacks the Speaker over his partisan delays - check.
Chides congress for abandoning its oversight role - check.
Brings Epstein survivors to her swearing in - check.
Signs discharge petition as her first official act - check.
This is how it should be done.
"
I didn't say moderates can't get elected. I think our problem is the word "moderate" which is so ambiguous in meaning when it comes to politics.
To me, a moderate is a person who is thoughtful, fact oriented, works to solve problems, believes in public service and is not overly ideological or obsessed by any particular issue--temperamentally moderate and open to intellectually honest discussion.
Manchin didn't seem to have much in the way of convictions at all beyond self-promotion and voted R at critical times when his vote could have made a difference in terms of good government--apparently because he saw some advantage to himself.
Another example is Gusenkamp Perez in WA. I sent money to her campaign and wrote GOTV letters for her. She won in a rural red district so I expected support for the timber industry and didn't expect a lot of anti-trump rhetoric. However she voted FOR the Republican voter suppression bill (that failed). Why on earth? Did she do it because Republicans were spreading lies about people voting illegally and she didn't want to contradict the lies? Evidently she felt a need to vote R on an R issue even though her vote was in support of an immoral effort based on lies.
THAT kind of "trying for the middle" is the kind that doesn't work. All she did was piss off her voters and I doubt if she picked up a single R vote. The only reason she won before is because the Rs chose such an obvious wacko to run. They are focusing now on a guy who presents as more normal who will be called a moderate even though he will vote just like the rest do, which is corporate fascist/hater.
Sucking up by supporting a truly evil R initiative won't help her win.
"
If you want something different, but still creepy:
https://archive.ph/8Px6C#selection-2091.157-2091.192
Just show some of these "conversations" with someone who is impressed with ChatGPT.
"
wj - I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
From the perspective of WV electoral politics, you are correct. But there are wider ripples that are harder to measure that need to be considered. Manchin and Sinema voted against the Build Back Better deal, spiking major legislation that would have helped fight climate change. They (and Shaheen, and King, and Hassan - sound familiar?) spiked the minimum wage bill in 2021.
Now all the stories are about how Biden can't get his signature legislation passed.
It happened again going out the door with these two preventing Biden from appointing someone to the NLRB, handing Trump control of the federal arm that deals with labor bargaining.
I know that a lot of people have written about how Harris had a problem with turnout due to Israel/Palestine issues, but I also firmly believe that had Biden and Harris managed to pass Build Back Better and the increase in minimum wage, that we would not have seen turnout quite so reduced for Harris, and might have seen a few fewer votes for Trump amongst young men disillusioned with federal politics and claiming that both sides were essentially the same.
Dems need to convince younger voters that they can actually achieve something to help with climate, stagnant wages, and the possibility of ever owning a home. Manchin and Sinema did more damage to this belief than did anyone else.
It's not just about vote percentages and issues mentioned in exit polling. There's the unseen effects of turnout and the issues that fuel cynicism and disillusionment.
Guess who showed up for the most recent Blue Wave?
"
wonkie, I'm not clear why you think getting moderates elected doesn't work. Do you mean that, when in office, it doesn't make it easier to get stuff done with bipartisan support? Or do you mean that running moderates doesn't improve the chances of winning a general election? Or something else?
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of bipartisanship on offer, so that wouldn't be a reason (in my opinion) to favor running a more moderate candidate than you'd prefer. On the other hand, in a purple to somewhat reddish district, a more moderate candidate seems like it provides better odds of winning the seat. Certainly, I can't see an argument that a less moderate candidate would be more likely to win in such a district.
"
wjca,,, I meant that it doesn't work to get "moderate" Dems re-elected. Sellouts aren't respected by anyone and eventually get replaced by a Republican.
"
Jamelle Bouie in today's NYT on the whole thing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/12/opinion/shutdown-democrats-senate-midterms.html?unlocked_article_code=1.0k8.DRXA.pz0WPK3A3HUY&smid=url-share
"
The Manchin calculus–betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes–never worked.
I would argue that it did work. The alternatives were never, ever, Manchin vs a more reliably more liberal Democrat. The alternative to Manchin was a very conservative Republican. Like the one now holding that seat.
Would it have been nice if he'd been on board on a few (let alone a lot) more things? Sure. But a) he was on board with some things that, however imperfect, would not have passed at all, and b) he was one more vote to keep control of the Senate at times (e.g. 2021-2024) when the Democrats "majority" was the VP's tie breaking vote. No Manchin, no control.
"
I am grateful and relieved that Ossof is more concerned about pleasing the Dem base than sucking up to Republicans the way Manchin did. The Manchin calculus--betray Dems at critical times in hopes of getting a few R votes--never worked. One of my pet peeves has been Dems who make that mistake. I'm fine with Ossof deciding to dance with those who brung him. I don't see this as meaning Ossof fails to see the fire. He's in GA. He sees the fire.
"
Well, technically the Epstein Files were (and are) a MAGA hobbyhorse rather than a GOP one. Or maybe the conspiracy theory enthusiasts among the MAGAts.
"
The Epstein Files have never been a GOP hobby horse (and we have always been at war with Eastasia).
Someone needs to update their Two Minutes of Hate.
"
There might be multiple petards to hoist them. Epstein emails are less than helpful. Remember when Epstein was the GOP's hobby horse?
"
I, for one, look forward to Trump and his MAGA co-conspirators being hoist by their own petard*.
Just hope it happens.
(*and yes, I really love that phrase)
"
I’m not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism.
I think it is damning because if a bunch of other senators in vulnerable seats are going to these 8, they are admitting that public opinion wants them to fight and they can't acknowledge it.
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyrapyXZfsA
Shane Goldmacher..there's one no vote that I found especially interesting.
Michael Babaro.: Who?
Goldmacher: John Ossoff. He is the most vulnerable senator up for election next year. So, he will face the voters and he's running in Georgia and really focused on his general election, right? No one's running against him in the primary right now. And what the no vote here says is that he doesn't want to risk backlash from inside his own party in this campaign. Whether that's from a potential primary challenger who could get recruited from one of these angry groups or whether it's the small donors who are fueling his campaign deciding, you know what, maybe we're not so into John Ossoff. He doesn't want to risk backlash.
Babaro; That's fascinating because as you're suggesting, John Ossoff could reasonably be most focused on a Republican opponent in a general election saying you should have voted to reopen the government. That's what matters in this race. And instead, what you're saying is he's more worried about upsetting Democrats in a potential primary. And that's what animated his vote on the shutdown. And in the end, he votes to keep the government shut down because he wants to look like he's on the side of the Democratic base. That's what we think happened here.
Goldmacher:Yeah. And I have not talked to Senator Ossoff here, but what you can see is that there are two choices. Choice one is vote to reopen the government and say, "I'm going to buck my party and I'm going to reopen the government even if people in my left attack me for it." Right? That's a selling point in a lot of places, right? And so here's a Democrat saying, you know, that's not the right calculus here to the extent he's making a politically motivated choice. The right calculus is to make sure that your own party likes you and supports you and sees you as a fighter because you want that energy behind you in a coming midterm election.
If they were voting to give their colleagues cover, it means that their colleagues don't see what is happening as a 4 alarm fire.
"
The GOP probably thinks that their demand for abortion restrictions in return for extending the subsidies is a clever move - making it so that they can say the Dems were the ones to sink the ACA because of their refusal (and they had best refuse). I think, however, that this ploy is going to backfire. The abortion stuff will play well to their base, but there is no reason to tie these two things together other than to poison pill it for the Dems, so I don't know how this lets the GOP off the hook when people's health insurance suddenly becomes unaffordable. It just demonstrates their lack of good faith.
Let's hope the Democratic leadership have enough sense to hit back hard on this and make voters see that the GOP is treating this like a game and not taking people's healthcare access seriously. It's simple messaging, or at least it would be for anyone not allergic to confrontation and sharp elbows.
"
Republicans demand tougher abortion restrictions to extend Obamacare funds
"
I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
I'm not entirely clear why this would be a damning criticism. It feels more like a rational response to the entirely predictable howls of outrage. The point of the exercise, after all, is to:
1) Get SNAP money flowing for the next year, get Federal workers paid again, etc.
2) Either get the ACA subsidies restored or, more likely, make it starkly, unmistakably clear who is responsible for the price hikes.
3) Avoid wasting time and money on primary battles, since the goal is to win general election battles.
Now if you think that the Republicans would cave on ACA subsidies, and do so fast enough to avoid the disasters for real people flowing from the lack addressed by the first point? Sure, there's lots to criticize. Just start by explaining why you think the Republicans would cave any time soon. Because, unless you can do that, criticism is nonsense.
"
I haven't read a lot about this, the whole thing makes me sick to my stomach. I did read something along the lines that nous laid out, that maybe the 8 senators, all of whom were not running again, were providing cover for other senators. This to me is an even more damning criticism of the move.
The only silver lining I can see is that Trump will feel emboldened by this and the whole shit show could really explode in their faces. I suppose that the second is that Schumer might get voted out and they get someone who has a spine.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.