... 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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
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.
3 weeks ago
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
3 weeks ago
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
... 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
And yes they would have to keep this quiet,
But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.
I agree. I would say immediately after a) the House concurs to the Senate bill and b) Trump signs it.
Until then, the Republicans have, or might think they have, a chance to perhaps wriggle out of the trap. But once that happens? They're toast.
No doubt they will be endlessly inventive trying to recover. But their only real escape would be to restore the subsidies. Which their fanatics wouldn't countenance. And Trump would veto if it somehow got thru Congress.
I generally have little time for those who see conspiracies everywhere. But it occurs to me to wonder...
Suppose the thinking in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate was just what wonkie lays out above as what Senator Kaine should have said. Might there have been a reason not to say it out loud just now?
Start with the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans in Congress aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. If the Democrats don't stand up and announce that they've neatly mousetrapped the Republicans here, the idea that it might be happening is unlikely to occur to them. Especially if there are loud complaints about "caving in" and "betrayal" from Democratic activists -- which we are hearing.
So the Republicans cheerfully pass the continuing resolution that just passed the Senate. And loudly declare victory (which Trump is incapable of not doing). Then, February rolls around. The government shuts down again. The differences being that this time SNAP keeps going (per this bill), critical Federal workers get paid, etc. Of course, health insurance premiums continue to skyrocket. And elections come ever closer, close enough that voters may even remember whose fault that is.
Did the Democrats saw all this coming? I don't know, and certainly don't expect an announcement. But, as politics goes, this ain't rocket science. I note that Schumer only had votes for cloture from Senators who are retiring or otherwise not subject to primary battles next year. Which avoids wasting resources on those. Spend the money on those districts that the Republicans gerrymandered into smaller (supposed) Republican majorities.
Hmmmm