State of the Discussion

"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.

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?

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 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 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?

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?

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’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.

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.

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.

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?"

wjca has a point. I saw a headline just today that said the Dems had mousetrapped the Rs. And they are mouse-trapped. Either there will be a vote on the ACA and they will have to put themselves on record or there won't be and they will be the bad guys that way too.

It is clear that certain Senators were chosen to fall on their swords.

It is entirely possible that Dems in the Senate thought, "Those sociopaths in the R party aren't going to be the first to blink, no matter what and we believe in public service and are aware of the suffering, so we have to blink. So let's strategize how to do it to lessen the blow back to us and save some people and put the Rs on the spot with the ACA."

And yes they would have to keep this quiet,

But not indefinitely. I think the time is soon to spell it all out.

the cave-in was so infuriating and upsetting

What I find infuriating is less (much less) the cave in, and more the absolute refusal of the (R)'s to entertain an extension of the ACA subsidies.

Health care in this country is FUBAR beyond what I think folks living in any other developed country can fathom. The ACA, which was actually not original to Obama but was, in its fundamentals, a plan pioneered by Romney when he was governor of MA, was an attempt to get people insured. It is a half-assed program in many ways, because it tries to address the wishes of too many different constituencies, most definitely not to exclude private insurers. The requirements for what would be considered an acceptable plan were definitely ambitious for the US context, but would be mediocre pretty much anywhere else.

It's a weird convoluted complicated mess, but it's better than what we had. Believe it or not. And it cut the number of uninsured people in half.

We pay twice as much on average than any similar nation. We do not have twice the level of coverage, or twice the quality of outcomes. On the contrary.

People literally die here, literally go bankrupt here, as a result of the general shittiness of how we go about things.

Trump has an extreme personal animus toward Obama, so anything Obama did must be destroyed. Whether Obama actually did it or not, just the association of his name with the program is enough to make Trump determined to destroy it.

And Trump has nothing to replace it with. The stupid $2000 cash benefit he is talking about is (a) not gonna happen in anything like a form that will actually result in a $2000 check being cut to anybody, see also Bessent's comments about "no taxes on tips", and (b) would be laughably inadequate even if it were to materialize. $2000 is basically one ambulance ride and a couple of lab tests. For people in the private insurance market, it's something like one month of premiums.

We're extending the tax cuts, but ending the premium subsidies. And if anyone thinks the (R)'s are going to suddenly decide to extend them in December, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Yes to tax cuts, no to ACA subsidies, tells you everything you need to know about the state of this country right now.

Choices reveal character.

Note that Pritzker was speaking in front of a union crowd there (my compatriots in the IFT). This is what I've been saying for well over an election cycle - there are a whole lot of reachable voters who would respond to union-style messaging: "When we fight, we win." And in the face of a (temporary) loss, shift the message to one of building strength and solidarity for the longer campaign, and get out and organize.

And when I say "organize," I don't mean "fundraise." The idea is to mobilize as many people as you can - get them coming out and doing things, and meeting others who are doing the same. Fundraising doesn't build community. Direct messaging doesn't build community. Email lists don't build community. Shared struggle builds community.

Also, I don't know how many of the people who complain about the progressives woeful messaging have taken the time to watch one of the videos that AOC puts out on her various social media platforms. She's really good, especially at speaking to voters under 45. And if you look at the demographics of the Blue Wave, those were the voters that carried the show.

that was the plan put forward from the beginning.

Trump tax cuts were supposed to expire this year, too. At least, that was the plan from the beginning.

But, they did not. And that will add ~$4.6T to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Choices reveal character.

I've had two criticisms of Dem pols for many, many years: 1. the lack of fight and 2. the mushy, wishy-washy "respectable" way of speaking that fails to communicate anything.

I think the Dems have improved on both fronts but there is a ways to go. For example, Kaine said why he voted to end the shutdown. He said something about how there didn't seem to be any other way forward mumble mumble blah blah.

What he meant and what he should have said is this: "The Republicans don't care about anything except power for power's sake and they are willing, indeed committed to, harming millions of Americans just so they can feel powerful. They are willing to spin out the shut down until federal workers go bankrupt, children are malnourished and millions lose their health insurance. Democrats aren't ruthlessly willing to sacrifice our neighbors for power. We decided to cut a deal to save as many people as possible. This shameful episode shows that Republicans genuinely do not care about people and only care about power."

But because of the mumble mumble blah blah we have headlines saying that the shutdown was for nothing.

Hey, look at the bright side. At least the Senators who were investigated for their possible involvement in J6 can sue the DOJ for up to $500K.

Silver linings, everyone.

without having any idea which approach is more correct.

Not going to be possible to tell soon, if ever, what the actual outcomes of the various possible scenarios would have been. Lots of speculation (including mine), mostly dressed up as certainty. The most we can hope for is some 20/20 hindsight on how what was done played out.