Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Manic Moran

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The problem is that they have literally zero leverage over him. Donald Trump won West Virginia by Nearly 40%. He can't be primaried as anyone else would lose for sure. It's frankly a miracle that he got elected in that state as a Democrat. He of course knows all this.

He also knows that a lot of people who ordinarily vote Republican make an exception for him. That's probably why he went on Fox News and declared that he would never vote to remove the filibuster. If he voted for that he'd be Public Enemy #1 in the Right-Wing media sphere and his career would be over in 2024.
He'll be 77 then. He probably thinks he has at least one, if not two, more 6 year terms in him. Biden can't even bribe him with a big job since there's no guarantee that he or any other Democrat will be President after the next election.

This. He does not work for Biden, and he does not work for the Democrat Party. He works for the people of West Virginia, those are the people who elected him to represent them. Under what form of representative government would you suggest that the representatives beholden themselves more to their party than to their constituents?

Polling from two days ago in WV. https://thefga.org/polling/west-virginia-filibuster/

52% support the filibuster, 36% oppose. 56% say if Manchin votes to remove it, they will be less likely to vote for him, 30% say they will be more likely to vote for him.

The bottom line is that Democrat voters are not the same nationwide, and Weat Virginia Democrat voters have no obligation to follow the philosophies of Democrat voters in Colorado, New York, or even Virginia.

Carfacemandog

Pretty much - Democrat voters are typically a lot more likely to vote for the candidate themselves rather than the 'brand' of the letter beside their name.

AbusesToilets

The counter point being Manchin is unlikely to extract many beneficial policies for WV if sets out his stall to stymie Democratic legislation. Better in the tent than without. The Republicans certainly won't be supporting him.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The counter point being Manchin is unlikely to extract many beneficial policies for WV if sets out his stall to stymie Democratic legislation. Better in the tent than without. The Republicans certainly won't be supporting him.

Manchins viewpoint is one based on a hope/expectation of good faith behaviour from the GOP.

He says keep the filibuster and reach across the aisle blah blah blah.

That is a fundamentally flawed viewpoint.

The GOP is far too far gone for that.

There is no consensus to build , there is no "bipartisanship" to be had.

There is simply no piece of legislation that the Democrats could put forward that more than a half dozen of so GOP Senators would vote for.

Even if it was perfectly aligned to GOP positions , they'd vote no , just to stop the Democrats getting a win.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Manchins viewpoint is one based on a hope/expectation of good faith behaviour from the GOP.

He says keep the filibuster and reach across the aisle blah blah blah.

That is a fundamentally flawed viewpoint.

The GOP is far too far gone for that.

There is no consensus to build , there is no "bipartisanship" to be had.

There is simply no piece of legislation that the Democrats could put forward that more than a half dozen of so GOP Senators would vote for.

Even if it was perfectly aligned to GOP positions , they'd vote no , just to stop the Democrats getting a win.

Indeed. The GOP policy is scorched-earth - Biden gets that now, having witnessed Obama failing with bi-partisanship.

Manchin needs to understand this too. Or maybe he does, but needs to spout the bi-partisan line for his own electoral chances.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Manchins viewpoint is one based on a hope/expectation of good faith behaviour from the GOP.

He says keep the filibuster and reach across the aisle blah blah blah.

That is a fundamentally flawed viewpoint.

The GOP is far too far gone for that.

There is no consensus to build , there is no "bipartisanship" to be had.

There is simply no piece of legislation that the Democrats could put forward that more than a half dozen of so GOP Senators would vote for.

Even if it was perfectly aligned to GOP positions , they'd vote no , just to stop the Democrats getting a win.

I just assume Manchin is doing what he is doing because someone in the GOP has leverage over him. Either funny money or something else.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

I just assume Manchin is doing what he is doing because someone in the GOP has leverage over him. Either funny money or something else.

No - It's simply that he gets elected by essentially presenting himself as a *very* moderate Republican and not really a Democrat.

So , if he behaves like a regular Democrat he doesn't get re-elected.

So voting to remove the filibuster and thereby facilitating the broader Democrat agenda loses him his seat - A seat he will probably only run 1 more time for.

So Manchin would rather another 6 invisible years in Washington over being part of something fairly historic (one way or the other)

AbusesToilets

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No - It's simply that he gets elected by essentially presenting himself as a *very* moderate Republican and not really a Democrat.

So , if he behaves like a regular Democrat he doesn't get re-elected.

So voting to remove the filibuster and thereby facilitating the broader Democrat agenda loses him his seat - A seat he will probably only run 1 more time for.

So Manchin would rather another 6 invisible years in Washington over being part of something fairly historic (one way or the other)

If I was Schumer, I'd be tempted to give him the boot if he doesn't get onboard, especially if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022.

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If I was Schumer, I'd be tempted to give him the boot if he doesn't get onboard, especially if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022.

With all the Voter suppression laws coming online allied to widespread gerrymandering that is going to take place over the next year or so , the GOP are going to take the House at the very least and probably take back control of the Senate.

That why the voting rights act is absolutely central to the future in the US.

TomOnBoard

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If I was Schumer, I'd be tempted to give him the boot if he doesn't get onboard, especially if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022.

Well, if the GOP takes the Senate in 2022, it'll be irrelevant.

The crucial time is now, to remove the filibuster and get HR1 passed into law, to negate some of the voter-suppression tactics being put in place in so many GOP- controlled States. If HR1 is not passed, and GOP gerrymandering is coupled with voter-suppression laws, the GOP will almost certainly take the House. The U.S. Senate is less prone to the vagaries of the gerrymander, and the 2022 Senate Class 3 pool will only have 14 Dems vs 20 Gop seats up for election. In-fighting in the GOP, with Trump playing puppet master (or trying to) may damage Murkoski, Rubio, Burr and Toomey, any/all of whom could face being Primaried if they don't retire. So, those seats could be fertile ground for Dem attacks. On the other hand, Mark Kelly may find re-election tough, and Feinstein and Leahy may not even run, while Warnock will face an onslaught in GA.

So at this stage, I'd be seeing a huge risk to Dems in the House, and a not-inconsiderable risk of losing the Senate, UNLESS they enact legislation at a Federal level that stays within the bounds of Constitutional propriety, but also ensures that access to any Federal election by voters, run by any State, conforms to Federal law that prevents suppression.

eire4

Quin_Dub wrote: »

With all the Voter suppression laws coming online allied to widespread gerrymandering that is going to take place over the next year or so , the GOP are going to take the House at the very least and probably take back control of the Senate.

That why the voting rights act is absolutely central to the future in the US.

Without a doubt a very good chance of one or both things happening at the 2022 midterm election regardless of how well the Biden administration is doing.

Overheal

Oh, Boehner. 'yeah, the GOP are pieces of **** and omg this insurrection makes me sick, we need to get back to normal this is all wrong - but yeah I voted for Trump...'

Even the ones who think they are 'woke' to their party's downfall are active participants.

Rjd2

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If I was Schumer, I'd be tempted to give him the boot if he doesn't get onboard, especially if the Republicans retake the Senate in 2022.

Its Joe or a Republican then.

Their is zero chance of anyone else winning that state .

I don't quite get the Manchen annoyance whatsoever, he never casts the deciding vote in the fav of the GOP and genuinely only votes for them when he knows the Dems don't have the votes to get something done.

The Kav case the obvious one.

Its arguably the reddest state around and with Manchen the Dems get good value for their money.

I think people are also forgetting its not just him who opposes getting rid of the filibuster its also Sinema down in Arizona.

marno21

The anti-Joe Manchin racket the last few weeks shows mainly that some people have a fundamentally poor understanding of American realpolitik.

Joe Manchin stood for re-election in 2018, in West Virginia. West Virginia had voted for Trump by a margin of 42 points. The only state that voted more for Trump was Wyoming by 46 points.

Several weeks before the election, the Senate held the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin voted yes, much to the disgust of purist Democrats. Several of his Democrat colleuges from red/purple-red states, Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) voted no on the confirmation.

Manchin retained his seat, and the four who voted no all lost their seats to Republicans. West Virginia, a staunch Conservative state, is pro Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin understands this hence his vote. Manchin has cast some crucial votes on Democrat legislation since, and he is much more of an asset to the Senate Democrats than a random pro-Trump Republican. Claire McCaskill would be a much more useful asset to them too than Josh Hawley. Susan Collins gets elected in a blue state due to the inverse of this.

If Manchin gets primaried by a "woke"/"pure"/"liberal" Democrat, that candidate loses by 20/30 points in the next election.

The Democrats could learn a lot from him about getting Senators elected in swing states. There are 3 Senators from states that didn't vote for Biden (Manchin, Tester & Sherrod Brown of Ohio). If they had more Joe Manchins they wouldn't have a razor thin majority. There are only 3 Republican Senators in Biden states (Collins/Toomey/Johnson) for them to unseat.

Rjd2

marno21 wrote: »

The anti-Joe Manchin racket the last few weeks shows mainly that some people have a fundamentally poor understanding of American realpolitik.

Joe Manchin stood for re-election in 2018, in West Virginia. West Virginia had voted for Trump by a margin of 42 points. The only state that voted more for Trump was Wyoming by 46 points.

Several weeks before the election, the Senate held the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin voted yes, much to the disgust of purist Democrats. Several of his Democrat colleuges from red/purple-red states, Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) voted no on the confirmation.

Manchin retained his seat, and the four who voted no all lost their seats to Republicans. West Virginia, a staunch Conservative state, is pro Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin understands this hence his vote. Manchin has cast some crucial votes on Democrat legislation since, and he is much more of an asset to the Senate Democrats than a random pro-Trump Republican. Claire McCaskill would be a much more useful asset to them too than Josh Hawley. Susan Collins gets elected in a blue state due to the inverse of this.

If Manchin gets primaried by a "woke"/"pure"/"liberal" Democrat, that candidate loses by 20/30 points in the next election.

The Democrats could learn a lot from him about getting Senators elected in swing states. There are 3 Senators from states that didn't vote for Biden (Manchin, Tester & Sherrod Brown of Ohio). If they had more Joe Manchins they wouldn't have a razor thin majority. There are only 3 Republican Senators in Biden states (Collins/Toomey/Johnson) for them to unseat.

The Kav vote was a perfect example of canny politics by him.

He would have been in regular contact with Collins and the other Republicans who were on the fence regarding Kavanaugh so he cast his vote knowing that they were going to confirm him and even if he voted no it was irrelevant.

I am adamant if the numbers weren't their for Kav or if he was the vote that would confirm one way or other he would have voted with his party as he normally does.

I think he doesn't mind all this chatter about him either, he can go home and say "heh look I'm my own man" when the reality is he is loyal life long Dem.

On the filibuster, he will know the votes are not their even without him to get rid of it, however he is quite happy to face the wrath of online progressives knowing that the people in his state support his stance on it.

Water John

Put a big pork barrell for West Virginia in the Infrastructure Bill. Something they couldn't say no to, American real politics.

Quin_Dub

marno21 wrote: »

The anti-Joe Manchin racket the last few weeks shows mainly that some people have a fundamentally poor understanding of American realpolitik.

Joe Manchin stood for re-election in 2018, in West Virginia. West Virginia had voted for Trump by a margin of 42 points. The only state that voted more for Trump was Wyoming by 46 points.

Several weeks before the election, the Senate held the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin voted yes, much to the disgust of purist Democrats. Several of his Democrat colleuges from red/purple-red states, Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) voted no on the confirmation.

Manchin retained his seat, and the four who voted no all lost their seats to Republicans. West Virginia, a staunch Conservative state, is pro Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin understands this hence his vote. Manchin has cast some crucial votes on Democrat legislation since, and he is much more of an asset to the Senate Democrats than a random pro-Trump Republican. Claire McCaskill would be a much more useful asset to them too than Josh Hawley. Susan Collins gets elected in a blue state due to the inverse of this.

If Manchin gets primaried by a "woke"/"pure"/"liberal" Democrat, that candidate loses by 20/30 points in the next election.

The Democrats could learn a lot from him about getting Senators elected in swing states. There are 3 Senators from states that didn't vote for Biden (Manchin, Tester & Sherrod Brown of Ohio). If they had more Joe Manchins they wouldn't have a razor thin majority. There are only 3 Republican Senators in Biden states (Collins/Toomey/Johnson) for them to unseat.

Everything you are saying here is absolutely valid however there is an inflection point coming in US Politics and Manchin and Sinema et al have to decide what's more important to them in terms of their legacy and their principals.

If HR1 doesn't get passed the GOP , via voting law changes and widespread redistricting will cement Minority rule in the US for decades to come and that is NOT a good thing.

Voting to remove the filibuster and by extension getting HR1 passed puts in place laws that mean that actual Democracy has the chance to break out across the US from the State houses right the way up.

Given how Arizona is trending , I don't think voting to remove the Filibuster hurts Sinema a whole lot

Yes , voting the remove the filibuster is probably a mortal wound for Manchins chances in what will almost certainly be his last Election - But it probably allows the Democrats to hold the seats they have and take several others as well by dint of preventing the voter suppression tactics of the GOP in those swing states.


So, what's more important to them - Personally getting re-elected or changing the Democratic landscape significantly for the good for generations to come??

Tell me how

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Everything you are saying here is absolutely valid however there is an inflection point coming in US Politics and Manchin and Sinema et al have to decide what's more important to them in terms of their legacy and their principals.

If HR1 doesn't get passed the GOP , via voting law changes and widespread redistricting will cement Minority rule in the US for decades to come and that is NOT a good thing.

Voting to remove the filibuster and by extension getting HR1 passed puts in place laws that mean that actual Democracy has the chance to break out across the US from the State houses right the way up.

Given how Arizona is trending , I don't think voting to remove the Filibuster hurts Sinema a whole lot

Yes , voting the remove the filibuster is probably a mortal wound for Manchins chances in what will almost certainly be his last Election - But it probably allows the Democrats to hold the seats they have and take several others as well by dint of preventing the voter suppression tactics of the GOP in those swing states.


So, what's more important to them - Personally getting re-elected or changing the Democratic landscape significantly for the good for generations to come??

You'd be naive to think it wasn't the former.

Itssoeasy

marno21 wrote: »

The anti-Joe Manchin racket the last few weeks shows mainly that some people have a fundamentally poor understanding of American realpolitik.

Joe Manchin stood for re-election in 2018, in West Virginia. West Virginia had voted for Trump by a margin of 42 points. The only state that voted more for Trump was Wyoming by 46 points.

Several weeks before the election, the Senate held the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin voted yes, much to the disgust of purist Democrats. Several of his Democrat colleuges from red/purple-red states, Sen. Bill Nelson (FL), Joe Donnelly (IN), Claire McCaskill (MO) and Heidi Heitkamp (ND) voted no on the confirmation.

Manchin retained his seat, and the four who voted no all lost their seats to Republicans. West Virginia, a staunch Conservative state, is pro Brett Kavanaugh. Manchin understands this hence his vote. Manchin has cast some crucial votes on Democrat legislation since, and he is much more of an asset to the Senate Democrats than a random pro-Trump Republican. Claire McCaskill would be a much more useful asset to them too than Josh Hawley. Susan Collins gets elected in a blue state due to the inverse of this.

If Manchin gets primaried by a "woke"/"pure"/"liberal" Democrat, that candidate loses by 20/30 points in the next election.

The Democrats could learn a lot from him about getting Senators elected in swing states. There are 3 Senators from states that didn't vote for Biden (Manchin, Tester & Sherrod Brown of Ohio). If they had more Joe Manchins they wouldn't have a razor thin majority. There are only 3 Republican Senators in Biden states (Collins/Toomey/Johnson) for them to unseat.

Exactly. I can understand why the purist democrats are mad at manchin, but to me he’s the old pro golfer who knows you can’t use your driver on every shot and at times need to develop a short game to get wins.

I mean take Conor lamb of Pennsylvania who won a seat as a democrat but he taylored his campaign message on the big issues to the where he wanted to get elected. He didn’t use a one size fits all progressive democrat playbook because it wouldn’t have worked because America from my experience isn’t a humongous place in many things including politics.

I can understand that what the shootings in Minneapolis have reignited issues around policing but slogans like “abolish the police” and in one case a democratic member of congress wants no policing at all, which might play nice in some quarters but as a policy issue is just nuts.

listermint

Looks like Biden is baring the teeth . Funding is all Putin knows


https://mobile.twitter.com/Tom_Winter/status/1382675572707442691

I see that Biden, the moderate, is leading the west towards a war with Russia.

Bring back the other guy.

duploelabs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see that Biden, the moderate, is leading the west towards a war with Russia.

Bring back the other guy.

Context?

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

Context?

I presume that Biden has voiced his displeasure with Russia's troop buildup on the border of an independent European country which borders the EU.

Clearly, Biden is the problem and not the guy taking chunks out of Ukraine.

Overheal

You’d swear Biden had just deployed 120,000 American soldiers to the Russian border. What a madman. Please. Stop him. How dare he express his displeasure with *checks notes* - words?

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see that Biden, the moderate, is leading the west towards a war with Russia.

Bring back the other guy.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I presume that Biden has voiced his displeasure with Russia's troop buildup on the border of an independent European country which borders the EU.

Clearly, Biden is the problem and not the guy taking chunks out of Ukraine.

Jaysus lads will you make up your minds? He's either pushing too hard and heading towards war or he isn’t doing enough and is being soft on Russia....which one is it

Manic Moran

I think it's Russia which is bringing the West towards war with Russia. Emphasing US support for the NATO countries like the Baltic States and Poland strikes me as being a very responsible thing to do. Ukraine is a more interesting problem because they are not a NATO ally, and it is unlikely that Russia will seek to absorb the entire country.

AbusesToilets

It'll be instructive to see if Biden continues the policy of pushing to station US forces further east, in Poland etc.

Manic Moran

Since the last time we discussed the topic, a couple of judges have commented upon the current political environment.

Breyer seems to have laid out the concerns with court-packing pretty clearly.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/in-harvard-speech-breyer-speaks-out-against-court-packing/

Breyer’s opposition to expanding the court rests in his belief that the Supreme Court’s power depends on “the public’s willingness to respect its decisions,” even when it does not agree with those rulings. Breyer cited two factors that, he suggested, “provide cause for concern” about the public’s acceptance of the court’s decisions. First, he noted, there has generally been a “growing public suspicion and distrust of all government institutions.” Second, he continued, there has been what Breyer characterized as a perception – which he blamed on the tendency of the press and politicians to label justices as “liberal” or “conservative” – that decisions are driven by politics, rather than legal principles. Adding seats to the court to address a belief that the court has become overly politicized, Breyer concluded, “can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.

In the video released by Harvard, Breyer appears chipper and energetic. He did not discuss one of the other popular topics among liberals: calls for him to step down from the court, to allow Biden to nominate his successor.”

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justices-sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-agree-misinformation-threat/story?id=77078448
As Justice Stephen Breyer did in an impassioned two-hour address last week, Sotomayor sought to directly refute the narrative that the Supreme Court is a partisan institution.

"We all fundamentally respect each other," she said of her peers, which now include a six-member conservative majority. "They're as passionate as I am about upholding all of those things. We disagree about how to get there. But I don't start with impugning their motives. And I think a lot of misinformation today starts that way."

Overheal

We should have as many justices as circuits. We have 13 circuits but only 9 justices.

AbusesToilets

There have been many proposed reforms for the SC. Chief issue is the lack of term limits. No branch of the government ought to have for life appointment. It's antithetical to democracy.

A larger pool of judges from which a panel to hear cases could be selected would be another good option.