The Democrats' latest voting rights bill failed again last night and activists think President Biden isn't pushing it hard enough:
So far, the Biden administration’s response to the GOP assault on voting rights hasn’t matched the president’s urgent rhetoric. This isn’t to say the president has done nothing, or that the attention he’s devoted to other matters—infrastructure, the climate crisis, the pandemic—is unwarranted. But has the administration acted like this is the existential threat to democracy that they say it is? “He’s made clear that he supports voting reform, but that is simply not enough,” Johnson told Politico. “We need him to bring this over the finish line.”
This is nuts. What do they expect Biden to do? Wave a magic wand?
There is not, and never has been, the slightest chance of passing this legislation. It doesn't have the 60 votes to pass under regular order and it doesn't have the 50 votes it would take to end the filibuster and pass it with Democratic votes alone. Like it or not, this is the simple reality.
It is—or should be—obvious that the urgency of a problem has little or nothing to do with the chances of doing anything about it. Climate change is Exhibit A. The Black-white test gap among high school students is Exhibit B. National healthcare is Exhibit C. I could go on forever, but why bother?
The Republican Party's decades-long war against Black people because they tend to vote for Democrats is shameful, vile, and disgusting. The lengths they're now willing to go to in the wake of Donald Trump's lunatic lies is almost beyond belief. Every single member of the Republican Party should be ashamed of themselves for supporting a party that does this.
But they aren't, and the plain reality is that there's nothing Joe Biden can do about it. He's got the bully pulpit, but that's all. This legislation will never pass and never had any chance of passing.
I am not an expert in the arcane rules and norms of The World's Greatest Deliberative Body - but couldn't this have just been put up for a vote just to get people on record? I mean, is there a rule that says only things that are guaranteed to get 60+ yes votes can be presented?
Yes, but it's time-consuming -- in a place where things move slowly as it is -- and what good would it do? As KD says, you're not going to shame Republicans with this vote. Hell, most of their supporters don't think racism is a problem, or worse, think anti-White racism is the problem. Plus, it makes Republican wins more likely, and there is no greater value to Republicans than winning.
I think the only reason they even held this vote was to rub Manchin's nose in it. Okay Joe, you think this'll get 10 Republicans? Oops, no, not even one. Whether that will have any effect on him remains to be seen.
A good reason to do it. It's not like they are doing anything else important.
To what end? Do you really think constituents who send deeply reactionary people to the Senate care about voting rights? 90% of such voters fully embrace the Big Lie, and voter fraud conspiracy theories, and so on.
Per Senate procedure, the voting rights bill was called up for a vote on whether or not to proceed with debate. The filibuster means that 60 votes are required to start debate. The vote was party line 50/50 and so debate did not proceed.
It has been suggested that the result was something of an embarrassment for Manchin, who had said that he was certain that the bill, which he largely wrote, would have bi-partisan support.
That's it. Senator Charles Schumer bringing this bill to the floor was, in large part, a further demonstration to Joe Manchin of the futility of attempting "bi-partisanship," of continuing to support the sanctity of the filibuster.
Will Manchin, or Manchinema, at long last budge? Stay tuned.
I think it is far beyond time for voters to be a little more discerning when they pick a candidate to run for office. How many of them have turned out to be trash. Our own faults for choosing them, backing them and voting for them. Time to find some good folks to run and get voters out, and I mean Dems. Hopefully the repulsives will self annihilate with Covid.
As the old saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I'm sure the 50 GOP Senators were elected by a majority of people who are quite happy that the socialists are being held back from making Our Great Country an even worse flattened h-llscape than it already is.
But I agree with KD - totally pointless vote except for the middle finger to Sen Manchin. As noted, however, it remains to be seen if he'll take any new action with that in his rear view mirror or just go back to his boat and shake his fist at kayaking constituents that happen by.
If we want to move voting rights legislation, there are three ways to do that:
1. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema need to be convinced to do a carve-out from the filibuster; OR
2. Ten Republicans need to be convinced to vote in favor; OR
3. Democrats need to hold the House next year *and* pick up two net seats in the Senate, *without* voting rights legislation.
If all of these sound difficult to the point of absurdity... well, yeah. Welcome to the real world where stuff sucks and is hard. I think our best bet is #3, but the odds are still slugged pretty hard against us.
Agree, however another double-bank shot possibility is that in 2024 Democrats win Texas and that delivers the final shock to the Republican Party. The reason being that without Texas, because of the electoral college, the Rs have no chance of ever winning the presidency. Thus, Ds winning Texas would deliver some mojo to the Liz Cheneys of the world arguing that the Rs need to get with science and the future and a multi-ethnic democracy in the US in order to start winning the suburbs.
If you look at the trend of elections in Texas over the past 30 years or so, it seems possible. 2024 is iffy, but if the trend continues, 2028 is likely. Abbott and this crazy abortion ban might be the spur that makes it happen in '24 though -- I predict a backlash that shows you just how organized suburban women are post-Trump.
Republicans don't like even being white. They think of themselves as Jewish bankers, rolling the "white" sheep. Republicans have large grassroots campaign with "nonwhite" voters down ballet. It's starting to have effect. When you pay attention, you learn things.
So you're saying Texas goes blue with the governor's race next year. Entirely possible it will be Beto's year. Agree.
More crypto-racism. Thanks for continuing to live.
It's not even crypto, it's pretty naked.
But it is Bizarro.
Voting rights legislation is "inside baseball"; it's important but will not affect the way very many people vote. Those who are interested enough to pay attention will be aware that the Democrats supported the bill and the Republicans (and Manchema) blocked it, and the people who only pay attention to things that directly affect them won't care.
The human infrastructure bill that Manchema are sabotaging is the one that could sway elections; it contains direct benefits for a whole lot of people who often don't vote, but who may be motivated to vote by receiving benefits that the Republicans want to take away from them.
Nothing is being sabotaged. It's already passed.
Transportation infrastructure has passed, human infrastructure (aka BBB) is being discussed. Depending how gutted it ends up, the progressives may decide that the Transportation bill doesn't give their constituents enough to bother. "Oh, you caved and got us nothing? Remind us again why you deserve - or even need - our vote?"
The hard infrastructure bill has passed the Senate but the House hasn't voted on it yet; progressives are holding it hostage until the human infrastructure bill (BBB) passes, and Manchema are busy sabotaging BBB.
Try to keep up.
I don't entirely disagree with your analysis but, as I've been regularly pointing out, there is a tradeoff between what you get today from Manchin and Sinema and paying the price in the future as the disillusioned and demoralized base of the party loses interest and drift away.
Ed Kilgore has an interesting (and closely related) argument about the downside of holding these voting rights pantomimes:
"The idea is to show how committed Democrats are to voting rights — and how determined Republicans are to let states get away with voter-suppression legislation that turns back the clock on voting rights. But at some point, you have to wonder if the message Democrats are really sending to constituencies worried about voting rights is a bit different: We can’t get this done, and part of the reason we can’t get this done is that some in our own ranks care more about preserving the filibuster than about voting rights."
This is really the problem with trying to win larger majorities or even hold what we've got. In a very real sense, it isn't Republicans who are obstructing Biden's agenda—it's Democrats. Over at TPM, there's an article about how Biden's pick for US Attorney for DC is being blocked by a Republican using a Blue Slip—but, realistically, Biden's nominee is being blocked by Chuck Schumer who (unlike Mitch McConnell) has decided to honor the blue slip system.
All of this piles up and says to voters that there's really nothing that's going to come from giving Democrats more power. What's the point of voting for Democrats if they can't, or more precisely, don't want to deliver? They're not even capable of self-preservation.
I think it's time to tell Manchin and Sinema that they're either going to be good Democrats or they're not going to be in the Democratic Party at all. We might lose the majority for the next year or so but we're almost certainly going to be in the minority after 2022 anyway. And, since neither of them can win without strong Democratic support, we might be pleasantly surprised that their recognition of their own political mortality makes them far more accommodating on the key parts of Biden's agenda.
Little to lose, everything to win.
Assumes Sinema wants to be re-elected. I think she just wants attention and possibly money, so she'll just jump onto the next job (media personality, lobbyist, whatever) that offers that.
Trying to make sense out of Sinema is something of a cottage industry these days. Your guess is as good as mine. I definitely think you’re right about how the main driving is her narcissism. But, on a more rational level, I do believe that Sinema very much wants to be re-elected and that the Lieberman example is the way forward for her.
Right now, Sinema is riding high but, realistically, it’s hard to see her next gig as being a media personality. In her interviews she basically terrible and not particularly charismatic. Everyone is paying attention to her but only because she a notational Democrat who is pivotal in the 50-50 senate. Without that, she’s bland and unimportant.
Similarly, it’s hard to make a living as a lobbyist if the people who are being lobbied hate your guts and wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. She’s burned all her bridges in Washington and Arizona. The people she’s hanging around with now have reason to flatter her but they’ll drop her once she’s of no use to them.
No, I think Sinema is banking on being re-elected in 2024. The establishment will still back her strongly and get her through the contested primary and even progressives will hold their noses and vote for her in the general election to keep the seat at least nominally Democratic. Anyway, I think that’s her plan.
Manchin and Biden already have a deal. A 3.1 trillion total deal which will pass. I am glad I have actual content inside the Dems. You guys don't know sheet.
The point now is timing. Announce now or after Thanksgiving.
I think it’s pretty clear that threatening Manchin and Sinema is not going to bring them around. Apparently they are not convinced that their futures are linked to the success of the Democratic Party in 2022.
On the other hand, Democrats have two good reasons to turn out in force in 2022 and 2024: to give Biden large enough majorities to escape being blocked by one or two Senators; and to prevent Republicans from entrenching minority rule by enacting Federal vote-suppression and vote-manipulation legislation. If the Republicans gain control of the Federal government, their opposition to a ‘Federal takeover of elections’ will vanish in an instant.
I actually do think threatening both Manchin and Sinema is the way to go at this point. We tried allowing them to essentially run the country and we’ve flattered them to the max without the slightest hint that they’ll do what’s necessary for the country and for the Democratic Party. I think the problem with flattering vain and greedy people and demanding nothing in return is that their appetite for flattery is insatiable.
Just to be clear: Manchin and Sinema cannot afford to be excluded from the Democratic Party. It’s not really that their futures are linked to the success of the party but I think it is the case that without the active support of the Democrats in their state, they cannot be reelected. Both of them depend on enjoying the support of all Democrats, to which they add independents and moderate Republicans. But without the support of Democrats and the base of the party they cannot win reelection.
And each of them has an individual point of extreme vulnerability. Sinema has no friends in the GOP (except in her capacity as a Lieberman-type saboteur) and was elected with the avid support of the Democratic base in a blue-trending state. Manchin’s personal fortune is linked to coal and his position on the energy committee.. Both are vulnerable to direct actions by the party leadership.
It’s something of a game of chicken but it’s very likely that if the party leadership tells these clowns that the party’s over and it’s time to be loyal Democratic senators or they’re finished, my guess is they’ll fall right in line.
Democratic voters have turned out in force for decades now, particularly in 2018 to give the House to the Democrats (who still haven''t managed to get Trump's tax returns). We turned out in 2020 for Biden and to give the Senate to the Democrats. You can't keep telling people to turn out and give money forever without giving them even the hope of a better future. The reason why Biden's agenda is stalled and his presidency is in free fall isn't because of Republican obstructionism; it's because the leadership of the Democratic Party can't get things done.
Lol, your obsession with the "black/white" achievement gap is disturbing. Blacks are built for a post-capitalism world with their massive arms collection and tribal attitudes. Whites??? Whores to the debt system and bogus wealth effect it created. When the investment houses collapse, corporations default, 99% of small businesses to under, let's see what Kevin will post about then??? Will he be alive.
Lol, you're a dumbass.
Your in denial. Teach real world lessons. Not bogus junk based around capitalism.
Please don't feed the troll. It leaves its droppings just to get attention.
Obv, that technique is not working with this dumbass.
The statistics say that by far the most heavily armed segment of the population are older rural whites. I would suspect that the same group is also the most prone to demonstrate "tribal attitudes".
Nigh. Your looking at legal guns boy. Are you that retarded. I lived down on 4th street in Columbus Ohio for a year. I saw the arms and the ammunition stockpiles. Educate yourself.
Don't feed the fucking troll.
The realities of politics will prevent this bill from passing in this Congress, or the next one. Abandoning the fight is the only thing that will guarantee it never passes.
A fight of irrelevance.
+1
Adam Serwer Spaghetti
@AdamSerwer
They’re going to let the Court strip the Dems’ most vulnerable constituencies of their basic rights, run on giving them back, do absolutely nothing if they win, and when those constituencies look elsewhere, are disenfranchised, or stay home, they’ll act confused about why.
Pingback: Voting legislation never had the slightest chance of passing | Later On
"The Republican Party's decades-long war against Black people because they tend to vote for Democrats is shameful, vile, and disgusting."
Except such a war never existed. KD or anyone else can't find a single quote of a prominent Republican where they said they want a new policy to hold down blacks in some way. So many people on the left resort to mindreading. They just know the evil intentions of their political opponents - just like Trump supporters know the evil intentions of liberals/ progressives.
On the left they just know in their hearts that right wingers are white supremacists, and holding down blacks is a major goal. On the right they just know in their hearts that left wingers are socialists/communists who want to greatly undermine the US in every way possible since it is an unworthy, illegitimate nation.
Blacks have a higher poverty rate, but no one on the right is pushing to dismantle the welfare state that helps low income persons. You can prefer more limited government, oppose defunding the police, and oppose affirmative action without desiring a "war against Black people" and being "shameful, vile, and disgusting".
"but no one on the right is pushing to dismantle the welfare state that helps low income persons"
I'll have some of whatever you're smoking. No one is reading minds, people on the left are looking at the consequences of proposed Republican policies and recognizing that they often disproportionately affect minorities. A person doesn't have to literally say their policy is racist in order for that policy to BE racist.
They effect more than minorities. They reduce small town rural turnout as well, which Republicans can't afford. Progressives aren't getting it as usual. Texas is bleeding white voters moving to the city burbs. That Nate. Silver is why the state has narrowed. Idiot
The American welfare state is very stable, and it helps those who need it most. This is true for Americans living in poverty and the elderly. The help comes regardless of one's race. The system is progressive in payments. For example, Social Security pays a much higher rate of return on SS taxes paid over a lifetime to low-income persons vs. high-income persons. No one is challenging income transfers like this. Republicans, even when smoking the crack of Trumpism, are not challenging any of the fundamentals of our welfare state.
As I said, there is no policy that Republicans are promoting that clearly points to trying to hurt blacks. Even for new voting restrictions, it's doubtful it will have much impact on black vs. white voter turnout in future elections. (We'll find out soon.) And even here, it takes mindreading to conclude voting restrictions are driven by a desire to hurt blacks. Republicans foolishly believe Democrats stole the election from Trump, based on Trump's Big Lie, and they think they have to tighten election rules in general. That is what motivates them.
I guess this guy Lee Atwater wasn't a prominent Republican?
The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
NPR:
A federal appeals court has overturned North Carolina's sweeping voter ID law, ruling that the law was passed with "discriminatory intent" and was designed to impose barriers to block African-Americans from voting.
The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeals court noted that the North Carolina Legislature "requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices" — then, data in hand, "enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans."
The changes to the voting process "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," the circuit court wrote, and "impose cures for problems that did not exist."
______________
Mind-reading not required.
That NPR article notes: "Republicans have said voter ID laws are needed to build public confidence in elections and to prevent voter fraud, which remains rare nationwide. But many Democrats see the mandates as attempts at voter suppression."
A dissenting judge in the ruling wrote: "Competence evidence before this three-judge panel does not suggest our legislature enacted this law with a racially discriminatory intent."
Regarding the NC legislation requesting data on race, how could any law on voting be done without having data related to race? Everyone knows changing the rules is full of legal landmines. Requesting data on race does not prove intent to harm blacks. It is standard practice.
Democrats take race into account all the time regarding changing voting rules. They promote gerrymandering of election districts based on race when they have the power to do so. They strive to create districts that favor certain races if they think it helps them win elections. The courts sometimes go along with this. Of course Republicans play this game too.
Republicans foolishly believe Democrats stole the 2020 election from Trump, based on Trump's Big Lie, and they think they have to tighten election rules in general. That is what motivates them.
Reread your last paragraph, the one that describes what ‘Republicans believe’. Recall that you started this accusing Democrats of mind-reading.
You're the guy who thinks Charles Murray is a respected figure in the academic community does good science. FOAD, troll. The time move on.
The never ending farce called American elections!
A comment from a dumbfounded Swede
You think this has been bad? Just wait until next year, when all the districts in the country have been redrawn, and the vast majority gerrymandered by the Republicans, in their favor.
I am well informed on your dysfunctional political system…
Of course. When it is nominally “your gal” in the White House you want her to have the unfettered power of a despot because in your eyes she is an enlightened despot.
This really is another failure of democratic congress people and PR. They promise what they can't deliver and fail to lay the blame where it belongs. Lots of democratic voters expected this to pass because they were told it would pass.
True, but campaigns also aren't won with more accurate messages like "Vote for Democrats and we'll try to pass some moderately good stuff before we get totally boxed in by our more conservative members." That statement is pretty much 100% true and yet it's not going to inspire lots of non-political people to turn up at the polls for you or your party.
Yeah, there's certainly a balance, but on this specific issue I do think the party overpromised in a way that hurt more than helped long run.
I wouldn’t worry about this voting stuff. When Republicans take over they would never do anything bad to democrats. Or maybe they really are like the Taliban:
“An Afghan volleyball player on the girls’ national team was beheaded by the Taliban — with gruesome photos of her severed head posted on social media, according to her coach. Mahjabin Hakimi, one of the best players in the Kabul Municipality Volleyball Club, was slaughtered in the capital city of Kabul as troops searched for female sports players…”
🤪
You have to admit, President Jimmy Carter 2.0 has failed dismally to keep the Walmart shelves fully stocked, a core responsibility of the federal government.
Basically it's the return of the DO MORE!/NOT ENOUGH! either or binary crowd. It bedevils every Democrat who enters the White House.
And why is that? Because the party is diverse and has differing views of many topics. And it's the only way they can goven. You can get rid of the moderates, have a more cohesive, more liberal caucus (although there are "today" liberals who will easily become "tomorrow" moderates even if the party's gravity shifted further left because there's always going to be a difference between those who pragmatic in their approach and those who "HIGHER! FASTER!" even if it means flying into the sun.
That's why the Dems can't "get messaging right" because you have people of different opinions and emphasises and backgrounds who are going to have a hard time march in lockstep unless there is an unpopular Republican President (ala Trump or Bush II). Republican homoginaety does give their party advantages in communication because it's easier to speak with one voice when everyone is basically the same. It's a lot harder for a diverse party to do and it will have to stay diverse in order for it to win enough elections to control the levers of government. A Democratic Party confined to cities, suburbs and college towns and would be more cohesive to be sure and less hair-pulling. It would also be a minority as well.
Pingback: That Voting Thing | Just Above Sunset