The current line from the left about the Build Back Better bill is that centrists are forcing them to make an impossible choice when they demand that the price tag be reduced. Who do we throw under the bus? The elderly? Parents? Kids? Students? The future of the planet?
This is so stupid it makes me want to bang my head against the wall. When President Obama pushed through Obamacare, did that mean he was disparaging every other liberal priority? Of course not.
The only difference now is that somebody has written down a list of those other priorities. That's it. It's meaningless. The only question, as always, is which programs you think are best to pass. Then you pass them—or try to. This says exactly zero about the dozens of other programs that you haven't passed yet.
For my money, here are the ones to pass:
- Long-term care
- Increased Obamacare subsidies
- Childcare
- Pre-K
These are all great programs and, critically, they're political winners. This is what Democrats need right now and this is what they should concentrate on.
Apparently a lot of people would feel betrayed and heartbroken if the final bill ended up like this. That's beyond insane. It wouldn't just be a win for the liberal project, it would be a massive, unprecedented win. And it would be a massive, unprecedented win even though we barely have a majority in Congress. If Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are willing to vote for something like this, we should grab the chance and then celebrate for a month after Joe Biden signs it into law. And then it should be the backbone of the 2022 midterm campaign.
This is reality. And if we can do it, reality will be pretty damn good.
Portman and Manchin put a corporatist ringer in the $1.3T bill -- making public-private partnership financing easier. I'd prefer to see it gone, but this also seems like a potential bargaining chip. Manchin votes for the removal of the filibuster and for the $3.5 T bill or P3 financing gets taken out of the other infrastructure bill.
As much as you (or I, or anyone else) might like this idea, it's probably a nonstarter. 1) The Senate has already passed the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and 2) Biden and other have already made clear that the reconciliation bill will be somewhere around---and perhaps under---$2 trillion.
The Senate has passed it but the House has not, no? As I understood it, the House wasn't going to pass it until the $3.5T bill was passed in the Senate. Doesn't matter if, in getting the $3.5T bill down to $2, they've just cut the 10 years to 5 or something. The point is using some leverage against Manchin by threatening his piece. What did LBJ say? "Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow."
LBJ was president during a time when the national party had significant leverage over individual lawmakers. Those days (sadly) are long over.
More importantly, LBJ was president during a time when Democrats had a minimum of 62 senators, and an equally large House majority. Things would be very, very different right now with that many Democrats in Congress.
That's what the House is already doing, and that's why Sinema and Manchin are negotiating at all--the House is holding their pretty little bipartisan deal hostage until they sign off on a reconciliation package.
But that leverage only gets you so far. The House can't simply demand anything it wants; at a certain point, S&M will just walk away and let the whole thing collapse.
It's great to sound like this is all easy, but the truth is that between Manchin and Sinema, there is at least one senator against many of these, and more importantly, at least one senator against any potential revenue source to pay for it. As it is, most progressives are begging Manchinema (with little success) to let them know exactly low the bill has to cost to reliably get it through the Senate
I just heard Bernie on the TV. And, apart from not calling anybody stupid, he said in essence the same thing as you say. I am not a super fan of Bernie but a fool he isn't. And he has a long track record of talking maximalist and acting realistic.
Before you accuse supporters of the President of stupidity lets agree that the Manchin/Sinema duo are the real idiots here. They have no policy agenda; their only "agenda" is to look like "moderates", apparently because certain pundits adore "moderates". They have never articulated what their problems are policy wise; what they want cut, how they want to spend the 1.5 trillion they propose. They are not serious; if the bill were 100 dollars they would try and negotiate it down to 20, just for appearance's sake.
Also: The most important priority on the list is climate change. Every other thing is nice and we really ought to get moat of them but they can more easily be waited for. Climate change is urgent, in fact beyond urgent and to drop is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.
Manchin seems to have some dumb ideas he wants. Sinema doesn't have any suggestions at all that actually give us a win.
Manchin wants to protect his constituents including coal mining
But MOST Americans do not realize the 50% of WV's coal gets exported and the BULK of those exports are not burned for fuel but to make steel.
And our oil industry will eventually go to drilling for oil ONLY for plastic production and other non-fuel uses. The problem is that this represents the BULK of oil use now. We could NEVER grow as much food as we do now if we banned oil production, just as an example.
I think we are doing OK in some respects, but we need a bigger push on electric cars and trucks and charging stations need to be as visible and plentiful as gas stations are now but we are 50 years away from that at least.
One thing we MUST do is reduce our plastic pollution problem. The recycling program has collapsed with no end products being produced or used. We need to change that. It has given a black eye to the environmental movement in general. The great promise of recycling has turned out to be a mirage - while our oceans fill up with plastic waste.
And our oceans feed the world.
After partaking in about 25 pick up litter campaigns along state roads here in Wilmington I came to one conclusion. People don't understand just HOW MUCH plastic trash we throw out every day. Put it in the recycling bin? The enviro folks breathe a sigh of relief thinking they did the right thing only to have it shipped to China or SE Asia only to have THEM dump it in the ocean because there's no demand for recycled plastic products - but we FEEL like we did our part!!!
We increase our CAFE standards to get a fleet average of 25mpg but in doing so we increased the need for plastics to reduce weight in our motor vehicles which requires even more oil be processed !!!!
Hard questions with no real good answers unfortunately.
The fact is that plastic recycling is practically extremely difficult if even really feasible. There are just too many different plastics around.
I think we should distinguish between plastic in packaging or for one time use on the one hand and plastic in durable products (like automobile parts or vinyl floors) on the other. For the first category there is no reason it could not be restricted to two or three kinds. For the second--which are in use for years rather than for hours to weeks at most--this is impossible. It is probably also the smaller amount. And it could then at least be disposed of a little more carefully (old, no longer active coal mines?).
In this way most plastic in recycling could be sorted quite easily. And the permitted plastics could be selected as to high well they can be recycled.
None of that is how that works.
Why is it the rules Manchin is against are green energy, and not steel?
Why do you think we'd be able to burn more oil to push heavy steel boxes instead of using a little oil to make a light box we don't push with burnt oil?
None of that makes sense.
I agree it is most important. However if that is it we get slaughtered next election. Pass the popular stuff that helps people now. Maybe we can then get a durable majority and try the C stuff then. Such is life, you can’t win without the votes and Joe M is not going to vote for anything undermining coal.
Manchin and the state of West Virginia need to face the reality that fuel-coal is going away no matter what government does. See https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43675
They should be seeking federal help to diversify the state’s economy.
We may well lose the next election no matter what legislation we pass. In fact, I would bet pretty heavily on that. The trend of midterm losses for the incumbent party is very strong in American politics, and we have no margin to spare in either chamber.
If we decide something is our top priority, and we can coax Manchin and Sinema on board, then now is the time to do it. Don't count on being able to take another bite at the apple next term; we probably won't get one.
Probably is not certainty. With the strangeness of politics at the moment, I don't think historical trends are as determinative as in the past. The continuing presence of Trump is a headache for Republicans. They can't win without him, and maybe not with him.
But Democrats have to be smart to take advantage. They need a W by passing good, if not ideal legislation.
Climate change is important, but let's face it, if an entire $3.5 trillion bill was fully about climate change it would make zero difference in global climate change. Two-thirds of global warming is being driven by developing nations like China, India, and Russia, and their share is only going to grow over the next 20 years as their economies expand. And the developing world isn't going to do diddly about climate change.
Climate change policy at this point should be entirely about adapting our economy and society as best we can to the new, hotter climate.
Face it: we’re never going to deal with climate change. If we can’t even get enough people to be vaccinated to stop the spread of a deadly disease - that is, to do something to save our own lives here and now - we’re never going to get enough people to make sacrifices to save other peoples’ lives theoretically in the future.
Thankfully most of us are old enough to simply die before climate change really begins to bite. And the rest of us are wealthy enough to simply move elsewhere when coastal cities flood and the southwest goes dry. Everyone is on their own in America.
Counterpoint: Bernie is a fool, & didn't know how much GRU was playing him & his wife, & is almost certainly still playing his wife, but eighty years old is no time to go thru a divorce.
At this point, Bernie is trying to launder his eventual obituary by making Russian bear sausage out of the Russian bear shit that has been propping him up since about 2010 or so.
Shit take is stilly shitty but at least you gave it a try.
@azumbrunn
Yes, the real culprits are not the left, as Kevin implies. About 96% of the Dem party is on the same page. The holdouts -- primarily, Manchin and Sinema -- are the ones holding back the majority party from what it would otherwise pass. The superminority is dictating what gets done.
Yes, the superminority is dictating. In a 50-50 Senate, that is the current reality. Whatever can get done is gravy. In a 49-51 Senate, Nothing gets done.
Nope, your wrong. 19 Senators want a smaller package. Then you got 50 Senators with their own special interest.
I don't think anyone's calling Biden stupid. I'm assuming he's negotiating to get the maximum bill out that he can.
Climate legislation is the big loser. Legislation killed by a coal baron in the Senate just about illustrates a fucked up system.
If votes in 2022 are the aim, the child tax credit should be number one. People respond well to being given money, and the people who will benefit most are low income parents who usually fail to vote in droves. The child tax credit, and Republican promises to take it away, will get those people voting, and voting Democrat.
I'm all for the child tax credit, but don't share your political analysis/enthusiasm. How many people ever went to the polls out of gratitude for a tax credit?
Well, when the "tax credit" comes in the form of a monthly cash payment, it's different from a deduction.
Subsidies to buy health insurance under ACA are a tax credit. And people did show up to vote in 2018 after the failed Republican threat to take it away in 2017.
And a ton of people don't even get them!
I think that is key here: Too few people get subsidies under present rules. Kevin has a point here (though he is the last person to make it credibly, seeing that he has spent years arguing stridently in favor of means testing--withholding benefits from the middle class.
Words of wisdom, Kevin.
If Democrats want to see their turnout in '22 and '24 collapse - and incidentally throw the president under the bus at the forthcoming Glasgow conference - strip out the climate change provisions.
Needing Manchin's vote to pass the bill, it's not a question of whether "climate change provisions" will be stripped from the bill; it's a question of which ones...and which ones get kept.
In the world as it is, there's no way Democrats include every provision you (or I, or anyone else) wants; it's a question of which ones and whether they'll pass a bill that has *some* climate change provisions.
No debate here. What I'd find irresponsible is to drop the entire climate change part--very lousy messaging.
The president does have quite a bit of leverage of Manchin personally, if he wants to use it. The bulk of Manchin's personal wealth and an estimated $500K of his annual income comes from coal related stuff in WV. That wealth and income, in turn, are largely predicated upon extremely lax enforcement of environmental and OSHA regulations. Biden doesn't need Congress to cost Manchin a lot of money, now and until 2025 which Biden most likely leaves office; Manchin's vote and enthusiastic support could be just a phone call away!
ken-
Partially correct. Turnout will drop off no matter what in 22.Whether its Trump supporters not voting, or Dems fearing the worst turnout will be BAD compared to the record turnout of 2020
But how do you LIMIT the damages it will cause? You take a populist approach - whats BEST to garner votes.
Once you have CLEAR CUT majorities then enact the legislation that is NEEDED. Until then bitter partisan divides with be with us.
Joe Biden COULD be the next FDR if he has a +15 seat advantage in the house and a +4 advantage in the Senate
Dude, the Climate change stuff isn't that popular. Are you a tard???
What Kevin said.
Also, I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.
First some definitions according to Pew research in *****2018****
Greatest and silent generations are those 71 and older
Boomers are 52 to 70
Gen X are 36 to 51
Millennial are 20 to 35
**********************
Population of each group again in 2018
Boomer 70M
Millennial 62M
Gen X 57M
Greatest and silent generation 28M
'So, as expected the oldest voters comprise the biggest part of our population when you combine Greatest, Boomer and Gen X that equals 165M voters - to the millennials 62M
But who actually votes?
******************
Again from Pew of election averages from 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016 general election by % of age group
Greatest - 70%
Boomer - 69%
Gen X - 63%
Millennial - 51%
**************************************************
I am glad tos ee voting becoming important to the Millennial generation but c'mon, thats only about 32M votes !!! That leaves about 133M votes.
The BULK of our voters are aged. They are either working or on Medicare and they already have taken care of children.
So, re-think the list in THAT regard
Medicare expansion garners the most support
Elder care would be next
Obamacare subsidies would be up there too
But other than that?
Pre-K is not important
Climate change MIGHT be good but its expendable in THIS LEGISLATION
Child tax credit goes as well
The more mature the voter is the more likely they will vote.
Hey, I'm glad so many millennials turned out in Nov 2019 that was great!!! But history tells us that was an anomaly and when compared by AGE, older voters out vote them substantially
If keeping Congress is your goal, and it should be then re-think the list
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/03/millennials-approach-baby-boomers-as-largest-generation-in-u-s-electorate/
The problem isn't what liberal and progressive Democrats in Congress want or what their priorities are, or what they should be. The point is that the ones that won't vote for all of it won't say what they want to cut and I think the libs and progressives are right to ask, to insist, that Manchin and Sinema come out and say what they want first. It's their job as elected representatives to do that. Why should the other 220 Democrats that would vote for the full $3.5 trillion package have to start by saying what they're willing to cut without any indication from Manchen and Sinema of whether it will make a difference to them? (Sinema, the succubus whore of Arizona, has already made it clear she's unwilling to commit to anything in BBB. Period. So what's the point of anyone trying to make a deal with her?)
Also, you left out benefits for seniors in your priority list. Are you crazy? Why not be sure to include the addition of dental, hearing, and vision benefits to Medicare so there's at least a bone in there for them? Old people actually vote.
Neal corrrect.
But here's a thought for you.
Lets say for instance we do get Vision, dental hearing and psych into medicare.
At that point a visionary COULD make this argument
Most VETs hate VA clinics, TriCare and the health care system for VETs in general. Good clinics are few and far between. The wait times are long and you do not have control over which doctor you see. (and way too much travel)
Why not disband the VA healthcare system at that point and give Medicare+ to Vets. No more travel. no more NON selection of doctors ! Hopefully there'd be a cost savings as well as the VA healthcare system is bloated and inefficient.
I'ed love to see a God Fearing military loving republican vote AGAINST that.
My partner (a Navy vet) and I were just having that discussion yesterday. He's actually very happy with his VA healthcare and my indirect experience with it has been all good as well. As his spouse, I wish I could get in on his VA healthcare. But we agreed that it's far from efficient, and could be improved greatly if, like Medicare it delivered access to providers everywhere. Worth noting that though the VA does provide a vision benefit (exam and glasses) it doesn't include dental afaik.
"If Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are willing to vote for something like this"
They aren't. That's the problem. They are demanding Democrats abandon at least two of those extremely popular portions of the agenda. But they won't say which two. That's for progressives to kill. Based on nonsense reasons that are, in Manchin's case, long discredited economic theory, or, in Sinema's case, secret reasons that she will not divulge.
Manchin is Henry Hill, & Sinema is the infamous macro of the bikini clad handstander on the beach captioned "look at me I'm an attention whore".
They're both in over their heads... but don't know it.
They're not willing to vote for it. They are trying to bamboozle people like YOU so they can pass the tiny bill and spike the real one.
You don't know that. Neither do I. What I do know is that Sinema and Manchin have been on the D side of many party line votes. Without them, there would not have been additional pandemic relief, and many of Biden's appointments would never have seen the light of day.
Sinema has talked to Biden. Subsequently Biden has talked about a bill of about 2 Billion. That leads me to believe Sinema would support that.
Yeah we do, haha.
I think that's true but it's also true that on the issues the Democratic Party hopes will save it in 2022 and 2024, they've been strictly saboteurs. I don't think that a few pieces of legislation (even substantial ones like the COVID relief package) is going to be remotely enough to get the Democrats much support in 2022 and 2024. So, the bottom line is that (politically speaking) whatever benefits the Democrats might have enjoyed from Manchin and Sinema's "support" early on, by November of 2022 the effects of that support will have long since dissipated.
Which puts the Democrats in a difficult position: Who do they run against? They control two of the three branches of government but cannot pass their agenda. They are being obstructed not by Republicans but by fellow Democrats (whom the party says it cannot disown). What is the theme for the Democrats in 2022 and 2024?
Kevin, you should know the struggle of the perfect against its enemy the good must be eternal and emphatic. Purity of Electorate is paramount and to maintain it voting essence must be withheld.
So, the precious bodily fluids on the ends of the horseshoe are kombucha & Trump Water?
Yes, but vegan, cruelty-free, dolphin-safe, living-wage, fair-trade on the one end and aquifer-depleting on the other.
Kevin thinks he knows what will work for Democrats, but his choices are not actually the most popular. For example he leaves out reduction of drug prices by allowing Medicare to negotiate. Of course this most popular thing is exactly what Sinema seems to be most opposed to. The "moderates" in general are opposed to anything which would raise taxes on the rich or reduce corporate profits, regardless of how those things would affect votes for Democrats.
But Kevin's choices (or yours or mine) are irrelevant. If Democrats want a fast passage they must apparently agree to whatever Manchin and Sinema want - if only they could find out what those things are. Maybe Biden, Schumer and Pelosi have some insight into this through personal contact with the "moderates" (Kevin does not), but the actual political motivations are not necessarily in the open. It could be (for example) that Sinema's actual intention is to torpedo the reconciliation bill entirely (she could leave the party). Anyway the process is not under control of progressives, who have always supported Biden's agenda and have always been willing to negotiate.
Skept
"The "moderates" in general are opposed to anything which would raise taxes on the rich or reduce corporate profits,"
Of course they are because they can't sell that to the American people
We think that Reagan cut taxes. and he did, but when he saw the debt and deficit rising he had to raise taxes of various kinds - 7 times. It's in Stockman's book. Reagan was adamant that debt could not rise under his administration (but ti did anyway).
The thing is - if Reagan tried to do that today he would be pilloried by his own party. Romney raised taxes as Governor of Mass but then came up with government healthcare for Mass residents that, to this day is widely accepted by DEMs there. It also served as the basis for the ACA.
The DEMs are left holding the bag here as tax raisers, profit takers and welfare spenders.
Their messaging is terrible
Democrats self owning themselves out of helping people will be a major loss.
Imo they should put enough pressure on Manchin and Sinema in whatever way possible that they either vote for the whole big bill or leave the party in which case the Dems will have made their priorities obvious. Be more concerned about making things RIGHT than taking some “political” W that is meaningless.
Well, I'll be. I never realized that forcing people out of a political party was the key to success. Live and learn.
I’m not clear on how this is supposed to work. This is basically the “Underpants Gnomes” theory of politics. Liberals will negotiate with themselves, massively pare down their ask and then somehow there’s a deal.
Kevin’s notion that’s liberals should just say yes and it’s their intransigence which is the problem is like my announcement that I’m prepared to go on a date with Margot Robbie. Regrettably, it’s not something that is in my power to do unilaterally. There is no Margot Robbie in my life, just as there’s no one to whom liberals liberals can say “yes”.
There’s no offer on the table. There’s nothing to which liberals can say yes and, until there’s is, it’s definitely important to signal flexibility but until the opposition comes to the table with serious proposals, liberals need to maintain the hardest of hard lines.
My God, the 51-50 Senate has gone to your head. That single vote makes you think you are Superman!
I don’t understand your reasoning. It’s the most basic rule of negotiating that you can’t negotiate with yourself. What Kevin’s overlooking is that there’s nothing on the table for them to accept. To begin negotiating yourself down even before there’s anyone else at the table is foolish.
What’s more, liberals need to more more conservative and careful in their negotiating posture because they had already made substantial compromises in the deal which the “moderates” reneged on. So liberals are already giving more than they should.
Are you an alter ego of Spadesofgrey? You make about as much sense.
Well, silly illilillili, you don't seem to make any sense at all.
I also want to stand up for the provisions to protect all life on Planet Earth. It's not optional, it's never been optional, and we are perilously close to the cliff where things become unstoppable, for all practical purposes.
Pay no attention to those who insist, well the United States is just a small part of the problem, so it doesn't make much difference what we do. Besides being a big-time polluter, the US has always been an example to the world. (Until recently, a fairly good example.) We've got a huge manufacturing base and research capabilities to produce non-carbon-emitting energy mechanisms.
People can GET RICH by selling this stuff domestically and to the rest of the world! (Trying to appeal to the right wingers here...)
But much less so, if we're among the last to get into the race.
For the pragmatists this has to be the solution and it may win out at the end of the day. It doesn't solve the problem of our renegade Dem senators, but it's progress.
I agree with this completely. I hope it wins out at the end of the day. If it doesn't, Democratic future electoral chances will have taken a significant downturn.
Just to be clear: neither the renegade “moderates” in the house nor the Quisling senators have agreed to anything or even said what they want.
It's not fair, I know. But politics is what it is. Democrats got a very unlikely 50-50 split at the last moment. As a result, they get (and have gotten) something rather than nothing. But that split hardly makes them kings of the world.
They are forced to negotiate with themselves. They wouldn't have to if they had a majority greater than one VP vote.
Just to be more clear, my point isn’t that Democrats shouldn’t negotiate amongst themselves. Clearly, there will be no Republican votes so the votes to pass Biden’s agenda will necessarily come from with the Democratic Party. But, within that context, I’m addressing Kevin’s point that liberals should “settle” for the things he thinks are worthwhile and fold on the rest.
The problem, as I’ve mentioned several times, the problem is more complicated than progressives just settling for less. Obviously that’s a necessity at this point. My choice is to shorten the funding period rather than eliminating programs but, yes, there’s going to be a reduction in the top-line figure.
As I’ve also said repeatedly, the reality is that there’s no deal on the table. Neither the gang of renegade “moderates” in the House nor Manchin/Sinema has made any kind of an offer to which liberals can agree so, realistically, at this point the choice for progressives is either to stick to their guns or to fold and just agree in advance to live with table scraps. It’s especially worth mentioning that, in terms of the House, that there was a deal in place that the “moderates” backed out of in order to “improve” their negotiating position. Which means that we’ve gone from contract to barter; “moderates” are clearly untrustworthy as negotiating partners which means that promises of future performance are worthless; either everything gets done at once or the progressive agenda (Build Back Better) gets done first and the “moderates” will need to rely upon progressives to keep their word.
My, you certainly see things in black and white. Moderates: bad and can't be trusted. Progressives: good, and always true to their word. By the way, I fail to see that House moderates went back on their work. At the beginning of September, they made clear that they wanted a vote on the BIF, a reasonable position which is accord with regular order in the House. It was those "good" progressives which decided to hold this bill hostage. Those virtuous progressive hostage-takers.
With a mindset like yours, there are in fact no solutions. Nothing gets done and Democrats lose. Now I admit that Sinema is er, .....strange......, but she has usually always voted with the Democratic block. She has never said she would vote against any version of BBB. Demonizing her will just drive her out of the Democratic Party, and we lose any BBB and someone who usually votes with us. But you probably would like that. Amirite?
The so-called moderates cannot be trusted. There was a deal that both bills were be voted on together. That was the deal and reneging on it cannot possibly be described as “reasonable”.
Neither can these “moderates” be trusted, now or in the future. If they want their pork-laden highway bill, they will need to step up and for for the rest of Biden’s agenda first or there’s no highway bill this year—because the “moderates” have proven that they cannot be trusted.
Another thing that makes this stupid is the reconciliation bill is being treated as the only opportunity to pass anything before the midterms. But democrats get another reconciliation bill next year. And that one will have even more effect on the midterms because voters don't start paying attention until the summer of election year. Get some stuff now. Get the rest next year.
Yes. Ed Kilgore at NY magazine has a good article on this:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/democrats-should-save-some-reconciliation-goodies-for-2022.html
At one level, both you and Ed Kilgore are right that there’s at least a theoretical ability to do another reconciliation bill. But, at a very practical level, the Democrats probably have already left it too late for the 2022 midterms. Passing something is only half of the battle; what really matters is when people start to see the benefits of a party’s agenda.
Equally true is the reality that the “moderate” Democratic renegades in the house and the two quislings in the senate will be just as intractable and bent on sabotaging Biden’s agenda next year as they are now. No matter the cost, the renegades and saboteurs (plus their owners) needed to be put down hard in the next two electoral cycles.
It's amazing how much easier party wide negotiations would have been if the Medicare expansion and nonstarter parts of the "Climate initiatives" had not been put into the reconciliation package. What is funny is, not only do they do little to stop greenhouse emissions, but are hurting actual people which can do conservation. Just a killer with Lafollette Dems since 2014.
There is nothing Sinema actually wants. She's not an honest broker, so no amount of negotiation will bring her to a "yes" vote. Her vote was bought by corporate interests, and it doesn't matter if she gets primaried out in 2024; she's got a corporate seat waiting for her somewhere.
I’ve been giving this a lot of thought. It’s possible that Sinema has made a deal where she traded derailing the Democratic agenda and handing over the Congress and presidency in return for what’s basically an annuity but it’s hard to see that being worth a lifetime of big money to anyone, not even the chamber of commerce.
I still think that my assessment of her strategy is correct: the Democratic establishment thinks a Quisling Democrat is better than a Republican, so they’ll see her through a tough primary. Then, in the general election she’ll enjoy the support of both Republican and Democratic establishments and that makes her a lock for re-election.
Her primary is in 2024. Destroying Biden's agenda and BBB will only serve to wipe out Ds in the 2022 midterms. She will be the recipient of the largest share of the blame for the 2022 disaster and she won't reach a primary vote when the early data shows that she can't win her primary let alone in the general.
Unlike Sinema, Manchin is genuinely conservative in many issues, particularly budgets. Sinema's actions go against her prior stances. She's just sabotaging BBB, and by extension both Biden and Democrats.
You might be right. But I’ve never gone wrong by underestimating the Democratic establishment’s capacity for insane choices. To some degree, they seems to consider a Democratic officeholder’s seat as a personal fiefdom that can never be taken away by the party. And they are obsessed with consistently fielding the most conservative candidate available who is also deeply opposed to the party’s agenda. My belief is that the party establishment will back her with everything they’ve got regardless of the polls.
On the other hand, she may have decided that her best bet for re-election is a Republican wave in 2024 (with her as the sub rosa GOP candidate facing only token opposition) and that the best way to bring about that Republican wave is to destroy the Democratic Party from within.
When you throw the future of the planet under the bus, the other programs just don't matter.
"Hey kid, we've got this great child care program for you, but your Miami school is flooding right now..."
All of that is irrelevant without addressing climate change. Manchin won't allow that. He personally makes a ton of money off of coal investments.
So do what you want or don't do anything at all. We're all dead anyway.