Will the Democrats self-destruct on reconciliation? Mixed results!

[malchior]

What in the name of fresh horseshit is this.

[El Guapo]

Well, I would say that two things are at play: (1) Republicans need a new bill to take hostage since they foolishly let their previous hostage go too soon; and (2) Republicans (and in particular, blue state Republicans like Collins) need a reason to give to mainstream media outlets about why the gay marriage bill isn't getting passed other than "we have a lot of anti-gay bigots in our party."

[Smoove_B]

As it turns out, the party of obstruction doesn't like when the Democrats manage to do something.

[Octavious]

Major props if they dropped the news about Manchin on purpose to get the other bill through. That would be hilarious. More likely they just got lucky.. Well might get lucky.

[malchior]

Right I will believe it only once actually signed. Co-President Sinema still hasn't signaled whether she prizes killing the earth versus protecting hedge fund bros yet. Or Manchin might have flipped because he and Sinema decided to swap places as villain of the week. Who knows anymore. Every crazy conspiracy theory is now plausible.

[Holman]

What in the name of fresh horseshit is this.

World's greatest deliberative body.

[Kraken]

Right I will believe it only once actually signed. Co-President Sinema still hasn't signaled whether she prizes killing the earth versus protecting hedge fund bros yet. Or Manchin might have flipped because he and Sinema decided to swap places as villain of the week. Who knows anymore. Every crazy conspiracy theory is now plausible.

One might also think that Manchin yanked the most recent football away specifically to trick McConnell into releasing his hostage. The timing of his 180 supports that.

[Zarathud]

McConnell was relying on Manchin holding reconciliation hostage. That’s why he allowed Republican Senate votes on the CHIP manufacturing bill.

Then Manchin plays the Republicans for a change and agrees to a deal on reconciliation just 4 hours later. McConnell doesn’t like losing, and will block everything in retaliation. The veteran health care for toxic burn pit bill, for example.

Ohio benefits as much as California on the CHIP bill, so Pelosi should get a few Republican House votes to offset what Democratic House votes she’ll lose.

Basically the Democrats finally outmaneuvered the Republicans on $1 trillion of spending this week. It’s not everything they want, but these are wins McConnell badly wanted to steal from Biden.

There’s also apparently language adopting a tax definition that will effectively serve as Congress authorizing EPA action on clean air. Not surprisingly consistent with a court decision in West Virginia. That’s H-U-G-E as it undercuts the SCOTUS “major decision” not authorized by Congress bullshit. That threatened the EPA.

[Kraken]

Basically the Democrats finally outmaneuvered the Republicans on $1 trillion of spending this week. It’s not everything they want, but these are wins McConnell badly wanted to steal from Biden.

It's almost like Manchin was secretly working with the Democrats.

I know there'll be hell to pay when Mitch is majority leader again, but for now I like seeing him get played.

[malchior]

Basically the Democrats finally outmaneuvered the Republicans on $1 trillion of spending this week. It’s not everything they want, but these are wins McConnell badly wanted to steal from Biden.

It's almost like Manchin was secretly working with the Democrats.

We'll see. The idea this is some grand trick still has some major gaps. Why would he hold up the entire agenda for over a year if it was to play some trick? Why the flip flop on "inflation causing" to "inflation reducing" without much meaningful change? I'm still convinced something major changed behind the scenes.

[Smoove_B]

Passing it now potentially helps boost the Democrats for the upcoming midterms, but I can't imagine that was part of the plan (to sit on it for a year). And even if that were true, Manchin doesn't care about midterms. I am still waiting for someone to figure out what he gets out of it. I've seen some speculation he will get to say he's a team player and then Sinema will get to spike it (because she's in the pocket of big pharma).

I guess we'll see.

[El Guapo]

Basically the Democrats finally outmaneuvered the Republicans on $1 trillion of spending this week. It’s not everything they want, but these are wins McConnell badly wanted to steal from Biden.

It's almost like Manchin was secretly working with the Democrats.

We'll see. The idea this is some grand trick still has some major gaps. Why would he hold up the entire agenda for over a year if it was to play some trick? Why the flip flop on "inflation causing" to "inflation reducing" without much meaningful change? I'm still convinced something major changed behind the scenes.

I haven't heard anyone argue (nor would it be especially plausible) that Manchin has been working some rope-a-dope for a year. What is plausible is that Manchin's statement walking away from his own bill two weeks ago only to revive a re-branded version of it two weeks later right after the CHIPS bill passed was part of a plan.

Now, Manchin's done enough erratic seemingly irrational things that it's hard to really assess whether this was a plan or just his braincells firing randomly, but it's plausible.

[Smoove_B]

In case you were wondering (like me) what was in it for Manchin

Incredible. Here's Manchin's cookie via @ella_nilsen

Department of Interior must lease at least 2 million acres of public land and 60 million acres of offshore waters for drilling before any could be used for renewable energy.

[malchior]

Basically the Democrats finally outmaneuvered the Republicans on $1 trillion of spending this week. It’s not everything they want, but these are wins McConnell badly wanted to steal from Biden.

It's almost like Manchin was secretly working with the Democrats.

We'll see. The idea this is some grand trick still has some major gaps. Why would he hold up the entire agenda for over a year if it was to play some trick? Why the flip flop on "inflation causing" to "inflation reducing" without much meaningful change? I'm still convinced something major changed behind the scenes.

I haven't heard anyone argue (nor would it be especially plausible) that Manchin has been working some rope-a-dope for a year. What is plausible is that Manchin's statement walking away from his own bill two weeks ago only to revive a re-branded version of it two weeks later right after the CHIPS bill passed was part of a plan.

Now, Manchin's done enough erratic seemingly irrational things that it's hard to really assess whether this was a plan or just his braincells firing randomly, but it's plausible.

I was more getting at he has spent a year being a selfish spoiler. Then he turns on a dime and it's part of a plan that seemingly redeems him? Recently hatched or not I don't buy it. Personally I think he realized he was losing his leverage soon and he cashed in.

[Zarathud]

Manchin wanted a lesser bill. He got a lesser bill. He got a lot of coal protection. He got deficit reduction. And an EPA definition that comes from a West Virginia court rather than something more restrictive.

Manchin got time to see the inflation numbers and some economists were able to show the more limited bill wouldn’t cause inflation but limit it by tax increases on business.

Seneca gets very little change on personal income tax. Only carried interest (private equity) taxation.

There was no grand strategy, but Schumer saw an opportunity to get bills done as time runs out. Mitch thought Manchin would do his dirty work, but got outmaneuvered.

[Kraken]

The view from a Manchin fan at The Hill.

How did we get here?

Media headlines referred to a “major reversal” by Manchin. But that’s not true. This legislation has had many lives, and a couple of near-deaths. It once had been the $3.5 trillion Build Back Better spending conglomerate — or $6 trillion, if you count what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wanted — but then that came “un-conglomerated.”

But progressives like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), understanding that something is better than nothing and new climate-directed investments are as fundamental to national security today as oil and gas in an energy-squeezed world, reached out to Manchin to consider a smaller bill that would spur national investments in climate-positive energy options. Talks started two months ago and then went cold; some folks thought those were dead and blamed Manchin. Then Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) pushed Manchin and Schumer to re-engage; Manchin’s priorities were inflation and the energy crisis, and Schumer was pushing for a political deadline.

The details and scaffolding of all this matter, however. The nuances are where political opportunity and deal-making lie. The headlines that Manchin reversed himself or folded are flat-out wrong.

Spoiler:

The problem was Schumer all along!

[Zarathud]

It wasn’t Shumer. There was a lot of initial pressure to go big, go bold. Then things got bleak before they started to move piecemeal to get something done, and that created an opportunity again.

[Kraken]

I sometimes post viewpoints I don't endorse if they're well-argued. Blaming Manchin on Shumer is pretzel logic, but the man made a nice pretzel.

[malchior]

I sometimes post viewpoints I don't endorse if they're well-argued. Blaming Manchin on Shumer is pretzel logic, but the man made a nice pretzel.

I sort of predicted this.

This being Washington they'll tap some BS artist to write an upbeat account of how they came together.

I got the tenor wrong for sure, and in hindsight I should have predicted specifically it'd be Clemons and be more of a hagiography of the would be Saint Manchin. FWIW calling him a fan is an understatement. He has been called the Manchin whisperer and is a close friend of Manchin's. This isn't some neutral piece - it is potentially Manchin co-crafted propaganda. I don't think it'd be unfair to say any information that comes from Clemons is how Manchin sees things because they possibly talked about the article.

As another example of Clemons carrying Manchin's water, remember when Manchin and the White House started openly warring? Out popped a piece from Clemons blaming it all on 'incivility' at the White House.

I actually subscribe more to Zarathud's read but I still heap a whole lot of time pressure into the equation. Manchin is only months away from potentially losing all leverage in the mid-terms. If that is the case, Manchin shrewdly calculated he had an expiring option in his hands to extract a lot from the desperate Democratic leadership. And I suspect we'll learn more that will aggravate in time as the bill gets combed through.

In any case, what bothers me when reading a piece like this is that it relies on people memory holing so much bad behavior from Manchin. Manchin was the honest trader all along? Come on. That means that everyone else was wrong about Manchin constantly moving the goal posts. A re-read the thread of this thread would serve as proof against that. He burned the progressives on BBB vs. the Infrastructure bill. He burned Sanders on the negotiated size of the bill. He burned the WH several times when they got involved. Having closely followed this whole affair I see this as bullshit of the highest quality. It is really selling us a turd.

[Grifman]

People complain about Biden, and in some cases rightly so, but if you look at what his admin has accomplished the first two years, it’s actually pretty impressive:

1). Major Covid relief bill
2). Major infrastructure bill
3). First significant gun legislation in years
4). Bill supporting the crucial chip industry
5). And now a major energy/green and health care bill

It hasn’t been easy, it’s been messy, but that is a pretty good list for any administration, IMO. It’s something to run on and Democrats need to get much better at messaging.

[malchior]

That is definitely a good list in the modern era of partisan warfare. They need to talk about this in a way that fights back against the ridiculous narrative that they are far left. They need to talk about how they finally put some much needed investment back into this country and they need to talk about it loudly and often.

[malchior]

Whether I agree with the way Manchin has conducted business this piece by Greg Sargent does point out something important.

WaPo

In his epic account of ongoing convulsions shaking the global economy, historian Adam Tooze offers a dark meditation on our national future.

The modern GOP and its coalition, Tooze writes in that book, are fundamentally hostile to modernization itself, in the face of “challenges that the era of the Anthropocene will throw up with ever greater force.” Amid threats including our overcooking planet, the best hope of achieving capacity befitting “modernity” rests with the coalition aligned with the Democratic Party.

The news that Sen. Joe Manchin III has agreed to a big climate change and health-care package should be viewed in that big-picture context. If the West Virginia Democrat and his party get this done, it will probably be with zero Republicans — while expanding the boundaries of what’s achievable by that Democratic coalition.

...

Manchin represents the very outer reaches of the Democratic coalition. His breed of red-state Democrat has mostly vanished. Through his in-state brand and canny triangulating against liberal leaders, he has held on to the blue-collar and small-proprietor White voters who have abandoned the party but can still be wooed under exceptional circumstances.

So if Manchin can sell this package on his own chosen terms in West Virginia, that hints at new possibilities for Democrats.

We’ve long been told that in the hard-bitten, fossil-fuel-dependent industrial and Appalachian heartlands, liberal calls for climate action inevitably come across as out-of-touch “laptop class” elitism. It’s as if such ideas can be received only as jarring cultural signaling, never as policies that might actually benefit those parts of the country.

There is an opportunity if you talk a half-populist approach and align the benefit with the pain points of the rural poor. They can expose a foil to Trump's cheap carnival barker act telling them what they want to hear while still hurting them. The Democrats have the opportunity to lay out a vision for tomorrow that includes the survival of the human race and society while helping these folks out with opportunity and preparing for that future. Training, education, and more are still missing and could be part of a phase 2 that brings these people in from the authoritarian cold.

[El Guapo]

People complain about Biden, and in some cases rightly so, but if you look at what his admin has accomplished the first two years, it’s actually pretty impressive:

1). Major Covid relief bill
2). Major infrastructure bill
3). First significant gun legislation in years
4). Bill supporting the crucial chip industry
5). And now a major energy/green and health care bill

It hasn’t been easy, it’s been messy, but that is a pretty good list for any administration, IMO. It’s something to run on and Democrats need to get much better at messaging.

Yeah, it's a good list. Though at the same time, the absence of democracy protection on the list may make the rest of the list moot within a few years.

[Pyperkub]

What precisely is the failed mechanism that allowed Manchin to be in this position? In terms of the government system.

If we ever get to a point where we can try to rebuild or fix our wrecked system, whatever that thing(s) is should be high on the list.

Republicans going all in on blocking everything so they can win elections.

[El Guapo]

What precisely is the failed mechanism that allowed Manchin to be in this position? In terms of the government system.

If we ever get to a point where we can try to rebuild or fix our wrecked system, whatever that thing(s) is should be high on the list.

Republicans going all in on blocking everything so they can win elections.

Well, there are a number of flawed / failed mechanisms, but I would say the most important one is the structure of the Senate giving more weight to rural / conservative parts of the country. If the Senate more accurately reflected the national popular vote it would be more like 53-47 or 54-46 Democratic, and then Manchin wouldn't be the kingmaker the way that he is now.

[Kraken]

What precisely is the failed mechanism that allowed Manchin to be in this position? In terms of the government system.

If we ever get to a point where we can try to rebuild or fix our wrecked system, whatever that thing(s) is should be high on the list.

Republicans going all in on blocking everything so they can win elections.

Well, there are a number of flawed / failed mechanisms, but I would say the most important one is the structure of the Senate giving more weight to rural / conservative parts of the country. If the Senate more accurately reflected the national popular vote it would be more like 53-47 or 54-46 Democratic, and then Manchin wouldn't be the kingmaker the way that he is now.

Fun facts:

-Senate Dems represent 40 million more people than do Senate Reps.
-Only 377,000 people voted for co-president Manchin.

I get that senators represent states, not people. Maybe I'd think that was peachy if I lived in a state with very few people.

[Alefroth]

What precisely is the failed mechanism that allowed Manchin to be in this position? In terms of the government system.

If we ever get to a point where we can try to rebuild or fix our wrecked system, whatever that thing(s) is should be high on the list.

The filibuster. Requiring a supermajority for everything is ridiculous. Even more so with the poor representation of the senate.

[malchior]

Ugly musing after the Master's primary win in the AZ primary. Master's and his new right ideology got a big plurality in a 5-way race. I think the risk that Sinema may read the winds and blow up the whole Manchin deal just went up. She has steadfastly refused to answer where she stands on the bill. Instead it'll go to a vote-a-rama which amps up the drama. It also gives her a big stage. We just have to hope she hasn't calculated she'd rather throw in with the Republicans.

[Octavious]

I give it a 95 percent chance she nukes it.

[malchior]

I give it a 95 percent chance she nukes it.

I have it at like 5%. I thought it was practically 0 before. Still a 5% chance she rips off the mask and goes all Susan Collins on us would be devastating.

[El Guapo]

I give it a 95 percent chance she nukes it.

I have it at like 5%. I thought it was practically 0 before. Still a 5% chance she rips off the mask and goes all Susan Collins on us would be devastating.

It's maddening, because nothing she does makes much sense even from a selfish perspective, which makes it hard to predict what she'll do in the future. I'm kind of at the stage where I suspect that she's just a straight up moron.

[Kraken]

I give it a 95 percent chance she nukes it.

I have it at like 5%. I thought it was practically 0 before. Still a 5% chance she rips off the mask and goes all Susan Collins on us would be devastating.

It's maddening, because nothing she does makes much sense even from a selfish perspective, which makes it hard to predict what she'll do in the future. I'm kind of at the stage where I suspect that she's just a straight up moron.

She's consistently opposed raising taxes on the rich, who bankroll her campaigns.

[El Guapo]

I give it a 95 percent chance she nukes it.

I have it at like 5%. I thought it was practically 0 before. Still a 5% chance she rips off the mask and goes all Susan Collins on us would be devastating.

It's maddening, because nothing she does makes much sense even from a selfish perspective, which makes it hard to predict what she'll do in the future. I'm kind of at the stage where I suspect that she's just a straight up moron.

She's consistently opposed raising taxes on the rich, who bankroll her campaigns.

Yeah, I know. But if she wants to win reelection, she's gone way too far off the rails - right now she's almost certainly doomed against a more or less inevitable primary campaign against her. Does she want to be reelected? If yes then she should 100% vote for this bill even if it annoys her donors somewhat. If not --> then what's her plan for her future?

One worry is that from the beginning her plan has been for a cushy post-Senate lobbying career, which might give her a reason to tank the bill.

[Octavious]

Ya well that's why I still have her at 95%. I don't think she cares about getting elected again. I'm also super negative there is that.

[Zarathud]

These are easy tax increases for Democrats. The argument the 15% corporate minimum tax hurts those under $400,000 is bullshit extrapolation from an assumption 25% is passed onto shareholders as reduced dividends. Works out to 1% even if you carry the assumption out to its extreme.

It might affect retirees who accumulated wealth and have little current income besides dividends and social security. But they’re not the little guy.

[Zaxxon]

I take this as a positive sign. While the things she's asking for are a mix of pork and corruption, they don't seem likely to tank the bill to me.

[Zarathud]

Someone with a carried interest lobbied Sinema. It is wholly on brand for the Democrats to repeal this loophole that favors deal developers and management.

[malchior]

Someone with a carried interest lobbied Sinema. It is wholly on brand for the Democrats to repeal this loophole that favors deal developers and management.

Right. We're talking about a Senator who spent a recess working as an 'intern' at a winery owned by one of the biggest hedge funds in the world. She is individually corrupt and a massive disgrace. But it is the US Senate so she is mostly just average for the 'greatest deliberative body'.

[malchior]

[Kraken]

Carried interest is a long-time Democratic shibboleth, but it's small potatoes in this particular big scheme. I'm willing to grumble about Sinema's donors and move on.