American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[GGG]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Like the 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill that passed last month? It passed 69-30 in the Senate. Again, the problem isn't the partisanship, it's bad bills.


That said, Pelosi almost held that bill up in the house because 1 trillion wasn't enough. Insanity.

That’s an example of splitting bills into passable chunks. Dumping BBB allowed it to pass. Even then the ridiculous size of it almost killed it.

But in general force republicans and democrats vote against things on the record.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Divided yourself into smaller units? There hasn't been a new state or a divided state since Hawaii. As you said, this would benefit the Republicans but is there ever any talk of divided states to get more red Senate Seats?

Actually, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's not a bad thing. Why shouldn't small states have a voice? Wyoming might have some great energy plan but never get that voice at the federal level. I think you're a bit clouded by the current Republican/Democrat rural/urban divide but remove that and it's a pretty good checks and balance system. Again, I think California should have 100 electoral votes. In fact it's lost one for the next election.

Because the current system doesn't benefit the politics he agrees with. That's why.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's not a bad thing. Why shouldn't small states have a voice? Wyoming might have some great energy plan but never get that voice at the federal level. I think you're a bit clouded by the current Republican/Democrat rural/urban divide but remove that and it's a pretty good checks and balance system. Again, I think California should have 100 electoral votes. In fact it's lost one for the next election.

"Once we pretend everything that the world, as it exists, doesn't, then it's pretty good."

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by SebC

Actually, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_divisionism

This is not serious consideration just because Nate Silver wrote about it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Because the current system doesn't benefit the politics he agrees with. That's why.

Or because the fundamental value of democracy is equality between people and equality of regions breaks that, but go ahead and keep inventing my motivations.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Biden and Pelosi played themselves. That is if you believe they actually wanted to pass it at all.

Likely not. That country is see through.

[direwolf]

Amazing how one senator can essentially hold a country of 300 million people hostage. What a f***ed up system they have down there. Manchin may have just destroyed Biden's entire presidency with this stunt, as well as any chance of the Dems keeping the House next year.

McConnell and the gang are probably taking Manchin out tonight for a nice steak dinner and a round of beers. Dude is an absolute hero to the GOP right now.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Amazing how one senator can essentially hold a country of 300 million people hostage. What a f***ed up system they have down there. Manchin may have just destroyed Biden's entire presidency with this stunt, as well as any chance of the Dems keeping the House next year.

McConnell and the gang are probably taking Manchin out tonight for a nice steak dinner and a round of beers. Dude is an absolute hero to the GOP right now.

The Dems are spineless. They could have at least forced Manchin to vote on it.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Amazing how one senator can essentially hold a country of 300 million people hostage. What a f***ed up system they have down there. Manchin may have just destroyed Biden's entire presidency with this stunt, as well as any chance of the Dems keeping the House next year.

McConnell and the gang are probably taking Manchin out tonight for a nice steak dinner and a round of beers. Dude is an absolute hero to the GOP right now.

One senator or 52 senators, or as it's known, the majority.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

One senator or 52 senators, or as it's known, the majority.

Well that's an extremely disingenuous statement, for a couple of reasons.

1) Republicans will tell you that a simple majority in the senate is not enough to pass or block legislation. They have been adamant for almost three decades that 60 votes was the threshold to pas or block legislation. Well, unless that legislation is to their power dynamic advantage, then the simple majority rule is okay. The two different rules for the two different parties continues to make American politics some of the most corrupt on the planet.

2) Republicans and Democrats do not have the same freedom to go against the wishes of the party leaders. If Manchin were a Republican and wanting to exercise his vote "in the best interests of his constituents" he would be primaried, run out of politics, and have his life ruined by the power brokers within the political establishment. Being a Democrat means there is no real purity test and you have the ability to go against the grain and #### your own party, because Democrats don't do purity tests. The rules are very different between the two parties and representative government is very different as a result.

This is all political theater and nothing to do with governance. If this were about governance there would be some actual give and take on Manchin's part. He's locked in for some reason and it isn't representing the best interests of his constituents. There is a lot more in these omnibus bills that will help his constituents than will hurt them. The reason he is holding firm is because of his own personal gain in power and potential money. I wish there were actual journalists around these days, someone that would dig into the motivations of what Manchin was doing, and follow the money. I guarantee you that he is getting rich off stopping this bill, and it is probably coming from someone in the fossil fuel industry.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well that's an extremely disingenuous statement, for a couple of reasons.

1) Republicans will tell you that a simple majority in the senate is not enough to pass or block legislation. They have been adamant for almost three decades that 60 votes was the threshold to pas or block legislation. Well, unless that legislation is to their power dynamic advantage, then the simple majority rule is okay. The two different rules for the two different parties continues to make American politics some of the most corrupt on the planet.

2) Republicans and Democrats do not have the same freedom to go against the wishes of the party leaders. If Manchin were a Republican and wanting to exercise his vote "in the best interests of his constituents" he would be primaried, run out of politics, and have his life ruined by the power brokers within the political establishment. Being a Democrat means there is no real purity test and you have the ability to go against the grain and #### your own party, because Democrats don't do purity tests. The rules are very different between the two parties and representative government is very different as a result.

This is all political theater and nothing to do with governance. If this were about governance there would be some actual give and take on Manchin's part. He's locked in for some reason and it isn't representing the best interests of his constituents. There is a lot more in these omnibus bills that will help his constituents than will hurt them. The reason he is holding firm is because of his own personal gain in power and potential money. I wish there were actual journalists around these days, someone that would dig into the motivations of what Manchin was doing, and follow the money. I guarantee you that he is getting rich off stopping this bill, and it is probably coming from someone in the fossil fuel industry.

Well of course the Republicans will take advantage of a law the Democrats won't change. The Democrats should make it 60 votes all the time, but that hurts them more. It's like saying you want to abolish the shootout but if the league doesn't abolish it, you're going to still try and win shootouts.

And this get back to GGG's question about why not make smaller bills? Because they would need 60%.

And about Manchin, WV is one of the most Republican states in the country. Biden lost it be 70-30. It's a miracle that there's a Democrat Senator there at all. So what do you do? You primary Manchin and the seat goes red in a heartbeat.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Well of course the Republicans will take advantage of a law the Democrats won't change. The Democrats should make it 60 votes all the time, but that hurts them more. It's like saying you want to abolish the shootout but if the league doesn't abolish it, you're going to still try and win shootouts.

And this get back to GGG's question about why not make smaller bills? Because they would need 60%.

And about Manchin, WV is one of the most Republican states in the country. Biden lost it be 70-30. It's a miracle that there's a Democrat Senator there at all. So what do you do? You primary Manchin and the seat goes red in a heartbeat.

GGG's point was they make the bills smaller and more specific so the Democrats would be able to beat the Republicans over the head with their stalling tactics come election time. It is much easier to remove dissention when you make issue specific bills and force each of the parties to make a statement on that specific issue. This is what the Dems should be doing, but instead they craft monster omnibus bills that easy to shoot down because of their complexity.

As far as primarying Manchin, who cares if the seat goes red? It's basically red right now. Make an example of seat that is not working for you and you were never expecting to win anyways.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

GGG's point was they make the bills smaller and more specific so the Democrats would be able to beat the Republicans over the head with their stalling tactics come election time. It is much easier to remove dissention when you make issue specific bills and force each of the parties to make a statement on that specific issue. This is what the Dems should be doing, but instead they craft monster omnibus bills that easy to shoot down because of their complexity.

As far as primarying Manchin, who cares if the seat goes red? It's basically red right now. Make an example of seat that is not working for you and you were never expecting to win anyways.

The party doesn't "primary" candidates. It's populist movements like the Tea Party that can mobilize support for a challenger in low turn out primary elections. I don't know what grass roots Democrat group could organize a challenge to Manchin.

I agree with putting an end to these massive bills though. These bills are terrible marketing as well and I'm not sure they'd win Biden and the Democrats a whole lot of support if they did pass. They mostly just seem crazy expensive and people don't even have a good idea of what's in them or how it will personally help them.

[Azure]

Omnibus bills are terrible in Canada as well.

I would ban them completely.

They should legislate everything, debate it, then pass it.

Nobody reads the bills anyways if they are that big.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

GGG's point was they make the bills smaller and more specific so the Democrats would be able to beat the Republicans over the head with their stalling tactics come election time. It is much easier to remove dissention when you make issue specific bills and force each of the parties to make a statement on that specific issue. This is what the Dems should be doing, but instead they craft monster omnibus bills that easy to shoot down because of their complexity.

As far as primarying Manchin, who cares if the seat goes red? It's basically red right now. Make an example of seat that is not working for you and you were never expecting to win anyways.

I agree, make better bills, make the GOP vote against them, make Manchin vote against them.

But the problem is they can't lose that seat in WV. Who cares if it goes red? Who is majority leader right now? You want it to still be McConnell?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The party doesn't "primary" candidates. It's populist movements like the Tea Party that can mobilize support for a challenger in low turn out primary elections. I don't know what grass roots Democrat group could organize a challenge to Manchin.

I agree with putting an end to these massive bills though. These bills are terrible marketing as well and I'm not sure they'd win Biden and the Democrats a whole lot of support if they did pass. They mostly just seem crazy expensive and people don't even have a good idea of what's in them or how it will personally help them.

This is an interesting question. Do you think the progressive left, Sanders, The Squad wing of the party could ever get anything going at the ground level? Or are they so far left they they could only hurt already friendly progressive, but not progressive enough Senators?

This obviously would not work in WV. Anyone a nanometer left of Manchin would lose to a Republican. It's a miracle that somehow even Manchin wins.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...dterms-222226/

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The party doesn't "primary" candidates. It's populist movements like the Tea Party that can mobilize support for a challenger in low turn out primary elections. I don't know what grass roots Democrat group could organize a challenge to Manchin.

I agree with putting an end to these massive bills though. These bills are terrible marketing as well and I'm not sure they'd win Biden and the Democrats a whole lot of support if they did pass. They mostly just seem crazy expensive and people don't even have a good idea of what's in them or how it will personally help them.

The party can organize and support a primary challenger. It’s happening in Arizona right now with Sinema.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

The party can organize and support a primary challenger. It’s happening in Arizona right now with Sinema.

She's gonna win tho.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

She's gonna win tho.

I wouldn't bet on that. The party has done polling on five possible candidates, and Sinema trails each of them by double digits, most by 20+ points. Unless she does something extraordinary, she's toast.