Joe Manchin announces he is opposed to DC statehood

[TomDaisy]

Link to tweet

?s=20


He knows a Constitutional amendment has zero chance and would take forever.

[MisterNiceKitty]

1. Does this issue affect his own re-election chances in some way?

[Silent3]

3. What it effects is his power

I think he likes being the one holding the keys to anything Democrats want to pass, and doesn't want two Democrats from DC messing that up for him.

[MisterNiceKitty]

5. Oh well Biden should see if he can one to two Republicans to vote on his side

Since you can't count on Sinema either.

[tritsofme]

10. You need 11 Republicans to break a filibuster if Manchin is opposed.

And for some reason I don’t think you’ll see them rallying around a proposal that will send two new Democratic senators.

[MisterNiceKitty]

31. Biden has been a sitting US Senator for decades

If he's behind this proposal (& I'm not sure that he is) I would wait and see what he can achieve.

[tritsofme]

32. DC statehood just isn't going to happen in this Congress.

The votes aren’t there.

[lagomorph777]

55. Exactly. His power derives from a divided Senate. And power is all he cares about.

Fuck his constituents; they're just the little people.

[brooklynite]

14. He's not expected to run again.

[Celerity]

29. source please, TIA

[MisterNiceKitty]

30. Ah, now that's interesting

[Celerity]

33. it would be more interesting if they backed up that claim with some evidence

[LanternWaste]

39. Brunchtime gossip?

[TheBlackAdder]

27. He's taken over the Susan Collins position and his flexing his power and seeking attention.

[WarGamer]

43. He's from a State that voted for Trump @70% pace.

[maxsolomon]

2. PR + USVI is the easier option.

clearly large enough to justify statehood.

[Celerity]

23. Those are not an easier option. The process will absolutely have to include

(for poltical reasons) a binding plebiscite favouring statehood. That outcome is in no way guaranteed. The vast, vast majority of DC, on the other hand, has demanded DC statehoood for decades.

[maxsolomon]

24. In that there is no Constitutional Amendment standing in the way

I don't think any new states are plausible, regardless. Not during the next quarter century.

[Celerity]

26. there is NO constitutional amendment requirement standing in the way of making DC a state.

Last edited Sat May 1, 2021, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I cannot believe this false statement is STILL being pushed on here. I and others have thoroughly discredited this disinfo on multiple occasions, yet it keeps on rearing it's false head.

Admission to the Union Clause

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Making DC a state violates NONE of those requirements.


People get confused as there was a constitutional amendment to give DC Electoral College votes without being a state and without having voting members in Congress. The constitutional amendment WAS needed in that case, as it was a new power construct, one not delineated in the Constitution.

Finally (and this has nothing to do with DC)

but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States

is NOT am absolute ban on any of that because the next part gives a way for ANY of those to actually happen

, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[maxsolomon]

38. Thanks, but Manchin's hanging his hat on that one.

unless I misunderstand his argument, or, actually, his dismissive refusal to consider the argument.

[Celerity]

42. he is playing disinfo games, the constitution is clear as a freshly washed window on it

the statehood bill carves out a small federal district (with zero legal residents) to satisfy any constitutional demands

if it actually took a constitutional amendment people would not have wasted decades trying to pass the legislation

[WarGamer]

44. Constitution or not, he's against it.

[Celerity]

45. And not only is he false in his reasons, but his obstructionism is immensely harmful to our party &

the nation as a whole. Not just on DC statehood, but also on so many other of his stances. Unless he and Sinema cave and allow at least some impactful modifications of the filibuster, all of Biden and the party's non reconciliation-eligible agenda is in the ditch, including the voter rights/protections bills, racial justice/police reform bills, etc etc etc-

[WarGamer]

46. Like my Dad used to say, "It is what it is."

Deal with the situation.

[Celerity]

47. 'it is what it is' is usually capitulation, resignation, and acceptance of defeat

IF we do not somehow put into place impactful modifications of the filibuster, then most of Biden and the party' non-reconciliation included agenda will be dashed upon the rocks of Rethug obstructionism. Biden can but do only so much via Executive Orders. The voter rights/protections bills alone not being passed would be a massive systemic blow.

Also, I have not even (I so hope Manchin and Sinema do NOT have the nerve nor stones to even go here) dealt much with the possibility that even reconciliation is potentially in serious jeopardy. On at least that, I think Manchin and Sinema will be simply beaten down and cave in due to combined force of the rest of the Party. IF they actually do go there, as say nope, no reconciliation other than extremely limited, micro targeted legislation, then Biden will likely be a one term POTUS. Again, I am nowhere near that level of pessimism on at least that specific thing.


Deal with the situation.

Gaming it out (pardon the pun), IF they do not cave and the filibuster rules stays as they are now, I am all ears as to what you would do to 'deal with it'. The bills are not going to magically pass themselves, as they will never come to a vote. What are your plans/suggestions?

[WarGamer]

48. Deal with it means passing less controversial legislation.

Background checks, ObamaCare safeguards, Tax policy, SS reform, Infrastructure...

ALL can find bipartisan support

[Celerity]

49. Highly, highly doubtful that we get 10 Rethugs to cross lines on most of those, and what about the

most important of all, the voter bills and the racial justice/police bills?

ZERO chance we get to cloture on those.

[WarGamer]

50. DC, HR1 and Police stuff is dead.

Don't waste time on it.

Work where the fruit is.

[Celerity]

53. If they are, we and the nation are in truly dire straits, we will very likely get smashed in the

midterms, and 2024 is on grill. IF things go truly pear shaped, and Manchin and Sinema end up being the chief or only cause of it, then they will go down in history as the two most hated Dems since Dixiecrat days. I truly hope they do not go there.

DC, HR1 and Police stuff is dead.

Don't waste time on it.

Work where the fruit is.

Other than DC statehood, this strikes me as being far too flippant and dismissive of the potential disastrous fallout. You also seem to be placing far more faith in the Rethugs than I do. They hold most of the cards in your scenario, thanks in large part to Manchin and Sinema. The Rethug voters will NOT punish them (the Rethug Senate) for being super-obstructers. They will vibrate in wicked excitement, cheer on the voter suppression, and will turn out in waves in 2022 to try and kneecap Biden via taking back Congress.

As a game theory aficionado, surely you can see the approaching multivariate systemic risk we are potentially facing.

[WarGamer]

54. I still believe good governance wins elections.

Pass laws, make life better, get seniors off of poverty, make the rich pay their fair share... all doable before '22

[Celerity]

56. hard to pass laws when most things of import that aren't reconciliation-eligible will not see a vote

you seem to be whistling past the graveyard on that

[WarGamer]

58. They can negotiate with Mitch.

You lay out a list of gun control regulations... agree to make it just background checks if he allows vote... stuff like that.

[aocommunalpunch]

4. LMAO

Dude’s predictable as ever.

[ZonkerHarris]

6. Of course he is. It would make him irrelevent.

[TheBlackAdder]

28. THIS! 👍 Manchin is doing this to hold onto the power and attention he craves. Self-Serving Act!

.



.

[Bleacher Creature]

7. So he wants to change the rules in the middle of the game in a way that disadvantages only DC?

I'm so tired of this guy.

[hlthe2b]

8. He's one of ours, but...

I don't have to like him. Still, I tolerate many a vegetable I don't particularly like, either.


As they say in the South, he makes me want to "smack him upside the head" to knock some sense into him. Sigh...

[SheilaAnn]

9. He may have a "D" behind his name but he isn't "one of ours" by any stretch. n/t

[msongs]

11. it is not necessary to have a constitutional amendment to admit a new state.... nt

[Mad_Machine76]

12. Yeah

I was just about to say.......

[JohnSJ]

16. Exactly. How do you think Alaska and Hawaii became states

[Efilroft Sul]

34. Or West Virginia being carved out of Virginia in the middle of the Civil War.

[dsc]

36. actually that only was legal due to the war

and there is a colorable case that for at least some of the state it wasn't legal. But when VA sued to get those parts back the answer was basically shut up you were rebelling.

[Efilroft Sul]

37. Yep. I suppose I should've added that DC's entry to the Union would be less dubious than WV's.

[Mad_Machine76]

13. At this point

can we just assume he's opposed to EVERYTHING- unless he says otherwise?

[MustLoveBeagles]

40. Yes

[Luciferous]

15. I'm so sick of Manchin

[Dave says]

17. I wonder what the Republicans got on him

I can think of no other reason for his bizarre behavior.

[TomDaisy]

18. ego. my state might be little but I'm a big man!

[Dave says]

25. Given the pressured nastiness of his replies

I think it must be more than that.

[budkin]

19. ENOUGH

We'll get just as much done with him gone as we will right now, because he's literally blocking EVERYTHING.

[Humanist_Activist]

20. He's not this dumb, he is lying, he has other reasons to oppose DC statehood...

I'm sure they cannot be articulated in polite company.

[uponit7771]

21. We'll see if he goes back on his word right now it doesn't look positive

[Celerity]

22. A Constitutional Amendment is NOT needed to make DC a state.

That is a false premiss. I have documented this multiple times here. Sigh.

[Johonny]

35. I'm my tired of this creep scale. Joe's at 9 out of ten

[David__77]

41. That is a white supremacist position.

...

[Bettie]

51. Not even a tiny bit surprised?

Seriously, does this surprise anyone anywhere?

[bermudat]

52. Shocker

[gldstwmn]

57. What does he want now?