why couldn't we find any leverage over Manchin

[TomDaisy]

[liberal N proud]

1. Because the republicans are already using it

Or, because Democrats don’t play republican raindeer games

[budkin]

2. Because he's set for life

And he doesn’t GAF.

[dem4decades]

3. He represents a state of Trump loving idiots. What are you going to do?

[WHITT]

5. Except

they want what is in the BBB by very large majorities.

[SMC22307]

8. West Virginians support BBB if the wealthy pay for it.

At least according to at least one poll I've seen. If they can be brainwashed into thinking Donald Trump is a friend of the working man they can be reprogrammed to understand the actual truth. It won't be easy and it won't be cheap. The problem is that we don't even bother and there are waaaay too many red WV-like counties throughout the United States... and the voters turn out. We just witnessed this in Virginia and now have fucking Youngkin as governor.

[Walleye]

13. If this legislation were proposed by a Republican, West Virginia would be all for it

[berni_mccoy]

82. So do other Democratic Senators

GA, AZ, etc.

WV love for Trump is not an excuse.

[dem4decades]

87. GA, AZ both voted for Biden. WV had the highest % Trump vote of any state. No comparison.

[berni_mccoy]

88. Extremely narrow margins and it is the same to these Senators

They have the same risk Manchin does.

Unlike Manchin, they believe in the legislation and can explain it to their constituents.

[WHITT]

4. We Had Leverage

but some got gullibly bamboozled out of it.

[FBaggins]

7. Nope

That was entirely imaginary

[WHITT]

15. Not According To Manchin

and his TV interviews going back to his constituents.

[FBaggins]

19. Examples?

I remember plenty of times where he pointed out that they were trying to create leverage. I don’t remember any that indicated that he thought anything other than that nothing would pass without his support.

[wellst0nev0ter]

20. You were in my thread

You've seen the video yourself

[FBaggins]

23. You must have accidentally linked the wrong video

I thought you were trying to demonstrate that he agreed that others had leverage over him.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. That was him campaigning on BIF before it was passed

Imagine him going back empty-handed.

Now do you get the context?

[FBaggins]

27. So?

He wanted his bill passed. Progressives wanted BBB far more. Why aren’t you arguing that they lacked leverage.

The difference is that he knew that he had the power to get it whenever he needed it. We had nowhere else to go for votes… he had the republicans. It’s why Pelosi kept it from coming to a vote.

You really bought the “she doesn’t like to lose votes “ BS?

[wellst0nev0ter]

28. He only had power if we continued to negotiate

If we stopped negotiating and tell him "yes or no" then he has no choice but to vote for all or nothing.

[FBaggins]

30. Nope

If we stopped negotiating and forced his hand… republicans would have given him all the help he needed. There weren’t nearly enough progressives willing to vote it down.

[wellst0nev0ter]

31. That's why you hold the BIF before the BBB

Really not that complicated.

[FBaggins]

33. Never heard of a discharge petition?

There’s a reason that it had to come to a vote eventually.

The other reason was that Manchin was far from the only Democrat who wanted that bill passed. Fighting it got to the point where it hurt more than it helped (as he knew it eventually must)

[wellst0nev0ter]

34. The Senate has a discharge petition?

Wow. That means Merrick Garland's on the Supreme Court right now!

[FBaggins]

36. It does... but that wasn't where the BIF was held up

That means Merrick Garland's on the Supreme Court right now!

Your memory is poor. Garland was blocked because those opposing him were in the majority. A minority can’t force a bill to the floor.

BIF, on the other hand, had a majority that either supported it or would have been happy to embarrass Pelosi/Jayapal

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. Check again, the Senate does not have a discharge petition

at least not in the same manner as the House

And the Senate can always hold BIF until Manchin signs onto BBB.

[FBaggins]

44. I didn't say it was the same as the House

So you’re talking about senate Democrats blocking BIF?

It received 69 votes

If you back out of senate basics and remember that we had to compromise with a power sharing agreement when we were stuck with a 50/50 senate - you would realize that blocking it had to be in the House (as it was)

[wellst0nev0ter]

47. You know how we couldn't pass popular gun legislation

Despite huge majorities supporting it?

That was Mitch McConnell holding all the message bills from the House hostage. So Democrats should use that tool to their advantage.

[onenote]

38. Pretty certain that the reference was to the House discharge petition procedure

BIF had passed the House. A discharge petition signed by 218 members would force it to the floor. It ended up with 228 votes, so the discharge route was a possibility.

There is no Senate discharge procedure, but I don't think anyone was suggesting there was.

[wellst0nev0ter]

39. And Manchin is where?

The house or Senate?

[onenote]

40. Again I think the point was BIF was going to come to a vote sooner or later

through the House discharge process.

[wellst0nev0ter]

41. Yeah, but not in the Senate

[onenote]

42. I'll try one more time:

The argument being made is that leverage over Manchin with respect to BBB was lost when the House passed BIF. But the point is that the ability of the House to keep BIF from coming to a vote, and thus leverage over Manchin, was limited by the House discharge procedure and the fact that there probably were more than enough votes in the House to force BIF to the floor for a vote.

[wellst0nev0ter]

46. Then it's the job of the Senate to hold the BIF

If it ever comes to them

[onenote]

48. BIF had already passed the Senate when it came to the House.

It was approved by the Senate in August by a 69-30 vote. It didn't have to go back to the Senate after the House acted.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684/all-actions?overview=closed#tabs

[wellst0nev0ter]

50. Okay, let me rephrase:

The Senate should not have let BIF go for the vote without Manchin's commitment on the BBB.

[FBaggins]

57. You keep mistaking manufactured leverage for the real thing

Schumer constantly needed Manchin’s vote (and still does). There wasn’t going to be a BBB at all (literally not even brought up in committee) if Schumer wasn’t willing to commit to what became BIF.

Schumer was never in a position to block it.

[wellst0nev0ter]

65. Manchin once floated a $4 trillion BBB bill

But we couldn't land that because we were "too scared" of Manchin or something.

On the other hand, McConnell didn't have that problem when passing Trump's tax cuts. He slapped together something and forced members to vote on them whether it's perfect for them or not.

[FBaggins]

69. Wrong on both counts

We'll just all politely pretend to ignore that you're changing the subject.

Manchin once floated a $4 trillion BBB bill

Nope. He did once (early this year) say that he would support up to $4T in new spending (particularly infrastructure).

Since then... we passed $1.9 trillion in early March (through reconciliation and with his vote). Then we passed BIF - labeled as a $1.2 trillion bill, but really containing only $600 billion in new spending.

Hmmm.... let's see. $4T-($1.9T+$.6T)= $1.5T left on his promise. Well whaddya know? It's almost as if his $1.5T BBB limit wasn't just pulled out of thin air?

On the other hand, McConnell didn't have that problem when passing Trump's tax cuts.

Hard to tell whether this error on your part is innumeracy, lack of understanding of basic civics, or just a bad memory.

Republicans lost one vote in the senate and a dozen votes in the House. Either shift would have killed the bill with the margins we have now. Wow... it's almost as though the numbers in each chamber (and not just leadership playing tough to create leverage) actually impact the ability to pass legislation or something?

Even if you remembered it correctly, you would be wrong. McConnell/Ryan didn't have the farthest-right members write the tax cut and then "force" everyone to vote for it, he got the most that he could possibly get with the majorities that they had (including changes to get Corker on board) - and had to drop some key components (like killing the ACA).

We ought to try it some time.

Also worth noting that Manchin voted against that tax cut and has been fully supportive of undoing it now.

[WHITT]

71. But

Speaker Pelosi simply needed to change ONE WORD, and it would gave required returning to the Senate for another vote.

[onenote]

77. So why do you think she didn't do that?

[WHITT]

90. Because

there was an agreement that the two bills were linked together, so there was no need. Afterward, the Corporate Dems violated that agreement.

[Demsrule86]

81. No, we would have got nothing and been blamed...either way, we had no leverage...

[WHITT]

24. As I Previuosly Posted

1) Manchin needed the BIF very BADLY, as he was already bragging about what infrastructure projects he was bringing back, in appearances in WV and in remote interviews back to TV stations in WV.

OF COURSE, the Progressive Caucus was correct, Manchin would have only gotten the BIF if he voted for the BBB.

2) His WV constituents want what is in the BBB by very large majorities.

3) Time for Biden to notify Manchin that the release of infrastructure funds from the BIF for WV are on HOLD, given his announcement. Depending how the BIF is worded, the appropriated funds in the BIF need to be spent either sometime in the next fiscal year, or sometime in the 2-year Congressional session. See if Manchin wants to wait more than a year for any projects to even START, and funds may be re-appropriated if not completely spent on time.

[FBaggins]

29. Laughable

You really think the president can withhold money that Congress already appropriated for an individual state?

[WHITT]

45. Of Course

Don't think, I know.

Even if it were illegal, which it's not, you're forgetting Dumbass Donnie moved funds from the Defense Dept to build his stupid wall, and it took like two years before the courts reversed it.

Get a grip.

[FBaggins]

49. And yet that great big beautiful wall never got built

There are extreme limits on the president’s budgetary discretion - limited by specific language.

Trump tapped the maximum- and all of it was in areas where he had direct authority (military spending that was explicitly discretionary in the funding bill). No such discretion was put into BIF.

Get a grip indeed

[WHITT]

51. I'm Afraid

You're confusing holding the funds, with spending the funds.

[onenote]

54. I'm afraid you are unaware of the Impoundment Control Act of 19

which prevents the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress.

Maybe you recall when OMB, acting at Trump's request, blocked appropriated funds from going to the Ukraine -- and Democrats were all over Trump for violating the law. Do you really think that Biden is going to pull a page from Trump's playbook that played a large role in the first impeachment of Trump?

[WHITT]

72. Sorry

You're STILL conflating SPENDING with HOLDING.

Not to mention, even if it were illegal, which it is not, it took two years for the courts to reverse when Donnie did that.

[FBaggins]

55. I'm afraid you're confusing fantasy with reality

Feel free to cite the legislative language that allows a president to NOT execute the laws that Congress passes.

[WHITT]

73. Again

You're confused.

I've never suggested Biden NEVER deliver the appropriated funds.

As I already posted, the standard language is appropriated funds must be released either within the next fiscal YEAR, or within the TWO year congressional session.

[FBaggins]

75. You can't back that up either

Feel free to try.

Yes... there's a standard amount of time that appropriated funds get disbursed and some things can impact that timing.

But one thing that can't is the president's personal opinion of which states are pissing him off right now. He could slow things down for the entire country, but he can't enact political vendettas against individual states.

[WHITT]

92. OOF!

I won't embarrass you by going back and counting how many posts you made in this thread where you made ridiculous assertions that you cannot back up.

[Demsrule86]

83. No he didn't...he would have been just as happy to blame us for its failure... the idea of holding

a bill hostage in a negotiation for a different bill was always wrong...and never going to work. I don't think Manchin much cared if either bill passed. Chances are he retires and doesn't run again...and then we have a lifer GOP in his seat...and where do you suppose our majority will come from...how will we win Senate majorities? Have you ever looked at the map?

[WHITT]

91. You've Been Dead Wrong At Every Step

1) Manchin needed the BIF very BADLY, as he was already bragging about what infrastructure projects he was bringing back, in appearances in WV and in remote interviews back to TV stations in WV.

And, OF COURSE, the Progressive Caucus was correct, Manchin would have only gotten the BIF if he voted for the BBB.

2) His WV constituents want what is in the BBB by very large majorities.

[Demsrule86]

96. Manchin needed nothing...he was perfectly willing to blame us for the infrastructure bill failure

We would have gotten nothing...Frankly, this leverage BS and the refusal to really negotiate by refusing to eliminate paid leave and other non-starters was a dismal failure on our part. When in the end, you attempt to get a deal and get nothing, you have failed...you walk away with nothing. No good ever comes of this. I was not wrong. I predicted that we would get nothing if we didn't allow a vote on infrastructure and I believe that was true. Also, I said a BBB bill could be negotiated. But the Progressive Caucus has refused to remove some parts of BBB that blow up the deal like paid leave. We could have gotten something...not what everyone wanted but a beginning.

[WHITT]

99. Unbelievable

[uponit7771]

67. +1

[FBaggins]

6. Now that's an interesting question that raises another one

Imagine that we did discover some leverage. How would you expect him to act differently?

[dflprincess]

9. If the leverage involved a threat to his financial well being

yes.

[Wounded Bear]

10. We'd have to somehow divest him of his coal income...

he's still making 3 times more from that than his Senate salary.

[FBaggins]

11. It wasn't a yes or no question

How do politicians act when someone else has significant leverage?

[Walleye]

12. Ask Lindsey Graham

[dflprincess]

14. I have a bad habit of reading too quickly

I would expect, if the Democrats played hardball, and found enough leverage to make Ol' Joe fear for his financial well being we'd see him suddenly become a supporter of BBB and voting righrts.

[FBaggins]

16. I think you're right. So now we apply that and ask...

Since he’s the one with all the leverage… when do some people start acting like it?

[qazplm135]

17. maybe because we don't have any

we had the BIF and gave that up, and we don't have anything else he wants.
Not money, he can get more than we can give from the right.
Not votes, progressives barely exist in WV.

We got nothing he wants anymore.

[Diablo del sol]

18. EpiPen - nt

[Progressive Jones]

64. I see that as a great route. Manchin's kid is screwing people badly. nt

[Demsrule86]

84. So we are supposed to go after someone's kids as a Congress and a Party? She is in for forties...

And who go along with that in the Senate?

[Sneederbunk]

21. Neuter Manchin in 22. Elect more Dem senators.

[Demsrule86]

85. What states can we win more Senate seats in?...maybe Pennsylvania...but that is not a sure thing.

I hope we hold Georgia as well...North Carolina? Where do our opportunities lie and remember a midterm is tough for the President's party. I don't think some here understand that the constitution puts us at a disadvantage in the Senate and with gerrymandering we are going to have a very tough time in the House.

[Sneederbunk]

89. Wisconsin, Ohio, PA, NC. Missouri and Florida should be in play.

[Demsrule86]

97. We are not going to win Missouri first of all and Ohio is a long shot as well. We haven't won

anything statewide in Florida in years. We haven't won North Carolina in decades and the Pennsylvania seat is not w a walk in the park either...as for Wisconsin, it appears there will be an incumbent. I don't see the states you mentioned as all that possible except maybe for PA...and even that is no sure thing. And keep in mind, we have to hold Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia.

[wellst0nev0ter]

22. All we had to do was stand firm on social spending

And NOT give up concessions after concessions without getting any commitments in return.

This whole process is a masterclass on how NOT to negotiate.

[Demsrule86]

86. You don't understand...hanging tough will get us nowhere and it never has...name one time this

has worked? You have to negotiate and that means you are not going to get it all.

[wellst0nev0ter]

94. We did compromise with Manchin

The problem is that we compromised too much. You need to draw a line somewhere and make him vote on it.

[Demsrule86]

95. I suppose you refer to the bill that should never have been held hostage in the first place...

But no we didn't compromise too much which is why we will in the end will not get any of the good policy from BBB...drawing a line means we lose and the GOP wins...you may feel some satisfaction but it will be shortlived when we lose big time because folks want us to compromise and get stuff done. Moving forward always shortens the journey for next time...but honestly, some will never see that.

[xmas74]

26. Because we haven't figured out how to reanimate

LBJ and let him take care of all the dirty tricks. If we had someone like him around Manchin and Simena wouldn't play their games. Hell, I'd bet McConnell wouldn't push as much garbage.

Imagine him alive, at his prime, in a room of Trumpers? People like Greene, Boebert and McCarthy would piddle in his presence. He'd probably tell someone like Bannon to scrub his @ss before he ever even thinks his name.

He had many faults but no way he'd let these games go on. He was a bit of a b@stard and I think that's probably what we need right now.

[onenote]

35. When LBJ was president

The Senate was Democratic by a 68-32 margin his first two years and by a 64-36 margin his second two years.
The House was Democratic by a 295-140 margin his first two years and by a 248-147 margin his second two years (the Repubs gained 47 seats in the first election after the Voting Rights Act was passed).

LBJ won the presidency by 61.1 percent to 38.5 percent, capturing 44 out of 50 states.

Comparing Biden's ability to pressure anyone with LBJ's is to ignore the vast differences between the situations in which they found themselves.

[xmas74]

43. I'm not by any means ignoring the environment surrounding

Each presidency. What I am stating is that Biden is a good,decent human being who will not stoop to threats and dragging out the contents of someone's closet. LBJ, otoh, would have no qualms with having a dossier on every member of both the House and Senate,including his own party, and would use it as he saw fit.

I want good,decent human beings in office. We have people who are not, including people who are of the same party as the president. For those people someone proudly residing in the gutters is needed. It doesn't need to be the president but it needs to be someone.

[AncientAndy]

58. But those tricks only work if you have the numbers.

With a 50-50 Senate, LBJ would just be making threats he couldn’t back up.

[xmas74]

59. It depends on the threat,doesn't it?

In Missouri we managed to have a Republican governor resign in a scandal even with a GOP supermajority.

We all know there are some skeletons in the closet. Dig up the right one and certain people will sing.

[AncientAndy]

60. What's to stop Manchin from making threats back?

For all we know, Manchin is the one holding dirt on other people. Maybe that’s how he always gets what he wants.

[xmas74]

62. Manchin gets what he wants through leverage of his seat.

He makes that quite clear that no Democrat will win that seat if he vacates. That's all the leverage he needs and we've allowed it.

[Polybius]

66. LBJ looked like he would belt a Senator for disagreeing

Biden simply doesn't come off as threatening the way LBJ did.

[betsuni]

74. But he couldn't convince that senator to vote for the civil rights act.

He failed. He passed it with Republican votes.

[Polybius]

93. LBJ or Biden?

Can't think of a recent civil rights bill, so you probably mean LBJ.

[onenote]

78. Can you cite a reliable source to back up your claims?

Yes, LBJ used bullying as well as flattery to get his way with some members of Congress. His threats were of political retaliation or retribution.

Can you give any example of where LBJ threatened to reveal something personally embarrassing about a member as a way to change their position on a vote? And can you cite any historian for the claim that LBJ had "a dossier on every member of the House and Senate"?

[uponit7771]

68. +1, true

[Paladin]

98. LBJ's intellect and ruthlessness are exactly what we need, right now. (nt)

[onenote]

32. Because he's from a state that is solidly red

Trump 2016:68.5% v. 26.43
Trump 2018: 68.62 v 29.69
Trump won every single county in the state both elections

Senate election:
2020: Capito 70.3 Democratic candidate 27%

House elections 2020:
All three districts elected Republicans, with the closest election being 63.08 to 36.92%

State legislature:
State Senate: Republican by a more than 2 to 1 margin (23 v 11)
State House: Republican by a more than 3 to 1 margin (78 v22)

In 2018 Manchin narrowly won reelection despite getting less than 50 percent of the vote. But for the presence of a Libertarian candidate who got over 4% of the vote, he might well have lost.

So where does the leverage come from?

[Celerity]

53. and now, with his blocking of the BBB and of the voter rights bills, he will help the entire nation

go significantly more Red in 2022 and thus very likely in 2024 as well.

IF he even runs in 2024, he is very likely toast, as there will be no 2018 style Blue Wave to save his batty, and Justice has now significantly outflanked him on both the left and the right, plus dog only knows what voter suppression and election fraud schemes the Rethug-dominated WV legislature will cook up (unhindered by the voter laws) to roast him like a pig on a spit.

Meanwhile, he helps take down a sizable chunk of the rest of our Party.

[onenote]

56. True. But he holds those cards

and driving him to join the Republican caucus in 2022 would be a disaster -- dozens of Biden judicial nominees blocked. Senate-backed investigations of everything Biden does. Every Senate committee controlled by the Republicans.

Manchin has screwed us over on BBB, but that doesn't mean he's pissed on everything Biden has put forward or will piss on everything Biden might put forward the coming year.

[Celerity]

63. i have never once advocated him leaving the caucus, nor have I ever advocated primarying him.

As for 2022, we are staring down the barrel of a possible major wipe-out, thanks in no small part to Manchin and Sinema as neither will allow a carve-out for the filibuster that will actually allow for the voter bills to be passed. Manchin reiterated that stance (for what mist be the 50th time, maybe more) earlier today (yesterday for me), after he shit all over the BBB and Biden's and our party's agenda. He has said even if there was a talking filibuster, it STILL would require 60 votes to end debate. It is all kabuki theatre.

[doc03]

52. TFG still manages to totally control Republicans while he is

on the golf course in Florida?

[Earth-shine]

61. He has high approval numbers in his state. The majority are republicans and they love that he is

thwarting (and humiliating) his democratic colleagues.

[Sgent]

70. Because he gets

everything he wants and nothing he doesn't, or he makes the same deal with Mitch McConnel. Even 100% adopting his agenda, at least we get our appointments and judges through, and a much better deal than Mitch would allow.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

76. I explained this in a post yesterday morning, but my post was removed. nt

[Demsrule86]

79. We have none...we were lucky to get anything. I thank God that at least we got infrastructure

done.