[Discussion] Welcome to the Biden Administration!

Anything related to Biden and his upcoming administration. May this thread be less active and controversial as that last guys thread.

Freyja wrote:

We want the Democrats to deliver on their campaign promises to improve people's lives and not to simply skate by on not being outright fascists when they don't, while smugly telling the people saying 'you broke your promise' that it's just politics and we're all children who just don't understand adult things. What is so complicated about that where people will twist themselves into pretzels talking about parliamentarianism or whatever to avoid the simple fact that the Democratic party always punches left?

I'd really love the explanation of how Democrats are supposed to deliver on their campaign promises when they literally don't have enough votes in the Senate to do so.

That's not being smug. That's literally just asking how they're supposed to accomplish something that is impossible to do without 60 Senate votes and an opposition party who's primary function is to ensure nothing passes.

And the actual simple fact is that the Progressive Left is only 12% of the Democratic Party, meaning the vast majority of the party--and the party's core--are more conservative (well, by definition *everyone* is more conservative than the Progressive Left).

hbi2k wrote:
Stealthpizza wrote:

It is like he knew he was getting elected to hold pattern for 4 years until the Dems had a good candidate who's whole platform was not "well I am not him".

Bold of you to assume that the next Dem candidate will have any appeal beyond "better than the literal fascist."

I mean, do the Dems want a candidate who is truly a leftist, or even a progressive? Or do they want a center-right candidate who will pay lip service to helping people while secretly allowing the right to get most of their agenda through?

Or do they want a center-right candidate who will pay lip service to helping people while secretly allowing the right to get most of their agenda through?

I don't know how progressives expect to have a conversation or voice when they paint people not 100% in line with them this way and cannot acknowledge any single win?
https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden%27...

Progressives are isolating themselves and complaining about not being heard nor having influence.

karmajay wrote:

I feel the Rs have found so many "cracks" and really used them to have more control then they should. When there is zero compromise and half the govt is not interested in governing the whole thing quickly falls apart.

This right here. Never forget that the GOP caused a government shutdown over the budget in 2017 when they had the presidency and both houses of Congress.

They keep running on platforms that government is too big and can't get stuff done but they are the ones actively breaking things! And at the state levels they are on the verge of taking away democracy.

Democrats may not be perfect but the GOP is the enemy of all but the top 5%. If you're not rich and white and male, they don't give a sh*t about you. See also the pandemic, letting their own voters die just to "own the libs" by not wearing masks or getting vaccinated.

Not pre-emptively kneecapping progressive candidates in primary races might be a good start? Just kinda spitballin here.

They could also use the existing Senate precedents that don't require 60 votes for cloture, as established in 2006 and 2017. Use reconciliation measures, require members be physically present in the chamber to vote against ending debate.

48 Democrats + 2 Independents that caucus with them + the VP is 51. They are not helpless, and yet continue to insist on shifting blame for their inaction to voters.

fangblackbone wrote:
Or do they want a center-right candidate who will pay lip service to helping people while secretly allowing the right to get most of their agenda through?

I don't know how progressives expect to have a conversation or voice when they paint people not 100% in line with them this way and cannot acknowledge any single win?
https://ballotpedia.org/Joe_Biden%27...

Progressives are isolating themselves and complaining about not being heard nor having influence.

Executive orders are not legislation and are as permanent as the next occupant of the White House. We've seen how fast Trump undid all civil rights EO's by Obama.

Also, again, it's extensively documented on how the party favors conservative incumbents over progressive challengers in primaries. This isn't a situation of 'oh the progressives are just too obstinate'. They are being actively sabotaged by the party, even though their ideas are popular.

Freyja wrote:

They could also use the existing Senate precedents that don't require 60 votes for cloture, as established in 2006 and 2017. Use reconciliation measures, require members be physically present in the chamber to vote against ending debate.

48 Democrats + 2 Independents that caucus with them + the VP is 51. They are not helpless, and yet continue to insist on shifting blame for their inaction to voters.

True. There is 0 doubt in my mind that if the GOP takes back the white House and Congress in 2024 they will nationwide ban abortion with 51 votes in a heartbeat. Gilead is just 2 elections away. Mitch has already proved he doesn't give a sh*t about rules or precedent with Garland/Barrett and he will do it again if given the chance.

If I recall the times they can use reconciliation measures is very limited.

Ah from here

The Byrd rule prohibits the inclusion of “extraneous” measures in reconciliation, defining “extraneous” as follows:

measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);
measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;
measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;
measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non-budgetary policy change;
measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window; and measures that recommend changes in Social
Any Senator may raise a point of order against an extraneous provision in the reconciliation bill, amendments, or the conference agreement. The Senate Parliamentarian decides whether there is a Byrd rule violation, and provisions struck through a Byrd rule point of order cannot be offered later as amendments. However, Byrd rule points of order can be waived by a vote of 60 Senators.

In addition to reconciliation-specific points of order, reconciliation bills are subject to other Senate points of order, like the Senate PAYGO rule, that apply to all legislation.

Yeah, but there's like 19 other carve-outs besides reconciliation, including unqualified idealogue howler-monkey supreme court judges. Only takes 50 votes to add another one, or abolish it altogether.

Here's an anecdote from my very liberal state.

In 2020, the progressives won big. Lots of very young first time politicians went to the state capitol and proceeded to push very, very hard on social issues.

Prison reforms, including tons of changes to how incarcerated persons could be described (criminal, convict and even incarcerated are all out).
Much more lenient approaches to homelessness (including changing the wording to unhoused individuals).
Changes to law enforcement powers, including allowing folks with warrants to not have to stop for the police.
Lots of changes in education at the local levels (huge emphasis on cultural/societal issues).

No meaningful progress on material needs of the less powerful (no state income tax, no significant property tax increases, etc).

For the last nine months I'm hearing from other X and Millennial parents in the 30-50 range how frustrated they are with government. I am not hearing about griping about gas prices, or at least not blaming of local politicians. I am hearing, at every backyard BBQ, "My kid isn't learning to read or write. They can't tell me about the 4th of July, but they ask me about social protest." Or "How come so many downtown stores have homeless people sleeping in the doorways and I have to step over urine and feces on the sidewalk?" Or "Why aren't people stopping for police on the freeway?"

I'm not saying I agree with these sentiments.

I am only offering a window into an enclave in a liberal state where the conversation is very different than the one we're having here.

Freyja wrote:

48 Democrats + 2 Independents that caucus with them + the VP is 51. They are not helpless, and yet continue to insist on shifting blame for their inaction to voters.

Joe Manchin has refused to help pass almost every major Democratic initiative in Congress, because he represents a highly conservative state and if he pisses them off they will elect a Republican next cycle. Kyrsten Sinema has similarly refused to cooperate on many bills, because she's afraid what Republicans will do if Dems actually make a lot of progress or change the ground rules (the filibuster, etc.).

52 to 48 is the starting point, not 50-50.

Top_Shelf wrote:

Here's an anecdote from my very liberal state.

In 2020, the progressives won big. Lots of very young first time politicians went to the state capitol and proceeded to push very, very hard on social issues.

Prison reforms, including tons of changes to how incarcerated persons could be described (criminal, convict and even incarcerated are all out).
Much more lenient approaches to homelessness (including changing the wording to unhoused individuals).
Changes to law enforcement powers, including allowing folks with warrants to not have to stop for the police.
Lots of changes in education at the local levels (huge emphasis on cultural/societal issues).

No meaningful progress on material needs of the less powerful (no state income tax, no significant property tax increases, etc).

For the last nine months I'm hearing from other X and Millennial parents in the 30-50 range how frustrated they are with government. I am not hearing about griping about gas prices, or at least not blaming of local politicians. I am hearing, at every backyard BBQ, "My kid isn't learning to read or write. They can't tell me about the 4th of July, but they ask me about social protest." Or "How come so many downtown stores have homeless people sleeping in the doorways and I have to step over urine and feces on the sidewalk?" Or "Why aren't people stopping for police on the freeway?"

I'm not saying I agree with these sentiments.

I am only offering a window into an enclave in a liberal state where the conversation is very different than the one we're having here.

Caveat: we live in a slightly liberal state with a progressive city in a fairly liberal highly populated county. The fact that a state income tax is unconstitutional says a lot about how left we really are.

Robear wrote:
Freyja wrote:

48 Democrats + 2 Independents that caucus with them + the VP is 51. They are not helpless, and yet continue to insist on shifting blame for their inaction to voters.

Joe Manchin has refused to help pass almost every major Democratic initiative in Congress, because he represents a highly conservative state and if he pisses them off they will elect a Republican next cycle he's corrupt. Kyrsten Sinema has similarly refused to cooperate on many bills, because she's afraid what Republicans will do if Dems actually make a lot of progress or change the ground rules (the filibuster, etc.) corrupt.

52 to 48 is the starting point, not 50-50.

because she's afraid what Republicans will do if Dems actually make a lot of progress or change the ground rules (the filibuster, etc.).

This is actually insane, like, we can acknowledge that if only the Democratic party requires more of a majority because one of its members cares more about retaliation from the opposition than her own party making progress, and the other stops the *entire country* from getting popular policies passed because his particular state is conservative, we can agree that this is dysfunctional and that we need leaders to actually cure the dysfunction, or at least present a plan that amounts to more than going, 'well you didn't give us Missouri or Alabama so we'll just sit on hour hands', right?

How do we as presumably rational people see that a party who controls 2/3 branches of the government says, 'sorry, we're totally stuck' and just nod our heads Very Solemnly?

If Manchin and Sinema are problems, why is the party not scouting primary challengers for 2025 who can be palatable to their electorates and not be complete chickensh*t?

Freyja wrote:

If Manchin and Sinema are problems, why is the party not scouting primary challengers for 2025 who can be palatable to their electorates and not be complete chickensh*t?

Because their electorates are also awful and can't be un-brainwashed in time to save the country.

They should be kicked out of the party.

Freyja wrote:

If Manchin and Sinema are problems, why is the party not scouting primary challengers for 2025 who can be palatable to their electorates and not be complete chickensh*t?

Sinema is a dead Senator walking and she knows it. The last polling of Arizona Democrats on Sinema I saw showed 70% of them disapproved of her and she lost in theoretical head-to-head line-ups against four potential 2024 Democratic Senate candidates.

And Manchin is from a state that where 2/3rds of the population voted for Trump in 2020. There isn't a Democratic candidate in existence that could get a majority of the statewide vote and have their political values and beliefs be acceptable to you.

So Arizona will fix itself and, as much as you hate it, it's still vastly better to have a Manchin as a Senator for a state like West Virginia--even if he doesn't vote 100% of the time in line with Democrats--than to have that spot go to a Republican, who will vote 100% of the time against anything proposed by Democrats.

OG_slinger wrote:

So Arizona will fix itself and, as much as you hate it, it's still vastly better to have a Manchin as a Senator for a state like West Virginia--even if he doesn't vote 100% of the time in line with Democrats--than to have that spot go to a Republican, who will vote 100% of the time against anything proposed by Democrats.

Manchin is pretty awful and has done a lot to stop the Democrats from passing a lot of really useful legislation. It's really frustrating to have his hands on the levers of power.

That being said, if there was a Republican in his seat, then Mitch would have full control over the Senate instead, and as much as I hate Manchin, my dislike for him is but a guttering flame next to the full world-engulfing nuclear bonfire that is my hatred for Mitch McConnell.

DS, corrupt or not, the fact is that the Dems don't actually have full control over their caucus is the point. Any analysis of who is responsible for policy not passing has to start with the right numbers. We can't just pretend the Democrats are actually in control of Congress, when they are actually deadlocked for the vast majority of bills proposed.

Keldar wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

So Arizona will fix itself and, as much as you hate it, it's still vastly better to have a Manchin as a Senator for a state like West Virginia--even if he doesn't vote 100% of the time in line with Democrats--than to have that spot go to a Republican, who will vote 100% of the time against anything proposed by Democrats.

Manchin is pretty awful and has done a lot to stop the Democrats from passing a lot of really useful legislation. It's really frustrating to have his hands on the levers of power.

That being said, if there was a Republican in his seat, then Mitch would have full control over the Senate instead, and as much as I hate Manchin, my dislike for him is but a guttering flame next to the full world-engulfing nuclear bonfire that is my hatred for Mitch McConnell.

Also, while Manchin has f*cked up Dem legislation, both he and Sinema haven't done the same with Biden's federal judge appointments. They've voted with Democrats to get record 69 Article III judges appointed, the vast majority of them being women or people of color and much more likely to come from nontraditional backgrounds such as advocacy or academia, and more likely to have been a public defender than a prosecutor if they had a traditional background.

Without Manchin we'd be looking at more unqualified white dudes from The Federalist Society being sworn in as judges for life.

Robear wrote:

DS, corrupt or not, the fact is that the Dems don't actually have full control over their caucus is the point. Any analysis of who is responsible for policy not passing has to start with the right numbers. We can't just pretend the Democrats are actually in control of Congress, when they are actually deadlocked for the vast majority of bills proposed.

Given Manchin's and Sinema's lack of cooperation on well... just about everything; I don't think it would cost the Dem's much to boot them both out of the party. Let the R's have them for the rest of their terms and just have Biden veto any bullsh*t they come up with.

OG_slinger wrote:
Keldar wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

So Arizona will fix itself and, as much as you hate it, it's still vastly better to have a Manchin as a Senator for a state like West Virginia--even if he doesn't vote 100% of the time in line with Democrats--than to have that spot go to a Republican, who will vote 100% of the time against anything proposed by Democrats.

Manchin is pretty awful and has done a lot to stop the Democrats from passing a lot of really useful legislation. It's really frustrating to have his hands on the levers of power.

That being said, if there was a Republican in his seat, then Mitch would have full control over the Senate instead, and as much as I hate Manchin, my dislike for him is but a guttering flame next to the full world-engulfing nuclear bonfire that is my hatred for Mitch McConnell.

Also, while Manchin has f*cked up Dem legislation, both he and Sinema haven't done the same with Biden's federal judge appointments. They've voted with Democrats to get record 69 Article III judges appointed, the vast majority of them being women or people of color and much more likely to come from nontraditional backgrounds such as advocacy or academia, and more likely to have been a public defender than a prosecutor if they had a traditional background.

Without Manchin we'd be looking at more unqualified white dudes from The Federalist Society being sworn in as judges for life.

Ahh. Damn.

Well this is a start

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XA7d6cE.png)

We can only hope! Manchin is so disgusting.

Now *that* is realistic progress! Very happy to see them do the right thing.

Of course, it could mean that whoever they put up in the next race gets crushed by a Republican. But at least it would be an honest loss.

Whew that article the image is from is really damning. Manchin isn’t just a dirtbag, he’s utterly corrupt to the point where I’m honestly unsurprised the Democratic Party does so poorly in West Virginia. What a piece of absolute garbage. He’s worse than a mafioso. At least they still keep the garbage trucks running and the windows unbroken if you’re up on your protection payments.

On topic: Biden is trying to protect a woman’s choice via executive order

I'm not up on West Virginia politics, but I'm curious where this perception comes from that the choice is between Manchin or a Republican, that no actual "not just In Name Only" Democrat could ever possibly win there. A little Google-Fu doesn't exactly show a long unbroken line of nothing but Republican senators from WV before Manchin.

Right or wrong, I think the perception comes from the other WV Senate seat where Capito won 70-28 in 2020.

hbi2k wrote:

I'm not up on West Virginia politics, but I'm curious where this perception comes from that the choice is between Manchin or a Republican, that no actual "not just In Name Only" Democrat could ever possibly win there. A little Google-Fu doesn't exactly show a long unbroken line of nothing but Republican senators from WV before Manchin.

Well, I think that’s the point of the article. Prior to Manchin, West Virginia had a pretty competitive Democratic presence. But for the last two decades, Manchin’s rise within West Virginia politics - first as Secretary of State in 2001, then governor in 2005, then senator in 2010 - has coincided with rampant corruption in the party.

the intercept wrote:

The lack of Democratic support for one of the most impoverished and isolated regions of Appalachia culminated in a Republican takeover that started in the early 2000s and reached its peak with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory. In the general election against Clinton, Trump emerged with nearly 70 percent of the Mountain State vote.

While Democrats treated West Virginia as a lost cause, the state and its party apparatus fell into disrepair at the hands of Manchin, who blamed his party’s statewide failures on progressive trends in the national party rather than his own lack of incentive to help anyone but himself and his allies.

In short, Manchin’s success has been tied more to Republican success in the state than Democrat success, and he’s done more to dismantle an effective check on WV Republican rule than anyone else.

hbi2k wrote:

I'm not up on West Virginia politics, but I'm curious where this perception comes from that the choice is between Manchin or a Republican, that no actual "not just In Name Only" Democrat could ever possibly win there. A little Google-Fu doesn't exactly show a long unbroken line of nothing but Republican senators from WV before Manchin.

Trump won WV with over two thirds of the vote. It had the second highest percentage of its population voting for him in the nation, second only to Wyoming.

How competitive do you think any Democratic candidate would be in a state-wide election in a state that's that rabidly Trump (and with current levels of partisanship)? There might be pockets or districts where Democratic candidates might stand a chance, but there's a reason, per the article, that "Republicans now hold the governor’s office, supermajorities in both houses of the West Virginia Legislature, and every statewide office save for Manchin’s."

The author of the article would like us to believe that that's entirely because of Manchin and not because, say, WV's a deeply conservative, blood red state that's so White--93.1% of the population--that you can go blind just looking at it, and filled to the brim with people who just love the modern Republican party. The state hasn't collectively voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since the 1990s and since 2012 it's elected a grand total of two non-Republican US Reps or Senators.

Even the new state Democratic Party says in the article that they're not going to be competitive in state-wide elections anytime soon: "During the upcoming midterm elections, the new slate will focus on winning down-ballot races for offices like city council, county commission, state delegate, and eventually state Senate. Without a roster of candidates building trust, legitimacy, and fundraising networks at the local level, statewide offices remain out of reach."

I wish them luck, but the Democratic Party as a whole has had an exceptionally difficult time figuring out successful messages and outreach to rural Whites, especially poor rural Whites, precisely because its seen by them as the party of non-Whites. So then you have the awkward dance of Democratic candidates trying to figure out just how dog whistlely they have to be to appeal to the racism of the rural Whites, while hoping they don't go overboard and turn off reliable Democratic voters or damage the party's image.