At this point in time, Manchin has somehow gotten himself elected as a Democratic Senator in a State that went +42 for Trump in 2016 and +38 for Trump in 2020. It would be akin to Vermont electing a Republican Senator in 2022. So Manchin knows what he’s doing. At some level he has to be seen to be “standing up” to Schumer in order to even have a shot of winning election. In 2018 a number of moderate incumbent Democratic Senators in red states lost and lost big (Heitkamp lost by 10 points for one), but Manchin survived.
Odd, but okay. I said “cash in” as in cash, as in fiscal rewards. Everyone will buy his book, all the lobbyists will want him, the think tanks and the foundations. He will charge 6 figures for giving keynote speeches. That’s what I mean by “cash in”.
Not sure how that could possibly be construed as saying that he had political ambitions, especially not presidential. I even mentioned that this would be the case even if he was voted out.
Which means he has virtually no chance of being reelected no matter what he does.
How is that question in any way related to what I actually said?
Did you read his WP op-ed? It’s not about what he can deliver to W.V., it is about he’s the man above the fray, the lone bipartisan. It’s all about him, it has nothing to do with his constituents.
How did he get re-elected in 2018?
By a much narrower margin than in 2012.
Ah, thanks.
But he still pulled it off, where just about every other moderate Senate Democrat lost - and some by a wide swath.
Yeah, he ran against a lackluster opponent, one that no one really liked. All the Democrats turned out to vote against Trump by proxy, and many Republicans stayed home because their favored candidate was not on the ballot.
2022 will make a change in the landscape. One way or the other it is unlikely that he will still be the 50th vote.
2024 will be a presidential race, so he will not be able to count on Republicans staying home, not in a state that went so overwhelmingly for the last Republican president.
I’ll agree with you that he’s not stupid, that he knows what he is doing. And he knows that he has 2 years left in the spotlight, and 4 years left in the Senate. He’s going to milk that for all he can.
Did you read his op-ed? It was full of historical revisionism and some very poor misrepresentations of contemporary issues.
If nothing else, he claims that eliminating the filibuster will create gridlock, even though it is obvious to anyone that for the last decade and more, the filibuster has been used to prevent passage of legislation. He makes it sound like they got rid of the judiciary filibuster on a whim, rather than due to the fact that it was being used to block nominees that would be easily voted in.
If he was making it about his state, and he was simply putting the needs of his state above that of the country, as @QuickSilver seems to be claiming, then he would be talking about bringing back earmarks, so that he could bring money back to his state in exchange for his vote on much needed legislation. Instead, he’s throwing the Democrats under the bus, and casting the Republicans as the victims of democracy.
I make the claim because I find it hard to imagine that he will “cash in” by standing in the way of major Democratic platform agenda. Republicans in W.V. won’t reward him for it through votes nor in the Senate for reaching across the aisle. History won’t reward him for opposing his own party. The only way he stands a chance of cashing in with respect to legacy and perhaps even another state election victory if he manages to bring in jobs to his state. It may be premature to pile in earmarks to an infrastructure bill, but I suspect he is negotiating favors with Dem leadership for his vote to support the bill when it comes time.
That’s my view on what’s driving his recent actions. Maybe I’m completely out of touch. But it’s the best explanation I have that makes the most sense. I’m open to having my mind changed by a more compelling argument.
This was true, but as of 5 April, the playing field has changed:
As I understand it, the Parliamentarian has judged that the rules allow for bills that are a revision of previously passed budget legislation, to be passed under reconciliation. What kind of and how much legislation the Senate Democrats can squeeze into that narrow opening has yet to be seen, but you can bet Schumer has his best creative writing team on it.
Like I said, if he was looking to do that, he’d be talking about earmarks. As it currently is, he would be unable to bring those jobs to his state, and he’s making no moves in the direction of changing that.
You are still talking political rewards, when I have specifically said that I think he’s in it for fiscal rewards. That’s what I have said repeatedly, and why I am using the words, “cashing in.”
I think he sees the writing on the wall, and that his political career is over in 2024, and in 2022, his political power will have waned substantially. He’s not looking to advance in politics, he’s looking to sell books, get speaking fees, and get paid for lobbying efforts.
A I said, I’m sure that they will manage to fit whatever it is they want to pass into reconciliation. They are still limited to 3 bills a year though.
Force a quorum.
Maybe they can rotate but they all have to sit in the chamber while someone reads the phone book for days and days.
That’s why this ruling was significant.
Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that Section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 can allow for multiple reconciliation bills per fiscal year. The parliamentarian is an expert on the obscure procedures of the Senate, and determines whether certain actions are permitted under Senate rules.
MacDonough determined that Section 304 would allow for a second reconciliation process to be used this fiscal year, because it says “the two Houses may adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget which revises or reaffirms the concurrent resolution on the budget for such fiscal year most recently agreed to.”
As I understand it (and a great many details are yet uncertain), if a new resolution can be tied to an already-passed resolution and passes the same requirements for reconciliation, then the new bill may also be considered under reconciliation. If Schumer can squeeze bills through this “revises or reaffirms” gap, he has as many bites at the apple as he can get affirmed by the Parliamentarian.
Democrats have not yet decided (or, at least, let anyone know) what they are going to do with this decision, and Manchin has already decried playing games with the process, but you know Schumer is not going to let this opportunity go to waste.
Interesting. Above my pay grade, but I suppose it means that they can have more than the 3, somehow…
And that’s the other part, if Manchin refuses to vote on a bill because he doesn’t agree with the Parliamentarian’s interpretation, then we are pretty much back to square one.
In public, or next to a live mike?
Or in the corners of the Senate and the parking garage and so on, where he thinks nobody he doesn’t want to can hear him?
I suspect earmarks are indeed part of the discussion. But we’re not hearing that part of the discussion.
I’d say in public. It is something that would need popular support before it can go anywhere.
I doubt a whole lot of members of the public are paying much attention to the earmark issue one way or the other, though they certainly pay attention to whether things local to them get funded; and breaking the filibuster, to the extent most people are paying attention to that, probably already has as much public support as it’s going to.
What both of them need is congressional support. And if Manchin’s support for breaking the filibuster is dependent on him getting himself some earmarks, that’s the kind of thing that works better not said in public.
I don’t know whether that is what he’s trying to accomplish, though I think it’s possible. But if it is what’s going on, I strongly suspect that the first we’ll know of it (barring a live mike somewhere it wasn’t expected) will be the results.
The problem is that the Democrats are already approaching the limits of what parts of their agenda they can reasonably pass through budget reconciliation. The stimulus was a pretty textbook reconciliation matter – directing spending and monkeying with the tax code. But even then they were stymied on a minimum wage increase. Much of Biden’s infrastructure package could probably fit under reconciliation. At heart, it’s about directing additional spending toward existing infrastructure support programs and altering the tax code to pay for it. But reconciliation is a particularly terrible way to pass infrastructure legislation, as many infrastructure projects require years or decades to reach fruition but due to reconciliation rules the spending has to expire after ten years.
But voting rights, health care, immigration, judiciary reform, civil rights, gun control, and other priorities that aren’t strictly about taxing and spending would likely be ineligible for the reconciliation process. Maybe Chuck Schumer has some master plan for fitting these round pegs through the square hole of budget reconciliation, but at that point might as well just eliminate the filibuster because that’s effectively what you’ve done anyway.
As a West Virginian I hope he does bring home some money but I doubt it.
Basically he is worthless as was Byrd before him. He gets lots of hyped expenditures that sound good if you haven’t lived anywhere they have good senators. I lived in Colorado for years and saw how it is supposed to work. In his last election I believe it was 26 goodies they gave to senators with 22 senators running and he got none. If a colorado senator was in his current position they would be announcing a billion dollar project every week but he has gotten us nothing.