1585

True.

But aren’t we the same group that discussed in some other topic that returning to pork was going to be… better? That adding stuff that isn’t related to what the actual bill is about actually gave us better politics… isn’t this that very idea?

1586

Pork is what you do to get the other guys to support your bill. You shouldn’t have to bribe your own guys. That’s what Pelosi is saying.

1587

ICE is a huge problem, berg like problem. I just don’t see how telling moderates they can’t be moderates which will lead to their loss in their area will help.

I don’t know why they added that extra because yeah, you’re right, it wasn’t for the benefit of the Democrats, but do we really think the Democrats are going to be able to control that message? They’ve been pretty bad so far. 26 is not a small number to turn against you.

1588

I trust Pelosi’s instincts on this, and I am very pleased to see her taking the progressive side.

1589

Nancy was a good choice.

As much as I really wanted the face of the party to shift to a younger more diverse voice, having an old pro at the helm right now seems like the right choice.

1590

AOC’s comments were pretty spot-on, honestly. The Moderates got suckered into voting for an amendment that strengthened ICE, and they ought to be slapped down for it.

“She said that when activists ask her why she had to vote for a gun safety bill that also further empowers an agency that forcibly injects kids with psychotropic drugs, they’re going to want a list of names and she’s going to give it to them." – AOC’s Spokesman

1591

Seems as if that Post story got a key part of their Dems in Disarray part 2,394 story wrong.

1592

Now this sounds a lot less like a hit list on your own party than implied with the other quote.

1594

Why not? The GOP held the House for 8 years without losing a single one of these votes. When they finally lost the House it had nothing to do with some random amendments they chose not to vote for.

1595

So some of the seats the Democrats picked up from the more moderate areas are very likely a rejection to Trump himself and the fact the GOP will not actually temper him in any meaningful way. Once Trump is gone, that rejection is also gone. Once the Democrats have hand in implementing and owning policy changes the rejection of Trump may not be that important, especially if he becomes a lame duck president… no risk of him staying at that point. If the Democrats win POTUS, also no need to full out rejection vote.

An incumbent has an advantage. Long-term, they might be able to hold that seat, but probably not if they ignore who they represent and just vote party lines.

It’s not as easy nor advisable for Democrats to try and use fear and the hate of other groups to try and get everyone to vote for them because, well the boogeyman is over there. They’re not good at trying to push that message even when they try.

So having a Democrat that votes 60-70% with the Democrats instead of a Republican that is 100% against is better. Let’s help them keep those seats by not forcing them to turn into opposite GOP, hold the party line, no voice of decent party.

1596

Ways & Means working in coordination with Oversight and Intel committees on getting 10 years of IRS returns.

1597

Again, there’s very little evidence that voting against their district on amendments like this actually hurts anyone in a re-election campaign, and they probably have more to lose by upsetting the energetic left than by doing something at best mildly unpopular in the middle. They especially can afford to vote with their party right now, with another election 20 months away. This is not at all the same thing as Manchin voting for Kavanaugh after the die was cast (though I also think he should be primaried for that, but that’s just because I really, really hate everything Kavanaugh stands for).

Strategically voting for some stuff your party doesn’t support in order to get re-elected in a swing district is great. These particular votes were dumb and these folks need to be whipped into line or the majority is going to be lost.

I like how everyone who trots out the “you have to take moderate positions to win moderate districts” line seems to assume that every vote is a lightning rod for low-information swing voters and that it’s the high-information activists who should get in line. If you lose the district because your moderate got primaried, that’s the moderate’s fault for ignoring his base.

1598

What is the benefit of voting against your own district in a case like this, where it doesn’t affect the outcome of anything?

1599

It affected the outcome, though - it added a provision most Dems were against into the bill, which then still won. Or do you mean it doesn’t matter here because the Senate isn’t going to vote on it?

1600

Maybe it don’t understand what the addition to the bill was… What exactly was the problem with it?

1601

I am SO looking forward to this. Mainly because it will make him apoplectic.

1602

Expect about 20 shit tweets about it tomorrow morning.

1603

adding a provision requiring that ICE be notified if an illegal immigrant seeks to purchase a gun

The same sources said AOC basically put out a hit job on the 26 Democrats because but how she words it sounds a lot less… vindictive and not like she’d rather hand the seat over to the Republicans rather than have a moderate remain in it.

1604

I assume that elected representatives have a pretty good handle on what drives the voting behavior in their districts. They’re not always right, obviously, but they’re probably a better judge of that than any of us.

1605

It seems like illegal immigrants shouldn’t be buying guns anyway? What exactly is so bad about that?

Like… What is the deal here? It should be harder for everyone to buy guns, except illegal immigrants?