The Biden Presidency is underway.

[Papageno]

@Alstein

since we can’t force Manchin and Sinema to shut up and color

…short of some illegal thing like blackmail with compromising pictures or something, no, so those two or three things are it, and talk about THEM to the press CONSTANTLY, and NOT about the money. But if Manchin won’t play on the climate change/GND stuff, we can’t even get that.

[Alstein]

We really need to go all out to win PA and NC in the Senate in 2022. (I feel NC will be winnable, Jeff Jackson is incredibly talented and likable, he’s like the best parts of Roy Cooper and John Edwards combined into one candidate, and his wife will make sure he doesn’t do anything stupid, she’s just as awesome)

If you get 52 Dems, Manchin and Sinema become yapping chihuahuas.

[RichVR]

Let us not insult chihuahuas, eh?

[Timex]

The best bet for the Dems would be to do good things, expand their seats in the Senate, and then they wouldn’t need to have everything ride on Manchin and Sinema. Then they could pass lots of things.

But I’m kind of skeptical that’s gonna happen.

If the Dems fight among themselves and don’t actually pass any of this stuff, soon, then they aren’t going to win in 2022.

[Papageno]

…or God forbid, in 2024, when Chucky might run again.

[Enidigm]

I mean that’s kind of like saying, “man, I could solve al the problems the world if I were made King of the Planet”.

The only way Democrats can significantly win seats in the senate is, in the short term, court rural red state voters by presumably giving up on the culture war issues (gun, abortion, immigration, and taxes). Which would almost certainly alienate their own existing party.

Long term there might be solutions, but short term it’s basically become the GOP 2.0 in order to win, by effectively accepting the GOP’s point of view and attacks on their own party and positions as true and their previous framing and policies as false.

[Timex]

@Enidigm

The only way Democrats can significantly win seats in the senate is, in the short term, court rural red state voters by presumably giving up on the culture war issues (gun, abortion, immigration, and taxes).

Or… Couldn’t they pass some of the stuff they are arguing on behalf of, like all the infrastructure stuff, which would then benefit those rural red state voters? I mean, the policy plans are supposed to benefit everyone, right? I feel like the culture war bullshit only works when it’s the only thing… If compared to concrete, actual accomplishments that people are seeing in they everyday lives, the culture war crap fades into the background.

Also, it’s worth noting that there are places like Pennsylvania where we have both a republican and democratic senator (and the Republican is retiring).

[Enidigm]

I’m extremely skeptical that Republican voters either care or understand policy enough that votes on policy would actually win.

And let’s say that the Democrat was 100% a policy advocate that GOP voters agreed with… then the GOP candidate would scream GUNS ABORTION until they win anyway.

There are some swing GOP voters that haven’t bought into the culture war but vote on policy - at this point my they have to be pretty thin on the ground, to have accepted 20 years of bad GOP decisions since Iraq 2 and nodded sagely at the wisdom of the GOP election after election and not bought into the culture war.

To short circuit the culture war trump card in politics means letting the GOP win the culture war. And a Democratic Party that did that over half the country would almost certainly tear itself apart.

[CraigM]

@Enidigm

To short circuit the culture war trump card in politics means letting the GOP win the culture war. And a Democratic Party that did that over half the country would almost certainly tear itself apart.

To do as you suggest, and become GOP2.0, now with 60% less racism would lead to many giving up on the political system as a means of change. And, to be clear, I would be among them. You want to see the demise of the Democratic party, that would do it. As many people would abandon them.

[Alstein]

As long as Manchin is primarily acting out of self-interest, Dems can’t pass much that’s good.

(this isn’t even counting what Sinema is being bribed with)

I’d argue 2020 was a culture war election, and we won it. With Republicans being the party of Trump, I’d honestly run on (do you want to go back to being afraid of civil war, totalitarianism, horror and death again, vote for us and we’ll try to do good, but we can at least make sure that doesn’t come back)

[RichVR]

Doesn’t “big coal” have him in their pocket?

[Timex]

@Alstein

As long as Manchin is primarily acting out of self-interest, Dems can’t pass much that’s good.

Not unless you get more seats… Although Manchin does in fact support lots of things you would consider good.

[Sharpe]

If it was purely a matter of pockets nobody has a deeper pocket than the US Congress- especially in the context of a multi trillion dollar spending bill. That’s why so many of us for so long thought a deal could be made with Manchin. I no longer believe that. I can’t read his mind but his pattern of conduct looks more like someone who imagines he is making a Stand On Serious Principle than someone who is willing to make a deal. If a deal for all or most of the Dem bill was possible imo it would already have been made, months ago. I no longer have any hope for a deal permitting all or most of the bill, but something substantially less might be possible.

[RichVR]

Then I guess I’m in the pass something crowd. Something is better than nothing. And I suppose that I will be told how wrong I am.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

Couldn’t they pass some of the stuff they are arguing on behalf of, like all the infrastructure stuff, which would then benefit those rural red state voters?

Do you really believe that stuff isn’t going to pass? Want to buy a bridge lol?

[Strollen]

@Sharpe

Of course, everyone will argue about what the “big 3” things are but I think there are strong arguments to cut the bill down to these 3 things:

1)Investment in environmental infrastructure/energy research/green jobs
2)child tax credit without a lot of BS means and work testing
3)health care subsidies, primarily ACA subsidies

#1 IMO is the kind of “pumping money into the economy” that we need, combined with an environment focus for the long term, and b/c it can be presented politically as being about jobs, is a political winner.

#2 is also good policy and if unencumbered is of benefit to a broad swathe of the population and is also a political winner

#3 is another broad based benefit that is a political winner and is also much needed.

I agree with #1. It is going to be a tough with Manchin, but maybe if you throw in some worker retraining for WV coal miners he might be ok. I don’t think we need to pump more into the economy but of all of the priorities, I think the environment is the one we can least afford to wait on.

2. Phasing out child care tax somewhere around 400% of FPL, same as ACA makes sense to me and should disappear once you get in the top 20% (~150K/couple). Reduce the cost by 20% or so.
   Making the tax system more progressive,is good, I don’t understand the need to lower the taxes on the wealthy.

3. I’d say child care would be the next choice. Ideally, I’d copy the US military child care system.
   Lessons on Child Care, From the Military - The New York Times

I think the ACA subsidies are plenty generous.

[Alstein]

He is big coal.

[scottagibson]

This is actually a great perspective on the difference between Manchin’s maximum number and the progressive’s minimum number.

Steven Dennis

[Timex]

@scottagibson

Do you really believe that stuff isn’t going to pass?

It needs to pass soon enough to have an impact on the election cycle next year.

If you think that is guaranteed, you have more faith than I do.

[scottagibson]

@Timex

If you think that is guaranteed, you have more faith than I do.

I don’t think anything is guaranteed, but I also think that’s going to pass, probably by the end of November or so.