Manchin says no, leftist heads explode...

[seer]

Omar, Sanders slam Manchin for rejecting Build Back Better: ‘I think it’s bull

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oma...ld-back-better

[Ronson]

I'm not sure what his motives are here. Even if he is the proverbial broken clock that tells the right time twice a day, I am happy with the result.

[seer]

I'm not sure what his motives are here. Even if he is the proverbial broken clock that tells the right time twice a day, I am happy with the result.

He may be hearing from the voters in WV...

[Starlight]

Sounds like he's expecting to lose his next election in WV and is moving as far to the right as he can, and even seriously thinking about changing to Republican.

If he refuses to vote for basic Dem policy though, that means the Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything given Republican obstructionism. So Biden won't be able to do anything in his presidency and the Dems will tank badly in the next election because low-information voters will punish him for doing nothing without realizing it was the lack of a Dem majority and Republican obstructionism that meant he did nothing.

[Mountain Man]

If he refuses to vote for basic Dem policy though, that means the Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything given Republican obstructionism.

[rogue06]

Manchin isn't up for reelection this midterm but rather in 2024.

Unintended consequence: Could this now provide cover for a couple in-danger Democrats to not vote for the measure as well -- likely abstaining?

[Ronson]

Sounds like he's expecting to lose his next election in WV and is moving as far to the right as he can, and even seriously thinking about changing to Republican.

If he refuses to vote for basic Dem policy though, that means the Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything given Republican obstructionism. So Biden won't be able to do anything in his presidency and the Dems will tank badly in the next election because low-information voters will punish him for doing nothing without realizing it was the lack of a Dem majority and Republican obstructionism that meant he did nothing.

Considering he's still in his first year, Biden's numbers are quite awful already. You can't blame Manchin for that.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sounds like he's expecting to lose his next election in WV and is moving as far to the right as he can, and even seriously thinking about changing to Republican.

If he refuses to vote for basic Dem policy though, that means the Dems don't have the numbers to pass anything given Republican obstructionism. So Biden won't be able to do anything in his presidency and the Dems will tank badly in the next election because low-information voters will punish him for doing nothing without realizing it was the lack of a Dem majority and Republican obstructionism that meant he did nothing.

So, what you are saying is that the democrat agenda is facing bi-partisan majority opposition.

[Starlight]

Considering he's still in his first year, Biden's numbers are quite awful already. You can't blame Manchin for that.

Biden has turned out to be a bad president. Can't say I'm surprised, as that's what I was expecting and predicting. As I said at the time, the Dems would have been vastly better nominating Bernie Sanders - he remains today the most popular major US political figure in polling.

[Starlight]

So, what you are saying is that the democrat agenda is facing bi-partisan majority opposition.

A majority of elected representatives, sure. It's hugely popular among the US population in polling though.

The US should try actual democracy some time, and experiment with actually passing some popular legislation instead of just letting the servants of the elites, like Manchin and the Republicans, veto popular bills.

[seanD]

Biden has turned out to be a bad president. Can't say I'm surprised, as that's what I was expecting and predicting. As I said at the time, the Dems would have been vastly better nominating Bernie Sanders - he remains today the most popular major US political figure in polling.

The term "red wave" doesn't mean Dems want more insane progressive policies, but less insane progressive policies, otherwise there wouldn't be the concept of a red wave.

[Starlight]

The term "red wave" doesn't mean Dems want more insane progressive policies, but less insane progressive policies, otherwise there wouldn't be the concept of a red wave.

Waves tend to occur because opposition voters are more motivated in non-presidential elections, and if the president isn't popular many people on the fence will vote for the other party to give them 'a turn'.

People who are strongly against progressive policies would always have voted and voted the same regardless, so they are not the ones causing a bigger than normal wave.

If people actually voted for policies they wanted, and if this filtered through to which politicians got elected and what policies they passed, then the US would be very progressive. However due to manipulations of the system, you can get things like the majority of people in Wisconsin casting votes for Democrats, but Republicans winning a super-majority of seats in that state election. So progressive policies do very well when put on ballot referendums (e.g. Florida passed a $15 / hour minimum wage ballot measure) because they are popular, but at the national level the elites are able to buy off enough of the politicians to stop progressive policies that poll at 70% or 80% nationally being passed.

[seanD]

Waves tend to occur because opposition voters are more motivated in non-presidential elections, and if the president isn't popular many people on the fence will vote for the other party to give them 'a turn'.

People who are strongly against progressive policies would always have voted and voted the same regardless, so they are not the ones causing a bigger than normal wave.

Problem with your explanation is that the red wave started long before it was clear the loony progressive policies Dems were trying to pass would be a sure failure. It's more likely the red wave just started to happen as details of the loony progressive spending plans were coming more to public light.

[seer]

As I said at the time, the Dems would have been vastly better nominating Bernie Sanders - he remains today the most popular major US political figure in polling.

If he is the most popular politician how come he couldn't even get the Democrat nomination?

[Starlight]

If he is the most popular politician how come he couldn't even get the Democrat nomination?

Sanders is more popular among Republican voters than Biden, but they don't vote in the Dem primary. Also Obama and the MSM convinced everyone that Biden was more "electable" against Trump than Sanders and Dem voters are used to being told they have to compromise on their personal preferences in the name of 'electability'.