mtutiger

If you take him at face value, he wants to vote YES. Reports are that he even promoted an alternative bill (PreK for 10 Yrs, ACA Extension + climate) when he last met with the President. If you don't agree with him there, I'd argue you probably don't hold the same position he does.

By all accounts, Manchin seems to still be open to a bill, just not as constructed by the House. So if you are opposed to any BBB bill in any form, that would mean that you are not aligned with his perspective.

Will you be aligned with his perspective when he eventually supports a BBB bill? The situation with Manchin is really similar to Bart Stupak during the Obamacare... conservatives loved him when his concerns on public funding for abortion put the bill in peril, only to harass him and make death threats after eventually supporting the bill once his concerns were allayed. Similarly, conservatives like Manchin now, but will drop him like a hot rock when they eventually coalesce around a bill they can all agree on.

Of course, this guy's hot take assumes that McConnell isn't Majority Leader on the Earth 2.0 Sanders Presidency

Even setting aside the idea that job growth from renewables could be aimed at that sector, BBB also extends fees paid by coal companies toward victims of black lung. It goes against the narrative, but there are definitely incentives to support this legislation if one comes from a coal background.

He was just made permanent 1B coach as well.... terrible.

Every time I see him post, I'm reminded of how Jim Nantz called him "Cart Man" during the Cowboys Thanksgiving game lol

Now this is the kinda pressure you put on Manchin...

You made a post about how fears of fascism isn't enough to break through to the jobs voter - I respond back that climate may suffer from the same issue. I interpreted your comment about "jobs voters" as covering a wide spectrum, not just limited to progressive voters. So yeah, maybe climate appeals to progressive "jobs voters".... but does it persuade other "jobs voters"?

The Democrats only need progressive votes to win elections?

Obviously it's not abstract for progressives.... how about for people who are not progressive? That average person that fife speaks of who doesn't sit around and think about this stuff like we all do? I see what fife is saying with fears of fascism not being sufficient a platform to run on.... obviously he's correct. But I'd also argue that Democrats (progressives included) are generally pretty bad at marketing their platforms to the average person., and climate change may be one of the better examples of their ineffectiveness.

Couldn't the same thing be said about climate change funding in the BBB? Isn't that pretty abstract to the average person as well?

I feel like I've read some stories over the past year about GOP politicians in Florida showing signs of being more concerned about climate change than in the past. Of course, it's not being reflected at all at the federal level (particularly from Rick Scott)

This is 100% accurate. It's not good enough to have great solutions, you have to market it in a way that the broader population will be attentive to. And that means marketing to people who aren't necessarily high in terms of educational attainment and may live in areas that are less hospitable toward liberal politics. Also marketing to people who have day to day concerns (like putting food on the table) that make things like climate change seem abstract in contrast. And the communication between Democratic politicians on these big issues (all of them - moderate and progressive) is generally pretty poor. You have to make the case why this stuff matters, not just to your friend group, but to people who may be hostile to your own world view.

IDK... I just think cultural issues have a lot more salience now than economic ones. And unfortunately, that disadvantages the Dems in a lot of the country.

Question text is important. And the reality is, for the majority of Americans who don't focus on this stuff as much as we do, should a bill eventually pass, it isn't gonna be thought of for each of its constituent parts complete with a rosy narrative as it is framed by DFP, it'll be thought of as "Joe Biden's BBB bill" And when you are talking about a state like West Virginia, where the President lost by almost 45 points, it seems important to take that into account instead of just saying "ackshully, the bill is popular, because DFP poll" I dont like it anymore than you do, but pretending that negative partisanship doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.

Are you really arguing that Joe Biden's standing in a particular state is irrelevant to a discussion about the popularity of his agenda in that state? Again, don't know what to tell you.

There was a poll conducted of West Virginia on 3 November last year. And Joe Biden lost it by nearly 45 points. If one really believes that if the question were framed as being Joe Biden's bill (as it inevitably would be should a bill pass) and that West Virginians would subsequently approve 65-35, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe, just maybe, Joe Manchin understands his state better than social media and message board randos?

On the discussion of length of time, will people acknowledge that giving the population a benefit for 2-3 years and having them taken away once they sunset may not exactly be a political gold mine?

One big issue I see with the discussion around this bill is that it supposes its the "be all end all" in its current form.... But there are a lot of pitfalls that come with a grab bag approach with many programs that all sunset in two years. Not to mention the utility of some of these programs (PreK is an excellent example - it's not clear how accessible it will be to many Americans depending on what state they live in). On one hand, I see "pass the bill to motivate the base", but is it a guarantee that the bill as written will have no downsides when implemented? I just think that philosophical debate about amount of programs and years is the thing that needs to be figured out. Dem leaders tried to plow ahead without engaging Manchin on that, given his consistency on that complaint. The end result may be something like 2-3 programs for 10 years + climate... if the programs are well implemented, I don't see how that wouldn't be a win in this environment.

Cool. Have a great night!

Yep, I was wrong. I apologize. Do you want to discuss programs/length and how that may be a legit sticking point, or am I just wasting my time trying to talk about this stuff with you?

I literally gave you a specific reason why he may not support the current iteration - that he has repeated frequently over the past few months and reiterated this morning on FOX - in the paragraphs that you didn't quote. Again, the debate about how many programs/how long was never really dealt with in this process. And yeah, if Manchin has a philosophical difference with the House bill on that subject, that seems like something that could be a roadblock.