mtutiger

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.

And I've already stated that I believe that he (and his voting record) are well to the left of where the median voter in his state sits right now. The fact that he has supported a number of things Biden has proposed to date reflects that. Maybe, just maybe, he doesn't agree with aspects of how the current bill is? Maybe he doesn't like that its a grab bag of programs that only last for 2 years instead of a few programs set to last for 10? That's actually a legit criticism of the House bill, and he has repeated it over and over and it really hasn't been dealt with... Instead, when he makes his statement today (reiterating this criticism), people act shocked and angered, as if they haven't been paying attention. And talk about Lucy and the football and all that crap. I'm just sort of tired of it... the situation is what it is. He's number 50, figure something out that he'll go with and take the W.

And as I said to Tater, you could write that question as "Joe Biden's BBB Bill" and get a drastically different result. Because negative partisanship is a thing.

I mean, there's a reason that Paula Jean Swearingen got her ass kicked against Capito last cycle.... I believe he understands his state better than we do and that, if anything, he is well to the left of average for West Virginians. It is what it is. Again, I don't love having to rely on his vote. But on the other hand, Russ Feingold, Katie McGinty, Bill Nelson, Sara Gideon.... There have been countless Senate races that could have been won over the past four years that would have made that 50th Senator someone aside from Joe Manchin. But they weren't, this is what we have. And you don't fix it by taking your bat and ball and going home, you do it by electing more people so he's not your 50th vote.

Did they poll Joe Biden's BBB bill? Thats the problem with issue polling... the moment you link the issue with an actual politician (especially one who lost a state by almost 45 points), I'd bet those numbers are big time underwater.

Joe Manchin, the guy who basically gives the D the Senate majority at the moment, represents a state that Trump won by almost 45%. If he were strictly doing shit that voters in his state wanted, he wouldn't even be at the negotiating table.

More passion in those 90 seconds than in three years of Matty P

The facts are what they are, but at the end of the day, none of that is gonna change Manchin's position. And over and over through this negotiation, people have basically pretended that Manchin doesn't exist or that they can just plow forward on all of this stuff without him. I get it, it sucks... I'm certainly not a huge fan of his. But you have to play with the team that you have. And they are playing with 50 Senators and a VP tiebreaker. Which ain't much.. No amount of pretending otherwise will change that. So figure out something that will get the 50+1, and get it done. Same as it ever was.

This additional context in Manchin's statement this morning is where the rubber meets the road. There has been a philosophical divide on doing less for longer or doing more for shorter, and it hasn't been clear throughout this process that this discrepancy has been dealt with.

Concerns about our own domestic situation notwithstanding, the past couple of years haven't exactly been great for far right parties.... blocked out of power in Israel by a grand coalition, divided in France, little gain in Germany, set to lose tonight in Chile. And even Orban is facing a united opposition coming up.

I hope so, but AOC's comments have a real "Freedom Caucus" vibe to them that concerns me

Yes, but even if they come to a bill that wins his approval, is there any guarantee there are sufficient votes in the House? Its a real pickle because I'm not sure there are enough reps that will set aside their righteous anger to vote for a bill that can pass this Senate.

The amount of denial is what gets me... it always gets framed as being this massive majority that they possess in both houses, and it really isn't. Particularly in the Senate, where, between securing the vote of the median Senator (ie. Manchin) and the possibility that someone like Leahy or Feinstein could keel over, there is no margin for error at all.. It's like the progressives just prefer to pretend that reality doesn't exist. Its real echo chamber stuff.

One would think that the best course of action would be to elect additional Senators that would make Manchin's vote less critical, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Check off all their boxes (which, as we've discussed, is a lot harder in practice when you take in account the structure of government). Seriously, I don't know the answer. Itd be nice to think there would be some reflection on what staying home acccomplishes when the SCOTUS dismembers Roe, but I doubt it.

Just from my observation, a lot of people in my cohort are very rigid in their politics. Such that they want the accomplishments they want when they want them, and failure to succeed in getting those accomplishments is abject failure. And, frankly, they seem oblivious to political reality in terms of structure of government. What it misses is that, again, we don't elect Kings in this country. A President has a lot of power, but he or she still has to pass legislation to get things done. And right now, you have a small majority in the House and a practically nonexistent majority in the Senate with which to work with, which includes Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Taking that into account, and knowing how the opposition is, it's impressive that they have gotten as much done as they have. But instead of using the current predicament as motivation to persuade or to elect different politicians, all we hear about is complaining about how ones vote doesn't matter and that they'll stay home. Republicans? They don't do that shit.... they'll complain about their politicians but will still show up in big numbers. Young D voters? You either check off all my boxes or I'll stay home.