The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Yea, that's not an oops. I was very surprised to learn about this legislation, didn't think Dems would actually go that far. And then we learned they won't.
elliseamos wrote:
Yet
I was surprised given that Biden just announced the commission to look into it. I'm guessing that these members were trying to hold Biden's/party leadership's feet to the fire on this one. They probably assume, like I do, that the commission is symbolic and just a way for Biden to say "I considered it, but..."
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Yeah, this is just one group within the caucus demonstrating how easily they can make this a public discussion if leadership doesn’t take steps.
I’m not sure I would assume that because this bill is about the court, the conversation they’re trying to force is about the court though. It might be that they want to talk about something less explosive, or that they see behind the scenes negotiations re: something like hr1 going in a direction they don’t like, and so are saying “look, if you don’t take a hard line on that, this is what is left for me to do.”
I’m not sure I would assume that because this bill is about the court, the conversation they’re trying to force is about the court though. It might be that they want to talk about something less explosive, or that they see behind the scenes negotiations re: something like hr1 going in a direction they don’t like, and so are saying “look, if you don’t take a hard line on that, this is what is left for me to do.”
Good point.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
I disagree that TX6 is a good indicator of anything at a midterm level. It’s a ranked choice primary with 21 candidates in it, held on a Saturday. One of the candidates is a widow of the former representative, who is recently deceased. The district consistently leans red (it hasn’t had a Democratic representative in 30 years), and is about to be redrawn by Republicans and so almost certainly about to become redder:
There was virtually no messaging on the Democratic side about this special, even at the state level. I think they looked at the logistics and expenses of getting out the vote for a jungle primary on a Saturday, in the name of a district that hasn’t gone blue in a series of decades and will be redrawn as untenable for them before the midterms, and decided it wasn’t worth it.
But the Republican side is really where I deviate from “this looks good for Rs” takes…
I mentioned that one of the candidates (Susan Wright) is the widow of the previous representative, who died in office. She’s also got Donald Trump’s support and has adopted much of his rhetoric. She came in first in the ranked choice voting.
Second place went to Jake Ellzey, whose relative bipartisanship and connection to “never-Trump” figures has made him a target of Trump Party organizations and figures. Everyone from the Club for Growth to Ted Cruz to Tucker Carlson got involved in opposing him. And again…he made the cutoff anyway.
So while Republican turnout looks pretty good on the surface, in reality that turnout was about two feuding sides of the party vying for district power against each other. Republicans were turning out primarily to oppose other Republicans, and I would argue that’s actually a very bad sign. Districts all over the country are populated by Republicans who oppose the Trump version of the party, and Republicans who will accept nothing but. You can re-draw a district in Texas until Democrats are no longer viable, and then spend your resources fighting each other for control. You can’t do that everywhere. You can’t even come close.
An incredible level of party unity has always been an advantage for Republicans, and seeing the debate over the future of the party spill into primaries and elections like this is, if anything, a warning sign.
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8891 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
McParadigm wrote:
I disagree that TX6 is a good indicator of anything at a midterm level. It’s a ranked choice primary with 21 candidates in it, held on a Saturday. One of the candidates is a widow of the former representative, who is recently deceased. The district consistently leans red (it hasn’t had a Democratic representative in 30 years), and is about to be redrawn by Republicans and so almost certainly about to become redder:
There was virtually no messaging on the Democratic side about this special, even at the state level. I think they looked at the logistics and expenses of getting out the vote for a jungle primary on a Saturday, in the name of a district that hasn’t gone blue in a series of decades and will be redrawn as untenable for them before the midterms, and decided it wasn’t worth it.
But the Republican side is really where I deviate from “this looks good for Rs” takes…
I mentioned that one of the candidates (Susan Wright) is the widow of the previous representative, who died in office. She’s also got Donald Trump’s support and has adopted much of his rhetoric. She came in first in the ranked choice voting.
Second place went to Jake Ellzey, whose relative bipartisanship and connection to “never-Trump” figures has made him a target of Trump Party organizations and figures. Everyone from the Club for Growth to Ted Cruz to Tucker Carlson got involved in opposing him. And again…he made the cutoff anyway.
So while Republican turnout looks pretty good on the surface, in reality that turnout was about two feuding sides of the party vying for district power against each other. Republicans were turning out primarily to oppose other Republicans, and I would argue that’s actually a very bad sign. Districts all over the country are populated by Republicans who oppose the Trump version of the party, and Republicans who will accept nothing but. You can re-draw a district in Texas until Democrats are no longer viable, and then spend your resources fighting each other for control. You can’t do that everywhere. You can’t even come close.
An incredible level of party unity has always been an advantage for Republicans, and seeing the debate over the future of the party spill into primaries and elections like this is, if anything, a warning sign.
I'm sure they'll sort things out to block never trumpers from voting too.
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47014 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable moderate stance to me: Ending gerrymandering is vital. ID laws are a reasonable request for your average uninformed citizen to feel a sense of security about their votes, and leave mail-in and public funding up to the states.
Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm Posts: 22487 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
He can go to hell with that Voter ID horseshit. Has ANY Voter ID passed through the courts as anything other than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise vulnerable populations?
_________________ Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
Here’s the thing: I think it’s fine. I consider it insufficient, and I strongly dislike some items, but after several decades of watching legislation form and fail I’d be super impressed if I saw a bill like this pass.
But my issue here is: so what? Manchin cannot believe Republicans would support this list as legislation, even as it gives them some of what they want (voter ID, etc). Maybe one of two would…not ten. Not enough.
His whole point has been that he opposes legislation that can’t win bipartisan support. Now he passes around to colleagues a proposal that he *must know* can’t win bipartisan support.
Maybe he sees reconciliation coming down the pike and wants to sway the direction it goes. Maybe he really is naive enough to think this will work. Or maybe this list is just a way to look like he’s trying to produce a solution. But I have a hard time believing that he expects this to be an answer to the bipartisanship void.
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8891 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
McParadigm wrote:
The full list Manchin’s office circulated
Here’s the thing: I think it’s fine. I consider it insufficient, and I strongly dislike some items, but after several decades of watching legislation form and fail I’d be super impressed if I saw a bill like this pass.
But my issue here is: so what? Manchin cannot believe Republicans would support this list as legislation, even as it gives them some of what they want (voter ID, etc). Maybe one of two would…not ten. Not enough.
His whole point has been that he opposes legislation that can’t win bipartisan support. Now he passes around to colleagues a proposal that he *must know* can’t win bipartisan support.
Maybe he sees reconciliation coming down the pike and wants to sway the direction it goes. Maybe he really is naive enough to think this will work. Or maybe this list is just a way to look like he’s trying to produce a solution. But I have a hard time believing that he expects this to be an answer to the bipartisanship void.
If it's reconciliation you want, have I got a doozy of a list for you, Joe!
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
tragabigzanda wrote:
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable moderate stance to me: Ending gerrymandering is vital. ID laws are a reasonable request for your average uninformed citizen to feel a sense of security about their votes, and leave mail-in and public funding up to the states.
Yeah but my point is that ending gerrymandering is absolutely anti-vital to the GOP, and it's risible that Manchin really thinks he can get 10 Republican senators on board with that.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
B wrote:
He can go to hell with that Voter ID horseshit. Has ANY Voter ID passed through the courts as anything other than a transparent attempt to disenfranchise vulnerable populations?
By none other than that uber-reactionary (checks notes) John Paul Stevens.
(And yes, Stevens was 100% dead wrong on this opinion.)
Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm Posts: 47014 Location: In the oatmeal aisle wearing a Shellac shirt
Green Habit wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable moderate stance to me: Ending gerrymandering is vital. ID laws are a reasonable request for your average uninformed citizen to feel a sense of security about their votes, and leave mail-in and public funding up to the states.
Yeah but my point is that ending gerrymandering is absolutely anti-vital to the GOP, and it's risible that Manchin really thinks he can get 10 Republican senators on board with that.
I don’t know enough about the magical list of senators to have an opinion, but if you think it’s a really long shot, then I’ll buy that
Haha. Doesn't Roy want the golden parachute Manchin & Lieberman were selling?! What is he doing?!
He’s not seeking re-election. He probably doesn’t give a shit.
He's referring to the article in this post where Manchin is on a Zoom call with some billionaire donors and it's implied that a cushy job where he counts fat stacks could be waiting for Blount if he plays ball.
_________________ "I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
