From CNN: Clyburn says there's a "possibility" that 9/27 vote on bipartisan bill will be delayed

[Fiendish Thingy]

https://apple.news/AYe-I6m9LTLevOPjjcLJd_A

Not to say I told you so, but I did.

Pelosi will not bring the bipartisan bill up for a vote unless and until the senate passes the reconciliation bill, in whatever form it may end up.

[msongs]

1. saboteurs torpedoing the biden democrats agenda? nt

[The Magistrate]

2. Our 'Centerist' Contingent, Ma'am

Needs to get with the program....

[Demsrule86]

5. That is not going to happen. I doubt Manchin or Sinema will change their minds. I am not

convinced either plan to run for reelection which means since Sinema is up in 22 that we have to elect another Democrat to replace her. This is a disaster. I know many here think that Sinema and Manchin will cave that we can play hardball and win ... I hope this is true, but I don't think it is. We could pass the bipartisan bill...get something accomplished to run on in 22...and then come back for more after the election with a stronger majority.

Putting the GOP in charge of Congress will be a disaster with endless investigations, and it places long-term democratic gains like social security in serious danger. It is a serious political miscalculation on our part. The idea of holding the bipartisan bill hostage has always been a bad idea. We have a real chance to add to our majority in 22, unlike other midterms years...This will be a self-inflicted wound which is the worst kind.

[GoodRaisin]

9. Sinema's term

isn’t up until 2024. Don’t know that matters much as to whether she will cave or not though. I actually don’t think she will cave on the 3.5T. More likely that there will be more negotiation on the reconciliation bill so that both bills get passed in the end.

[Demsrule86]

7. The moderates wanted to vote on the bipartisan bill before the reconciliation bill ...fearing

that what is happening now would happen. The Progressive side can walk away from the bipartisan bill, they are all in safe blue districts, but moderate house members in red and blue states will lose in the midterms and we have endangered Senator as well. In this truly awful scenario, We will likely lose our congressional majority How does that help us?" We walk away with nothing, and McConnell or maybe someone even worse is back in charge-defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

[The Magistrate]

8. The Onus, Ma'am, Is On the 'Centerist' Contingent

If they do not stand with the Party, and vote whole hog, then we go down to defeat. And when we do, it will be 'centerists' who lose. Their only chance is to enact popular policies, and go to the polls crying them up.

What the progressive caucus is saying is that if the 'centerists' do not vote for both bills, then none will be had, and they do it only after the 'centerists' have made clear they only want the one.

Do not attempt to blame any stalemate on the people willing and eager to vote for the full popular program of the Party. It is clear who is pitching a spanner in the works, and on them the responsibility for failure must rest.

[OnDoutside]

14. Well said.

[BlueLucy]

17. I agree 100%

[Demsrule86]

24. It is not the moderates in the house, and they have no power to change this...

So it is not on them. And what you fail to consider is the cost to our party and our Republic if we lose the House which we will if this bill goes down...and we get nothing. We will be seen as failing to govern...this idea that we have all this power in a closely divided house and a 50 50 Senate is madness. We don't. This is being handled badly by those who don't need to worry about getting elected in safe Democratic districts. They don't understand what it takes to get elected in moderate and red districts as a Democrat.

[OnDoutside]

13. There's no fear in this. "Moderates" want to go with the bipartisan

deal first, and then collapse the 3.5tn deal because it hurts their donors. Fortunately the likes of Pelosi and Jayapal didn't come down in the last shower. It's all or nothing, and if it's nothing, good luck to them explaining that away at the midterms.

[The Magistrate]

19. Exactly, Sir

It is a surprisingly simple situation.

I will defend 'centerists' against almost any charge when we are out of power, because the first need is to gain a majority, since without one nothing can be done, and the enemy can do so much.

When we have a majority, I will not defend, and will even attack, 'centerists' who prevent us from using our majority to enact policies that are both popular and necessary.

And I will continue to point out that 'centerists' have no mystical understanding of, nor are they particularly attuned to, the desires of voters in swing districts or states. The 'centerist' rides with the wave. With rare exceptions, they come to office if Democrats are more popular than usual, and are tumbled out of it when Democrats become less popular. And what generally makes Democrats less popular is failing to enact policies that are good for the country and popular with Democratic Party voters. Declining to support such measures gains them nothing. The 'centerists' are always the chief electoral target of the enemy. They will be assailed in the same terms as the most radical young woman of color from New York city conceivable, no matter how they vote....

[Demsrule86]

22. You lose your majority if you don't defend your centrist once in office and it is very difficult

these days to regain a majority.

[Demsrule86]

26. Your post makes no sense...Moderates who give us the majority will rightfully expect to

have their situation considered. And if we lose a majority...it is damned hard to get it back. You can't win a majority with moderate voters and then ignore their wishes. You will lose everytime.

[Demsrule86]

21. How is that any better than we don't get the 3.5 deal and we walk away from a bipartisan bill that

has good stuff in it, is popular and ready to go? I think the progressives are completely wrong on this and have very little to lose personally in terms of electability as they are in safe districts. We may not be able to get the deal passed in the Senate.

So we pass the bipartisan deal...get something and then win the midterms and go back for more. House Democrats are not obstructing...is it fair for them to lose their seats over this when there is nothing they can do? And putting the GOP back in charge in the House or the Senate will destroy Biden's presidency and maybe our Republic in the end. It is very foolish.

[OnDoutside]

31. It might be instructive for you to revisit just how the two deals came

about, and you'll see that the progressives wanted closer to 10 trillion but settled on 3.5, and that was with the knowledge of the likes of Manchin. This is all performative, and as The Magistrate had said, that this is all on these so called House Moderates if it were to fail, which is most unlikely.

[Demsrule86]

3. We will lose the midterms if the bipartisan bill isn't brought up and walk away with nothing.

And McConnell or whoever will be back in charge. The really dangerous thing is what will happen during the next presidential election? I have no doubt if the GOP holds Congress we will see another coup attempt...a successful one perhaps.

Every action should be considered in terms of the coming elections...does this hurt or help our chances. We may not get another chance. And with Breyer not retiring, we likely lose another SCOTUS pick. If nothing passes, it will be a complete disaster.

[Fiendish Thingy]

4. We lose the midterms if voting rights doesn't pass, regardless of what happens w/infrastructure nt

[Demsrule86]

6. That is not true. If enough people show up, we can win. I have to tell you even if we pass the

voting rights act, the courts may strike it down. Voting has always been a state issue...so we need to consider that...and your reply is basically we are going to lose anyway so we might as well blow up a needed bill that helps Americans? This is a popular bill and we toss it away at our own peril. This is madness IMHO. Those bills should never have been combined.

The moderates were correct, and they will lose the seats...not AOC or others in safe blue districts. And those sorts of seats are hard to win back. Where will a new majority come from? And putting the GOP back in charge of Congress is not only foolish but dangerous as well.

[budkin]

11. That's not true. Turnout can't beat gerrymandering.

That’s the whole point of gerrymandering.

[Demsrule86]

23. Yes it can...how do you suppose we won Virginia? Gerrymandering is also in trouble due to

the loss of women's votes and suburban votes in terms of the Republicans.

[bigtree]

10. what makes you think Senate* republicans would vote for ANY reconciliation bill?

...they have no need to pull our asses out of the fire Manchin started.

President Biden didn't call Manchin to the WH to squawk about some progressive initiatives in the bill holding up the process, like you are. He fully supports the legislation, so explain to us how the president's support for the bill is 'dangerous?'

Centrists can't posture like progressive initiatives in the bill are threatening them politically without blaming President Biden, as well. So, have at it.

Ffs, is there any part of the Democratic agenda you think is worth defending?

The party shouldn't be held hostage by a senator whose state's residents depend so heavily on the support of the rest of the party to keep their heads above water.

[Hortensis]

15. Your ffs is very unfair. As for whether "the party shouldn't be held hostage

by a senator whose state's residents depend so heavily on the support of the rest of the party to keep their heads above water." Sure? But that's where the electorate bounced our ball. Voters are often their own worst enemies.

Now, WV voters already knew Manchin well and got what they wanted.

But Arizona's liberal progressive Democrats and Progressives in and out of the party really should have known their candidate MUCH better. They're very unhappy with her now, of course, but maybe shouldn't have ignored big clues long ago.

She started in the Green Party, for heaven's sake. That's not exactly where you look for reliable ideology and good judgement and character. And her anti-Democratic attitudes then were also kind of a big clue that she might be lying when she switched to run as a Democrat, and changeable. By far most who oppose Democrats are on the right, not the anti-Democratic left. But -- and this is something all pros should know -- when political activists in the anti-Democratic left do shift, it's often to the economically progressive right. Duh.

Whatever, they put Sinema in power and they CANNOT remove her until, possibly, 2024. She's doing her thing, and now we're all learning what that is -- from her actions, not from her still-deceitful words.

Bonus fun:

"The reality is that when you have a system that is not working effectively -- and I would think that most would agree that the Senate is not a particularly well-oiled machine, right -- the way to fix that is to fix your behavior, not to eliminate the rules or change the rules, but to change the behavior." ~ Sinema dissembling on the filibuster problem McConnell style.

[Walleye]

18. Well that's a stupid statement

[bigtree]

27. what's stupid is this constant pandering to individuals who don't have the party interest at stake

...the result is a party which doesn't deliver for the vast majority of people who voted for them to assume power.

Tracking back to blame progressive initiatives which serve to lift WVa. residents out of poverty and help provide them opportunities for work, health care, and a safe environment; presenting these as 'threats' to conservative Democrats is a backward way of asserting Democratic priorities.

[Hortensis]

28. Pandering? I don't know how anyone could imagine Senators Manchin

and Sinema's ability to chisel away at our leadership's historic agenda could stem from our "pandering" to them. To me it's as wondrous as the right's belief that Biden channels Ocasio-Cortez's socialist agenda, but oh well.

Have a nice afternoon.

[bigtree]

29. you're leaving out his influence on the final packages

...and what would be dropped from the bill if Manchin got his way and cut it in half.


It's not just a fair observation on what Manchin intends, what he'd accomplish if he got his way, it's a well-discussed fact that he's been sabotaging initiatives in other legislation, as well.

And you can throw that strawman out there about what some conservative might think about Pres. Biden's agenda, but the poster I responded to is claiming we need to pander to the centrists, because of some election they have to run in the future, by opposing President Biden's agenda, a political agenda which is remarkably aligned with AOC's own political efforts.

That's the donkey in the room. This is straight up defiance of our Democratic president, not just progressives, who have not mounted challenges to Pres. Biden's agenda.

People insisting Manchin should get his way are also saying President Biden should not have his. They should just own up to that, and stop hiding behind their animus for progressives.

[OnDoutside]

12. Of course, as Pelosi said, both will be done together. This is all

part of the dance.

[Demsrule86]

25. I see no way forward until after the midterms with the 3.5 trillion bill at this moment. I hope

this changes.

[OnDoutside]

30. Most definitely agree with that.

[Hotler]

20. Fuck it!..................... nt