Manchin doubles down on filibuster ahead of Biden's speech (attacking rule changes w/o 2/3rds vote)

[Celerity]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589169-manchin-doubles-down-on-filibuster-ahead-of-bidens-speech

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) doubled down Tuesday on his support for the filibuster as President Biden heads to Georgia to publicly push for changes to the Senate rule in order to pass voting rights legislation. “We need some good rules changes to make the place work better. But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” Manchin told reporters.

Given support from Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) for the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes for most bills to advance in the Senate, Democrats acknowledge that getting rid of it altogether isn’t on the table. Instead, they are discussing smaller changes including moving to a talking filibuster, where opponents could delay the bill for as long as they could hold the floor but legislation would ultimately be able to pass with a simple majority. They are also mulling a carveout that would exempt voting rights legislation from needing 60 votes.

Democrats are also discussing smaller changes, including shifting from needing 60 votes to break a filibuster to needing 41 votes to sustain it or getting rid of the 60-vote hurdle currently required for starting debate while keeping it in place for ending debate. But Republicans aren’t expected to support any of those rules changes, meaning Democrats would need to use the “nuclear option” that lets them change the rules via a simple majority.

Manchin hasn’t endorsed a rules change option and, in a potentially bigger hurdle for Democrats, he has long opposed changing the rules through the nuclear option. He added on Tuesday that the rules should be changed by two-thirds of the Senate, referring to the 67 votes needed to change rules outside of the nuclear option. “We need some good rules changes. We can do that together. But you change the rules with two-thirds of the people that are present so... Democrats, Republicans changing the rules to make the place work better. Getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better,” he said.

snip



I am really close to calling all the voter bills dead, ffs.

BBB is on life support. 2022 and thus 2024 loom ominously.

[calimary]

1. So is there some way to sneak it in?

Maybe on legislation he wants?

Quietly, under his nose, at the last minute? When nobody’s looking because it’s assumed to be a done deal?

We can’t play nice anymore. WHEN will our side get that?

[Celerity]

2. not a chance, unfortunately

So is there some way to sneak it in?

[calimary]

5. If I were in office, I'd be focused on that all the time.

Always would be looking for ways to get around, beat, defeat, frustrate, crowd out, and confuse the enemy and thwart their agenda in any and all even remotely-possible ways.

[Celerity]

6. IF we somehow pulled off the sneak-in, Manchin would switch parties the next day. Book it.

[Emile]

11. and give up his power, LOL

[Celerity]

12. He would be given a massive sweetheart deal by McTurtle McMoscow, but I will add a caveat:

He would probably have wanted a guarantee that Justice would not run against him in the 2024 Rethug primary. That might have mucked it up if Justice refused to play along.

Then again, maybe he (Manchin) doesn't even want to run in 2024. Another well-known poster here has claimed he is likely not running (but offered no proof despite multiple requests).

[Emile]

13. You know this for a fact. Amazing

What I do know is, he is wielding a lot of power right now and that is a fact!

[Celerity]

15. Yes, but we are talking a hypothetical (that will neve happen anyway) where we pulled a fast one

over on him via deception. He would likely snap.

[FBaggins]

3. We would have to sneak it past 50 republicans as well

The Senate doesn't work like the House. You can't really just bring a bill up for a vote in the middle of the night... unless you have unanimous consent to do so.

[dem4decades]

4. I blame Cal and the voters of Maine for this, and the US Constitution for each bum fuck state

getting 2 senators.

[Celerity]

10. More than just Cunningham and the voters of Maine. I will name names.

We ran a weak, non-native (a big deal in Maine) candidate, and Collins took Manchin's endorsement of her and ran with it to falsely boost her phoney bi-partisan act. Gideon did not move to Maine until the mid noughties, when she as already in her 30's. Collin's campaign tore into her for that as well.

Stephen King would have beaten that worm Concern Collins like a drum, he IS a native Mainer, and a legend. We did such a shit job at recruiting in so many states.

Let me just list them quickly (and the ones who refused to run who were our best hope, in some cases only hope, ie TN and KS.)

ME (Stephen King)

KS (Sebelius, our only hope and it was an OPEN SEAT. Multiple local experts said she would likely have won or come DAMN close.)

TN (Tim McGraw, twice (2018 especially, plus 2020) turned down running for OPEN SEATS after promising for years he would run when he was 50. He likely would have won, perhaps somewhat easily in 2018, and had a better shot than who ended up our nominee in 2020).

IA (Vilsack or Axne would have been stronger than Greenfield, especially Vilsack)

NC (the fool Cunningham with his sexting scandal late in the game killed us, he had a wee bit of lead (and growing) lead before, BUT there were far better candidates before that shit anyway as well, especially Jeff Jackson, but also Stein and Foxx.

AK (we did not even field a Dem candidate, a previous Dem US Senate winner, Begich, refused to run)

These last two (I deal with a 3rd, SC, below) were hopeless anyway:

KY (that goose was cooked when Beshear decided to run (at least he won! ) for Governor in 2019. No other candidate would have had a chance against McTreason.)

TX (did not matter, even Beto would have lost to the vermin Cornyn.)


Finally, we shit away over 300 million usd on fantasyland races in SC, KY, TX, and ME (to a point) and thus we ended with two cash-starved campaigns (MT especially, and also IA) who had leads, especially Bullock, but were BURIED by 200 million usd in RW dark money nuclear flame-thrower attack adverts, and neither MT or IA have the cash to counter.

The most egregious was SC, where Harrison took one (that was a huge outlier) poll over a month out that showed him tied with Graham, and then ran weeks of non stop adverts using just that poll. It convinced so many (falsely) that he had a shot (many Dem actually thought he was the clear favourite, smdh) when the reality was he was never in the hunt actually. Charlie Cook, a true hack, was all over hyping it up as a toss-up and said he was likely to put to lean Dem. I never put it on my possible list, and when pressed at my uni here in Stockholm by some fellow instructors, (these were from the Poli Sci department), I said Graham would win by 11 to 12 points. I was off, but not by much, he won by 10.5.

The poor, poor recruiting by Schumer and Cortez Masto really bit us in the arse, and also the poor money distribution. I am just furious at dick-texter Cunningham, and then pretty angry with Tim McGraw (especially for 2018! Blue Wave and him as candidate equals NO ultra MAGAtette Blackburn) and also Sebelius (all the KS newspapers said she was the only Dem in last 50 years with a chance, and it was an open seat, grr). Irritated, not furious (I like his novels, lol) with Stephen King. Disappointed that Jeff Jackson did not run (thus no Cunningham scandal), and now has dropped out for 2022 as well.

[Joinfortmill]

16. 👍

[padah513]

7. He's a fly in the ointment

Always has been always will be. During trump's 4 years you barely heard a word from him. Now you can't go a day with him saying he doesn't support something.

[LenaBaby61]

9. "During trump's 4 years you barely heard a word from him."

[FoxNewsSucks]

8. They're all dead.

Progressives said this would happen.

[Joinfortmill]

14. Mr. Manchin, our democracy is on the line.

Get a grip and do the right thing.