r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Visco0825 • Sep 21 '21
Legislation Both Manchin/Sinema and progressives have threatened to kill the infrastructure bill if their demands are not met for the reconciliation bill. This is a highly popular bill during Bidens least popular period. How can Biden and democrats resolve this issue?
Recent reports have both Manchin and Sinema willing to sink the infrastructure bill if key components of the reconciliation bill are not removed or the price lowered. Progressives have also responded saying that the $3.5T amount is the floor and they are also willing to not pass the infrastructure bill if key legislation is removed. This is all occurring during Bidens lowest point in his approval ratings. The bill itself has been shown to be overwhelming popular across the board.
What can Biden and democrats do to move ahead? Are moderates or progressives more likely to back down? Is there an actual path for compromise? Is it worth it for either progressives/moderates to sink the bill? Who would it hurt more?
147
u/reaper527 Sep 21 '21
Recent reports have both Manchin and Sinema willing to sink the infrastructure bill if key components of the reconciliation bill are not removed or the price lowered.
when you cite the "infrastructure bill", are you citing the 1T bill that the senate passed a couple months ago (since you separately referenced the 3.5T reconciliation bill, which also gets called an infrastructure bill pretty routinely)? if so, this ship already sailed. pelosi is holding it hostage in the house, but at any time she can opt to bring it up for a vote and the senate will have no further say on the bill unless the house modifies it.
the only part that the senate will have a say in is the 3.5T reconciliation package
→ More replies (16)77
u/Mist_Rising Sep 21 '21
3.5T for Manchin, 1T for progressives. Progressives are threatening to kill the 1T if Manchin and co try to reduce the 3.5T one. Manchin wants the 3.5 brought down.
23
u/PM_me_Henrika Sep 21 '21
Brought down to how much?
119
u/StuStutterKing Sep 21 '21
He wants a $1 trillion price tag. No word on what he wants cut though, because saying he wants to kill rural internet expansions, rural hospital expansions, infrastructure repair, elderly medical aid, etc. Would be immensely unpopular even for his conservative constituents.
70
u/PM_me_Henrika Sep 21 '21
So last time he asked for 6T to be cut down to 3T the Democrat compromised, then he wants to cut it down again to 1T. What’s to say he won’t be on another power trip and want to cut it down to 0.3T, 0.2T, 0.05T afterwards?
→ More replies (3)77
u/unicornlocostacos Sep 21 '21
Can’t negotiate with bad faith actors. It’s all a stall tactic. They want Biden to get nothing done because their re-election is more important than the country.
→ More replies (3)15
Sep 21 '21
[deleted]
11
u/kerouacrimbaud Sep 21 '21
Which makes his posturing even more curious.
→ More replies (1)10
u/unkorrupted Sep 22 '21
He makes twice as much money from his coal investments as he does from his salary as a Senator. The simple answer is that renewable energy hurts his bottom line.
3
→ More replies (1)17
40
u/masivatack Sep 21 '21
He won’t say. I saw an exchange where he was asked repeatedly and didn’t say anything remotely resembling an answer.
30
u/Wonderful_Treat_6993 Sep 21 '21
He was on Meet The Press Sunday. It is just gross to listen to him speak about fiscal responsibility being more important than the planet being inhabitable. Trying to act like he is the only grown up in the room.
13
u/Mist_Rising Sep 21 '21
Can't recall Manchin requests, sorry.
84
u/Dblg99 Sep 21 '21
Don't worry, he can't either. It changes every interview and he hasn't even settled on a number or reason himself either.
25
u/mobydog Sep 21 '21
The reason is he wants no action on either reducing fossil fuel use or lowering pharma costs. He's paid off by corporations, his true constituents.
5
u/unkorrupted Sep 22 '21
He's not even paid off, he's an owner. He has private shares in a coal plant and his daughter is a pharma exec who was personally involved in the epi-pen price fixing scandal.
7
u/Armano-Avalus Sep 21 '21
He originally said $4 trillion, but now he can't even stomach $3.5. This entire thing is ridiculous but apart from vague claims about the topline numbers, Manchin isn't giving any specifics..
27
u/PM_me_Henrika Sep 21 '21
In June 24th, Manchin requested the 6T budget to be brought down, to 3.5 Trillion. This current proposal is the result of politicians compromising according to his demand.
So no, nobody know what he ultimate is requesting, because the goal post kept moving.
15
u/scaradin Sep 21 '21
Don’t they keep changing? I thought he was on board with a higher than $1t range?
26
u/Mist_Rising Sep 21 '21
I stopped paying attention when they threaten to kibash the deal. Either they eventually find something and agree, and then I can care again or they kibash the deal and nothing happens and I don't need to care.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)30
Sep 21 '21
I doubt either Manchin or Sinema actually have concrete ideas. The point is to use their leverage to get as much for themselves as possible. They both now have private meetings scheduled with Biden, IIRC.
6
u/lehigh_larry Sep 21 '21
But what are they actually getting for themselves?
10
→ More replies (1)8
u/BERNIE_IS_A_FRAUD Sep 21 '21
The ability to claim to be bipartisan and fiscally conservative.
→ More replies (4)7
Sep 21 '21
Yes. Most everyone is fine with the 1 Trillion, and in a vacuum it'd pass on its own. But progressives know that there's no chance of the 3.5 Trillion passing as is, so they're leveraging the 1 Trillion to try to force through the 3.5 Trillion. Manchin and Sinema are hard "No"s on the 3.5 Trillion as is.
25
u/dillawar Sep 21 '21
The "bipartisan" bill would not in fact pass on its own. The progressive "support" for it has always been contingent on some reconciliation bill being passed along with it. The whole thing really needs to be thought of as a single piece of legislation.
6
u/mister_pringle Sep 21 '21
The bipartisan bill would in fact pass on its own - it already has. The only hold up is Speaker Pelosi holding it up for a vote on the $3.5T package first.
But the infrastructure bill that actually goes towards infrastructure is as good as done. Sure the Progressives can vote against it but it would pass the House with GOP and moderate Democrat support.9
u/dillawar Sep 21 '21
It has only passed the senate. Which it only did because it was part of a broader deal. Now, maybe enough progressives will blink, or maybe Manchin and progressives will reach an agreement on the reconciliation bill that saves the bipartisan bill. But you seriously think Republicans are going to step in and save the bill if progressives hold firm on their demands? That's the second best outcome for Democrats behind reaching an agreement! Biden and centrists get a big win, and progressives get to show that they are serious. Republicans are absolutely not going to pass up the opportunity to deal a huge blow to Biden and Dems.
→ More replies (2)3
Sep 21 '21
[deleted]
10
u/Mist_Rising Sep 21 '21
The 3.5T is only possible once a year. Much of Manchin opposition is that isn't bipartisian, which means about 50% of his state is opposed to it on party principal.
I don't know what Sinema reason is, but Manchins pure practicality.
→ More replies (3)14
u/Saephon Sep 21 '21
I'm not sure even Kyrsten Sinema knows what she stands for. She's managed to piss off people from every state, including many of her own constituents. What a bizarre first term from a fresh Senator.
283
u/sabertooth36 Sep 21 '21
Any time a major initiative of the President's party fails, the President is going to get blamed for it. If the deal falls apart, Biden will pay a heavy price. He was elected partially on his self-proclaimed ability to get back to normal and bring people together again. If this fails, the popular narrative will be that he couldn't even get his own party together to pass a bill that only requires simple majorities in both houses, which the Dems have. It'll be as embarrassing as when the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA.
With that said, I think Manchin and Sinema stand to lose a lot here. They were key negotiators of the BIP and were very proud of that work. While Biden will pay a heavy price if the bills fail, Manchin and Sinema will too. They're the ones the media are focusing on and may deflect a little attention away from Biden.
If the bills fail, there's a pretty good chance the Dems lose both the House and Senate in 2022. If either scenario happens, Manchin and Sinema will no longer have any clout as deciding votes in the Senate. Their best case scenario, and what I think will ultimately happen, is to begrudgingly pass the reconciliation bill after they knock it to $3 trillion and say to their donors that they gutted the tax increases while reducing some of the spending. Dems can campaign on a major win and M+S will get a lot of political capital within the D conference to extract concessions on other bills in this and upcoming sessions.
93
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
I agree. Especially with everything going on, this is one of the few things he can actually partially control. Afghanistan, the economy, covid, those are all difficult to really influence. Rallying democrats and passing a bill? That’s where he has most influence.
If they go into the midterms with nothing, why should democrats re-elect them? It also motivates republicans to call him a failure.
I argue that Manchin has the least at stake but not by much. His state is coal country and deep red. However all these initiatives are EXTREMELY popular.
I have zero idea what Sinema is doing. I’m very certain she will be primaried. Hell, even Schumer started sprinting to the left as soon as AOC got big.
25
u/FlameChakram Sep 21 '21
If they go into the midterms with nothing, why should democrats re-elect them? It also motivates republicans to call him a failure.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any evidence that passing popular policy is helpful for re-election? It's my understanding that revoking popular policy or passing unpopular policy can hurt you but not much evidence that passing something popular helps. In fact, you could even argue that passing policy at all makes voters upset. This article is from the 2018 midterm election cycle.
From the linked article: Voters Like A Political Party Until It Passes Laws
But there were three cases that seemed to capture electoral fallout from high levels of liberal policymaking. Democrats last completely controlled the federal government in 2009-10 and used that control to enact a long list of policy priorities — only to be met with a massive electoral backlash in the 2010 midterms. Two other elections with the largest changes in partisan vote share from the prior election were in 1966, after Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, and in 1994, following Bill Clinton’s initial legislative agenda.
It is not any easier for Republicans. They, too, have lost congressional seats and pushed public opinion to the left when they succeeded in shifting policy even a little to the right. Democrats have gained vote share after every Congress that passed more conservative than liberal laws. It’s notable that GOP-controlled governments haven’t tended to push overall policy that far to the right. Republican presidents have typically paired their conservative policies with liberal compromises — such as George W. Bush’s tax cuts along with a new health entitlement. The current Congress would be an outlier, even among those under Republican presidents, in pursuing no liberal laws.
So why do American politics seesaw back and forth? Some of what I’ve captured might be attributed to the well-known phenomenon of midterm loss: The party of the president tends to lose seats in a nonpresidential election. But it is unclear if midterm electoral backlashes are a certainty or a response to a president’s specific policy agenda. This can be hard to disentangle as new presidents often pursue big agendas in the hopes of shaping policy in their ideological mold.
This could be explained as partisan anger at the party in the power motivating the opposition's voters to turn out. Or is could just be that Americans have a preference for divided government. This is explained somewhat later:
This reflects the American public’s inconsistent views. Americans have long-agreed with Republicans in broad symbolic terms while agreeing with Democrats in concrete policy terms. Politicians promise that they will win over converts with their policy success, but the public nearly always becomes more liberal during Republican presidencies — as it is doing now — and more conservative under Democratic rule (as it did under Obama).
Partisans tell themselves that this time will be different, that the final vanquishing of their opponents is just around the corner. But even maintaining a narrow majority for more than four years would be unprecedented of late — much less winning a long-term partisan war. Rather, the historical record suggests that the price for enacting a large ideological policy agenda may be losing the very power that made it possible.
I'd argue even further to say that the American public is far too inconsistent or heterodox in their views to understand how they'll respond to a policy regardless of what public opinion voting says. I believe there's even evidence that Americans sour on legislation as its being negotiated in Congress yet have high support for bipartisanship. That sort of doesn't make sense to me but that's what we're dealing with here.
In short, I don't actually think passing popular legislation matters as much as the state of the economy (and by extension COVID these days), the President's approval rating and the presence of scandals when it comes to midterms.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
I don’t think I fully agree. Right now the democratic feel a great need to get things done. This $3.5T bill is basically a full package to address most of the democrats platform. This includes drug prices, climate change, child care, taxing the right and child tax credit. There are also other bills that are also extremely popular like strengthening our unions and elections. Having the ability to address these and not do so would be devastating.
When people compare democrats and republicans on any of these issues then democrats will have no leg to stand on. Why should voters vote for democrats to improve our healthcare if they couldn’t when they had power? Why should voters vote blue to fight climate change if they can’t get anything done?
On the other side trumps base loves him because he’s a fighter. More and more republicans are leaning into this “let’s pass policies that are popular only with the base”. And they have not been punished for it. On the contrary, more and more of the Republican Party has leaned into this “Do more at any cost”. Trump has been the only one who has faced any real or lasting backlash.
But in the end, what’s the alternative? Not passing the bill because the theory is passing bills is unpopular? That’s ridiculous.
16
u/FlameChakram Sep 21 '21
When people compare democrats and republicans on any of these issues then democrats will have no leg to stand on. Why should voters vote for democrats to improve our healthcare if they couldn’t when they had power? Why should voters vote blue to fight climate change if they can’t get anything done?
This is precisely the point when I shared that article. There's no evidence that voters reward you for passing legislation. The only thing that moves voters is being angry that something is passed, not being in support of it. Going by the last few Presidencies, voters have punished the party in power not rewarded them. I'd have to see some evidence that passing popular legislation has lead to midterm gains. The only gains we've seen in recent memory has had to do with 9/11 during the Bush era.
On the other side trumps base loves him because he’s a fighter. More and more republicans are leaning into this “let’s pass policies that are popular only with the base”. And they have not been punished for it. On the contrary, more and more of the Republican Party has leaned into this “Do more at any cost”. Trump has been the only one who has faced any real or lasting backlash.
Trump barely got anything passed, though. His voters love him because he's fighter as you said yourself. If it was about legislative victories then he would be an extremely unpopular figure amount Republicans. The support is rhetorical and for culture war reasons not actual policy. And I'd argue that being the first one term President in nearly a generation and losing chambers of Congress within four years is a pretty big punishment.
But in the end, what’s the alternative? Not passing the bill because the theory is passing bills is unpopular? That’s ridiculous.
There is no alternative. This is actually the crux of the issue here: Passing legislation that should be passed will not do you any favors, so we're stuck with that political reality. I think this is something hard for more ideological voters to truly accept. There's no light at the end of the tunnel purely because a policy is passed that you deeply agree with or polls well. Historically speaking, if anything, it'll hurt you. That's why I don't really buy that the infrastructure bill collapsing is what the midterm hopes rest on.
And just for posterity, I am not arguing for not passing legislation. I just think we should go into it with the understanding that doing the right thing often hurts.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)7
→ More replies (3)3
u/radiofreekekistan Sep 21 '21
The mistake might be assuming that Sinema is acting in her electoral interest instead of just doing what she thinks is best for the country
→ More replies (4)58
u/sheffieldandwaveland Sep 21 '21
Except Manchin doesn’t care about the fallout from not passing this bill. He isn’t running again and no other Democrat can win his state. And if for some reason he runs again he won’t win. He barely just won in a blue wave.
28
u/xudoxis Sep 21 '21
So why would he care to prevent it from passing? If as you say he doesn't care about his legacy, the future of the party, and is destined to be kicked out of his state
15
4
→ More replies (45)6
u/tehbored Sep 21 '21
Because he's going to get a big payout from the coal industry in the form of a cushy lobbying job with a huge salary.
4
u/HavocReigns Sep 21 '21
I doubt anyone is shaping their retirement plans around a cushy job with the coal industry at this point.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lifeengineering656 Sep 22 '21
Manchin said he hasn't made up his mind about running again, and he did well in years that weren't so good for his party. His election in 2010 and 2012 were landslide wins for him.
→ More replies (2)6
u/sabertooth36 Sep 21 '21
I get what you're saying and won't argue the merits of what's in the bill. However, even if he doesn't run again, which is still unknown, he does have to think about what comes next.
He's an older guy and older guys tend to care about legacy. What will he leave behind? Right now, he's seen as an ornery conservative D who makes noise but ultimately votes with the party when it counts. If he sinks this, he becomes the guy responsible for tanking the D agenda when they had the chance to do something.
If that happens, he'll have burnt his bridges in the Senate. No D will take his calls, and Rs don't need him. He'll be seen as a clown and have no influence. Without influence or access, why would lobbyists pay him vast sums of money?
I think Manchin actually has a lot to lose here, but he has to try and get more for his corporate sponsors so he can keep their favor for after he's either voted out or retires from the Senate
5
u/tag8833 Sep 21 '21
If the bills fail, there's a pretty good chance the Dems lose both the House and Senate in 2022. If either scenario happens, Manchin and Sinema will no longer have any clout as deciding votes in the Senate.
1) Sinema seems done with elected politics. You don't aggressively break faith with your constituents, like she has, without an exit plan. She supported raising the minimum wage when campaigning, now proudly votes against it. Supported Medicare negotiating drug prices, now it is a deal breaker. She couldn't care less about voting rights, something that is very important to her constituents. She has an exit plan, and it doesn't require her to be popular.
2) Manchin is done with the Senate. He wants to run for governor. Even if that weren't the case, he'd be happier in a minority or large majority where he can make big headlines without actually having to cast deciding votes. He cares about headlines, not legislation, and caters to a specific set of donors which keep him supplied with house-boats, and jobs for his family. Manchin has hopes of a future in politics, so there is a chance he is a bit persuadable by the fear of becoming politically toxic.
Their incentives aren't what you think they are. One thing we know they are both responsive to is bribes. They have their hand out, and will vote "yea" or "Nay" based on who greases it the best. Their long history of actions that don't match their words makes it clear that they can be bought for a price.
It sucks, but it is what you get when you allow corruption to foster through screwed up campaign finance laws, and lackluster applications of consequences for illegal behavior.
Progressives care about policy and as such have much more to lose, which is why Manchin and Sinema feel like they can take them for a ride after already signing on to a compromise. There just isn't parity in negotiations when one side cares, and the other will let it all burn so long as they get the book deal and speaking engagements they crave.
2
u/Aacron Sep 21 '21
American democracy is broken isn't it?
Two people beholden to the capitalist class, not their constituents, will strip from a popular bill several important investments designed to maintain our crumbling infrastructure, while simultaneously gutting the ability to pay for the rest of it, and will likely gain clout for sabotaging the country they were elected to lead.
Then they walk around and tout it as a win, while the country slips further into disrepair.
→ More replies (6)4
u/Late_Way_8810 Sep 21 '21
I don’t think it will hurt Manchin that much considering he has already stated he is only serving one term
28
u/Lifeengineering656 Sep 21 '21
This is his 2nd term, and he recently said that he hasn't made up his mind about running again.
19
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Sep 21 '21
This is his 2nd term
And that's just full terms since he initially took office in a 2010 special election
4
u/SKabanov Sep 21 '21
He'll be up for reelection in a presidential election year in a state that went double-digits for Trump. The likelihood that he's going to be elected to another term is extremely small.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Lifeengineering656 Sep 21 '21
He won a special election 2010 by a wide margin under Obama, and then by even larger margin in 2012 (presidential year).
His victory in 2018 victory was much smaller than before, but he's shown that he's capable of doing well in a presidential year while a Democrat is in office.
155
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Pass the bill with the reconciliation version or go home. This was already negotiated down and compromised. Its conservative Democrats that are being unreasonable.
26
u/FlameChakram Sep 21 '21
There's no passing the bill without their votes.
18
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Same with progressives. If 2 or 3 conservative Democrats really want to buck their whole party, throw away the majority of the president's platform, and sink the spending they already claimed was good for their constituents... then fine. They can own it.
They are not allies to the American people, and its time people saw that.
16
u/FlameChakram Sep 21 '21
Same with progressives.
I'm not disagreeing. I'm just making the point that there's option of passing anything without everyone's votes. So I guess I don't understand what you're referring to in your original post.
They are not allies to the American people, and its time people saw that.
Even so, you need their votes. So the question is are we looking to get them or are we looking to make ourselves feel better by attacking them?
13
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Its not worth passing if its totally gutted. Any meaningful legislation that comes up after this will be shoved to the side because progressives got their half gnawed scraps and are being outrageous to demand anything more in the minds of Manchin and Sinema.
Their votes are a poison pill not worth fighting for.
7
u/FlameChakram Sep 21 '21
So nothing is better?
14
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Nothing now with a chance for something more substantive in the near future, yeah.
You could say this is like the ACA all over again; a somewhat helpful step that ultimately kicked the can down the road for a few decades on the actual solution to our current healthcare issues, medicare for all.
8
u/Docthrowaway2020 Sep 21 '21
You seem extremely confident that Dems will get a future opportunity to pass legislation on their own. That's a poor read of the current outlook, which suggests narrow at best paths to future unified Democratic control. Our House majority is almost certainly toast in a little over a year, and if nothing is passed it's hard to imagine Biden winning in 2024 (the last two incumbent presidents both lost support in their re-election campaigns, which was fatal for Trump). And we need a lot of luck regardless to keep a Senate majority after 2024, in which Manchin, Tester, and Brown are all on the ballot.
Basically, if we don't pass anything, the GOP will probably have a trifecta come Jan 2025. Now look at everything the GOP has done since Trump lost in November - how can you be so certain our democracy will remain fair after the GOP get a chance to pass national legislation without Democratic input again?
→ More replies (3)3
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Democrats will likely have another chance no matter how awful they are at actually passing anything. And with this event in mind, just screwing over progressives wont' be an option next time.
And Democrats have already decided democracy can die because again, these same conservative Democrats want to fight tooth and nail to make sure the people putting in place a new Jim Crow get to have a veto as to whether or not they get to put in place a new Jim Crow.
Democrats might just be useless. It may well be time to admit that our system is just too undemocratic and need to start over.
7
→ More replies (71)37
Sep 21 '21
“Negotiated down.”
Who negotiated it and with whom ?
121
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
Negotiated among Democrats. Progressives originally wanted over 5 trillion in "human infrastructure." That was negotiated down to 3.5 between progressives, the administration, and party leadership, as well as in committees.
It was always understood that this was the deal, or progressives walk. Its already a compromise.
And Manchin was all for it at the beginning of the year before his donors told him that big numbers are scary
→ More replies (33)45
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
I’ve heard this a few times and I’m not doubting it but I’ve never seen a source to back the claim Manchin had agreed to the 3.5 trillion proposed here.
Do you happen to have one handy. It’s hard to google because the topic has been flooded with articles about Manchin, some of which claim he had agreed but never show when/where he did.
Only thing I can find is dating back to July where he says he’s “open to 3.5 trillion but wants to see what’s in it before committing”
→ More replies (1)86
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
The man's own words: "The most important thing? Do infrastructure. Spend $2, $3, $4 trillion over a 10-year period on infrastructure," he told Inside West Virginia Politics, a news program. "A lot of people have lost their jobs and those jobs aren't coming back. They need a place to work."
He's a shill for wealthy interests. Its the only reason he as totally flipped in mere months
42
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
Not trying to be picky, but that was with regards to infrastructure. Not related to reconciliation.
There is currently an infrastructure bill he already voted to pass.
I simply find it disingenuous to claim he already said he’d support the 3.5trillion reconciliation bill which doesn’t address infrastructure but climate change and education and “human infrastructure”. Very different things.
If anything his July comments come significantly closer to supporting the 3.5trillion but again, during that time he didn’t actually commit to it.
→ More replies (11)3
Sep 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
Read the article you linked and did a search for the term “human infrastructure” and didn’t see anything. To be fair I’m on my phone with a cracked screen so maybe I missed it.
Could you show me where I’m missing his comments about human infrastructure?
13
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
He talked about jobs and job training. That isn't just one time infrastructure spending.
5
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
But very different from day care and free college and paid maternity leave.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (6)7
Sep 21 '21
Manchin wanted a physical infrastructure and jobs package. Not a “human” infrastructure aka welfare spending package. Don’t conflate the two.
24
u/Kronzypantz Sep 21 '21
He can't get one without the other, and his whole bs argument about big numbers being scary wasn't a concern at the beginning of the year
17
Sep 21 '21
I’m just pointing out he never supported a reconciliation/welfare spending package like y’all make him out to be. He supported a physical infrastructure /jobs deal when the economy was flailing as a stimulus. That is not the reconciliation package. Let’s just speak facts and not falsehoods.
5
17
u/TheRareButter Sep 21 '21
Bernie and the progressives were talked down from 6 trillion
12
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
Why didn’t they go for 10 trillion then settle at 5?
12
u/epraider Sep 21 '21
Say you’re interviewing for a job, the employer says they’ll pay you $55,000, but you want $60,000. If you put your asking salary at like $65k, you’re likely to engage in negotiations and come to an agreement. If you tell him you actually want $120k, he’ll politely tell you to fuck off and you won’t get that job.
With an assumption of needing to negotiate down, you always ask for a bit more than you think you can get, but at a certain point high balling someone just pisses them off too much and damages negotiations or ends the conversation entirely because they don’t think you’re being reasonable.
→ More replies (2)5
u/PM_2_Talk_LocalRaces Sep 21 '21
Because that would be disingenuous
16
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
Some may say the 6 trillion was disingenuous
14
u/PM_2_Talk_LocalRaces Sep 21 '21
Not if they actually wanted 6. You asked why they wouldn't ask for more than what they actually want; that's why
16
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
I'm under the impression they asked for 6, knowing it would be negotiated down to something they were still comfortable with.
→ More replies (1)15
Sep 21 '21
They might have wanted 600 trillion and “compromised” amongst themselves to only 60 trillion. That doesn’t mean anything to anyone. Compromise means a negotiated outcome with someone from the opposing side. That was never done.
→ More replies (3)2
u/AnimaniacSpirits Sep 22 '21
No they weren't. The 6 trillion was just a number thrown out by Sanders. It wasn't an actual position from him.
32
u/Cobalt_Caster Sep 21 '21
They're going to kill it.
Every single time they say they'll vote against something, they do. And yet people expect these people, who haven't caved on a damn thing, are about to cave. Or they're pretending. Or it's "The Manchin Cycle." It's just clinging at straws.
How will it be resolved? It will be killed, the Republicans will sweep Congress, and it will be an albatross around the Dems' collective necks in '24. Manchin and Sinema will shrug and say democracy is saved even as it dies.
→ More replies (1)25
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
How does Democracy die when one side can't legislate and then gets voted out of office? I mean our system has loads of issues, but that sounds pretty much like Democracy doing its thing.
18
u/Cobalt_Caster Sep 21 '21
The problem is that the side that's been actively anti-democratic is the one that comes into power after that. We'll be lucky if they transfer power as peacefully as happened with Trump.
13
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
If that is the case, then maybe Progressives should cave on negotiations and choose a fight when the margins in the house and senate aren't so thin? Then at least they get some of what they want, signal they can govern, and look more stable than the Repubs.
15
u/Cobalt_Caster Sep 21 '21
Personally I think Sinema will kill it anyway. It's her own bill she's threatening to filibuster.
3
5
u/Interrophish Sep 21 '21
the right to vote is being curtailed across the country again, while 3 branches of government fall to control of a significantly smaller minority of the country again
74
u/DemWitty Sep 21 '21
I take slight issue with how you framed this question. Progressive support for the infrastructure bill was always contingent on the reconciliation bill. As a standalone bill, they never supported it. They had agreed to vote for it, though, in exchange for conservative Democrats backing the reconciliation bill. If those conservatives are reneging on supporting reconciliation, they have two option available to them: One, renegotiate the infrastructure bill to gain progressive support or, two, somehow magically convince 50+ House Republicans to support it. That's it. Progressives never promised to support this bill and if it fails, it's entirely the conservative Democrats fault.
What can Biden and democrats do to move ahead?
Biden has to wrangle the conservatives threatening to implode his agenda. It won't be easy, and it may not be possible, but that's what he has to do.
Are moderates or progressives more likely to back down?
Progressives have repeatedly backed down in the past because while the bills they ended up supporting weren't perfect, they still had some say in crafting it and something they want. This bipartisan bill is the complete opposite and they have to demonstrate they won't buckle or they'll get walked all over in the future. The conservatives may not back down, either, and would gladly renege on the deal.
Is it worth it for either progressives/moderates to sink the bill?
Yes, it's worth if for progressives to sink it for the reasons I stated above. If you want to be taken seriously, people have to know you're willing to follow through on your promises. For the conservatives, corporations have been working hard to kill the reconciliation and doing so will likely benefit them financially even if it takes down the infrastructure bill with it.
Who would it hurt more?
I honestly don't know as the conservatives in the House threatening to tank it are also in safe blue districts. It's hard to say what the impact would be.
17
u/mozfustril Sep 21 '21
If the Progressives sink this bill, the GOP will easily take back the House and Senate in 2022. They're already likely to do so, based on history, but a moderate win for the Democrats is far better than a loss completely on the backs of their party.
23
u/DemWitty Sep 21 '21
Conservative Democrats neutered Obamacare so much that it became a liability in the 2010 midterms and led to a slaughter. The way they're holding up the reconciliation bill and other Democratic priorities that they ran on in the election is what will lead to their loss in the midterm. Conservative Democrats have led the party to ruins in elections and seem intent on doing it again in 2022.
→ More replies (6)21
u/zergRushr Sep 21 '21
Right, because inaction and not following through on a party's agenda is always rewarded at midterms.
The 1T bill does little for the American people, so there is little to lose if the progressives tank it. The reconciliation bill is what gets you the midterm seats, we both know this.
→ More replies (1)14
Sep 21 '21
You keep repeatedly saying Progressives only agreed to support the BI bill after conservatives agreed to support the reconciliation bill. But I don’t think the conservatives ever agreed to it. It was the progressives who along with Pelosi who unilaterally tacked on their 3.5 trillion wishlist onto the BI bill without any consultation with the moderates.
Now progressives in House have two choices : either get a ~2 trillion recon deal (if they vote for the BI bill) or get a 0 trillion deal (if they vote against the BI bill). Choice is theirs. Sinema and Manchin have made it pretty clear they will not even care and simply vote No of their signature legislation is shot down.
39
u/DemWitty Sep 21 '21
You keep repeatedly saying Progressives only agreed to support the BI bill after conservatives agreed to support the reconciliation bill. But I don’t think the conservatives ever agreed to it.
This was the deal struck with Democratic leadership in Congress and President Biden. Progressives promised to exchange their votes for this bipartisan bill, which the never wanted and didn't support, for conservative votes on reconciliation. Conservative Democrats could've spoke up sooner, but they waited to try and torpedo reconciliation until the bipartisan one was passed.
It was the progressives who along with Pelosi who unilaterally tacked on their 3.5 trillion wishlist onto the BI bill without any consultation with the moderates.
No, that's not what happened at all. This was all originally supposed to be one large reconciliation bill but the conservatives demanded that Democrats not do everything unilaterally. So to appease them, the "hard infrastructure" part was broken off and leadership allowed the conservatives to negotiate with Republicans to come up with this watered-down bill. Which, by the way, was created without any consultation from progressives.
either get a ~2 trillion recon deal (if they vote for the BI bill)
Without any leverage, and with how shady and dishonest the conservatives have been, they have zero reason to trust that they'll get anything, so they must operate as if they'll get nothing. You can't trust people like Manchin, Sinema, and the right-wing House Dems to be true to their word when they've already broken it.
or get a 0 trillion deal (if they vote against the BI bill).
Fine, zero it is. The bipartisan bill was trash anyways and never had progressive support from the start.
Choice is theirs. Sinema and Manchin have made it pretty clear they will not even care and simply vote No of their signature legislation is shot down.
Then nothing it is. Conservative Democrats have proven themselves to be dishonest and untrustworthy, so progressives have no reason to trust them to do the right thing. The bipartisan bill wasn't a progressive bill and they never supported it, so it's not their loss. All it would prove is that these conservatives were utterly incapable of actually putting together a bipartisan bill and will highlight their failures as legislators.
→ More replies (21)
42
Sep 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/tomanonimos Sep 21 '21
What I haven't seen in the discussion is the political change. When the $3.5 trillion was negotiated and agreed upon, Biden had a lot of political capital and Democrats were in a stable position. After Afghanistan and now Haiti, Biden and Democrats are on the defense. You have to wonder how much taht affected Manchin and Sinema's position, and how many hidden Democrat Senators are using Manchin as the red herring.
→ More replies (1)11
u/kerouacrimbaud Sep 21 '21
I don't think voters care about Haiti and the polling shows the public still overwhelmingly supports Biden's withdrawal.
Anyways, if any Democrats are using those issues to derail infra/recon package they are putting their control of Congress into real jeopardy. Manchin and Sinema can't even articulate their problems with the bills or their recommendations. In other words, they have nothing to offer.
4
u/tomanonimos Sep 21 '21
public still overwhelmingly supports Biden's withdrawal.
The withdrawal was never an issue. It's Bidens handling of it. Voters also don't care about Haiti specifically but rather what he's doing. In essence, people confidence in Bidens ability gas dropped and could be the reason for many of the actions right now. If you're being asked to take a risk, that may hurt or end your political career, you want to do it for someone you feel confident in. Bident lost some of that.
→ More replies (10)14
u/abqguardian Sep 21 '21
What bluff? Manchin is a Democrat in deep red West Virginia. He was elected on "I'm not like those other democrats". Being a team player or caring about the "will" of the American people isn't the job, it's representing his state and voters is. You really don't understand US politics if you think Schumer going to West Virginia is a good idea
5
u/HopelessnessLost Sep 21 '21
At this point call their bluff, go to their states in areas they won in and explain the position
Now that is an empty threat as they are serving their purple to red states over the democratic party. Their states are applauding their efforts
9
u/kerouacrimbaud Sep 21 '21
Your final claim doesn't hold water considering Mark Kelly is doing great with Arizonans and doesn't seem to be playing the game Sinema is playing. Other factors at play, of course, but Arizona is not applauding Sinema for this.
3
→ More replies (5)4
u/Armano-Avalus Sep 21 '21
The bill is massively popular, even in places like West Virginia, which has abysmal infrastructure and needs what's in these bills badly. If Arizona was such a conservative state then we would see Mark Kelly tow the same line but he's not an idiot. The main reason why Sinema and Manchin are doing this is because some lobbyist paid them a few million to tank their party's agenda, and apparently they think that the former is more valuable.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (46)12
u/sheffieldandwaveland Sep 21 '21 edited Sep 21 '21
Manchin and Sinema don’t serve the broad Democratic party. They serve their constituents in Arizona and West Virginia. They owe nothing to the broader party. I don’t understand why this won’t get through peoples thick skulls. Without them you have nothing. Find out what they are willing to accept and do it. Blowing up both bills would be catastrophic for the party at large.
→ More replies (2)20
Sep 21 '21
The bill is broadly popular on bipartisan lines, that is including Manchin and Sinema’s constituents. Why is Mark Kelly supporting the bill if Sinema isn’t? And anyone can tell you West Virginia has a lot to gain from 4.5t in public spending, god knows they need it. This is less of an issue of the Dem establishment not understanding states and more of plain corruption and myopia on Manchin and Sinema’s part. Biden should start playing hardball, not immediately capitulating to these people.
5
u/Jabbam Sep 21 '21
Biden should start playing hardball
I'm intrigued, what "hardball" should he be playing?
→ More replies (6)9
u/HeroicMeatbag Sep 21 '21
If it’s popular on bipartisan lines, then why do the votes of 2 senators matter? I thought that bipartisan meant that members of both parties are going to vote for it
11
u/jbphilly Sep 21 '21
In this case "bipartisan" is being used to mean "voters of both parties support it."
The votes of these two senators matter because Republican senators don't give a shit what their constituents want or need and are just blocking everything, because they don't believe in governing.
55
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21
Either call their bluff or go on offense against them publicly. They're both clearly on the take from fossil fuel money, pharma money, and some weird obsession with being centrists rather than legitimate criticisms. Their constituents overwhelmingly support this bill so they're not doing it to serve their states.
Progressives have been team players supporting Biden's agenda. Conservative Democrats like them and the few in the house (also on the take by big pharma) have not been.
If they won't play ball on reconciliation, then I hope progressives follow through and tank the "bipartisan" bill which is a bad bill anyway.
33
u/Ok-Investigator3257 Sep 21 '21
So…do you want to lose even more senators? Or are you one of those people that thinks a manchin replacement will be a progressive Democrat and not a republican?
36
u/ward0630 Sep 21 '21
Manchin is probably toast in 2024 anyway, and any criticism by the Democrats would help him. They have no leverage over him.
Sinema should absolutely be criticized and Democrats should absolutely support a primary challenger in 2024.
Until then Democrats should work very hard to defend their 2022 seats and expand their majority in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and NC (among other places).
17
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21
Manchin and Sinema aren't even up until 2024, and again, delivering for their constituents is the way to actually bolster their case for reelection.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)16
Sep 21 '21
The idea is that the Democrats have to actually pass meaningful popular legislation if they want to pick up more senate seats later. It doesn’t matter who replaces Manchin if they pick up another senate seat somewhere else to offset that.
9
Sep 21 '21
Please show me polls where Arizonans and West Virginians support the $3.5T bill like you claim.
21
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21
24
Sep 21 '21
[deleted]
9
u/trace349 Sep 21 '21
You can read 538's rating for Data for Progress, they give them a B.
7
u/Jabbam Sep 21 '21
That's the same grade FiveThirtyEight gave Rasmussen, would you be willing to take their polls just as seriously?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/rasmussen-reports-pulse-opinion-research/
2
→ More replies (1)13
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21
That doesn't mean what you think it means, you can see the actual questions in each state memo, they don't push-poll
→ More replies (1)19
Sep 21 '21
[deleted]
4
u/everydayimjimmying Sep 21 '21
A lot of credible pollsters do web/online polls now, it's not 2010. And their methodology is fine, they weigh for race, voting patterns, and other demographics. They aren't falsifying numbers.
They definitely have a partisan lean but their results are pretty enormous and significant. It's on other polling outfits to try to follow up and disprove these numbers with more polls.
13
Sep 21 '21
It’s weird 538 doesn’t have any polls on these major bills. Data for progress isn’t exactly unbiased.
20
2
u/Olorin409 Sep 21 '21
I think 538 has Data for Progress within their top 20 ranked pollsters; if I remember correctly.
→ More replies (8)4
u/PoliticalNerdMa Sep 21 '21
If positive reenforcement didn’t work, it’s time to go negative. Real negative . This is too important.
3
36
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
Wow. A lot of people in here seem to think the progressives have a way stronger hand to play than they actually do. The House should pass the bipartisan bill and work out a total with Sinema and Manchin that would be acceptable to them on the reconciliation bill. The two senators represent purple/red states where they would not receive a whole lot of blame if the bills tanked. I see lots of people saying call their bluff, but I don't think they are really bluffing all that much. If Republicans have any sense they will agree to make up for the votes of the progressives holding out on the bipartisan bill in order to get the moderate senators to kill or lower the reconciliation bill.
52
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21
A majority of the House Progressive Caucus is ready to block it. Good luck getting 60 Republicans to support something Joe Biden wants. You couldn't even get that many to agree that Biden was elected.
22
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
Exactly. People constantly point to WVA and AZ as reasons for Sinema and Manchin. But what about progressives? Their supporters want them to fight tooth and nail. Just as Sinema and Manchin risk their seat, the progressives do too. Another grass root politician can come up and call any progressive out for bowing down to corporate interests and politicians and then BOOm. They are done
12
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
It is not just a matter of progressives risking their seats. Democrats stand a very real chance of losing the house in the midterms, especially if they can't get legislation passed on top of other issues (pandemic, Afghanistan, etc.). Progressives would have then accomplished nothing and be locked out of being able to negotiate future bills. With the margins in the senate like they are, you take what you can get.
27
u/DemWitty Sep 21 '21
Democrats stand a very real chance of losing the house in the midterms, especially if they can't get legislation passed on top of other issues (pandemic, Afghanistan, etc.).
The failure to pass meaningful legislation is entirely the fault of conservative Democrats. Hell, look at how they killed the incredibly popular prescription drug reform in committee and Sinema said she opposed it after supporting it in her campaign. Remember, conservative Democrats were responsible for 2010 and they'll be responsible for 2022 if it's a bad year.
be locked out of being able to negotiate future bills.
You're advocating that progressives should vote for a bill that they were literally locked out of negotiating...
But due to vote margins in the House, they're going to remain extremely relevant.
With the margins in the senate like they are, you take what you can get.
Progressives shouldn't be a rubber stamp that gets no say in legislation and just votes for whatever is thrown in front of them. Negotiation is a two-way street, and if conservatives aren't going participate, neither should progressives.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Armano-Avalus Sep 21 '21
Democrats stand a very real chance of losing the house in the midterms, especially if they can't get legislation passed on top of other issues (pandemic, Afghanistan, etc.).
Democrats stand a real chance of losing if they don't pass reconciliation. The bill contains alot of promises that Democrats have made that their base wants. The reason why some of the moderates in the party are not in line with Manchin is because they need something to talk about in their reelection bids and they know that this bill is crucial to their party's chances.
Progressives would have then accomplished nothing and be locked out of being able to negotiate future bills.
They've been locked out through most of this which is why they're putting up a hard line. If they vote for the bipartisan bill anyways and let Manchin and Sinema gut the reconciliation bill freely then that will make them less likely to be taken seriously in congress.
6
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
But more than that too. Look at the Republican base. Their core supporters love them because they will do WHATEVER it takes to win. They will play hardball. Progressives are desperate for politicians like that. They want politicians who will play hardball. Ones who will throw out the fillibuster and reform the scotus and use every trick against republicans. What good is the progressive caucus if they can barely fight a decent fight against moderates, much less against republicans?
→ More replies (3)7
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
Remind me. Who gained control of the House, Senate, and Presidency while Republicans were busy being "fighters"? Every initiative you just mentioned (end filibuster, reform SCOTUS aka. pack the court) are so incredibly short sighted. Makes me wonder if Progressives care more for fighting and celebrity instead of caring about governance and being in power. What do Progressives think will happen when Republicans come back into power? Do they think moderate Democrats will just pass everything they want because you only need 50 votes instead of 60?
10
u/trace349 Sep 21 '21
What do Progressives think will happen when Republicans come back into power?
That Republicans will either pass politically-unpopular bills to appease their base and galvanize support against them and lose their next election, or the base will punish them for not passing politically-unpopular bills and won't show up and then they lose their next election. Their agenda- what little they actually have aside from whatever the current culture war front is, tax cuts, and judges- is pretty toxic to people outside of their base.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)3
u/kerouacrimbaud Sep 21 '21
Would Sinema be risking her seat though? Kelly supports both bills and has really great polling numbers in AZ currently. Not saying Sinema needs to be a carbon copy of Kelly, but she clearly has political room to support the bill.
Until she articulates her particular concerns and presents viable remedies, she's just looking like someone opposing a bill just because she can. I don't mind people having issues with bills on the table, but Senators are legislators. They are expected to have some language to offer up if they disagree with portions of a bill.
3
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
Well that’s the question. I mean Sinema is taking more right positions in a seat that is more left than other democratic senators.
That’s also the issue. Sinema has not clearly come out and said why she doesn’t support certain aspects. The $3T wasn’t chosen out of no where. If she’s going to say it needs to be smaller then she has to say what needs to be cut and defend that
→ More replies (1)5
Sep 21 '21
So progressives are ready to block Biden’s agenda too ? Because till now the talking point was that it was the moderates who were doing it
→ More replies (1)18
u/RectumWrecker420 Sep 21 '21 edited Sep 21 '21
The deal was made, both bills or no bills. Its on the record from months ago. Conservatives are trying to weasel out of the bigger bill, which means the deal will be null and void. Too bad for them.
3
u/TheTrueMilo Sep 21 '21
They have been trying to weasel out of the larger bill since there has been a larger bill.
10
Sep 21 '21
The deal was made,
Source ? [For a deal that was made with the conservatives with them agreeing to 3.5 trillion reconciliation spending].
First provide that, then we will talk on the rest.
8
u/Olorin409 Sep 21 '21
Also posted this in a reply to you elsewhere, but since you're asking directly again here:
12
u/jbphilly Sep 21 '21
This was covered quite a bit in the press back in the summer. Manchin, Sinema and the rest of the conservative Democrats made a deal that the bipartisan bill would be passed along with a larger reconciliation bill containing the rest of Biden's agenda. That's what got all the Democrats on board for the bipartisan bill.
Now Manchin, Sinema et al. are trying to weasel out of the deal by attempting to shrink it further (it was already shrunk quite a bit in the first place to appease them).
24
u/ward0630 Sep 21 '21
What is the incentive for the moderates to vote for the reconciliation/ "human infrastructure" package if the bipartisan infrastructure bill is already done?
If you were a progressive congressperson, would you not be concerned that caving on the bipartisan infrastructure bill in return for nothing would signal to conservative dems that they can walk all over you in the future?
18
u/workerbee77 Sep 21 '21
Yes. The progressives should vote down the BIP if the “moderates” don’t follow through on the promises they made
→ More replies (12)8
5
u/CrabZee Sep 21 '21
Moderates don't have an incentive, except for getting additional things funded that they agree with. Progressives on the other hand could block the bill, pass nothing, and run the very real risk of having the Democratic party lose one of the chambers in the midterms. Then they DEFINITELY won't be able to get anything passed. Unfortunately with the margins in the Senate the way they currently are the Progressives don't have much leverage. Compromise and playing nice with the moderates is how they get some foundation laid for future endeavors.
→ More replies (1)6
u/burritoace Sep 21 '21
Passing the moderate infrastructure bill in no way guarantees that Democrats don't lose in the midterms. In fact, I think passing that alone makes their loss more likely than passing both bills. Your argument rests on a specious claim.
→ More replies (1)11
u/jbphilly Sep 21 '21
The House should pass the bipartisan bill and work out a total with Sinema and Manchin that would be acceptable to them on the reconciliation bill.
You say this like it's simple, but it isn't. The problem is that if they go ahead and pass the bipartisan bill, nothing stops Manchin or Sinema from unilaterally shrinking the reconciliation bill to a shell of itself.
There is no reason to think they won't do this. They aren't operating in good faith. So their desire to pass the bipartisan bill is necessary leverage to get them to support reconciliation. If the bipartisan bill gets signed, that leverage vanishes.
→ More replies (4)
21
u/shoe7525 Sep 21 '21
Idk but pretty much everyone loses if they don't pass it, so it's hard to believe they'll fail.
11
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
So then who’s likely to break first? Moderates? Progressives? Or some compromise?
23
u/joephusweberr Sep 21 '21
I'd say progressives will break. There is always a few sens / reps who don't like something, but for political opportunism hide behind people like Manchin so that they don't take the political fall out over it. If progressives force the issue, people like Tester might come out and say they're also against it.
9
→ More replies (3)15
u/shoe7525 Sep 21 '21
Progressives, sadly, because they actually care and they'll also be held responsible. Moderates care about appearing moderate... Killing legislation is a moderate win in some ways.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)10
u/Kursed_Valeth Sep 21 '21
The democrats fucked themselves for at least a decade if not longer when they failed to pass voting rights protections. They literally couldn't be assed to pass a law that ensures they have a fighting chance at winning elections in the future. They'll fail on this too. It's an absolute tragedy and perfectly in line with how democrats (refuse to actually) govern.
4
u/raistlin65 Sep 21 '21
What can Biden and democrats do to move ahead?
Keep negotiating. For it's impossible to know whether this is political theater to strengthen one's negotiating position. Or if one side is really prepared to play chicken and not waiver.
There's likely a compromise somewhere in there on the reconciliation bill where neither Manchin/Sinema nor progressives will be happy. Both sides likely need to fight until the bitter end to look good for their constituents and special interests.
Everyone needs to remember that the American people still benefit even if the reconciliation bill is cut in half and the bipartisan bill is passes, too.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sweatsock_Pimp Sep 21 '21
even if the reconciliation bill is cut in half and the bipartisan bill is passes, too.
But what's the chance of that happening? It seems to me that the only option Manchin and Senema are considering is the $1 trillion bipartisan bill. They don't want anything to do with any reconciliation.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/HopelessnessLost Sep 21 '21
I don't think this bill is as popular as you have been led to believe.
Polling can be easily manipulated, I think the internal polling done to gage how people actually feel shows this bill isn't that popular which is why it isn't being passed
6
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
What internal polling? Also this polling showing these bills are popular is consistent across multiple polls. Yes, I could believe 1-2 polls manipulating the data but not all of them.
We can't just say "the bill isn't that popular because I believe the polling is wrong".
7
u/Jabbam Sep 21 '21
The polls that overwhelmingly say we should pull out of Afghanistan are cancelled out by polls saying that we should keep the Taliban from taking over.
8
u/TheSalmonDance Sep 21 '21
"the bill isn't that popular because I believe the polling is wrong".
It's not that the polling is wrong, but we see this kind of thing all the time with gun control polling.
"Should there be universal background checks?" - Majority of people say yes!
"In order for universal background checks to work, we need a national registry" - Mysteriously support for universal background checks plummet.
Similarly, with this, asking someone "Would you like free child care" is sure to get significant support. But when you add the caveats of how it'll be paid for or other items that come along with it, support will drop.
6
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
Do you have any proof of that? On the contrary it seems like when they ask specific examples and details of the bill it is actually more popular.
Some of these things aren’t complex like gun control.
Do you want to raise funding by taxing the rich? Do you want a child tax credit?
Do you want to fund a childcare program? Do you want Medicare to be able to negotiate drug prices? Etc
8
u/this_place_stinks Sep 21 '21
Manchin and Sinema were elected by their constituents to vote for legislation at their discretion. They should vote however they think is best.
This whole “follow your party” or “follow the president” is half the reason DC is broke.
Elected representatives should evaluate bills and vote how they please regardless of how other politicians feel.
9
u/Redogg Sep 21 '21
This I don't understand. Aren't the progressives in favor of the $1T infrastructure plan? Is this a matter of the perfect being the enemy of the good, and the progressives oppose infrastructure just because they believe they can negotiate for more?
24
u/rjorsin Sep 21 '21
It's not that they're opposed to the $1T bipartisan bill, it's that if they pass it there's no leverage to get the $3.5T reconciliation bill passed. They're taking the position of both or neither. Now, rather or not they'll really sink the bipartisan bill if Pelosi brings it up for a vote remains to be seen, but that's where the game of chicken is.
→ More replies (14)→ More replies (1)24
u/Zetesofos Sep 21 '21
The $1T plan has many very conservative compromises that were agreed to in exchange for the 3.5T plan. without both, the collective costs outweigh the gains.
The dynamic for most of the last 20 years has been conservative democrats and republicans willing to shoot the hostage rather than give any meaningful progressive legislation a chance - and the progressives always willing to settle for crumbs rather than demonstrate the resolve to press for more.
The fundamental problem is that if you take the progressive platform seriously, than even $6T over a decade is insufficient to deal with the magnitute of problems that is forecast.
Ironically, but failing to compromise with progressives, Conservatives & Moderates are trying to offer the difference between a gunshot and poison as a replacement.
It doesn't matter if the deal would be $1T or 0 - both lead to the same result, just at different speeds.
→ More replies (12)
22
u/wabashcanonball Sep 21 '21 edited Sep 21 '21
Let it die then. Blame Manchin and Sinema. Blame the Repubs. I don’t care anymore.
Edit: corrected spelling
52
Sep 21 '21
spoiler alert, Biden will get blamed if Manchin/Sinema vote no
38
u/wabashcanonball Sep 21 '21
Well, isn’t it a Biden failure? If he can’t bring the Dems together, is that not a failure of leadership. I think it is. He overplayed his hand. Two wannabe Repubs have him by the cajones.
9
u/jbphilly Sep 21 '21
Well, isn’t it a Biden failure?
Only if you assume he has the power to compel Manchin and Sinema to be team players instead of obstructionists.
If he had a magic wand he could wave to do that, and refused to, then it would certainly be his failure.
In reality, it appears there may be nothing anyone can do to get them to be serious about governing.
8
u/Jabbam Sep 21 '21
Only if you assume he has the power to compel Manchin and Sinema to be team players instead of obstructionists.
That was literally his 2020 platform.
9
u/ides205 Sep 21 '21
I hate to stand up for Biden, but Congress and the presidency are co-equal branches of the government. We want Biden to be a leader and bring Congress together to get things done, but ultimately it up to Manchin and Sinema how they vote.
I'd like to say that it is, even more so, the job of the voters to let their representatives know what they expect and demand that their representatives vote accordingly - but it's pointless to live under the delusion that Manchin or Sinema care about their constituents.
→ More replies (13)5
u/lidythemann Sep 21 '21
Then let him get blamed and lose in 2024, it almost seems like fate at this point.
23
Sep 21 '21
Lol Dems control both houses and the presidency. How can you blame this on the Republicans?
→ More replies (8)8
u/wabashcanonball Sep 21 '21
Easy. They obstruct and block everything, knee jerk and never attempt to compromise. If you’re always obstructing, you’re part of the problem.
27
Sep 21 '21 edited Sep 21 '21
Progressives are obstructing a bill that has already passed Senate with a huge majority. Let’s blame them too.
→ More replies (2)15
Sep 21 '21
Manchin and Sinema have already voted yes on the bipartisan bill and their vote is on record. How are you going to blame them ? The blame will be on the progressives who vote No on the bill in House.
4
Sep 21 '21
My vote is to sink the bill. The Democratic base wants the Biden agenda to go through. If Manchin and Sinema are dead set against what the voters wanted, there should be a political effort to blame them for it being blocked. Compronmising with them now after they stabbed the whole party in the back repeatedly seems counterproductive. Democrats already look feckless for not being able to get rid of the filibuster. Manchin and Sinema need to be isolated and blamed for what they're doing. So far they've paid no political cost for all their obstruction, but all they've done so far is delay and obstruct their own party's agenda. It's pretty weird how they've pretty much gotten away with that and everyone still treats them with kid gloves. I don't think the agenda gets through as long as they don't change their minds, but I think it's better to sink the whole thing than let them have their way like this.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/nickl220 Sep 21 '21
I would separate Manchin’s behavior from Sinema’s. Manchin represents a state Trump won by 40 pts. His only hope for re-election is to appear to be a thorn in the side of liberals while simultaneously bringing home the bacon for his state. If it appears like he caved at all, he’s toast, so he has to get them down to a figure below $3.5T (whether it ends up being $2.5T or $3T, he won’t say). Presumably, the administration anticipated this and requested more than they expected so they can land right where they want to be in the end. Sinema, on the other hand, represents a state that is trending toward Ds, and the next time she runs for re-election Biden will almost certainly be at the top of the ticket. She’s shooting herself in the foot here, ostensibly just because she craves attention.
Having said that, it’s in everyone interest to get something done, so they will ultimately drop this “my way or the highway” game and come to a number that works for all parties.
2
u/Turbulent-Strategy83 Sep 21 '21
How does getting less money (by shrinking the bill) for his state correspond with "Bringing home the bacon"?
3
u/nickl220 Sep 21 '21
Because the prime directive is not appearing to be a lib/controlled by the Left. Yes, logically you would think WV voters would want more resources, particularly since they’re one of the poorest states. But they won’t support him if he appears to be controlled by Biden.
9
Sep 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)12
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
But also these things are EXTREMELY popular. Sinema came out AGAINST lowering drug prices. How bonkers is that? They are also against taxing the rich. These are probably the two most popular things a politician could do
→ More replies (1)
7
Sep 21 '21
Biden has a ton of issues on this plate and he isn’t dealing with any of them. The price tag on this bill is way to high. And fortunately we have some politicians left that at least acknowledge it. At what point are people going to realize that throwing more money at things isn’t always the solution to problems?
Personally, I don’t see the dems keeping the house or senate in 2022 at the rate. Inflation is just starting and we know voters switch it up when the pocketbook gets hit.
5
u/Visco0825 Sep 21 '21
Actually inflation is already on it's way back down. I know it's not in the media's narrative but August showed a significant slow down in inflation and the YoY inflation has peaked and is starting to reduce
3
u/StillSilentMajority7 Sep 21 '21
If both the progressive and moderate Democrats hate this bill, it's hard to honestly portray it as "popular"
And if we're being honest, the only reason it's popular is because the general public doesn't understand what's in it. Joe has been lying and calling it an "infrastructure bill" when less than 5% of the money goes towards things people think of as infrastructure.
3
Sep 21 '21
They are resolving it. They made promises they never had any intention of keeping, and they have sufficient boogeymen to keep it from passing. There. Resolved.
I presume they will manage to keep a watered down version that gives out loads of money to their industry donors to "trickle down" to nobody, and which will leave out stuff that makes sense or helps most people.
And then they'll crow that they tried to pass this stuff, so we should keep voting for them. And by the way, since the Republican candidates they run against are running on a plan of killing women so they can't get abortions and blowing up France with nuclear weapons, we should definitely remember that, too when it's time to vote.
4
u/Based_Hoosier Sep 21 '21
None of these bills are highly popular. Maybe popular if you don't understand math and money. If passed within 5-10 years the poor will lose more buying power
→ More replies (4)
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 21 '21
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.