AZ Senator Kyrsten Sinema under attack with two new ads by progressive group

boing
41

In the UK Labour are currently getting hammered in the polls by doing that, specifically chasing after what have been called Red Wall voters with what could most charitably be called anti-idpol policies. Having lost the Hartlepool by election and are now on course to lose the Batley and Spen by-election next week, they might want to reconsider.

Most tellingly, they consider Palestine to be an idpol issue, and are losing votes from both younger people and South Asian people in Batly and Spen who consider it to be important. George Galloway has taken advantage of this and it is expected that the split will give the long time Labour seat to the Conservatives. I probably dislike George Galloway more than I do Keir Starmer, George is far too auth-left for my liking and he’s also a blatant transphobe.

My earlier comment pointed out that under normal two party political circumstances (like when the right wing party is not being taken over by fascists), a right wing candidate can outmaneuver a left wing party that has gone too far right and make some superficially centre-left policies that don’t go against party policy to steal some of the disillusioned voters, which may be enough to swing an election in their favour. This is what the Conservatives are doing here. Sinema and Manchin aren’t doing this, they seem to be right wingers who ignore Democratic policy in an attempt to be moderate Republicans in states where they couldn’t win a Republican primary.

Transgender people in the UK are finding out how that attitude can harm people. We have been asking for rights for the last 30 years, and rather than getting them (the 2004 Gender Recognition Act has major flaws that were pointed out at the time, we were told to wait by the moderates) we are now facing a rollback to being second class citizens* at best and criminalisation if the worst of the TERs get their way.

* British people stopped being subjects of the Queen 40 years ago. I don’t care what the Brexiters want, I do not consent to being a subject of anyone and will resist any attempt to make me one.

6 Likes
42

You’re not offering another viable option, though. You’ve conceded that he’s not persuadable on the things we care about–so the options are (1) we don’t hit him with the banhammer and he stays in the democratic caucus, which means we at least get judges, or (2) we go nuclear on him, in which case … he doesn’t change his mind but might hand the Senate to the Republicans for the next year plus.

Call me a “moderate, pragmatic Dem centrist” if you want, but I don’t see why (2) is a desirable outcome at all.

1 Like
43

Whipping him in the ways I described is absolutely a viable option, in that it punishes him in the view of his voters and denies him the ability to do more damage through his committee assignments. Give him the choice to stay in the caucus, but don’t let him hold the party hostage if he wants it.

And, again, given the GOP’s intent to dismantle liberal democracy and his collusion in that process, that’s going to happen anyhow. I’m taking the long view about the GOP’s open assault on democratic norms. The Dem establishment is worried about this year’s judicial appointments.

4 Likes
44

I’m confused at what the “long-view” upside is. It seems to me you’re saying that there’s little or nothing we can do that will change his practices in our favor and that whatever actions we do take will probably result in a Republican Senate, but that we should deny ourselves the victories (judges, etc.) over the next year and a half that we can have while he’s keeping the Democrats in a nominal majority.

What’s the long-view benefit of that? It doesn’t strike me as likely to alter the outcome of any of the 2022 elections–at least not in favor of Democrats–but perhaps you see it differently?

45

Not having one duopoly party cheating its way toward whatever it wants ofter 2022 because DINOs blocked a chance to pass the acts mentioned above.

3 Likes
46

That is the goal we all want, but–again–I am confused about how you think forcing Manchin out of the Democratic Party will help achieve that goal. Not to get all Underpants-Gnome-y, but I’m not seeing the middle step between “Kick Manchin in the teeth” and “Profit!”.

47

Again: I’m not necessarily saying force him or Sinema out. I’m saying (read carefully):

Reduce their ability to hold the party hostage and punish them in the most effective way possible (withholding pork, taking away committee assignments, denying them campaign support, primarying them, etc.) for not backing the John Lewis Voter Rights Act and the For the People Act (and other legislation like a $15 minimum wage, common-sense gun control regulations, laws that protect a woman’s right to choose, etc.).

I’m saying to the Democratic Party: Stop Rewarding Bad Behaviour.

And the “profit”? Attracting new and young voters (ones who aren’t prevented from voting by GOP cheats) with a progressive agenda that appeals to their concerns.

And before you say “they’d never do this”, I’ll draw your attention to the party’s effective expulsion of Dixiecrats during the 1960s. It was either “take a hike” (as Thurmond did) or “get with the programme” (as Byrd did). It takes guts and leadership to stand by your principles in service of the long-term health and sustainability of the republic and the party. LBJ showed some backbone, but it’s sorely lacking amongst the current Dem establishment (again, because DINOs like Manchin give them cover for their neoliberal-lite agenda).

5 Likes
48

Thanks for clarifying. That’s where I got confused, because you also conceded this:

Since Mitch McConnell would kneecap his own children live on television if doing so would get him back in control of the Senate, I have no doubt he has already offered Manchin all the pork and committee assignments he wants if he jumps ship, along with the gentle reminder that becoming a Republican would likely improve Manchin’s electoral prospects.

Among many other differences from that long-ago time, the Democrats never had fewer than 58 seats in the Senate during the entirety of the 1960s–and they had 64 heading into the 1964 elections. It’s easy to show backbone when you have a 60-plus-seat supermajority. Harder to do when showing backbone will “probably” (your word) lose them the Senate.

EDIT: Responding to your point below: We remain in violent agreement about the long-term goals and dangers here. The problem, as I see it, is that the Democrats are already likely to lose the House in 2022 due to Trump’s fucking with the census and Republican state-level fuckery. Anything that increases the likelihood that the GOP will have the Senate as well when the 2024 elections roll around may well spell the end of American democracy, because no matter how lopsidedly whichever Trump they put up loses, the House and Senate and state-level Republicans will ratfuck the election and there won’t be anybody there to stop them.

49

One chamber for a few years, perhaps (and perhaps not). Leaders with real backbone look at the long term and consider real sacrifice. From Bill Moyers:

When [LBJ] signed the [Civil Rights Act of 1964] he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come,” he said.

The 1960s may be a “long-ago” time, but the stakes surrounding the end of Jim Crow were about as high as the stakes are now for closing off avenues for GOP cheating.

2 Likes
50

And this is truly where it becomes a suicide pact. Unless (and this a real possibility, more so for Sinema) they are worried about a primary from the left. Blocking voting rights could make sense from that standpoint, but truly, do they think the Repubs will just let them be? They will not win election in the twisted, partisan game that it has become.

4 Likes
51

Maybe take a look at Manchin’s actual history on that one.

He’s got long history of rubber stamping GOP picks and playing along with ratfucking DNC appointments of all sorts. As well as undercutting critical procedural votes. Most famously with regards to the recent Supreme Court mess.

It’s not just bills where he tends to vote with the GOP.

The long view is that Manchin needs to go. Because he can not be relied upon for exactly those sorts of critical, long term impact votes.

The entire argument is undermined by the fact that everytime it comes down to whatever critical thing justifies his prominence, he doesn’t come through. Manchin is likely to be as much of a liability on judges right where he is.

1 Like
52

There is no fucking long view without the voter rights bills. Fascists don’t give a shit about judges - they murder the ones who don’t rule the way they want and replace them with someone who will.

7 Likes
53

So, basically: the situations in 2022 and 2024 are hopeless, so why even try to pass the full versions of the two voting acts that might reduce the damage and set the stage for future reforms that could preserve liberal democracy? Might as well just let the DINOs call the shots, compromise with the GOP in the short-term, and keep the Dems what the rest of the West would see as a centre right party.

Yeah, I’ll have to disagree with that outlook.

5 Likes
54

If we just give the fascists what they want, they’ll surely become reasonable once again! /s

8 Likes
55

It reminds me of the line from “The Good Place”:

“You know, he’s right,” […] the head of The Good Place Committee responds, “the only reasonable thing to do is to keep giving up things unilaterally until this demon is happy.”

As Michael puts it about them: “The Titanic is sinking and they’re writing a strongly worded letter to the iceberg.”

The Good Place Committee is one of the best parodies of the Beltway Dem establishment ever on TV.

4 Likes
56

Don’t tell me–I’m not the one arguing that he’s taking the long view.

57

Um, nothing justifies his prominence. My argument–throughout this entire thread–is just that in a 50/50 Senate whose majority leader gets to set the agenda, we are very slightly better off with Joe Manchin caucusing with the Democrats than with the Republicans. If Mitch were Majority Leader right now, Merrick Garland’s seat would be empty until the next presidential election, and the one after that if the next one doesn’t come out the way Mitch wants.

Nobody in this thread has come up with an option where we stand any likelihood of passing the full versions of the two voting acts. You’ve suggested kicking Manchin in the teeth until he submits, while conceding (1) he likely won’t submit, and (2) he is likely to switch parties if we do, which won’t get either voting act passed.

The point is that you are not being anywhere near pessimistic enough about how fucked we are. This isn’t about “establishment dems” ruining your day. It’s about there being no clear way forward for liberal democracy in the U.S.

58

True, though neither am I. You seem to be arguing that there’s no point in anyone on the so-called left – Manchin, the Dem leadership, Dems in general – taking the long view. Instead asking us to focus on the short term of keeping a slim and tenuous majority that can’t get much of substance done over the next year and a half or so.

In contrast, the GOP has to take the long view, faced as it is with changing demographics that will make them a permanent minority party at best starting around 2030. Which is why they’re fighting tooth-and-nail to prevent any laws that would curtail their ability to cheat.

I actually think there’s a chance he might submit, if it hurts him enough with his voters and if he wants to stay a Dem powerbroker on their behalf (especially now that the GOP is once again publically playing him for a schmuck). If he ragequits and switches back to the GOP, the result will be slightly worse in the short term but also result in a Dem party that actually sticks to its supposed core values instead of folding like a cheap card table to the GOP and RINOs.

That sort of backbone and leadership tends to attract voters instead of leaving them apathetic (especially if, y’know, the issue at hand is making it easier for them to vote in fairer elections). The passage of the 1964 act, despite causing short-term pain, led to long-term gains for the Dems.

There’s a difference between being a pessimist (which I am) and a defeatist (which you increasingly strike me as).

Pessimism is “we’re gonna lose the South for a generation if we pass this act that makes it easier for Black people to vote”. Defeatism follows up with “so let’s just keep giving the Dixiecrats what they want and give up.” The first is stating a hard truth, while the second sees Jim Crow persisting into the 21st century.

Oh, speaking as an affluent white cis-het male, that bunch of neoliberal globalists isn’t capable of ruining my day anytime soon. By the time their continued appeasement of the Death Cult Party and of DINOs results in either illiberal Putin-style pseudo-democracy or Peter Thiel’s dream world of capitalism unfettered by democracy, I’ll be fine because (as a pessimist) I’m already making contingency exit plans. However, since I’m not a defeatist and because I know my privilege to leave is not enjoyed by most of my fellow Americans, in the short-term I’m going to call out the hapless “Good Place Committee” Dems and support actual progressive candidates and agendas that fight fascism as long as I can.

4 Likes
59

McConnell is publicly attacking Manchin describing his current position as a trick designed to sneak Stacy Abram’s agenda in behind the American people’s backs.

He’s personally insulting Manchin in public.

Apparently in response to Manchin floating that he’d reconsider the filibuster, and might back the original version of the voting rights bill if the GOP doesn’t at least negotiate over his version.

McConnell would rather burn whatever pull he has with Manchin than lose control of his caucus. And McConnell’s whole thing is working obstruction to get his shit through anyway, so it’s not clear to me he cares about controlling the senate by a single vote.

I just don’t think this is the risk you think it is. Manchin wouldn’t be voting any different than he does now anyway. And his tendency to do this seems completely disconnected from any relationship with the GOP or McConnell.

The short term hope right now is that Manchin’s threats aren’t hollow. And he takes the current attacks personally enough to actually follow through.

My point is that his actual history points to otherwise.

For his entire career. When it comes down to Manchin. Manchin votes with the GOP.

I mean talk about tie votes and absolutely critical moments, and it’s this one. Manchin is the single hold up on the issue and a bill that’s already passed the House. He’s been the main stumbling block in finally killing the filibuster for 6 months (this go round, he’s been there for years).

Sinema doesn’t have to pull to stand on her own on this, she seems to be largely following Manchin’s lead.

Both the DNC and the GOP are calling Manchin’s bluff too. With Abrams and now Obama giving his version a nod. And McConnell going on the attack.

Because it’s unlikely.

And it is so ridiculously unlikely because Manchin can not be relied upon.

Just like Manchin was the hold up on past attempts to fully kill the filibuster.

Just like Manchin was the breaking point that gave the GOP 3 supreme court picks with barely a fight.

When it’s really important. There is no difference between Joe Manchin being the tipping point and a GOP majority.

Sadly I think the thing that’s mostly likely to do this is McConnell’s attacks.

1 Like
60

I’m sorry, but no. Would I vote for the man in a primary in my state? Hell no. But this is circular-firing-squad level rhetoric.

1 Like