Much of the coming bloodbath is on the shoulders of Manchin and Sinema. Much blame will be aimed at Joe Biden but the main stumbling block has been the lack of legislative success and the weak link there has been unity in the Senate. If they could have gotten BBB, it'd have shifted narratives a lot. Democrats would probably still lose ground in the midterms, but I think not as much.
Joe Manchin’s Approach to Biden’s Presidency Is Paying Off in West Virginia Over the past year, Manchin has seen the largest job approval rating improvement of any senator Sen. Joe Manchin has faced the wrath of progressives nationwide during Joe Biden’s presidency for killing a range of domestic agenda items on voting rights, social spending programs and climate change. But at home in West Virginia, Morning Consult Political Intelligence data suggests the moderate Democrat knows exactly what he’s doing. In surveys conducted Jan. 1-March 31, 57% of West Virginia voters approved of Manchin’s job performance, up from 40% during the first quarter of 2021 — the biggest increase of any senator over that time frame. Manchin’s increased popularity is driven primarily by Republican voters: 69% now approve of his job performance, doubling his rating from the first quarter of last year, when 35% approved. Most of that improvement has come since the third quarter of 2021 — before he killed the Democrats’ “Build Back Better” domestic policy legislation. “It turns out that Joe Manchin knows more about West Virginia voters than D.C. strategists,” said former Manchin aide Jonathan Kott. “The amount of interactions he has with his voters I don’t think can be paralleled by other members.”
Sen. Joe Manchin's job is represent the state of West Virginia, with his constituents approving the job he has done. Good for him.
I could be mistaken, but I think he has said he plans to retire at the end of his current term. If that is true, he might go independent, but it would not make sense for him to become a Republican at this late date.
I disagree. There will always be nonexistent windmills (like southern border crisis, CRT, masks, etc.) to attack. As of right now, the Rs * do not have a single legislative agenda they will pursue, if they win control of either house * will do nothing to tackle high inflation * support The Big Lie and the insurrectionists * support Russia and its war with Ukraine * support the elimination of Roe v Wade * support the elimination of same sex marriage * (guessing here) support lowering taxes on the Top 1%, since their life is so unfair
Eh, I argued this case on here before (who knows, maybe it was with you!) and don't really want to rehash it. But Dems will get all the blame because they controlled both chambers and the presidency and still couldn't pass things. If they didn't have control of the Senate these last 2 years, they'd perversely do better in these upcoming elections. Moreover, by not insisting on even a bare minimum of party discipline with Manchin, they'll only suffer more disloyalty from him and others in the future. Yeah, yeah, there were some Senate confirmations including one of a Justice thanks to his nominal inclusion in the Democratic fold. I still think he's more of a liability for the party all told than he is an asset.
Bad news for the maximally egregious Democrat controlled gerrymandering attempt in New York state, which would have resulted in a 22-4 partisan Democrat advantage in New York's US House of Representatives districts. That effort has been ash-canned by what is effectively the New York Supreme Court. No appeal is apparently allowed in this case, according to the article below. Now a "Special Master" appointed by that court will be charged with drawing a non-partisan map. This is just going to make a steep uphill climb in this coming November's election all the more difficult. They should have tried to gerrymander in a more moderate and reasonable fashion, the way that Republican legislatures typically do. Top New York court tosses redistricting map in defeat for Democrats New York's highest court threw out the state's redistricting maps, dealing a massive blow to Democrats for the 2022 midterm election cycle. The New York State Court of Appeals sided with lower courts in its determination that the three maps were unconstitutionally gerrymandered and ordered the adoption of a neutral plan to be crafted by a special master. The maps were "procedurally unconstitutional, and the congressional map is also substantively unconstitutional as drawn with impermissible partisan purpose," the court said. "We are confident that, in consultation with the Board of Elections, Supreme Court can swiftly develop a schedule to facilitate an August primary election, allowing time for the adoption of new constitutional maps." If the congressional maps had stayed in effect, Democrats likely would have expanded their 19-8 majority to 22-4 under the new lines, according to experts' testimony. The state lost a seat during the most recent census. Because Wednesday's ruling, a 4-3 decision, came from the highest court in the state, Democrats will likely not be able to appeal.
NYTimes: New York’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that Democratic leaders had violated the State Constitution when drawing new congressional and State Senate districts, ordering a court-appointed special master to draw replacement lines for this year’s critical midterm elections instead. In a sweeping 32-page ruling, a divided New York State Court of Appeals chided Democrats for defying the will of voters who in 2014 adopted constitutional reforms, including a new outside commission, to curb political influence in the redistricting process. The judges additionally found that the congressional districts drawn by Democrats had violated an explicit state ban on partisan gerrymandering. “Through the 2014 amendments, the people of this state adopted substantial redistricting reforms aimed at ensuring that the starting point for redistricting legislation would be district lines proffered by a bipartisan commission following significant public participation, thereby ensuring each political party and all interested persons a voice in the composition of those lines,” Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote for the four-judge majority. The verdict, which is not subject to appeal, delivered a stinging defeat to Democrats in Albany and in Washington and cast this year’s election cycle into deep uncertainty. To accommodate the drawing of new districts, the Court of Appeals indicated that party primaries for the congressional and State Senate districts would have to be postponed from June until August. more at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/nyregion/redistricting-congress-gerrymander-ny.html
I'm not saying I'm blaming him, but considering that during his campaign he spoke on being able to unite Senate due to his years of experience in the Senate plus all the relationships he has in the Senate, he is definitely going to be blamed by people. People too lazy to research all the efforts the Biden administration went through to get Manchin/Sinema along. Maybe he should of tweeted to embarrass them to stand with the party similar to Trump tactics.
Funny... Manchin must be sensing the possibility of blame for his opposition, since he is now trying to get republicans to go along with some energy and climate bills... guessing Joe will be able to say he tried bipartisanship when it fails... Manchin meets with bipartisan group to discuss possible energy and climate deal https://theweek.com/joe-manchin/101...p-to-discuss-possible-energy-and-climate-deal
Dems will keep control of the House either way, I guess. Here’s a photo of the gang all together plotting the secret 2023-2024 Democratic agenda.
Perhaps the very rich senator from Utah doesn't see the difference between a young person accumulating a ton of debt getting educated with hope of creating a better life for themselves and contribute to society... compared to someone wanting to buy a nice car, buy a house, or run up credit card debt? What seems a better investment for America? And... if I am not mistaken, wasn't this part of the campaign platform... so the comment about polling is false?
Well, it wasn't the climate and energy stuff that Manchin was held up on regarding BBB. I thought there was a sliver of hope they could make a slimmer deal. But there is very little time left before the election season makes it impossible.
True, but my belief is that Manchin sees the need to get something accomplished else he will be seen as part of the "party of no". He has to at least look somewhat Democrat to claim he is "bi-partisan".
What an infantile world view. Not sure where you get the notion those struggling with these types of debt are less worthy of loan forgiveness. Many people need a car, not necessarily a nice car, people need housing, sometimes circumstances arise where people need to use their credit. To act as if those who struggle with those types of debt are just louses is disgusting and incredibly ignorant. Biden's shifting position on student loans is clearly predicated on the looming election, it won't help, people won't go vote for you as a "thank you" after you give them free money. They will have already gotten it. It's also deeply unfair and short sighted as it does nothing to address the root of the problem. It's also going to make inflation and the housing market worse.
State Courts are an interesting study. It's like the state courts with the biggest balls prevent partisan gerrymanders in their own states (NY, Kansas, Maryland) and then there are other state courts that don't care. It's my hope (though very slim) that national courts one day will grow balls and expand the scope of gerrymandering interventions. This is similar to the 1960's reapportionment debate when most states like Cali and Tennessee and others never reapportioned after populations moved from the countryside to the cities. We had cities being taxed a multiple times the tax rates of rural areas because rural areas had like 1/10th the population but 3 times the state legislators. It was a huge controversy that federal courts could even intervene in this subject. 4-4 the first time around, then a weak 5-4, then flip to 6-3 because one justice didn't believe that it was constitutional, but that there seemed to be no other recourse for city representation. Then 6-2 because one dissenter actually went insane. Sorry for babbling, this is all Baker v Carr btw. Back to the main point. Strong state courts that are willing to uphold state constitutions help party proportional representation at state levels, but weak partisan courts (like Texas now and Tenessee in the 60's) don't uphold state constitutions in favor of partisanship which hurts national party proportional represenation. But it's been consistently held that state courts are the final say in state constitutions. Even when overruled, it's not based on national courts being better interpretors of state constitutions (other than a few radical exceptions like Alito and Thomas recently), but it's usually based on national constitutional principles like the 14's Equal Protection Clause. Anyhow, gerrymandering is an American scurge to represenational democracy that happens at all levels of government and sometimes is done more effectively by one party or the other. I don't love a national judicial solution, but I don't see other better ones, just like I didn't see better ones more viable than federal courts eventially implementing one man, one vote. I'm all for the variation of extremely liberal and extremely conservative states. Go for it. But it only makes sense to me when that happens to states that are truly 90/10. It's freakin totally against democracy when a 55/45 state wants to go super red or super blue on representation. I honestly would want a proportionality amendment, but that's too unrealistic.
