"Legitimate Political Discourse" - a bridge too far, or convenient off-ramp?

[marc]

That's West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

(Who only supports Biden 95% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight...)

I wonder how they get that 95% estimate... Do they count every vote to name a post office or something, and every non-binding resolution as part of it. The stuff that doesn't actually do anything. But the opposing filibuster reform, and stuff that was never even brought up for a vote because it was either filibustered, or knew they didn't have the votes because of him are not counted because there was no vote?

 

[Hermit]

That's West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

(Who only supports Biden 95% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight...)

I wonder how they get that 95% estimate... Do they count every vote to name a post office or something, and every non-binding resolution as part of it. The stuff that doesn't actually do anything. But the opposing filibuster reform, and stuff that was never even brought up for a vote because it was either filibustered, or knew they didn't have the votes because of him are not counted because there was no vote?

95% is the tally of how often Joe Manchin voted for the president in the Senate. Kyrsten Sinema's tally is 98%. There are another 12 Democrat Senators on 95% (Elizabeth Warren is among them), and 3 are on 93% (Bernie Sanders is one of those). No Democrat Senator's tally of voting for the president is lower than 93%.

I guess Manchin and Sinema are on the nose because of what issues they voted against rather than the number of times they voted against the president. Much like Cheney and Kinzinger on the other side of the fence, I suspect.

 

[marc]

That's West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.

(Who only supports Biden 95% of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight...)

I wonder how they get that 95% estimate... Do they count every vote to name a post office or something, and every non-binding resolution as part of it. The stuff that doesn't actually do anything. But the opposing filibuster reform, and stuff that was never even brought up for a vote because it was either filibustered, or knew they didn't have the votes because of him are not counted because there was no vote?

95% is the tally of how often Joe Manchin voted for the president in the Senate.

Thanks...

Yea, some of the items they count as agreeing with Biden:
$3.5 trillion budget plan
Expanding voting rights and strengthening campaign finance regulations and ethics rules
both items he helped to prevent happening. And they include supporting each of Biden's nominations for any position he was filling. So if you nominate 99 people for offices and I ok them all, then you only put one actual piece of legislation forward, and I say I support it, but ultimately sink it by saying I can't vote for it so it is never actually brought to the floor, I would get a 100% rating by this count.

 

[Elixir]

I guess Manchin and Sinema are on the nose because of what issues they voted against rather than the number of times they voted against the president.

What Marc sez.

"I'll trade you three Post Office names and a National Park name for some voting rights! How about you get TWO National Park names plus a Federal Judge, and we get some climate change mitigation?"

No, it doesn't work like that.

Time is long overdue for Dems to recognize the truth of their situation. They "have" 48 Party members in the Senate, plus two who are their own agents, and who will vote with them if doing so is consistent with the wishes of their donors and/or the health of their personal investments. Unfortunately those two have disparate interests, so pleasing both of them generally involves gutting whatever is on the table to the point of uselessness.

 

[TomC]

So if you nominate 99 people for offices and I ok them all, then you only put one actual piece of legislation forward, and I say I support it, but ultimately sink it by saying I can't vote for it so it is never actually brought to the floor, I would get a 100% rating by this count.

Different outfits have slightly different methods for this, but I don't think anybody credible has quite that simplistic a method.

I also remember the good old days, when bipartisanship wasn't such disaster. People who really paid attention often saw legislators vote for or against bills in contradiction to their own agenda. This could be done if one's constituents wanted a certain vote, but the legislator was confident that his vote wouldn't change the outcome.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess Manchin and Sinema are on the nose because of what issues they voted against rather than the number of times they voted against the president.

What Marc sez.

"I'll trade you three Post Office names and a National Park name for some voting rights! How about you get TWO National Park names plus a Federal Judge, and we get some climate change mitigation?"

No, it doesn't work like that.

Time is long overdue for Dems to recognize the truth of their situation. They "have" 48 Party members in the Senate, plus two who are their own agents, and who will vote with them if doing so is consistent with the wishes of their donors and/or the health of their personal investments. Unfortunately those two have disparate interests, so pleasing both of them generally involves gutting whatever is on the table to the point of uselessness.

But without them, we aren't seating anyone on the Supreme Court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So it is interesting to note the tactic being used here. Instead of actually comparing the two, the tactic is to bring up one thing at a time, claiming equivalence. When they are shown it is not equivalent, they just come up with another non-equivalence. The attempt is usually to exhaust the argument with bullshit. They don’t try to be right, they just try to turn the discussion to spending energy on correcting the bullshit.


It’s still just wrong. And they know it’s wrong, or they’d present an actually cogent argument in the first place, with a full comparison. The fact that they don’t - tells us all we need to know.

Tom asks,

For example, suppose a Democratic congressperson voted along with Obama 98% of the time. Do you honestly think that they'd be treated the way the GOP is treating Liz Cheney?

And the answer is, there is no equivalent behavior. It’s Moore-Coulter, all the way down.
Gish Gallop.
Bullshit.

No. Cheney was censured by her own party and will likely loss her primary (if she hasn't already). Same for Sinema - who progressives treat like shit. Please spare us the faux idea that Democrats are all noble and honorable.

Democrats plan to censure lawmaker who credited Trump for COVID-19 recovery

Detroit Democrats plan to vote Saturday to censure and bar any future endorsements of Democratic Rep. Whitsett who met with Trump about COVID-19 drug

www.detroitnews.com

Editorial: Democrats' censure is a step down a troubling road

It can be nothing but unhealthy for an American political party to insist upon a "correct" viewpoint or else.

www.palmbeachpost.com

Democrat Lawmaker Censured by Democrats for Supporting Constitutional Carry - Texas Scorecard

While most Texas Democrats have favored gun control, opponents argue criminals don’t follow the law or abide by the restrictions, which causes harm to law-abiding citizens.

texasscorecard.com

Wow, broken clock is sync'ing at the moment. The censure of Sinema was beyond stupid. It was reckless and undemocratic.