Joe Biden 2021

[wildcat09 29,377]

Just now, Js1 said:

THIS.

Tell Machin and Sinema whatever, get (at least) 2 more Dems elected in 2022 and hold your other seats and then you can do things without them.  

If Dems can gain a couple of seats in 2022 the very first thing Biden needs to do is tell Sinema they're primarying her.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Let’s assume I’m wrong and it’s not Biden’s responsibility, do you believe it matters?  Like, politically. The consequences are easily predictable. Biden needs to do better, that’s the bottom line.  He sold himself as the guy that could work with everyone to get things done.  He’s either incompetent by his own standards or delusional.  Take your pick.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

44 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not the biggest thing but this has probably made me angrier than anything else his administration has done so far.

One perceived downfall of putting Biden in office is that his team takes governing seriously and instead of playing politics, they follow regs, established guidance and procedures, and precedent.  I’m assuming that is what the DOJ is doing here. I’m assuming there is established procedure on determining when an action by POTUS should be considered an action by a government employee and thus when it shouldn’t be defended by the government.  

We want our agencies to follow procedures rather than politics.

I get is feels shitty. I get it is something to be embarrassed and ashamed about. I’m embarrassed that our gov attorneys are wasting tax money on this.  If we don’t want to be embarrassed by this kind of stuff, we shouldn’t elect an utter clown to office. 

[wildcat09 29,377]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

One perceived downfall of putting Biden in office is that his team takes governing seriously and instead of playing politics, they follow regs, established guidance and procedures, and precedent.  I’m assuming that is what the DOJ is doing here. I’m assuming there is established procedure on determining when an action by POTUS should be considered an action by a government employee and thus when it shouldn’t be defended by the government.  

We want our agencies to follow procedures rather than politics.

I get is feels shitty. I get it is something to be embarrassed and ashamed about. I’m embarrassed that our gov attorneys are wasting tax money on this.  If we don’t want to be embarrassed by this kind of stuff, we shouldn’t elect an utter clown to office. 

It's not.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not.

It is rather obvious that is what is going on here. Do you have source to the contrary? 
 

Quote

"Then-President Trump's response to Ms. Carroll's serious allegations of sexual assault included statements that questioned her credibility in terms that were crude and disrespectful," Brian Boynton, the acting head of the department's Civil Division, wrote in the brief. "But this case does not concern whether Mr. Trump's response was appropriate. Nor does it turn on the truthfulness of Ms. Carroll's allegations."

Instead, Boynton said, it boils down to a few legal questions, including whether a president is an "employee of the government" and whether Trump's denials were made within the scope of his office. 

The department said the answer to both questions is yes, and therefore under federal law it said the government should be able to replace Trump as defendant in the case.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/08/1004340386/biden-doj-plans-to-continue-to-defend-trump-in-e-jean-carrolls-defamation-lawsui

 

[wildcat09 29,377]

The argument that his statements were made within the scope of the office is flatly wrong and is the problem here. They’re not trying to uphold existing precedent, they’re trying to expand immunity to cover literally all conduct by a president while in office, regardless of its connection or lack thereof to the execution of the duties of the office.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

They’re actually setting precedent and not a good one. 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The argument that his statements were made within the scope of the office is flatly wrong and is the problem here. They’re not trying to uphold existing precedent, they’re trying to expand immunity to cover literally all conduct by a president while in office, regardless of its connection or lack thereof to the execution of the duties of the office.

Barr's DOJ set the precedent in this case.  

Statement by the plaintiff's attorney, "The DOJ’s position is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward."

The DOJ may lose their appeal.  That would be great IMO. However, this is what a non-partisan DOJ looks like.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

They could bully him. 

And then manchin could switch parties and hand over the senate to Moscow Mitch. It’s not like his West Virginia constituency would be upset, quite the opposite.

[Satchel 6,948]

23 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Barr's DOJ set the precedent in this case.  

Statement by the plaintiff's attorney, "The DOJ’s position is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward."

The DOJ may lose their appeal.  That would be great IMO. However, this is what a non-partisan DOJ looks like.

Agree. I think it’s important for the long term health of our democracy and to keep the entire country from becoming hopelessly cynical, to demonstrate the prudence of following rules and norms. But vigilance is required to make sure the faith placed in said rules and norms is well placed.

[Eskimohorn 5,642]

Let’s assume I’m wrong and it’s not Biden’s responsibility, do you believe it matters?  Like, politically. The consequences are easily predictable. Biden needs to do better, that’s the bottom line.  He sold himself as the guy that could work with everyone to get things done.  He’s either incompetent by his own standards or delusional.  Take your pick.

You are wrong and it doesn’t matter much politically. The media likes to crow about things like that, but voters aren’t punishing politicians for not reaching across to opposing forces.

Biden’s got to continue to keep doing what he’s doing and avoid land mines. Competency and being low-key are more important to moderate conservatives (aka independents) than going full-tilt. Its great I dont hear about for days, even weeks.

Manchin and Sinema can do what they please until they can’t.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

The cold hard reality is that if Joe Manchin doesn’t want something to pass it won’t. Biden knows this. It’s actually a pretty unique and unprecedented situation from what I can tell.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

17 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

And then manchin could switch parties and hand over the senate to Moscow Mitch. It’s not like his West Virginia constituency would be upset, quite the opposite.

It’s worth the risk.  Don’t let Manchin bully the Dem trifecta like he’s doing now.  At least politically you’re visibly putting in an effort that matches the stakes.  The loss of Manchin would not be the end of the world, the gridlock he’s causing isn’t going away.

 

Edited June 8, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[wildcat09 29,377]

36 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Barr's DOJ set the precedent in this case.  

Statement by the plaintiff's attorney, "The DOJ’s position is not only legally wrong, it is morally wrong since it would give federal officials free license to cover up private sexual misconduct by publicly brutalizing any woman who has the courage to come forward."

The DOJ may lose their appeal.  That would be great IMO. However, this is what a non-partisan DOJ looks like.

Oh for fuck’s same. Barr’s DOJ advancing that argument in this same case didn’t create precedent. That argument was completely new, utter nonsense, and it already fucking lost.

I’d actually rather this be a cynical attempt to expand presidential immunity than a masturbatory commitment to pretending to stick to some vague idea of norms. This isn’t consistent with any norms that have any value. If this is about norms then it’s actual virtue signaling, in the sense that Republicans use that phrase, but even worse because it’s virtue signaling in a manner that could actually substantively hurt America moving forward. If they do win on appeal and presidential immunity gets expanded, the next Trump will feel even less restrained by law. The next Trump may not call off the insurrection if he thinks even treason gets presidential immunity. Is that worth the absolutely zero fucking percent chance that this pretense of a commitment to norms could earn any goodwill from Republicans? 

Fasicsts aren’t even the greatest threat to American democracy, shit like “WE MUST STICK TO NORMS!” is.

[wildcat09 29,377]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s worth the risk.  Don’t let Manchin bully the Dem trifecta like he’s doing now.  At least politically you’re visibly putting in an effort that matches the stakes.  The loss of Manchin would not be the end of the world, the gridlock he’s causing isn’t going away.

 

Honestly you deserve to be negged for this. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It’s worth the risk.  Don’t let Manchin bully the Dem trifecta like he’s doing now.  At least politically you’re visibly putting in an effort that matches the stakes.  The loss of Manchin would not be the end of the world, the gridlock he’s causing isn’t going away.

 

It’s really nothing compared to the gridlock Moscow Mitch would cause. Manchin has all the leverage here. My hope is Manchin uses it to enrich his shithole state in exchange for the dems getting as much passed as possible.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Oh yeah

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Says Gillibrand missed the vote?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is that worth the absolutely zero fucking percent chance that this pretense of a commitment to norms could earn any goodwill from Republicans? 

This isn't about a transaction. The DOJ isn't doing this so Biden can get some political win down the line.  This is about a non-partisan DOJ doing what a non-partisan does. They determined trump was acting as a federal employee and are defending him as such. The courts may not allow it, which is fine.  Having non-partisan agencies following established procedures is what we want from government. We don't want them driven by shifting political winds.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Honestly you deserve to be negged for this. 

I guess I just don’t understand politics.  Go ahead, win more Senate seats, there will be more Manchins and Sinemas around the corner to conveniently become excuses not to fight.  This is Lucy with the football stuff. Same mistakes as the Obama administration.  Don’t be surprised when the consequences are similar. 

[jimmyjazz 46,107]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This is meaningless. It's like when Trump said we need to "be tough" or when one of the DT crowd said we should've "focused our fire" on China over covid.

There's nothing he can do but try to convince Manchin that Manchin's wishes for bipartisanship are literally impossible, which he's been trying to do. 

Manchin's "bipartisanship" mantra is nothing but bullshit.  He's a fucking Republican.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Susan Collins level disappointment. 
 

The idea that Manchin can’t be bought or leveraged is remarkable too.  There’s just nothing more that can be done in this historically pivotal moment, oh well. 

[jimmyjazz 46,107]

The DOJ needs to stick to the rule of law.  Congress has gone so far around the bend that the last thing I want to see is Democrats playing with a short hand "because it's the right thing to do".  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Can you imagine Joe Manchin trying to win a GOP primary in West Virginia?  I dunno, seems like a challenge given he voted to impeach Trump twice.  

[staboner 4,984]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

With what?

some tourism could work?

[Js1 85,536]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

Says Gillibrand missed the vote?

The tiebreaker is in Mexico right now 

[hornmpa96 2,620]

Is there a reason they are holding votes without all the Democratic senators in the room?

it’s almost like they don’t care if it actually passes.

[GRHorn 105]

3 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Is there a reason they are holding votes without all the Democratic senators in the room?

it’s almost like they don’t care if it actually passes.

They hold votes so Manchin can be asked again by advocates/journalists about the filibuster. 

[Js1 85,536]

11 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

Is there a reason they are holding votes without all the Democratic senators in the room?

it’s almost like they don’t care if it actually passes.

Weird strategy on that one for sure 

[Satchel 6,948]

56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can you imagine Joe Manchin trying to win a GOP primary in West Virginia?  I dunno, seems like a challenge given he voted to impeach Trump twice.  

I can imagine him switching to the GOP without any blowback whatsoever.

[TwiceHorn 31,530]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh for fuck’s same. Barr’s DOJ advancing that argument in this same case didn’t create precedent. That argument was completely new, utter nonsense, and it already fucking lost.

I’d actually rather this be a cynical attempt to expand presidential immunity than a masturbatory commitment to pretending to stick to some vague idea of norms. This isn’t consistent with any norms that have any value. If this is about norms then it’s actual virtue signaling, in the sense that Republicans use that phrase, but even worse because it’s virtue signaling in a manner that could actually substantively hurt America moving forward. If they do win on appeal and presidential immunity gets expanded, the next Trump will feel even less restrained by law. The next Trump may not call off the insurrection if he thinks even treason gets presidential immunity. Is that worth the absolutely zero fucking percent chance that this pretense of a commitment to norms could earn any goodwill from Republicans? 

Fasicsts aren’t even the greatest threat to American democracy, shit like “WE MUST STICK TO NORMS!” is.

Well, the only really novel questions presented related to the President, both as an "employee" and exactly what are the scope of his duties.

The courts had pretty uniformly broadly interpreted employee to include any lower elected official and extended that to the President in dictum, and the scope of duties had been similarly broadly interpreted.  When I read an article on the Westfall Act, I was fairly stunned.  I was left to conclude that, while I disagreed with it, the Trump DOJ position was actually one of the more tethered and reasonable positions it ever took in view of the case law.  And that despite the outrageous result of the application of the law.

You can take the position that sovereign immunity should be narrowly applied or abolished entirely in certain contexts, and I might agree with you.  But you're probably not going to find many government officials of any party that would agree with either of us.  They likes their immunity.

Or you could argue that this is another sort of "imperial executive" effort, and I would agree with that, as well.  But you won't find many presidential administrations, of either party. that agree with us.

Courts seem to like to find broad immunity, because they operate under it, as well.

It's like the DOJ policy on indicting the President.  It arose during the Nixon presidency, surprise, and was reinforced and re-written during the Clinton presidency, also surprise.  Even when the president is not facing impeachment, I doubt many administrations are going to get real enthusiastic about exposing the executive to legal action while in office.  Or many other government officials.

Edited June 9, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[atomheartbevo 89,779]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can you imagine Joe Manchin trying to win a GOP primary in West Virginia?  I dunno, seems like a challenge given he voted to impeach Trump twice.  

11 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I can imagine him switching to the GOP without any blowback whatsoever.

Yep, can totally imagine him switching with no blowback.  

Hugo, you seem to have forgotten how many Republicans trashed Trump and then did a 180 when it suited their best interests.

You also don't seem to understand that Manchin only won by 19,000 votes a couple of years ago.  If he runs again in 2024, it'll be down-ballot of a Presidential election.

Dude is absolutely watching his poll numbers from back home and is trying to thread the needle.  A lot of us may fucking loathe it, but given what state he is representing, and how close his last election was, he could flip to the Rs and Mitch is back on top.

Edited June 9, 2021 by atomheartbevo

[Zonahorn 8,079]

39 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yep, can totally imagine him switching with no blowback.  

Hugo, you seem to have forgotten how many Republicans trashed Trump and then did a 180 when it suited their best interests.

You also don't seem to understand that Manchin only won by 19,000 votes a couple of years ago.  If he runs again in 2024, it'll be down-ballot of a Presidential election.

Dude is absolutely watching his poll numbers from back home and is trying to thread the needle.  A lot of us may fucking loathe it, but given what state he is representing, and how close his last election was, he could flip to the Rs and Mitch is back on top.

Exactly, if any senator deserves to be raged at, it's Kyrsten. 

[Eskimohorn 5,642]

I guess I just don’t understand politics.  Go ahead, win more Senate seats, there will be more Manchins and Sinemas around the corner to conveniently become excuses not to fight.  This is Lucy with the football stuff. Same mistakes as the Obama administration.  Don’t be surprised when the consequences are similar. 

Biden should hold his breath until he gets his way. Then whine on twitter talking about what meanies Sinema and Manchin are and threaten to primary them. I want my bill, now!

Gooses! Geeses!
I want my geese to lay gold eggs for Easter
At least a hundred a day
And by the way

I want a feast
I want a bean feast
Cream buns and doughnuts
And fruitcake with no nuts
So good you could go nuts
No, now!

[Biff Tannen 45,712]

If this shit continues I’m going to vote for the Noid and just get wasted. So happy Dominos brought him back. 

[softlynow 1,820]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the only really novel questions presented related to the President, both as an "employee" and exactly what are the scope of his duties.

The courts had pretty uniformly broadly interpreted employee to include any lower elected official and extended that to the President in dictum, and the scope of duties had been similarly broadly interpreted.  When I read an article on the Westfall Act, I was fairly stunned.  I was left to conclude that, while I disagreed with it, the Trump DOJ position was actually one of the more tethered and reasonable positions it ever took in view of the case law.  And that despite the outrageous result of the application of the law.

You can take the position that sovereign immunity should be narrowly applied or abolished entirely in certain contexts, and I might agree with you.  But you're probably not going to find many government officials of any party that would agree with either of us.  They likes their immunity.

Or you could argue that this is another sort of "imperial executive" effort, and I would agree with that, as well.  But you won't find many presidential administrations, of either party. that agree with us.

Courts seem to like to find broad immunity, because they operate under it, as well.

It's like the DOJ policy on indicting the President.  It arose during the Nixon presidency, surprise, and was reinforced and re-written during the Clinton presidency, also surprise.  Even when the president is not facing impeachment, I doubt many administrations are going to get real enthusiastic about exposing the executive to legal action while in office.  Or many other government officials.

This shit just hammers home how empty the heads of extremist 2nd amendment folks are. If they really meant for our government to be scared of the governed they’d be in favor of nuking immunity as well as just about every anti-majoritarian aspect of our electoral system (EC, filibuster, partisan gerrymandering, the Dakotas). In reality they just want their toys.

 

I don’t see how we avoid a dystopian future not-unlike Elysium where most of us live in squalor while the billionaire class escapes to paradise in orbit above us. We’ve probably reached the point that the weaponry needed for a real revolution is only available to would be non-benevolent plutocrats, and it’s only getting worse in that regard. 

[bad_teammate 13,224]

I see we've already become Manchin Appreciation Crew here in the CR only a day or so after watching him knife black voting rights in the back. lol fucking forum full of W Republicans

14 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The cold hard reality is that if Joe Manchin doesn’t want something to pass it won’t. Biden knows this. It’s actually a pretty unique and unprecedented situation from what I can tell.

There is absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. This is a common confluence of the design of our government and human nature. Things always tighten and people find their way into the middle of major legislation. It happens all the time. McCain and the ACA. Before that, Lieberman and the ACA. 

People are always a threat to switch parties. A tale as old as time.

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

I can imagine him switching to the GOP without any blowback whatsoever.

Nonsense.

Have you seen Trump's poll #s? You brought up him being unpopular in 2015, but wake up, there was no established trend of loyalty and madness. They hadn't fallen in love yet, and they are FULLY in love now.

I don't say this to make an argument that pressuring Manchin would likely work. I'm pretty sure nothing is going to work on Joe Manchin at this point. The game was lost the moment we nominated Joe Biden, IMO, so what we're in right now is setting the new boundaries for acceptable positions as a Democrat.

At this point, Biden and the rest need to do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing.

From a punditbrain standpoint, if the Democrats can signal REAL, BELIEVABLE virtue to the working masses then the working masses will respond with positive electoral results. Good trouble. Good anger. Good movement.

But these 80-year-old white men playing their little Senate-veteran games? Enough. We were condescended to about a Mature Plan for Smart Adults from the moment Biden won South Carolina and it has been an astonishing failure.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

59 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I don’t see how we avoid a dystopian future not-unlike Elysium where most of us live in squalor while the billionaire class escapes to paradise in orbit above us. We’ve probably reached the point that the weaponry needed for a real revolution is only available to would be non-benevolent plutocrats, and it’s only getting worse in that regard. 

The masses of citizens don't even need guns.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Fuck Manchin. He's a No-Nothing, Do-Nothing.

Get things done or get out of the way. The clock is ticking and when the election is over in 2022, given what we've seen so far on the national scene (and if we make it through White Militia Summer) the bell is going to toll and it's going to be for all of us and the woulda shoulda couldas.

 

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

Manchin wins statewide elections as a democrat in a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Think about that for a second.  WV was Trump’s second strongest showing, only behind Wyoming. There shouldn’t be an expectation that he totes 100% of the party line. 

The reality is that the GOP over performed expectations in 2020 and the Dems did not make enough gains in the Senate (Maine, North Carolina) to make the kind of drastic reforms needed. It sucks.  It sucks a lot. Everyone knew it sucked immediately after the election. What is going on now shouldn’t be a surprise.

I’m hopeful something happens. But I’m not expecting anything grand at this point.  Hopes for true drastic democratic reforms such as DC and PR statehood, For the People Act, etc. will require Dem gains in the Senate in 2022.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Manchin wins statewide elections as a democrat in a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Think about that for a second.

I am. 

What are your conclusions after your thinking with regards to how to get the necessary votes out of West Virginia and such?

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I am. 

What are your conclusions after your thinking with regards to how to get the necessary votes out of West Virginia and such?

I’m not thinking about WV and Manchin’s seat other than it is wild he is able to win there.  WV doesn’t have a senate seat up for election in 2022. I’m thinking about NC, Wisconsin, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Arizona in 2022.

[Goofyboy 3,294]

Georgia just elected two Senators. They shouldn’t be up until 2026, right?

[bad_teammate 13,224]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I’m not thinking about WV and Manchin’s seat other than it is wild he is able to win there. 

WV had old white Democratic men since the 1950s in the Senate. It's just inertia at this point and he'll be gone in 2024.

[bad_teammate 13,224]

Just now, Goofyboy said:

Georgia just elected two Senators. They shouldn’t be up until 2026, right?

Warnock's was a special election.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 minute ago, Goofyboy said:

Georgia just elected two Senators. They shouldn’t be up until 2026, right?

Warnock’s seat is up. His win was a special election since the previous dude resigned midway through his term

[wildcat09 29,377]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

I see we've already become Manchin Appreciation Crew here in the CR only a day or so after watching him knife black voting rights in the back. lol fucking forum full of W Republicans

There is absolutely nothing unprecedented about it. This is a common confluence of the design of our government and human nature. Things always tighten and people find their way into the middle of major legislation. It happens all the time. McCain and the ACA. Before that, Lieberman and the ACA. 

People are always a threat to switch parties. A tale as old as time.

Nonsense.

Have you seen Trump's poll #s? You brought up him being unpopular in 2015, but wake up, there was no established trend of loyalty and madness. They hadn't fallen in love yet, and they are FULLY in love now.

I don't say this to make an argument that pressuring Manchin would likely work. I'm pretty sure nothing is going to work on Joe Manchin at this point. The game was lost the moment we nominated Joe Biden, IMO, so what we're in right now is setting the new boundaries for acceptable positions as a Democrat.

At this point, Biden and the rest need to do the right thing for no other reason than it is the right thing.

From a punditbrain standpoint, if the Democrats can signal REAL, BELIEVABLE virtue to the working masses then the working masses will respond with positive electoral results. Good trouble. Good anger. Good movement.

But these 80-year-old white men playing their little Senate-veteran games? Enough. We were condescended to about a Mature Plan for Smart Adults from the moment Biden won South Carolina and it has been an astonishing failure.

If I were President I'd be pressuring Manchin more and differently than Biden, but I don't think who got the Dem nomination particularly matters given how unique Manchin is. Bernie would have the same problem. 

Similar scenarios happen all the time and it's easy to look back on them and say "oh, Obama should have done X differently," but what the fuck would work with Manchin? He's in a Trump +1000000 state and the Democrats can't risk him flipping. Sure, Biden can go to West Virginia and campaign and put more public pressure on Manchin (and I think he should), but the fact is that Democrats are extremely unpopular in West Virginia and beginning to talk about some more leftist economic policy ideas isn't going to change that overnight.  The Presidential bully pulpit can be useful, but it's not a magic wand.

[StassneyHorn 6,635]

Why all of you think Manchin is gonna Jim Justice his seat to the Republicans are a beating. 

[Js1 85,536]

Democrats would be in a much better situation today if:

• They showed up in 2010/2014 midterms to avoid the hole Democrats had to dig out of post-2014 (54-46 minority) 
• The far left who hate Manchin now voted for Dem Senate candidates during 2016 instead of protest voting for Jill Stein or whatever - PA (1.43% loss) and Wisconsin (3.36% loss)
• Florida didn't have such a shitty ass ballot design in 2018 (0.12% loss) (or Bill Nelson put in just 1% more effort) 
• Cal fucking Cunningham would keep it in his fucking pants in 2020 (1.75% loss) 

[kevwun 15,856]

Manchin will vote for Dem bills that send money directly to West Virginia.  If it doesn't involve that, it's not happening.  He voted to impeach Trump twice when he knew in advance that both votes would fail.