he can be total dogshit and still be pretty close to the best you can hope for atm
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Joe Manchin Implies He'll Vote for Trump over Sanders
- Thread starter legacyzero
- Start date
he can be total dogshit and still be pretty close to the best you can hope for atm
In the face of it being pointed out that she was (still is) part of an anti-lgbt cult. And you're saying that people pointing out that Manchin has never been a critical vote against democratic issues is...?
That's not the definition of a drive-by. More a snipe for a snipe.
How many Republicans implied they wouldn't vote for Trump circa 2015? Things will change if Bernie were to get the nomination.
I just felt there was a certain hypocrisy in ignoring someone's voting record just because "it didn't alter the outcome"
It's not ignoring it, it's stating that it's the best you could get out of racist ass ruby red West Virginia. Tulsi is in a stupidly blue district. She is not the best you could get from there.
Edit: And let me be clear, I really do apologize for confusing you with the person that literally said it was fine for Tulsi to be endorsed by David Duke earlier in that thread.
How easy do you think it'll be to nationalize the senate without a comfortable majority of dem senators
Eh, I don't think anyone is ignoring it, just pointing out the relevant context.
Now if that context matters to you personally is something everyone needs to decide for themselves, but it exists.
I think what's most frustrating in these conversations is that when a certain candidate has economic messaging that speaks to people in those states, which might result in the "best we can hope for" representative ceiling being raised above dog shit, it's dismissed as appealing to racists
defending the broken status quo, while also poo pooing candidates that might be able to start changing things, really grinds my gears
that's fair, I just can't help but be sassy sometimes
no hard feelings
but let's be clear you brought up Tulsi I'm talking about Ilhan haha
I think there's still a certain symbolism to your vote, even if it doesn't directly affect the outcome.
"By the way, West Virginia is the poorest state in the country, so you could argue that Manchin's constituents would benefit more than anyone else from Democratic agenda items such as universal health coverage, universal pre-K, enhanced workers' rights and a higher minimum wage. How much is he really going to stand in the way of all that?"
WV has shown time and time again they have no interest in voting for that shit state wide so it needs to be done at the federal level. Which is why Manchin is important right now, despite being a garbage person.
When I say "Senate nationalization" I'm referring to the ongoing trend towards all Senate races matching the top of ticket, so that a vote is no longer really on a given Senator but on the popularity of the national party and their standard bearer. This is a relatively new development -- there used to be more ticket splitting. But as polarization has increased, ticket splitting has disappeared, so soon the fact that Joe Manchin is personally popular just won't be enough to save him in a state as red as West Virginia. Sorry for my lack of clarity.
Oh there absolutely is, no one is happy about the vote. The debate is whether the symbolic value of the vote is worth more than the actual damage it would do to him politically, and therefore to the Democrats position in the federal government.
While Joe Manchin should be commended for being able to hold a senate seat in a state as red as West Virginia, he does have certain responsibilities that he's not fulfilling.
Obviously Manchin is popular in West Virginia, so he has some leeway in voting for things. Why would the Kavanaugh vote sink him while voting for the ACA doesn't? He was actually a deciding vote on the latter! "Always votes with Democrats when it matters" Sounds like a great attack ad for his Republican opponent!
But he still wins, demonstrating that it might not just be his votes that cause him to win the state. Maybe people in WV just like him. This is where leadership comes into play. We can't deny that WV has a large bigoted population but we can't have it stay that way forever. We need strong leadership to show the constituents of WV, along with the rest of the country, that racism is not acceptable in today's society. A senate seat is one of the highest leadership positions in this country. Of course there's a level of political calculus here that I won't pretend to understand. Joe Manchin can't just go full socialist. But the fact remains that implying a Bernie presidency would be worse than a Trump one is extraordinarily bad leadership.
Obviously Manchin is popular in West Virginia, so he has some leeway in voting for things. Why would the Kavanaugh vote sink him while voting for the ACA doesn't? He was actually a deciding vote on the latter! "Always votes with Democrats when it matters" Sounds like a great attack ad for his Republican opponent!
But he still wins, demonstrating that it might not just be his votes that cause him to win the state. Maybe people in WV just like him. This is where leadership comes into play. We can't deny that WV has a large bigoted population but we can't have it stay that way forever. We need strong leadership to show the constituents of WV, along with the rest of the country, that racism is not acceptable in today's society. A senate seat is one of the highest leadership positions in this country. Of course there's a level of political calculus here that I won't pretend to understand. Joe Manchin can't just go full socialist. But the fact remains that implying a Bernie presidency would be worse than a Trump one is extraordinarily bad leadership.
West Virginia is particularly weird, though. Despite being ruby red it has 51% of voters registered as dems and 21% republicans. But those 51% are the dems that, in other states, flipped to republican after Civil Rights, but the coal mining shit made them stay dem because unions. But they vote pub, mostly, because racism and coal mining. They want a dem that can talk to their racism and coal mining while pushing unions (Joe Manchin) more than a Republican. I don't think that particular state is going to be nationalized. And if it is, well, you won't have to worry about Joe Manchin.
Yeah, kinda attached your avi to the person who was fine with David Duke's endorsement so I got a bit heated. That being said, the Tulsi thing is a bit of a parallel (the same way you used Ilhan as a parallel).
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm a firm believer in incremental change by electing the most liberal candidate that can win in a given district, but in West Virginia, that candidate *is* Joe Manchin. I don't love him either, but I'm willing to tolerate some pandering non-decisive votes to appease his base if it lets him vote every now and then to save the ACA. Every quarter when this thread comes up, I'm just always confused on the strategy. Okay, you primary Manchin, lose 65-35 in the general to a Shelley Moore Capito type, then what? How is the country in any way better off by doing that?
I -think- the rationale being pushed is that if you go pure in West Virginia it enhances the party's image, which in turn increases votes everywhere else and maybe you'll get more Senators elsewhere, since Senate races are becoming more national. I don't see it all, mind, but I think that's half of the rationale. The other half seems to be "Well, maybe you're right that it would be worse if Manchin wasn't there, but doesn't mean you should defend him." Which implies that talking about why it is what it is and the benefits and minuses of it is defending him.
Personally, I blame the electorate.
Soooo, I understand political reality, I really do.
But I also think it is entirely fair to criticize--even harshly--people in the party who have positions and espouse opinions I find abhorrent and overly expedient.
Can we agree to that at least?
Like, it is weird when Manchin says or does something shitty that people trip over themselves to defend him, with a limp 'Oh, Joe you rascal...' Which is annoying, but not problematic until it turns to shutting down discussions about his shittyness.
We can deal with the reality of the situation without fetishing it.
But I also think it is entirely fair to criticize--even harshly--people in the party who have positions and espouse opinions I find abhorrent and overly expedient.
Can we agree to that at least?
Like, it is weird when Manchin says or does something shitty that people trip over themselves to defend him, with a limp 'Oh, Joe you rascal...' Which is annoying, but not problematic until it turns to shutting down discussions about his shittyness.
We can deal with the reality of the situation without fetishing it.
Criticize him loudly and often. It helps him. Just don't expect people to seriously support primary challengers from the left.
Sure. But since primary challenges to his left are pretty much always doomed to failure, it can serve as a tool of incrementalism.
With SOME pressure to his left, it means that a consistent drift to his right won't be his only option.
But that can backfire when the more-progressive candidates lose 70-30 like the last primary. It also wastes resources better spent elsewhere, both money and effort.
Anyone else hear that Bernie interview on NPR this afternoon? It's easy to forget, but the man is godlike. This is what a no bullshit candidate really is. Love for Bernie.
(From WV and grew up with this idiot as governor)
People talking out their ass when they concern troll over "doomed challenges from the left" to red state jerks like Manchin should let the people who have lived there provide some actual insight.
Yelling "irredeemable racist south" pretty much does nothing to help change the fact that these places could absolutely be utilized in a left-populist movement if outreach to certain constituencies was actually a priority for the Dems.
There are a lot of non-voters and a lot of uninformed, insulated "both parties suck" independent-types in WV. Fortunately for the likes of the Justice Dems and movements adjacent to them, this outreach is just getting started. With a little momentum behind them, and as their organizing power grows, they'll begin to sweep this trash out of office. It's why the "but they mostly lost in 2018" rings so hollow.
Also, Joe, your positioning in the party makes your opinion on the Dem candidate utterly inconsequential to the race. The resonance of the Sanders movement's message is growing louder by the day as people languish under awful politicians like you. The state may not turn blue in 2020, but it most certainly isn't because of you.
People talking out their ass when they concern troll over "doomed challenges from the left" to red state jerks like Manchin should let the people who have lived there provide some actual insight.
Yelling "irredeemable racist south" pretty much does nothing to help change the fact that these places could absolutely be utilized in a left-populist movement if outreach to certain constituencies was actually a priority for the Dems.
There are a lot of non-voters and a lot of uninformed, insulated "both parties suck" independent-types in WV. Fortunately for the likes of the Justice Dems and movements adjacent to them, this outreach is just getting started. With a little momentum behind them, and as their organizing power grows, they'll begin to sweep this trash out of office. It's why the "but they mostly lost in 2018" rings so hollow.
Also, Joe, your positioning in the party makes your opinion on the Dem candidate utterly inconsequential to the race. The resonance of the Sanders movement's message is growing louder by the day as people languish under awful politicians like you. The state may not turn blue in 2020, but it most certainly isn't because of you.
If West Virginians working to raise the profile and attractiveness of more left-leaning candidates is viewed as only wasting money and effort, then what exactly do we expect to change? What exactly are we doing here?
Are liberal West Virginians doomed to only ever voting for people they completely disagree with? Are they never allowed to try to improve their options?
Things don't get better without SOME effort to make it better.
Do whatever, just don't severely jeopardize the seat today for marginal improvement 10 years from now. Start locally.
OP
OP
That wasn't the subject here. Most people aren't praising Manchin, just talking about the reality of his position and saying primary challenges are pointless. There's a LOOOONNNNNGGG list of states that would flip blue before West Virginia. If you wanna prove that someone left of Manchin can win there? There's a republican Senator that you can test your case on.
There have been people from West Virginia that have weighed in on both sides of this issue in this thread. As I said above, there's an incredibly long list of states that might flip before West Virginia. In fact, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that even if every single nonvoter voted (next to impossible) you'd still need like 60% of them to be dem flips. It's just not gonna happen in the next couple decades. We'll see Texas flip long before West Virginia and in the meantime it's better to have Manchin than an actual republican.
They did mostly lose, though. The ones who flipped seats were more reflective of their districts.
Completely agree with this.
Last edited:
Let's compare CPVIs, shall we?
MN-5: D+26
WV: R+19
You'd have a point if Manchin were Senator of Hawaii. He's not.
OP
OP
You think Sanders will actually win a general in WV when Trump won it with almost 70%?
Are you high?
That was assuming every non voter would also vote Democrat actually. It would need to be even higher if some of the non-voters voted republican. Even if it was a 2:1 split in favor of Democrats it wouldn't be enough
