Who fucking cares, seriously. If Bernie is the nominee he'll still lose WV by a margin of 40%.
Who fucking cares, seriously. If Bernie is the nominee he'll still lose WV by a margin of 40%.
People love to whine incessantly about him but never propose any kind of solution.
"We should primary him with someone who will lose the state" is the only alternative lmaoPeople love to whine incessantly about him but never propose any kind of solution.
Here's his voting record showing when he did, and didn't, vote in line with Trump.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/joe-manchin-iii/
"Democrat"
Also to note, he does have a Primary challenger who could use some attention
democratic* socialist.Sanders is a socialist, how do you think that sells outside the coasts?
He'd hedging his bets obviously
I thought super delegates expressing their preference before a primary was considered a bad thing in some circles?Someone ask Manchin who he is voting for in the primary. Doubt he even gives an answer.
Politics is always a game. Imagine an alternate reality where Manchin has a history of making his irrelevant votes blue in order to not look gross to liberals.
West Virginia is a deeply red state, so in this reality, Manchin wouldn't be in the senate. His district would instead be represented by a hard-red republican who votes republican party line 100% of the time when it matters. So, for instance, the ACA repeal would have passed. I'm sure all those Americans who lost their health care thanks to his lack of influence will be completely understanding that political gaming mattered more to him than their lives.
Oh they have a solution.
They literally say they would have principle > seat
So they would just nominate an actual liberal, lose the seat, then claim moral superiority over "at least trying!!!"
I thought super delegates expressing their preference before a primary was considered a bad thing in some circles?
I thought super delegates expressing their preference before a primary was considered a bad thing in some circles?
Oh they have a solution.
They literally say they would have principle > seat
So they would just nominate an actual liberal, lose the seat, then claim moral superiority over "at least trying!!!"
"We should primary him with someone who will lose the state" is the only alternative lmao
If his vote would have actually prevented that, this argument might hold water.Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court is apparently "being too principled".
Again, him voting No in this context wouldnt have changed anything emphiric. Nothing.Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court is apparently "being too principled".
Welcome to the democratic partyWe have a dude saying he would vote for Trump under the right circumstances. Generally people would drag him for even considering supporting white supremacy. But he's a D in a red district so he gets a pass?
Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court to you is apparently "being too principled".
Hey I've been sexually assaulted beforeAgain, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court to you is apparently "being too principled".
He would be there in the SC regardless and Manchin would lose his seat so gj I guess.Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court to you is apparently "being too principled".
Was there a recent repeal attempt for the ACA? I thought the last repeal was in 2017.
Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court is apparently "being too principled".
Again, glad the women who will suffer by having a rapist in the Supreme Court to you is apparently "being too principled".
People love to whine incessantly about him but never propose any kind of solution.
It's kind of amazing how Manchin's cynical, empty posturing to Republicans manages to convince West Virginia to vote for him and also convinces liberals that he's their sworn enemy instead of a necessary evil in a shitty system. Like poli sci 101 isn't even required to understand why he takes the actions he does politically.
It isn't a good thing. But it's either we take a shitty dude who votes with Dems in actual tiebreaker scenarios or we have someone who never votes Dem.Promoting rape apologia and helping to doom the social safety net for decades is actually a good thing provided you aren't the one unilaterally responsible.
y'all have a problem with vest virginians, not joe manchin, hes been sneaking in left leaning shit against the will of his constituents for a while, which to be honest is really shitty for a politician to do lol
I mean, if you also end up being the one to unilaterally save such programs?Promoting rape apologia and helping to doom the social safety net for decades is actually a good thing provided you aren't the one unilaterally responsible.
A House member stupidly notates "present" on a political vote for the Amenian Genocide: "PRIMARY HERRRRR"
Blue dog Joe votes conservative an uncomfortable amount of times: "Hes necessary!"
I mean, if you also end up being the one to unilaterally save such programs?
The ACA would be dead without Munchin. That's worth him casting votes we don't like but that don't actually make a difference.
A House member stupidly notates "present" on a political vote for the Amenian Genocide: "PRIMARY HERRRRR"
Blue dog Joe votes conservative an uncomfortable amount of times: "Hes necessary!"
Yes. You are allowed to complain about it. I do. The thing is he had no actual power in Kavanaugh's appointment.I'm sorry but you can't say one matters and the other doesn't when both are vital. I should be allowed to complain about his voting for a rapist to the Supreme Court if you all keep bringing up this time when he's on our side.
I'm sorry but you can't say one matters and the other doesn't when both are vital. I should be allowed to complain about his voting for a rapist to the Supreme Court if you all keep bringing up this time when he's on our side.
Don't sink any DNC money into a seat that doesn't mean shit.Okay, so explain to me the practical thing that liberals can do about Manchin rather than sit and whine about him on social media.
I'm sorry but you can't say one matters and the other doesn't when both are vital. I should be allowed to complain about his voting for a rapist to the Supreme Court if you all keep bringing up this time when he's on our side.
Okay, so explain to me the practical thing that liberals can do about Manchin rather than sit and whine about him on social media.
I'm sorry but you can't say one matters and the other doesn't when both are vital. I should be allowed to complain about his voting for a rapist to the Supreme Court if you all keep bringing up this time when he's on our side.
Of course I can. Manchin's vote for or against Kavanaugh would not have changed the reality that Kavanaugh was getting on the SC. Manchin voting for the ACA actually did save the ACA.I'm sorry but you can't say one matters and the other doesn't when both are vital. I should be allowed to complain about his voting for a rapist to the Supreme Court if you all keep bringing up this time when he's on our side.
Why do you think the DNC funds Senate seats?
I think that poster is under the impression that Senate votes are blind and nobody has any idea what anyone else is voting for. (And also that Collins' conference didn't happen)Of course I can. Manchin's vote for or against Kavanaugh would not have changed the reality that Kavanaugh was getting on the SC. Manchin voting for the ACA actually did save the ACA.
I see a huge difference between votes that have an effect and votes that don't.