McConnell is upbeat because he is getting what he wants: the least amount of aid injected into the economy while still passing a bill before the GA runoffs. Dems are upbeat because they love doing "deals," even when that deal is giving McConnell everything he wants.
The package Dems are gearing up to accept closely resembles the skinny framework McConnell released months ago. Dems came down by several trillion dollars while McConnell inched up. Unclear what the bipartisan negotiations achieved since this is basically just McConnell’a bill.
What more could Dems do? Dems did basically none of the things you'd normally want to do to pressure the other side. Instead of anything resembling a pressure campaign on popular policies like the checks,they spent months signaling their willingness to climb down off key demands.
Is it better than nothing? Members will decide for themselves. But the flipside is that the lack of aid like the checks and state/local will also cause human suffering. Bad deals happen when you give away the store then say it's better than nothing. Try not giving away the store.
With the Trump White House on record supporting a larger aid package including direct payment checks, and folks like Hawley vocally supporting the checks, you simply cannot argue that a better deal was not possible. Failure to leverage those points was just that - a failure.
They want a deal that passes muster with Morning Joe as better than nothing. They will tell their members, do you want to evict people on the holidays? (No.) And they will hope no one asks tough questions about why they failed to get a better deal.
As I said, members will decide whether it's better than nothing. But rather than spend months hammering Rs on popular policies like the checks, the Dem pressure strategy here appeared to be to publicly tell Republicans that they were eager to deliver less.
If you can’t leverage this into a better deal, man, that’s on you. It’s simply not credible to say that what’s coming down the pike was the best deal possible. People will suffer as a result.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Adam Jentleson 🎈

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AJentleson

18 Dec
With Mnuchin endorsing a $1.8T proposal in Oct that included $1,200 checks, $400 UI & $300B in state/local, and with Trump still actively trying to increase direct checks, there is simply no way to argue that Dem leaders secured the best deal possible. McConnell ate their lunch.
Three parties to the deal: House Dems, WH, Senate Rs (who need Ds to pass anything). House Ds start at 3.4T. WH offers 1.8T. Trade liability for 600B in goodies, end at 1.2T total incl state/local, $1,200 checks & $300 UI. Dems come down 2.2T, McConnell up $700b. More than fair.
The “but McConnell wouldn’t have taken it” commentary misses that what McConnell wanted most was a deal. To him, the difference between 900B-1.2T is marginal compared to the difference between deal and no deal. And that 300B would save a lot of families. nytimes.com/2020/12/16/us/…
Read 5 tweets
16 Dec
This will one day be cited by Republicans as a reason they refused to cooperate with Biden - which will be a bullshit manufactured excuse to cover for the fact that they never intended to in the first place, and only prove that Jen was right.
And there it is. This is bullshit and should be covered as such. It’s an insult to our intelligence to believe that Republicans were gearing up to work with Biden but their delicate sensibilities were offended so they balked. After the last four years let’s not play this game.
Read 4 tweets
9 Nov
Ever since McConnell's hand-picked candidate, Trey Grayson, lost to Rand Paul in the 2010 GOP primary he has almost always done whatever the base wants. E.g., blocking Garland was a move to cover his right flank after seeing Boehner ousted by the Tea Party. It just paid off big.
When McConnell entered the Senate in the 1980s he carved a niche by doing what other Republicans would not, and blocking popular campaign finance reform bills. After leading one such filibuster, his colleagues “were finally beginning to know who I was,” he enthused in his memoir.
McConnell’s efforts to block campaign finance reform bill spanned the 1980s and 1990s and earned him the nickname Darth Vader. They also helped him climb the ranks of GOP leadership and rise to NRSC chair. Along the way he embraced the Darth Vader tag. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Read 7 tweets
13 Oct
With respect to Bruce, the thing about Madison is that you have to follow his entire thought. A few lines up, he calls majority rule "the fundamental principle of republican Government." He would lay out both sides, then come down firmly for majority rule. loc.gov/resource/mjm.0…
At the Constitutional Convention, Madison argued for majority rule in the Senate and against giving states the same number of senators. Remember this next time someone throws Madison at you: he wanted the Senate to be majority rule *and* proportional by population like the House.
That quote ^^ is Madison at the Constitutional Convention arguing against the Great Compromise: a bicameral Congress with representation in the House proportional by population but equal in the Senate. Madison decried equal representation for states in the Senate as "injustice."
Read 6 tweets
9 Oct
A word about @SenAngusKing's comment that "the 60 vote majority requires some level of consensus," which reflect a common myth about the Senate. The Framers designed the Senate to promote compromise, but the filibuster was not a part of that design. mainebeacon.com/sen-king-seen-…
The Framers designed the Senate as a venue for compromise but were extremely clear that it should be, and remain majority-rule. They had seen how supermajority thresholds led to gridlock in the Articles of Confederation and explicitly warned against them - over and over.
The Framers were familiar with the idea that supermajority thresholds promote compromise but had seen that in practice, they provided an irresistible temptation for the minority to "embarrass" the majority. They warned us about what would happen. Here's Hamilton in Federalist 22.
Read 11 tweets
9 Oct
This by @mattyglesias is the strongest case for reconciliation I've read. But IMO reconciliation is a mirage for a few reasons. All paths lead to the filibuster; you either nuke it or you don't. Even an ambitious use of reconciliation leads you there. 1/ vox.com/21499869/joe-b…
The appeal of reconciliation is that it's fast. It can be, but probably won't be for large-scale bill like this.First you have to write and pass a budget. Then, making a bill of this scope comply with reconciliation rules will be extremely hard, and guaranteed to contain errors.
Small errors can be fatal; any provision that doesn't survive the test of compliance (called a "Byrd bath") gets struck from the bill by the parliamentarian. If a major provision gets struck, you either have to abandon it or go nuclear to change the rules. So, back to square one.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!