Share this page!

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
Twitter logo
9 Feb, 5 tweets, 2 min read
This is a microcosm. What makes Manchin’s position awkward and I think ultimately unsustainable is that in most instances he will be arguing to give people less help and do less good for our democracy than Biden and his fellow Dems - many of whom are up in 2022 - want to do.
It would be one thing if Manchin’s stand could leverage a bipartisan deal instead of a Dem-only version. But as we’re seeing on covid relief, getting 10 Rs is a fantasy. So it comes down to doing a Dem-only version or nothing at all. Biden and 2022 Dems can’t accept the latter.
I think this is key. I’m a Manchin defender because he has the highest WAR of any Senate Dem (Tester is arguably tied). While I can’t speak for him and would never presume to know his heart, from past experience I believe he does care about Biden’s success & keeping the majority.
WAR = Wins Above Replacement. In Senate terms you’d calculate it based on votes cast versus partisan lean of the state. So Manchin and Tester, representing deep red states but casting lots of votes for Dems, have the highest WAR while Feinstein almost certainly has the lowest.
Yeah Sherrod Brown has an extremely strong case as well

• • •

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

Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
6 Feb
Quick PSA on reconciliation: the Senate Parliamentarian is likely to strike out many key provisions that will be found not to comply with reconciliation’s strict rules. This is largely out of Dems’ control and not at all the same as Dems intentionally slimming down the bill.
Reconciliation is governed by strict rules that determine what can and cannot be processed along its fast track. For policies that push the limits, Dems argue their case before the Senate Parliamentarian, like arguing before a judge. Ultimately it’s the Parliamentarian’s call.
A lot of the pieces that have been written about what can and cannot pass under reconciliation are heavy on theory. Theoretically, many things can pass but those theories may not survive contact with parliamentary reality. Worth a try, but don’t be surprised when they get struck.
Read 5 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
23 Jan
Biden clearly should not do #1. The problem with #2 is that reconciliation delays the inevitable and creates a tiered system where issues that happen to be ineligible - like civil rights and democracy reform - are relegated to second-class status and left to die by filibuster.
This👇is the danger. By using reconciliation you’re conceding the point that major legislation deserves to pass by majority vote, but only certain kinds for arbitrary reasons. Plus the process itself is opaque and ugly. You risk laying a logistical & political trap for yourself.
All the “here’s what you can do through reconciliation” takes are correct but also look through the wrong end of the telescope. Any of the items mentioned, or a small number of them, would be relatively easy. But putting them all together in one leadership-driven mega package...
Read 16 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
21 Jan
The filibuster was not part of the original Senate because the Framers knew exactly how it'd be used- they saw McConnell coming. The filibuster represents Calhoun's vision, not Madison's. Calhoun wanted a Senate where the minority could block the majority. nytimes.com/2021/01/20/opi…
To those who say the filibuster encourages bipartisanship, Hamilton addressed this directly in Federalist 22: "What at first sight may seem a remedy, is, in reality, a poison," he wrote of a supermajority threshold. It doesn't encourage cooperation, it encourages obstruction.
The de facto supermajority threshold was first forged against civil rights. Jim Crow-era segregationist senators repurposed a 1917 Senate rule to force every civil rights bill to clear a supermajority threshold, blocking them all. Only civil rights bills were blocked in this way.
Read 7 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
19 Jan
A few quick thoughts on this: it's fine. If Dems control the floor and gavels, and ties in committees advance bills or nominations to the floor, those are the powers that come with majority control. Lacking clear majorities on committees might test party unity, but seldomly.
"Power-sharing" is an overstatement. The functional reality of the Senate will not be noticeably different under this than it'd be if Democrats had a bigger majority. The only significant difference is that committees will be evenly divided, but if ties go to Dems, that's fine.
How this works: the Senate has to approve an organizing resolution that sets committee sizes and membership. Under current Senate rules, that resolution needs 60 votes to pass. There's, er, some debate about whether the Senate should go nuclear to abolish the 60-vote threshold...
Read 6 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
7 Jan
Hawley is likely to emerge with the political upper hand from today, and it’s important to be clear-eyed about that. Elite opinion may pile on him for a while. But by this time next year his GOP colleagues will be begging him to do fundraising events for them.
Republican voters embraced Trump from the moment he set foot in the 2016 primary. They stayed loyal to him for four years and turned out in record numbers for him in 2020. There’s simply not much basis for thinking they will now reject the approach of folks like Hawley.
Folks having a strong reaction should remember that they’re probably not the ones Hawley is appealing to. After the violence, 138 Republicans took stock and decided it was still in their interests to stick with Hawley. He wants to be a hero to the right. Seems to be working.
Read 10 tweets
Adam Jentleson 🎈 Profile picture
30 Dec 20
Yup. Before the filibuster emerged in the mid-19th century, the chair could simply end debate when they thought senators had become dilatory, by ruling them out of order.(Relatedly, the idea that the Framers wanted Senate debate to be unlimited is a myth.)
Before he was a senator, John C. Calhoun was Adams' VP and presided over the Senate as Chair. Calhoun hated Adams because of his "corrupt bargain" with Clay. At the time, it was standard practice for the Chair to rule dilatory senators out of order. But one day...
... a senator was on the floor assailing Adams. Normally, the Chair would rule him out of order. But Calhoun was presiding, and in bitterness to Adams, he let the senator go on. This shocked senators, set a new precedent and nudged the door open to the obstruction we know today.
Read 4 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!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AJentleson has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AJentleson!

Read all threads by @AJentleson