The disconnect between Biden's rhetoric and his actions on voting rights that many are pointing out is real. If this is an enormous threat to democracy, why won't he support changing the filibuster over it?
Only seems to be two possible answers... (cont'd)
Possibility #1: Biden and his aides don't fully buy the claims about the imminent threat to democracy or the importance of the For the People Act. There have been signals from the White House that this is part of the story.
Possibility #2: Biden simply sees no path to success on passing democracy reform legislation through Congress, and prefers to focus on what can pass. And he needs Manchin and Sinema for, well, anything else, ruling out tough tactics against them
It's probably a combination of these, with some nostalgia about the Senate sprinkled on top.
But he and the WH are unwilling to say either outright, and instead purport to take the threat super-seriously and claim they're still fighting to pass the bill. Hence the disconnect
Option #3 being offered in replies: Biden secretly wants further filibuster reform but thinks publicly saying so will backfire and make Manchin and Sinema less likely to do it.
I guess not impossible, but that didn't stop him from saying he supported talking filibuster change
This is also why I don't buy the "there's a secret plan" take. The WH's top priorities right now are infrastucture bill + reconciliation bill and that is extremely clear if you look at their intense engagement on that issue.
Schumer re: budget resolution deal: "Every major program that Pres. Biden has asked us for is funded in a robust way, and in addition we are making some additions to that," most notably Medicare expansion to cover dental / vision / hearing
This reconciliation bill would apparently cover: 1. Tax credits for families 2. Paid leave 3. Child care subsidies 4. Universal pre-K 5. Free community college 6. Clean energy 7. Housing 8. Long-term care 9. Medicare dental/vision/hearing 10. Medicare drug prices
& more...
But, of course, in the end Manchin and Sinema's votes (and all other 48 Senate dems, and a House majority) will be needed to pass it. So still quite a ways from the finish line
In thinking about what specific revisions to the Electoral Count Act are necessary, I think it's important not just to look backward at 2020, but to consider how a future crisis may be somewhat different (mini-thread)
The ECA can come into play in three scenarios:
1.) A disputed state outcome (two slates of electors) can be settled by Congress
2.) A state acting corruptly can have its EVs thrown out by Congress
3.) Legitimate state results can be corruptly thrown out by Congress
In 2020 all the states ended up submitting legitimate results. So the problem that manifested on January 6 was #3 — a corrupt attempt by a congressional faction to throw out legitimate results.
In April he told me: “I’ve never considered it from that standpoint because I know I can change more from where I’m at. And I still believe in the principles of the Democratic Party that I grew up with.” vox.com/22339531/manch…
The spectre of a party-switch hangs because it brought a quick end to the last 50-50 Senate. Many reasons to doubt Manchin would do it. Of course if, say, Biden and Schumer went to war against him like some progressives want, might be a different story.
That's basically what Manchin said to me. Then again that was also true for Jim Jeffords, who did it in 2001. Jeffords acted mainly out of personal pique.
There’s been a lot of conflation of separate issues into “the Republican Party’s threat to democracy,” which is effective rhetorically but can confuse things from the “what to do about it” perspective
Schumer's plan was to vote on S.1 at the end of the month. Activists had hoped to use it to make the case for filibuster reform.
Manchin has cut that off at the knees, making clear the bill won't even get 50. And focus on bipartisanship means changes to substance won't sway him
See for instance this @sambrodey piece from just a few days ago. This was how activists hoped the drama would play out (a bit of magical thinking here), but Manchin has since made clear it's not happening.
As I explored in my profile there are two Manchins, depending on the issue. There's one who will play hardball but cut a deal in the end. And there's another who will put his foot down, and keep it down.