The most controversial part among R's of Mitch McConnell backing infrastructure is whether it helps or hurts Democrats trying to pass their $3.5T megabill.
The key q here is how likely R's think Manchin/Sinema are to kill it and under what circumstances. nbcnews.com/politics/congr…
The anti-deal take is shared by folks like Trump and Cruz and articulated here by @philipaklein. D's say the two bills are linked and must pass in tandem. If you pass one, you're triggering the other one. If you kill it, you might blow them all up. nationalreview.com/corner/joe-man…
R's got VERY excited, for example, when Manchin said this during talks
But Manchin's position is likely contingent on WHO is seen as blowing up the deal. In this case, his quote was a clear warning shot at D's threatening to ditch talks over last-second disagreements. Similarly, he talked about going it alone early in process to push R's into talks.
So if McConnell were to swoop in last second after months of talks he's been briefed on throughout with his allies involved to kill a deal, Manchin et al would likely not be to keen to punish Democrats over it. Instead, Schumer would be able to say you tried, now it's our turn.
So there's an R case that passing a deal arguably HELPS kill the D agenda.
In this case, by removing McConnell as an easy villain to unite against, D's have to work things out on their own.
Here's how that's going so far.
There's at least some chance D's can't agree on a deal, or at the very least have to settle for something much less ambitious than their $3.5T bill because there's just too much packed on top of it and too many center/left disagreements. Maybe even on infrastructure too.
It may be the only way that happens is if McConnell's fingerprints aren't on the murder weapon. Of course, it's possible D's pass something big either way, especially with so much of Biden's agenda at stake and so many pieces popular with different factions. But that's the gamble
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
. @Nate_Cohn is right lack of resistance to Biden's economic agenda is a big deal. But I think even he undersells the scale of the policy, which may also affect the politics. It isn't just "infrastructure," it's climate, health care, education, taxes... nytimes.com/2021/07/20/us/…
In Obama era, the theory was presidents have a unique ability to focus on ONE big sweeping reform, barn storm the country gathering support, and tell Congress to hammer it out. That's how ACA worked. Biden is different....
D's seem to be almost borrowing from Trump's playbook of doing too many controversial things at once for opponents to focus on anything. Items that individually would be career-defining in past WH's like universal pre-K are afterthoughts right now that barely even get discussed.
In 2020, a handful of GOP officials in key roles stood up to an all-out campaign to throw out the election results and install Trump as president again.
. 46% of GOP support state legislatures overturning 2020 vote, per research by @leedrutman.
Once that’s on the table, you get to scary places real quick. For one it creates a perverse incentive to run a botched election in order to justify politicians deciding results later.
Deep dive by @JeffreyASachs into the anti-CRT bills and how — regardless of whether you agree with their core concerns — the legislative language could prevent teaching even basic history and concepts arcdigital.media/p/laws-aimed-a…
One thing I appreciate about @JeffreyASachs approach to this story is acknowledging that both A) there is a partisan political effort going on that's deliberately lumping a lot of stuff together under "CRT" and B) there IS an actual change here that people are reacting to.
Because "CRT" is deliberately used as a vague catch-all term to categorize and then demonize things its critics don't like, you get a muddled debate where elites are arguing 1970s academic texts and long-running philosophy debates and average people about something else.
Biden says bipartisan infrastructure deal has to be paired with D-only reconciliation bill.
"If this is the only thing that comes to me I'm not signing. It's in tandem."
Asked about Pelosi plan to hold first bill in House until second bill arrives, says he supports it.
Biden and D leaders are quite clear heading into the bipartisan deal that it's all contingent on a reconciliation bill passing with other D priorities. R's are approving this deal knowing that's Biden's publicly stated plan. So are Manchin and Sinema.
Doesn't mean it's going to work! But everyone is going in with clear eyes here.
Politicians and federal nominees have been dragged down by all-white club scandals for decades and decades, it's not like there wasn't fair warning or this is some new 2020s social standard washingtonpost.com/politics/senat…
The Manchin voting rights bill is what a real negotiation between Manchin and voting rights advocates looks like, which is why the latter sound encouraged. But there's not even the beginning of a constituency in the GOP to work on this. It's a virtually 100% internal D debate.
This isn't like other issues, where there's a GOP version of how to approach it and a D one and maybe they can find some overlap. They just fundamentally are not working on the same issue here. Outside Murkowski, almost no interest in making significant federal changes, period.
In other words, the only q that matters: Are Manchin (and other Ds) willing to change the rules to pass a D-only bill on voting rights? No indication his position is budging there. If it does, this is what a deal looks like. If not, it's just an interesting thought experiment.