I've been telling y'all for a loooong time:
Pelosi has a history of walking back an initial progressive demand in pragmatic deference to the Senate.
And she signaled back in June that the initial linkage demand wasn't all that firm in the first place.
Here's my own recap...
Pelosi has a history of walking back an initial progressive demand in pragmatic deference to the Senate.
And she signaled back in June that the initial linkage demand wasn't all that firm in the first place.
Here's my own recap...
https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1442640107559964675
...June 30 is when I first saw Pelosi define the linkage demand in looser terms than generally assumed...
https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1410270988609150983
...Pelosi's spox quickly pushed back on me in a quote tweet, but didn't actually debunk the point...
https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1441887477007015945
..that piece also recalled what happened in '09-'10, when Pelosi made a big progressive demand for public option, only to climb down when the Senate balked... 
...then in August, we had the Mod9 power play, to which Pelosi responded to with a "rule" (which sets up floor debate and final vote) that effectively linked advancement of BIB to advancement of the budget *resolution*, not budget *reconciliation*...
...When I first called attention to that, Pelosi's spox again quoted-tweeted and explicitly said that passage of reconciliation in the Senate had to precede House passage of BIB (sorry, I refuse to say BIF after the framework became a bill)...
https://twitter.com/Drew_Hammill/status/1426913333119176712
...after some drama, Pelosi & Mod9(+1) settled on a rule that enacted the resolution while simultaneously fixing a date for BIB consideration. As a literal matter, BIB advancement was linked to the resolution, not reconciliation...
...Pelosi still stuck with rhetoric that suggested BIB and reconciliation would happen in conjunction, until making political and legislative reality plain to her caucus tonight...
https://twitter.com/heatherscope/status/1442640107559964675
...now, to the suggestion below, Pelosi's plan does not automatically means BIB passes by 9/30. Progressives could still hold out, and Republicans may not offset those defections...
https://twitter.com/chazero67/status/1442666136915619844
...But the CPC/Squad position had long been buttressed by the perception of being in sync with Pelosi's. Now it isn't. Now voting "Nay" is a vote against leadership. We'll see if the CPC's numbers hold up...
...to the commenters who don't care for my pundit victory cap, the point here is not to mock progressive House members for (possibly) losing. The point is you can't successfully exert leverage without a clear-eyed assessment of power dynamics...
...the bottom line of my July 2 analysis wasn't "progs gonna get hosed." It was this:
...Progressives hoped to exert leverage through brute force and public shaming (i.e. see below). But a clearer read of moderate leverage might have led to an earlier breaking of bread.
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1440075174150225930
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
