With all due respect to Gillibrand, why are individual senators stuck negotiating individual policies with Manchin? This seems like a huge cause of the catastrophe currently swallowing the Democratic Party's agenda.
The way bargains work is pretty simple: "You give something, you get something."

That's what was supposed to happen with the bipartisan bill: we gave Manchin his bipartisan compromise and a bunch of WV pork, and he was supposed to support the bigger bill in return.
But in order for this to work, you have to do it ALL AT ONCE. If issues are taken up individually, Manchin doesn't have to take the bitter with the sweet. He can dig in his heels each time, making bargains impossible.
And that's what's happened.

Democrats have seemingly internalized the idea that Manchin, as the holdout, has to approve of EACH AND EVERY individual policy, negotiated with him one at a time by different people. It gives him MASSIVE power he wouldn't have otherwise.
This approach has, effectively, given Manchin a kind of line-item veto where he can cut out anything not to his tastes.

And it's been a disaster! He's shredded Build Back Better, bit by bit.
Over and over, Manchin accepts whatever concessions we give him, and then vetoes his own concessions.

The bargain just keeps moving in his favor while he makes zero sacrifices.
Again, this would make sense IF we were passing each BBB policy individually. Each bill would need his individual approval.

But we're not! We're moving one giant bill. That requires way more upfront effort but lets Dems drive a harder bargain when confronted with holdouts.
So what's going on, seemingly through sheer incompetence on behalf of Dem leaders, is that we're getting the worst of both worlds.

We have to strike one giant complicated deal. Except, ALSO, we're also letting Manchin line-item veto stuff as if we're doing it piecemeal.

Why??
tl;dr: it would be a really good time for Democrats to realize that collective bargaining works
Perfect example of how Dems' negotiating strategy is garbage. We have members wasting time trying to convince Manchin to keep policies, with heartstring appeals. But Manchin has no power to veto individual provisions - just the whole bill, all or nothing.
The conceit here is that if the bill is not written EXACTLY to Manchin's specifications, he will kill it. But that's ridiculous! Manchin is not going to kill Biden's agenda because it contains a few policies he is unenthused about, something that is true of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER.
But for some insane reason, we have decided to conduct this negotiation in a way where each individual policy needs Manchin's sign-off, which places him in a unique, privileged, unearned, and unnecessary position of having to accept virtually no compromises at all.
WHY ARE WE LETTING THIS SELF-IMPORTANT JACKASS WEIGH IN ON EVERY INDIVIDUAL POLICY AS THE SUPREME DECIDER????

He has no unique authority to do this! He can just vote “yes” or “no” one time on the whole package like everyone else!!!! Dems are LETTING this happen!!
This procession of misery, where key Dem legislative priorities are carried in front of Joe Manchin one at a time so he can pronounce the death sentence on them in his best country twang, was not inevitable! We could have forced Manchin to make hard choices!
Dems were never going to get the perfect bill out of this process, but what we’re witnessing now is more like a complete rout, caused by our leaders’ incompetence at any kind of negotiation that requires anything firmer than a backslap and a compliment.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Will Stancil

Will Stancil 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 @whstancil

27 Oct
For the 1000th time, I ask: why is Manchin being allowed to issue line-item vetoes for a package that will be voted on all at once?

It doesn't matter if he dislikes any individual provision, the only question is whether he'll sink the whole bill over it!
Maybe it's possible Manchin will kill the bill unless it's $1.5 trillion, AND excludes CEPP, AND excludes methane fees, AND includes mean-testing, AND excludes a billionaire's tax, etc. etc.

But no one is even asking that. It's just assumed he can write every single provision
Did the GOP holdouts on the 2017 tax bill, like Bob Corker, get to write the whole bill exactly to their liking? No? They just had to suck it up and decide whether to back a bill that they didn't love?

Well, then why do we have to let Manchin write all of BBB?
Read 6 tweets
26 Oct
What some people have missed with regards to this thread is that the question of whether Dems will have to compromise with Manchin (yes) is separate from the question of whether they've maximized their leverage over him (no!)
Clearly the reconciliation bill is not going to be the progressive's dream bill under any circumstances. But there are still a range of possible outcomes, and right now, the way the talks are working seems to maximize the likelihood we end up closer to Manchin's end of that range
If you want to pressure Manchin, you want to:
-negotiate the deal as a package, not piecemeal negotiations on each provision
-force him to make a hard decision rather than pass a bill he's happy with
-not allow him to bluff you with threats of walking away
Read 4 tweets
25 Oct
Okay, real slow for the kids in the back: the current negotiation over the BBB bill is happening because both Manchin and the other Dems want a reconciliation bill to pass. Manchin would prefer it to be smaller and other Dems would prefer it to be bigger.
There are deals that neither side would accept. A $100 billion bill would be vetoed by most Dems. A $6 trillion bill would be vetoed by Manchin. Somewhere in between, there is (presumably) a range of bills that both sides will accept.
We don't know what that range of possibilities is! Nobody does, because it benefits both sides to underplay what they'll accept. Also, it's quite possible that the participants themselves don't know what they'd accept, if the offer truly was "This deal, or no deal."
Read 10 tweets
25 Oct
Manchin is not happy with zero! If he was happy with zero, he could just... go home. Do you think he's engaging in a months-long negotiation out of charity?
There's this bizarre thing going on right now, where everyone is styling themselves as extremely savvy pragmatists, but also, treating whatever crazy thing comes out of Manchin's mouth as his true, unmovable position. Like... bluffs exist, my people
"Wow, Manchin is insisting he'd go home and take all the marbles with him, that definitely is real and couldn't possibly be him trying to scare you into responding exactly like this"
Read 4 tweets
25 Oct
I'm just a broken record on this, but the way Dems have permitted Manchin to gradually change his role from "marginal vote who has to be cajoled into supporting the bill" to "point man for the entire endeavor" is just absurd
There are 50 Democrats and all their votes are needed equally. It's ridiculous to say "Well, Manchin is a major holdout, therefore he gets to write the bill to his specifications and everyone else gets to eat dirt." Just absurd negotiating
So what? Do Trump voters have a strong opinion on whether BBB should be capped at 1.5 trillion, should contain means-testing measures, should include the CEPP, etc. etc. etc.? This sort of public-opinion determinism sounds savvy but is very, very stupid.
Read 6 tweets
8 Oct
Do people not realize that David Shor, far from telling Democrats “what they don’t want to hear,” has prospered because he tells them EXACTLY what they want to hear?
“It’s not your fault you lose elections. Focusing on economics and avoiding controversy is correct. It’s the fault of BLM and ‘Defund the Police,’ and the best thing you can do is make them go away” - yes, these words definitely horrify the leaders of the Democratic Party.
Anyway, it’s sort of strange when you realize that m for all of its influence of his general worldview, Shor’s prescriptions are kind of… unclear. Let’s say you’re David Shor and you’re given full control of Cal Cunningham’s campaign. What do you do differently?
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!

:(