Thread by @awprokop

The idea that moderates should publicly pre-commit to voting yes on a bill that is not finalized seems historically unusual to me.

Generally the way it happens is the details are hammered out and then the mods announce their vote just before the vote

https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1456814805570842630

I don't think a lack of clarity is the real hold-up. It's substance.

Manchin and Sinema have demanded various changes in the bill. Dems have offered some of what they want, but not all of it, in hopes they'll say it's good enough. They haven't yet.

https://twitter.com/drvolts/status/1456861424144113666

Manchin laid out what he wanted to Schumer in late July. Schumer wrote: "I will try to dissuade Joe on some of this."

That's what's been happening in the past few months, the trying to dissuade.

static.politico.com/1e/ef/159cabd5…

Now of course there is a mystery here, which is: what is Manchin's *true* bottom line? What is he willing to say is "good enough," even if he doesn't get everything he wanted?

Dems are trying to find that. The framework was an attempt at it. Didn't work.

But it's not like Dems have given Manchin everything he wanted and he's still refusing to vote yes due to some mysterious unexplained objections.

There are demands he's been consistent about that they keep ignoring, hoping he can be moved off them. Which is normal! Negotiation!