Many Dems have wondered about the hypothetical of, "what if they'd won 1-2 more Senate seats?"
I'm also interested in the flipside — what if they'd won 1 fewer Senate seats? How would Biden's first year have been different with a McConnell-run Senate?
Obviously no BBB. Stimulus would have had to be bipartisan and looked quite different. Would infrastructure still have happened?
Probably a few differences in the Cabinet but not too much (he had mostly moderate picks anyway).
Judicial confirmations slowed to a crawl, of course. Macro conditions probably mostly the same. Biden probably still unpopular, but much more commentary would blame that on McConnell.
Gridlock probably the safe bet. There's an alternative argument that, if Dems didn't have BBB/HR1 to chase after, bipartisan deals on stuff like the child tax credit or Electoral Count Act reform would be more plausible. Dunno if I believe that
10/24: Biden, Manchin, and Schumer meet in Wilmington. WH later claims Manchin agrees to support Biden’s new BBB framework here.
10/28: Biden announces framework
11/01: Manchin trashes the framework
So what happened?
I see two possibilities here.
1) Manchin was inconsistent. He told the WH he'd be fine with all this. But a week later, he decided he wasn't. 2) The extent of the framework's reliance on temporary programs to meet the cost cap was not made clear to him in the private meeting
Manchin is essentially demanding one of two things — either the expanded child tax credit gets dropped from the bill, or nearly everything else gets dropped from the bill.
The expanded child tax credit in BBB is a near-universal benefit for families with children, but folded inside it is a transformative anti-poverty proposal aimed at helping the neediest.
The issue is that the big picture of what happened has been clear for some time and is no longer "news." So there is a desire to find new details that make it newsworthy again and justify new coverage. But those new details don't change the big picture, which we've long known
Trump tried to steal the election. He pressured GOP officials to make that happen. He whipped his supporters into a frenzy. When the Capitol was stormed, he was delighted, and slow to act. He explored (but did not take) more extreme executive actions. Eventually, he backed down.
Since we've long known all that, new coverage tends to be: 1. Drip-drip investigative coverage with new details about what happened. 2. Retrospectives trying to more effectively synthesize / present / explain what happened. 3. Forward-looking coverage (will it happen again?)
Since the Roe v. Wade decision 48 years ago, 10 SCOTUS seats have opened up while Rs were president, and 5 while Ds were.
11 seats were actually filled by R presidents and 4 by D presidents because... you know.
Still, took a while for (apparent) anti-Roe majority to take shape
That's because of those 11 GOP appointees, two (Stevens and Souter) went rogue and essentially joined the court's liberal wing.
And two others — O'Connor and Kennedy — got cold feet on overturning Roe specifically the last time it looked plausible, in 1992.
I'd split this span into two eras.
In the first (1973-1992) all six SCOTUS vacancies occurred when Rs were president. They won most of the elections, and none happened to open up during Carter's one term.
But there is a catch — Dems controlled the Senate for much of this time
I guess the theory is that there were voters who flipped to GOP or stayed home in '14/'16 but would have voted Dem if there was better messaging and activism about Roe being in danger?
Probably will get some indication of whether such voters exist in significant numbers in 2022
But the success of the well-funded GOP legal movement here is mainly in *getting Republican presidents to, at long last, consistently appoint SCOTUS justices who would actually overturn Roe.*
I delved into the child care plan of the Build Back Better Act. It's one of the most ambitious parts of the bill, that could greatly help millions of families.
But its design could bring serious implementation challenges, both practical and political
The core of the plan is that the federal government would agree to pick up the bulk of childcare costs at licensed providers, offering generous subsidies to most families, who'd only have to pay a limited "copay"
But there's some fine print, including:
-Lots of discretion is left to state governments, including whether to participate at all.
-The full subsidies won't be available until 2025
-The whole plan expires after 2027