REMINDER: Manchin's supposed BBB complaint was that some of the provisions were "temporary" when they were clearly intended to be permanent (which I actually agreed with...if you're gonna do it, do it permanently).
Now all of a sudden it's OK to bump ARP out for only 2 years.
That's actually SHORTER than the 3 year extension which would've been included in BBB.
He either doesn't know what the fuck he wants or he's just been deliberately jerking everyone's chain for a year now for no particular reason other than keeping himself in the spotlight.
The only option Dems have is to take this "offer" (if there actually is one, which I doubt at this point) and WORK OUR FUCKING ASSES OFF TO HOLD THE HOUSE & ADD AT LEAST TWO MORE DEM SENATORS:
If Dems are able to do both of these things, they can make the #AmRescuePlan subsidies *permanent* as well as doing the climate change stuff and other parts of the BBB agenda next year.
If not, we're pretty much fucked anyway.
For the next 5 months, he serves exactly 2 functions:
1. Keeps the gavel out of Mitch McConnell’s hands; 2. Confirms Biden’s judges.
Anything beyond that is a bonus.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I mostly agree w/this thread. I *list* extreme long shot seats for *statewide* races since most people know that a Dem winning in, say, SD is almost impossible, but I still emphasize the more winnable seats. For district-level races, however, I try to stick to competitive seats.
…or at least *potentially* competitive seats. I also include the PVI rating for every district-level race to give people some idea of how tough each district is. Generally I stick to D/R +10 or less, with a few exceptions.
Now there are *other* arguments for helping long shots—building turnout for *their* race can help boost Dem turnout for a winnable *statewide* race, for instance. Just don’t donate to a Dem in an R+30 district thinking that THEY’RE gonna win, outside of an extreme scenario.
@clearchats@PalmerReport The PVI ratings aren’t perfect since they only include the *district* demographics, not the quality of the candidates/etc, but they provide a pretty good baseline. As @PalmerReport notes, a fantastic candidate *may* be able to overcome an R+10 district but there are limits.
It may look like nothing's changed, but both the correlation (R^2) and slope angle have continued to increase.
I expect both of them to see another small bump as the first batch of 6mo - 4yr old children get their 2nd/3rd vaccination doses over the next week or two:
As an aside, for everyone who said Dems were suckers for giving up their leverage on Manchin by voting for the Infrastructure Bill before the BBB bill passed: Manchin's erratic behavior should prove that he would've just as easily let the BIF die as well if he had to.
Splitting the larger bill in half as leverage to get him to vote for one before agreeing to the other made sense on paper, and I supported it at the time, but it assumed that Manchin wouldn't have just said "then neither one passes." I'm now convinced that he would have.
Once Again: For anyone claiming that Dems could’ve gotten all this stuff done during the brief period that they had 60 Senators in 2009, imagine that a dozen of them were Joe Manchin.
The only option we have at this point is to make Manchin (& Sinema) irrelevant by flipping AT LEAST 2 more Senate seats blue while also holding onto the House: secure.actblue.com/donate/senateb…
It would be better to flip MORE than two, since it’s conceivable that one or two others will suddenly develop amnesia about the filibuster, but AT LEAST two is the minimum. And again, we have to HOLD THE HOUSE at the same time: secure.actblue.com/donate/housebl…
I've been cited by @GlennKesslerWP for his fact checks re. ACA data a number of times over the years. For the most part I think he's done a reasonably good job, and sometimes it can get a bit fuzzy.
In this case, however, he (and many others) screwed up. He should admit as such.
The issue isn't so much his original post, which did include a bunch of caveats/disclaimers and so forth about whether this *particular* case was true or not...the issue is how he's responded to it since then.
The piece itself says:
52 kids under 15 received an abortion in Ohio in 2020. That's around 1 per week. It's therefore more than reasonable to assume that at least 4 young children in Ohio have required an abortion over the past month, and a 10-yr old requiring one would be by definition a rape victim.