9 Blue Dogs stall infrastructure; CPC: 95 can play that game

[Fiendish Thingy]

It’s called “All or Nothing”.

If the Blue Dogs force a vote on the bipartisan bill before the reconciliation bill, the Progressives, or a significant portion of them, can block passage. Fact is, Pelosi won’t even let it come to the floor if that is the case. The Blue Dogs, on the other hand, are already on record opposing the advancement of the reconciliation bill.

Theoretically, the Blue Dogs are much more vulnerable to charges of “failure to govern”, “gridlock”, and “politics as usual” from their swing state voters than the progressives are in their safe blue districts. Primary challenges from other centrists who support Biden’s agenda, and the fact that 4 of these Blue Dogs may lose their seats in TX/GA to gerrymandering in 2022 should extinguish this political theatre quickly.

So, by all means, Rep. Gottheimer and his band of merry mutineers, please proceed.

[Historic NY]

1. They want to play hardball.......

Pelosi has a large bat. When they flame out, a reflection on what they did will haunt them.

[brush]

2. Finger crossed on this, hoping these recalcitrant centrists...

soon get some sense in their heads.

[FBaggins]

3. Blue dogs are indeed the most at-risk seats.

But that could be for either "failure to govern" or "governed from too far to left".

Either is deadly for a swing seat... so they're looking to pass something - but not what the progressive caucus wants.

Those who lost their seats after passing the ACA weren't due to "failure to govern"... but they were still gone. The ones who barely scraped by in November blamed "defund the police" for the lost colleagues near the middle.

You're going to have a tough time convincing them that allowing the CPC to get their way is the best path to keeping their seats.

Contrariwise - few in the CPC have their seats at risk... but they do have their majority at risk.

[qazplm135]

7. Their majority

Is at risk if nothing but the bipartisan bill passed as well.

The best shot everyone has is to pass something via reconciliation.

Centrists should focus on negotiations for that instead of engaging in political chicken where they have a Yugo going up against a tractor trailer.

Both sides know it's an uphill battle to hold the House. It gets a lot harder if progressives are disillusioned from turning out.

[FBaggins]

9. It isn't a Yugo against a tractor trailer

Not with a three-vote safety margin and an opposition party that won't provide any votes at all.

[qazplm135]

12. Sure it is

A progressive caucus that's almost 100 members against a caucus in the single digits.

Sure, both have heft in a three margin scenario but pretending that heft is remotely equal is silly.

[FBaggins]

14. And yet... the Yugo just won

Pelosi just struck a deal with them that starts the reconciliation process but guarantees a vote on the bipartisan deal before the Senate passes the larger bill and that House won't vote on a bill that can't pass the Senate.

[qazplm135]

15. Won what?

Pelosi already said she was putting both up for a vote.

What they wanted was to have the bipartisan bill DONE so that they would have more leverage to cut down the reconciliation bill or even vote against it.

Do they have that? Nope. They have what they already had, a commitment for a vote.

So they gained nothing they didn't already have, lost chits for negotiating down the reconciliation bill, wasted about a week towards that process, and primed the other side to not trust them.

A smarter play would have been to commit to the procedural process and spend their energy on paring down the bill.

[FBaggins]

16. The game of "political chicken" with the tractor trailer

Pelosi already said she was putting both up for a vote.

Right. But it's no longer a vote on the $3.5T budget bill (and passage in the Senate) before the smaller bill will receive a vote on the floor.

What they wanted was to have the bipartisan bill DONE so that they would have more leverage to cut down the reconciliation bill or even vote against it.

Which is what they got. You seem to have confused the resolution allowing the House to start working on the reconciliation bill... with the bill itself. The bipartisan bill will indeed be "done" in the House before the budget bill can even come to a vote in either chamber. In fact, the deal also includes a promise not to bring that bill to a vote until after it's in a version that can pass the Senate - which means that they absolutely have leverage to cut it down in size.

So they gained nothing they didn't already have

Which is why the progressive caucus is so upset and the moderates are celebrating, right?

A smarter play would have been to commit to the procedural process and spend their energy on paring down the bill.

Again... that's what just happened.

[qazplm135]

17. That wasn't the plan

The plan was to pass both bills at the same time. So it was never what you claim. So instead of votes on both at the same time, guaranteeing passage of the bipartisan bill, now they are separate and progressives are free to vote no if the nine don't agree on the reconciliation bill.

How you think that is a victory for them is curious.

The Senate is going to be the driver of cuts to the bill so nothing was going to pass the House til Sinema and Manchin were satisfied ANYWAY. And once they are satisfied, that's more or less what it's likely to be. None of that has changed.

There's a reason they wanted passage of the bipartisan bill now, because that removed their skin from the game. They weren't asking for just a vote, they wanted passage.

Did they get passage? Nope. Which means their skin remains as does the same leverage both sides had before this silly side quest started. Progressives can still scuttle the bipartisan deal and these nine can still scuttle reconciliation.

The bill being "done" doesn't mean "passed." And it won't be passed if the nine plus two go too far in their deficit hawk game.

So no, they gambled on getting the bill passed now, failed, and wasted everyone's time. Plus, instead of gaining trust, they lost it.

Progressives are "upset" because they committed to a bipartisan bill they didn't like or want with the understanding that moderates would reciprocate on reconciliation and that both bills would track simultaneously thus insuring both sides got what they wanted.

Then effectively 9 people tried to game that process. And now we are at greater risk of BOTH bills failing. So no, that's not exactly what happened. What happened is a few folks wanted to have their bill passed so that there was no risk to not passing the reconciliation bill and they would be free to say take it or leave it.

Didn't work and now we have an artificial deadline and if those nine go too far then 90 plus Dems in the House ain't voting yes and both bills fail.

Unless you are counting on 90+ Reps to save the bill? And if that's the plan...to have the bipartisan bill saved by Republicans and kill the reconciliation bill, then kiss 2022 goodbye.

[The Magistrate]

18. Well Said, Sir

This is the nub of it:

"Progressives are "upset" because they committed to a bipartisan bill they didn't like or want with the understanding that moderates would reciprocate on reconciliation and that both bills would track simultaneously thus insuring both sides got what they wanted."


The 'moderates' here simply cannot be trusted in the pinch.

Party leadership can count on the progressives to hew to any bargain struck. Their objections will always be that something does not go far enough, and most actually in office are quite aware half a loaf is better than no bread.

The objection of the 'moderates' will always be that something their chief donors do not want done will be done, regardless of what Democratic voters, even Democratic voters in their own district or state, want done. It is not just a question of wanting less than the progressives --- they would be quite content if nothing was done.

[qazplm135]

19. I'm not going that far.

1. These 9 aren't all the moderates. I'm not even sure they are half of them.

2. I'm not convinced all 9 will ultimately vote against reconciliation. A couple may be willing to but simply wanting more leverage.

That's not to say I agree with 2, I don't. I think it was a waste of time and ultimately hurt their own leverage, but I don't think all moderates "don't want anything done."

Although a couple might not and with only three votes that's why it's important to track both bills together.

Moderates were right to want a bipartisan bill. Progressives were right to want a seperate reconciliation bill. Both help different parts of our caucus, and only passing both gives us a snowballs chance of holding on in 22.

Moderates and progressives need each other to win. 2020 has to have shown both sides that message. Now is not the time to seek to "beat" the other or run away from the other and it's that impetus that appears to have infected these nine plus 2 that I object to.

[The Magistrate]

20. I Agree Both Sides Need One Another, Sir

I see little reason to think the nine who pitched this are willing to cooperate with those to their left.

The fact that this is being bragged on by the 'No Labels' crew is sufficient to brand the participants as 'moderates' or worse.

[qazplm135]

21. Willing won't matter

Since their gambit failed and they still have skin in the game. They absolutely want the bipartisan bill to pass.

Now, they will have to compromise to do it.

[Demsrule86]

22. That is not true.

We need the moderate seats for a majority.

[qazplm135]

29. And we need the progressives for the majority

And there's more of them.

This isn't rocket science.

[WHITT]

4. Not To Mention

During an interview, Rep. Gottheimer slipped and said something like we shouldn't be raising taxes during a recovery, referencing the reconciliation bill, but the only tax increases in that bill are on millionaires and billionaires, which he and his cohorts are protecting.

Conversely, the Repub corporate bill that he and his cohorts support, raises taxes in the form of fees and tolls on working people, amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

This comes down to whose side is your congressional representative on?

[Johnny2X2X]

5. The deal will get done

There will be some posturing and some concessions, but both deals will get done.

[Bear Creek]

6. With friends like this who needs enemies

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-reels-afghan-debacle-kyrsten-sinema-warns-defeat-home-1622316

[Mad_Machine76]

8. Sinema is frustrating

but 3.5T is just the starting point and it was probably always going to be negotiated downward some. She didn't say that she wouldn't support a reconciliation bill period, just maybe one not that large. Manchin is probably the same way.

[lagomorph777]

26. With friends like these, who needs Sinema?

[librechik]

10. I hope all their seats turn blue because the Big Bill is VERY POPULAR

and we must show the blue dogs to not be afraid of their constituents and for god's sake do the right thing. We won't get another chance.

[ShazamIam]

11. "Blue Dogs?" I thought their new name was neoliberal and or moderate?

I think powers behind the scenes with fat bank accounts are stalling the Democratic agenda and the media is their most effective tool.

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. Neoliberal is a descriptor specific to economic policy. This group is also known as Problem Solvers

Although they seem to create more problems than they solve.

Neoliberal is not a right/left label, as both Dems and Republicans have been proponents.

[Demsrule86]

24. We lose the majority without them and get nothing.

[ShazamIam]

31. Yes, conservative on economis, to me neoliberasl are only liberal on things like LGBQT,

and as politically conservative as any traditional Republican on civil rights, education, voting rights, and fair employment practices.
And I do consider neoliberals to be on the right, and to me so are our moderate Democratic, right leaners.

[Demsrule86]

23. Blue dogs is an insulting term and very old.

We did not hold the house for eight years and the only reason we do now is because of moderates.

[Fiendish Thingy]

25. I like the term coined by, I think Greg Sargent: Sabotage Squad

But Problem Creators works for me too.

Surely the DNC can find some centrists who will support, rather than sabotage, Biden’s agenda to run against them in 2022.

[lagomorph777]

27. I like both of those names.

[Demsrule86]

28. The entire points of being a centrist is so you can win in red or purple district. This is going

to happen where moderates have their own issues based on electability. Moderates were concerned if the reconciliation bill passed first, the bi-partisan bill could be voted down. The bipartisan nature of the bill is important for their reelection prospects. Also, the reconciliation bill depends on Manchin and Sinema in the Senate...it may not pass, and waiting for months while an attempt is made could torpedo the bipartisan bill.

It amuses me that when the progressive wing threatens not to vote for Biden's agenda, they are heroes. But when Moderates do, they are traitors, etc... Moderates have more to fear from some votes than the progressive wing who are all in very safe districts. And we damn well need all of them or we get nothing...as in we lose the majority.

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. The *only* reason to pass bipartisan bill first is to sabotage the reconciliation bill

The “moderates” concerns do not hold water.

The CPC and Pelosi have pledged their support for the bipartisan bill, once the reconciliation bill has passed.

Biden’s Agenda is the passage of both bills; I have not heard a single progressive come out against passing both bills. The “moderates”, on the other hand, have been playing lots games with semantics and conditions and hedging.

Both will pass, or none will pass.

[ShazamIam]

32. I disagree but don't want to argue.