To open a dialogue regarding Joe Manchin

[theaocp]

Please tell me the pros of his position as a Democrat. I'm completely serious. If I'm going to get hidden posts because I don't trust him, I'd love more open discussion regarding why I should not find him unacceptable as a part of Team D. Thanks.

[Trust Buster]

1. I voted not to hide it. I believe constructive criticism should be allowed to breath.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. He is in a tough spot. Trump won his state by forty three points.

I don't know what i would do if I was him. If I was me I would probably speak my mind and lose.

[yallerdawg]

4. A Democrat in West Virginia...

is not the same Democrat you'd find in San Francisco.

What we want - what we need - is a Democratic majority in the Senate.

A fine way to start on that majority is not to get rid of the Democrats we have!

[JI7]

3. he is from West Virginia where we don't have much choice in getting someone better

[karynnj]

5. The pro is that who has the majority is important in the Senate is important

He will vote to caucus with the Democrats. There are Congresses where that is the most important vote. That is why Jim Webb, who was terrible on many issues and someone I strongly disliked was important to the Democrats. In 2006, he narrowly won Virginia, at a point where the incument Republican (George Allen) was favored until his racism showed too clearly. After that cohort was sworn in, we had 51 votes.

We were in the majority and controlled the agenda - even though Bush would veto anything he disagreed with. It was much better than the Congress before when we were in the minority in both Houses and the only thing we could hope to do was to filibuster the worst of the bad things happening. Now, for the next 4 years we have a very right wing, possibly unstable President. The higher our numbers in the Senate the more likely we can at least filibuster something. If we are able to win Senators - and he wins in 2018 when he is seen as the most vulnerable democrat - that is one less seat we need to win to get the majority in the future.

That and the Republican is likely to be worse.

[pbmus]

7. Lucky to even have a half ... Democrat, then a asshat tea party jerk...

[theaocp]

8. This is what bothers me

We are supposed to get used to lowered expectations. From what I've seen, people are so browbeaten that they assume that's all we can get from WV. I'd like to see better, but I hear the chorus telling me to be happy or at least shut my mouth with the crumbs I receive. It smells like weakness and cowardice, but that's why we have an "open" forum to discuss these things.

[pbmus]

9. When you talk about WV, ya gotta understand the geography...

Of the people...who are still in the belief that the Big Con is going to bring back coal jobs..

Even Manchin in a tv interview said about obamacare that his constituents do not understand where there health care comes from but are against it anyway...in other words , he was trying to say they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer..

[Vogon_Glory]

10. As much as it pains some purists

We are not likely to get another Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren out of West Virginia any time soon. I'll take Joe Manchin over a Tea Party Republican.

I'd rather have a solid majority of 66 progressive Democrats in the US Senate, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards, even with prize jerks like Republican Ted Cruz facing re-election.

[JI7]

11. there is no "we" here. i'm in california so i don't get a vote. West Virginia and California

don't all have the same interests/issues they vote on.

unless you can convince the actual people who live and vote in west virginia to support liberal policies you aren't going to get someone much better there.

[onenote]

12. Where is the evidence that we can get better from W. VA?

Wishful thinking doesn't count.

[theaocp]

15. And thus dies the idea of a 50 state strategy. Thanks. n/t

[brer cat]

16. There is a difference between browbeaten and realistic.

WV is a heavily republican state and the voters are going to choose based on the issues that most concern them and for the candidates they think will best represent their interests. Other areas of the country have different priorities but that isn't going to change the minds of the voters of WV. Manchin votes with democrats most of the time, and I will take "most" over "none" any day. He could well switch parties and that would leave us poorer in the long run.

What is the alternative? Do you suggest that we set up some kind of Team D super committee to kick out the "unacceptable" people?

[theaocp]

19. I have many alternatives that would get the money out of this shitshow

but that's not likely to happen in the near future. I'd prefer to keep our representatives' feet to the fire for their votes and choices. He wants to call himself a Democrat? Fine. He can defend his votes and I will continue to watch as he tries to satisfy two camps. If his constituency is so goddamn conservative, he should just run as a conservative and vote across party lines, as he needs to. It would accomplish the same fucking thing in the end.

[brer cat]

22. He is a conservative,

he did run as a conservative, and he does vote across party lines.

Are you one of his constituents? If not what right do you have to hold his feet to the fire? He answers to the people who elected him, and to the leaders of the Senate, not to anonymous posters on an internet forum.

I can understand your frustration. It would be nice to have everyone in government walking in lockstep with our personal views, but that is not a democracy. Getting money out of politics is not going to change the voters of every state into liberals, and throwing out democrats we don't find acceptable will never get us enough seats to accomplish anything.

[Atticus]

21. It bothers me, too and I share your low opinion of Manchin.

I have repeatedly used his name to explain to callers why this progressive Democrat will not contribute a dime to the DNC or the DSCC: the chance that anything I give might help him. I contribute to progressive candidates, not committees who don't share my idea of what makes a Democrat.

It is difficult to discuss his constituency without using terms like "knuckledraggers", but that is not a reason to let whoever they elect call himself a Democrat. He is not "one of us". He is---well, I guess I must defer to the rules or risk a hidden post. And, please---don't waste anyone's time with a lengthy lecture about "elitism" and "respecting" the voters. That type of truncated logic leads to asininities like "Trump must be a great man because, after all, he's our president."

If the voters of West Virginia want a Republican Senator, they should vote for one. If we want a Democratic Senator, we should nominate and work to elect a Democrat.

[SaschaHM]

13. Because you don't get to ignore regional differences in Dems just because you don't like them.

He's not some hack that has been forced upon us. He's the duly elected senator from WV and before that, he was the Democratic Governor of WV. He was chosen by WV Dems and then sent to us by the population of the state. We can't be a 50 state party if we act like there is one mold of Democrat. I dislike most of the stuff that he does, but I'm also not a democrat from WV, and they seem to be fine with him.

[onenote]

14. The foremost pro of his position as a Democrat is that we're one vote closer to controlling

the Senate, something that some people on DU apparently don't think is all that important.

Here's another way of looking at it: While Manchin is not even remotely a reliable vote for Democrats on many issues, out of 250 or so recorded Senate votes in the first session of the 114th Congress (a number that excludes votes that were unanimous or in which more than half the Democrats voted with Republicans), he split with the Republican Senator from W.VA, Shelley Capito more than 120 times. In other words, if he's gone and replaced by a Republican (and if he's gone, he will be replaced by a Republican), that's 120 votes in which the Repubs will have one more vote for their side. Are these important votes? Mostly not. Are they decisive votes? Generally not, which means his voting the way he did wasn't particularly costly.

So his votes as a Senator are at best a wash; but his vote on organizing the Senate could be essential.

[theaocp]

17. Thanks for the actually useful response.

While I don't need the summation of the math, 120 votes supportive of progressive/democratic agenda items is good, solid, quantitative data. If I were someone from his state, I'd like to examine them a little more closely, but that's useful information. Cheers.

[onenote]

18. Those votes weren't necessarily progressive

But they were opposite to the Repub position in matters in which at least half the Democrats were on the same side as Manchin.

[theaocp]

20. I understand.

It's still quantitative data, which is sorely fucking lacking in the modern climate. Thanks again.