“We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not.”
That’s gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I’ve heard in a while.
I can agree that it is bullshit they get to continue with what they are doing, but in practical terms they too are needed. The seat Manchin controls is solidly Republican, and as we’ve seen the caliber of person the Republicans are putting forward are completely opposed to even the remotest concession. It sucks, but having someone with a (D) next to their name who has to worry about biting the hand that feeds them is marginally better than someone with an ®. However, given as he is about to be gone, catering to him isn’t gonna be a thing much longer, hopefully.
I’m aware of Manchin’s position in the Senate and the politics of West Virginia, but that’s not what I asked.
When was the last time his wing of the party had to accept any tradeoffs?
You’re missing the point: Is it bullshit they get to get away with being Republican-lite? Yes.
Is it something that we can change right this second? No.
It boils down to the same annoying reality of our situation being accepting tradeoffs because there is literally no alternative that is feasibly going to happen.
They don’t have to accept tradeoffs “like everyone else”; they have to accept tradeoffs like the favored portion of the party that gets everything it wants out of the party at all times NEVER DOES.
Don’t belittle people who are upset about genocide by acting like everyone in the party has to accept shit they don’t like from the party. It’s simply not true.
I like how they don’t like genocide so in protest, they vote for the other party that “likes genocide” (and is actively hostile to minorities, but whatever).
In this case the tradeoff they have to accept is…voting for a party that does the same thing but even more overt.
I’m not belittling anyone, I’m simply stating that facts of the situation - regardless of which party they vote for - they will be effectively choosing to accept genocide, whether their vote is a protest vote or not, because that’s how the 2-party system works.
When was the last time centrist Democrats had to accept a tradeoff? Don’t pretend I’m talking about anyone else again. Don’t try to change the subject again. Stop avoiding the question.
Moderate democrats are the majority in power, so it makes sense they are the most powerful and get what they want the most. In cases like Manchin, they get outsized power due to how tight margins are in the senate. That’s how it works in a “coalition” of sorts. If Dems had a comfortable majority, they could force through more things. It’s basic logic that a party with multiple different wings has to cater to the ones that are more likely to flip on them. In most cases, the left wing of the Dems will never vote for the Right, so it’s a safer bet to de-prioritize them when compared to the right, who may vote right.
If the left wing of the dems had more voters (which is slowly happening by the look of things), they could exercise more power, and if they had a comfortable majority (and more balls), they could ignore people like Manchin.
As per your question, I have no idea, I dont keep tabs on every vote, but I am very confident my assessment of the situation is correct.
You can’t provide a single example because none exists. “Everybody” doesn’t have to accept tradeoffs. Centrist Democrats don’t. You’re expecting people to accept genocide based on an argument that has no basis in reality.
Centrist Democrats right now don’t need to accept tradeoffs because they are needed atm. As demographics shift, eventually, things will change as they must.
As for accepting genocide…well, if I had to choose between my own safety and someone else’s, I know where I’d stand…