The Democrats Will Also Shit Themselves.

[atog]

This is the floor model tweet of "why twitter should go back to 140 characters max".

[Grath]

I mean Hillary DOES have personal experience with unjust laws becoming dams that block the flow of progress:

[Thad]

Welp, Manchin and Sinema fucked us on voting rights. Which, y'know, not exactly a surprise but I'd held out some measure of hope that they were going to do a McCain and follow up all their "I will not vote to change the filibuster" talk by voting to change the filibuster.

It's kinda hard to avoid the conclusion that we're fucked forever. The good news is that the new district maps look like a wash -- basically, red states are gerrymandering like motherfuckers but blue states are too and they've more or less canceled each other out. (And, while I'm against gerrymandering, I'm also against unilateral disarmament. If Texas and Florida are going to gerrymander, then hell yes California and New York should do it too.)

So for the moment, while gerrymandering remains a major issue, it doesn't look like it's going to be any worse in the next ten years than it's been for the last ten. The bigger threat is the various states' voter disenfranchisement efforts, but those aren't insurmountable either; they're going to be difficult to overcome but with sufficient advocacy and get-out-the-vote efforts it's still possible to bring in more voters than we lose. (And, not for nothin', I expect there to be some unintended consequences and for Republican attempts to disenfranchise voters to affect more Republican voters than expected.)

Democrats are probably going to lose the House in November (this is not a foregone conclusion; be sure to vote in the midterms) but may pick up seats in the Senate. I'm not sure if Schumer is forward-thinking enough to enact filibuster reform when Dems don't have the House, but that's exactly what he should do if they pick up at least two seats and have the votes to do it.

If Democrats do lose the House but pick up seats in the Senate, I expect '23-'24 to look a lot like '19-'20 in reverse, with legislation stalling out even more than it already has but with a continued focus on confirming as many federal judges as humanly possible. If that's what happens then it's going to suck but it won't be a total loss.

In case anyone wants my thoughts on Sinema's future:

I've heard people say they don't think she's going to run for re-election in 2024. I think those people have misunderstood who she is and what her motivations are. She was running fucking campaign ads last summer, three years before the election; she's running. She doesn't seem to much enjoy the work of being a senator, but she loves being important and getting attention. Not to mention those sweet, sweet lobbyist dollars.

She's extremely vulnerable in a primary. Her popularity has plummeted and, while she seems to have realized she's in trouble, she still seems to be operating under the misapprehension that she can fix it by just doing the same things louder. She thinks her declining popularity is a problem she can fix with the right PR, without having to actually stop doing the things that are pissing off her constituents.

Also, she's not very good at PR. She was when she was in the state legislature and the US House, when all she had to do was spout bland platitudes about bipartisanship and she wasn't important enough for people to actually look at her voting record, but she's Peter principled her way into a job where that isn't working for her anymore and she doesn't know how else to campaign.

She doesn't have any declared primary challengers right now because, y'know, we've got another Senate election we need to get through first. (For those who don't remember why Mark Kelly's already up for reelection after only two years: 2020 was a special election to fill McCain's seat; 2022 is the regular 6-year election for that seat.) Not to mention House elections; Ruben Gallego is Sinema's likeliest challenger but he's not going to announce a 2024 Senate campaign in the middle of his 2022 House campaign.

I've been voting against Sinema in primaries for years; I'm hoping '24 is the last time I have to. Her defeat isn't a foregone conclusion but I'd say it's the likeliest outcome. She's burned bridges with basically everyone who isn't a corporate lobbyist; she'll have plenty of money to campaign but I think she's in for a rude awakening when it comes to finding volunteers to campaign for her again.

[Mongrel]

Also Biden has openly announced that Sinema and and Manchin will no longer receive any establishment party support, which, I don't think either of them had in previous primaries anyway(?), but that's a bit a different than outright shouting it.

It's possible the Dem leadership will actively support one of her primary challengers, but maybe they'll get cold feet or it'll backfire, or who knows.

[Thad]

Also Biden has openly announced that Sinema and and Manchin will no longer receive any establishment party support,

Has he? I hadn't heard that; do you have a source?

That's not a bad thing; I'd like to see Manchin and Sinema face consequences from the party leadership. But I didn't really expect them to; Biden's still relying on them to confirm nominees and pass other legislation and up to this point he's tried not to offend their egos too much.

I don't think Sinema's going to get much support from the state Democratic Party in '24, but I figured the federal DNC would hedge its bets and not try to alienate her, like it did with Lieberman in '06.

which, I don't think either of them had in previous primaries anyway(?)

I can't speak to the breakdown between primary and general, but OpenSecrets has Manchin's contributions and Sinema's for 2018 and they definitely both got money from Democratic Party orgs.

At any rate, they both handily won their 2018 primaries, Manchin by 40 points and Sinema by 50.

AFAIK Manchin's still popular in his state, and he may, sadly, be the best we can get out of West Virginia; I wouldn't mind seeing him primaried but I'm not sure anyone to his left could win a general election there. OTOH Sinema's approval rating in Arizona is in freefall, and we know for a fact someone to the left of her can win a Senate seat here, because we elected Mark Kelly in 2020; he's still pretty conservative, but he supports filibuster reform for voting rights and campaign finance legislation.

At any rate, we're stuck with both Manchin and Sinema through 2024; nothing WV or AZ voters can do about them this year. Though there are some possible Democratic pickups in other states that, with any luck, will get the Democrats to 52 or more and make Manchin and Sinema less important.

Circling back to donors: what's likely to hurt Sinema is that Emily's List has said it won't endorse her again. They were her biggest donor.

It's also worth considering the broader implications of Emily's List putting that kind of support behind filibuster reform, which represents a major policy shift. Historically pro-abortion rights orgs have been pro-filibuster, seeing it as necessary to prevent a simple majority of Republicans from imposing major restrictions on abortion. That they now think this is a risk they have to take in order to protect abortion rights (among others) is a sign of the imminent danger those rights are currently in.

[Thad]

Also probably worth adding that, more than who's more to the left and who's more to the right, the most important difference between Kelly and Sinema is probably that Kelly's in the Senate because he wants to be a public servant, and Sinema's there to feed her ego.

Kelly didn't run for Senate to advance his career; dude's a retired astronaut. He ran for Senate because his wife's political career was cut short by an assassination attempt, and he picked up the baton. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's chosen public office because he actually gives a fuck. Sinema's made it very clear that she does not.

[Mongrel]

I went and looked back at the convo from yesterday (was with a beltway friend I know) and it was about the Emily's List endorsement, not Biden. It was described as "for those wanting Biden to squeeze Sinema more, this is what that looks like", and I misunderstood that to mean the WH had made the retraction of support announcement in conjunction with Emily's List.

So, poop. Kind of funny that I was too eager to give Biden credit for something though. :V

Also, I suspect you're correct with "Manchin is the best they're going to get out of WV".

[Blossom]

Yeah, about that idea that confirming Biden judges is a good thing.

[Grath]

Yeah, about that idea that confirming Biden judges is a good thing.

Unfortunately the subject matter expert (a lawyer who had direct personal connection to the case) I heard it from has deleted their posts about it, but Donzinger bribed and racketeered his way to a judgment against Chevron and now spends every waking moment crying "abuse!" when he suffers the repercussions for his corruption.
Here is the opinion of another lawyer (whose opinion I trust, and referred to the actual expert) on the matter:


tl;dr it's the first and so far only time known where an oil company wasn't the biggest villain in the room.

[beatbandito]

It would take a lot to convince me that one man was more unscrupulous than chevron in their dealings in south america. And if he really did lie and cheat to steal all that money from chevron. Like, cool? That's literally the behavior that folk heroes are made of.

Also, sorry, I got off topic. Why would any of that matter in regards to the appointment? Do you think chevron lawyers are actually cool people it's good to give federal power to?

[Grath]

It would take a lot to convince me that one man was more unscrupulous than chevron in their dealings in south america. And if he really did lie and cheat to steal all that money from chevron. Like, cool? That's literally the behavior that folk heroes are made of.

Also, sorry, I got off topic. Why would any of that matter in regards to the appointment? Do you think chevron lawyers are actually cool people it's good to give federal power to?

Folk heroes don't arrange $200M payouts for themselves, give a slice of the settlement to a hedge fund in exchange for funding that $200M payout (so he'd get paid even if he lost), or do any of this shit:

Donzinger threatens to expose the Ecuadoran judge German Yanez’s drinking and womanizing if he “does not adhere to the law and what we need”. When someone suggests that if Yanez ruled against the plaintiffs he might be killed, Donzinger says, “He might not be, but he thinks he will, which is just as good.” When a groundwater expert tells him the contamination is less than he had thought, he replies, “This is Ecuador, OK? At the end of the day, if there’s a thousand people around the courthouse, you’re going to get what you want.” Later he calls the scientific data “just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bullshit.”

But the emails were worse. The “smoke, mirrors and bullshit” remark was closer to the truth than Donzinger had intended. Donzinger’s team had not only “suggested” Cabrear to the judge, and agreed his appointment before it happened, but also ghost written his report. And the ghost writers? Stratus, the firm that later endorsed his report as “sound, reasonable and consistent”!

The only given example of her working for Chevron is holding Donzinger responsible for that shit. That said, a Republican Corporate Lawyer who Trump likes doesn't sound like a great idea - but Donzinger is not the reason for her not being a good idea.

[beatbandito]

Folk heroes don't arrange $200M payouts for themselves, give a slice of the settlement to a hedge fund in exchange for funding that $200M payout (so he'd get paid even if he lost).

Erin Brokovich is literally a movie that exists.

[Grath]

Folk heroes don't arrange $200M payouts for themselves, give a slice of the settlement to a hedge fund in exchange for funding that $200M payout (so he'd get paid even if he lost).

Erin Brokovich is literally a movie that exists.

Erin Brokovich wasn't disbarred for misconduct, nor have both the US Court of Appeals and The Hague determined her core argument to have been fraudulent.

[beatbandito]

yeah, 'cause chevron sucks

[Brantly B.]

Swear to God the political history of this nation in the 21st century is a long form of that bit about "we brought in snakes to deal with the rabbits, then we brought in mongoose to deal with the snakes, then we brought in foxes to deal with the mongoose, then we brought in wolves to deal with the foxes, then we brought in lions to deal with the wolves and now the lions are eating us".

[Mongrel]

Only the 21st century???

[Brantly B.]

Yes, Mongrel.

[KingRoyal]

If only we'd heeded the warning of a prophet before the turn of the century that, "There's always a bigger fish"

[Büge]

[nosimpleway]

They misspelled "contagion"