Do you want Joe Manchin to lose in 2018?

[jamestroll]

lmao

[justfollowingtheelections]

Of course not.  Any Republican would be a lot worse.

[136or142]

Either lose or join the Republican Party.  I don't mind that he is 'disloyal' to the Democratic Party by voting against the party platform on a fair number of issues, I mind that he is genuinely disloyal to the Democratic Party by using dishonest Republican talking points to advance his own interests and harm his fellow Democrats in the process.

To me, having one more Democrat in the U.S Senate is not worth that cost, which I think is far greater.

This was the very reason Democrats all across the United States sought the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and forced him to get reelected as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Either lose or join the Republican Party.  I don't mind that he is 'disloyal' to the Democratic Party by voting against the party platform on a fair number of issues, I mind that he is genuinely disloyal to the Democratic Party by using dishonest Republican talking points to advance his own interests and harm his fellow Democrats in the process.

To me, having one more Democrat in the U.S Senate is not worth that cost, which I think is far greater.

This was the very reason Democrats all across the United States sought the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and forced him to get reelected as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Well that's different.  Lieberman was representing a very blue state and we felt we needed a better Democrat.  Manchin would most likely be replaced by a Republican.

[136or142]

Either lose or join the Republican Party.  I don't mind that he is 'disloyal' to the Democratic Party by voting against the party platform on a fair number of issues, I mind that he is genuinely disloyal to the Democratic Party by using dishonest Republican talking points to advance his own interests and harm his fellow Democrats in the process.

To me, having one more Democrat in the U.S Senate is not worth that cost, which I think is far greater.

This was the very reason Democrats all across the United States sought the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and forced him to get reelected as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Well that's different.  Lieberman was representing a very blue state and we felt we needed a better Democrat.  Manchin would most likely be replaced by a Republican.

I think Manchin does a great deal of harm during election campaigns when he validates dishonest Republican talking points that forces his fellow Congressional Democrats who are up for reelection to respond as if these talking points deserve to be taken seriously.

I also expect that for at least the first year of the Trump Administration, Manchin will constantly attack his 'fellow' Democrats for their 'obstructionism' in order to play up his own 'bi-partisanship' and, as such, will give the Trump Administration and Senate Republicans cover that they have 'bi-partisan' support.

There are two phrases that come to mind to me with sleazy people like Senator Manchin
1.With friends like him, who needs enemies?
2.(For Democrats, getting rid of Senator Manchin is) addition by subtraction.

Again, this has nothing to do with his voting record.  I don't expect all Democrats to vote the same on all issues, and, were I an American and in Congress I wouldn't vote with the party platform on all issues either.  For one thing for instance, I strongly support charter schools, to the degree that is a federal issue.

[Young Conservative]

Yes. He's not as conservative as many think. While he does hold mostly conservative social positions and is supportive of cutting energy regulations,  he's quite the liberal on most economic policies.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Until the mountain party is viable, no.

[RINO Tom]

Either lose or join the Republican Party.  I don't mind that he is 'disloyal' to the Democratic Party by voting against the party platform on a fair number of issues, I mind that he is genuinely disloyal to the Democratic Party by using dishonest Republican talking points to advance his own interests and harm his fellow Democrats in the process.

To me, having one more Democrat in the U.S Senate is not worth that cost, which I think is far greater.

This was the very reason Democrats all across the United States sought the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and forced him to get reelected as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Nah, you can keep the generic liberal who says some redneck-sounding things every once in a while.

[SATW]

Either lose or join the Republican Party.  I don't mind that he is 'disloyal' to the Democratic Party by voting against the party platform on a fair number of issues, I mind that he is genuinely disloyal to the Democratic Party by using dishonest Republican talking points to advance his own interests and harm his fellow Democrats in the process.

To me, having one more Democrat in the U.S Senate is not worth that cost, which I think is far greater.

This was the very reason Democrats all across the United States sought the defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Primary in 2006 and forced him to get reelected as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

Nah, you can keep the generic liberal who says some redneck-sounding things every once in a while.

Lol at calling Manchin a generic liberal. Also, being Pro-Life and being against the Iran deal are not just "redneck-sounding things."

Joe Manchin is a moderate to slightly center-left Senator. He's not conservative, he's not liberal.

I like Manchin, but I'd prefer Evan Jenkins in the Senate. But one can want someone else without inherently wanting someone else to lose. So I voted no.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Of course, but if one Democrat had to win, I would want it to be him

[Virginiá]

I'm pretty flexible on who I will support when it comes to states like West Virginia. You have to be. I think that, at least for now, if the party wants to establish a stable, lasting majority in the Senate, we will need to be more accommodating, even if they sometimes vote ways we don't like or are hostile to the national party from time to time.

I also feel like that should go without saying, but every year it seems like more and more people from both sides seek unreasonable amounts of ideological purity or national party support.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

He's still a vote to organize Senate for Democrats.

[smoltchanov]

No, of course. More liberal Democrat will surely lose to much more conservative Republican, and that's not what i want...

[Hindsight was 2020]

I admit his spotting of rw tp to save his a** from losing reelections is annoying but if we take back the senate in 2018 or more likely cut it to 51-49/50-50 with 2020 as the the year for the take back then he will start being a more viable asset

[Hillary Lost]

He might be a Republican by then.  If not it's not like we're going to lose seats anyways.  Democrats have to defend ND, MT, OH, FL, PA, MO, and MI all of which were Trump states.

[MT Treasurer]

Nah, you can keep the generic liberal who says some redneck-sounding things every once in a while.

I completely agree with you. This is a challenge Republicans have to face in so many red states: Republican/Republican-leaning voters are willing to vote for "moderate" Senate candidates from the opposite party, but voters in blue states like IL and MA aren't, which is why the Republican advantage in the Senate exists only on paper and not in reality. Manchin votes with Chuck Schumer like 97% of time, and yet I've seen people suggest that he is more conservative than Shelley Moore-Capito, which is an insane thing to say. If Donnelly and Manchin were to cast the deciding votes on defunding PP, they would definitely vote "no". Pro-life Democrats (especially those who have "evolved" on the issue) aren't really a thing. Heidi Heitkamp (who is probably the biggest fraud in the Senate) campaigned as a pro-lifer and a conservative Democrat, and yet her record is solidly pro-choice and quite liberal when it comes to several other issues as well.
Or take a look at Missouri: Rural and suburban voters who voted for Trump supported Jason Kander for Senate just because he assembled an AR-15 blindfolded in an ad (I mean, who cares about the "F" rating he received from the NRA, right?) and because they saw SENADAH BLUNT as part of the "establishment" (whatever that stupid term means... as if Kander wouldn't be part of the establishment once elected). I know this sounds very elitist, but red state voters who think like that are just very dumb, unlike voters in blue states. If you're a Republican, vote for a Republican for Senate. If you're a Democrat, vote for a Democrat for Senate. No matter how "moderate" the other candidate tells you they are. As simple as that.

Anyway, I want Manchin to lose, but he is definitely not the worst red-state Democrat in the Senate. His populism is mostly fake (as is the case with Jim Justice), but McCaskill (who seems to think that Missouri is Maryland), Heitkamp (awful fake moderate) and Tester (ugh) are all far worse than Manchin. I think Donnelly is a decent Senator, though.  

[Blackacre]

@MTTreasurer

The question of why red states are more likely to support moderates from the other party than blue states does actually perplex me, but I think there's more to it than "red state voters are idiots."

I think it has more to do with retail politics. Small states are more likely to be Republican, and in smaller states, retail politics matters so much more because, with fewer voters, it actually becomes feasible. I think the reason why Tester and Heitkamp and Manchin were able to win is because of that. In Maryland, or Cali, or other blue states, you're probably dealing with bigger populations, making charismatic, moderate-sounding, people from the other party less able to succeed with that tactic.

Of course, that still leaves Missouri...

[Santander]

I completely agree with you. This is a challenge Republicans have to face in so many red states: Republican/Republican-leaning voters are willing to vote for "moderate" Senate candidates from the opposite party, but voters in blue states like IL and MA aren't, which is why the Republican advantage in the Senate exists only on paper and not in reality.

Mark Kirk and Scott Brown? Kirk was not even politically talented.

Most ideological scorecards rate Manchin level with or to the right of Collins. Anyone who puts him to the right of Capito is delusional. Of course his populism is slightly manufactured - he was the CEO of a mining company and his daughter is the CEO of a pharmaceutical company - but he's not a totally fake moderate like McCaskill or Tester.

[MT Treasurer]

@MTTreasurer

The question of why red states are more likely to support moderates from the other party than blue states does actually perplex me, but I think there's more to it than "red state voters are idiots."

I think it has more to do with retail politics. Small states are more likely to be Republican, and in smaller states, retail politics matters so much more because, with fewer voters, it actually becomes feasible. I think the reason why Tester and Heitkamp and Manchin were able to win is because of that. In Maryland, or Cali, or other blue states, you're probably dealing with bigger populations, making charismatic, moderate-sounding, people from the other party less able to succeed with that tactic.

Of course, that still leaves Missouri...

Yeah, the only Democratic state that comes to mind where this isn't the case is Maine (Susan Collins). But then again, Maine is hardly a deep blue state (especially today), so it's not a good comparison.

And don't get me wrong, voters in Democratic states who are voting against moderate Republican Senate candidates are absolutely doing the right thing. There is no reason why someone like Mark Kirk should represent Illinois in the Senate, for example. If I were a Democrat or Democratic-leaning, I'd definitely vote against people like Susan Collins (heck, I probably would have voted for Bellows in 2014 anyway, in all honesty).

Most ideological scorecards rate Manchin level with or to the right of Collins. Anyone who puts him to the right of Capito is delusional. Of course his populism is slightly manufactured - he was the CEO of a mining company and his daughter is the CEO of a pharmaceutical company - but he's not a totally fake moderate like McCaskill or Tester.

Manchin vs. Collins is very debatable (just ask RINO Tom ) but I agree with you on the rest. And like I said, I think he and Donnelly are the best Democratic Senators, not that it means much. 

[Blackacre]

@MTTreasurer

The question of why red states are more likely to support moderates from the other party than blue states does actually perplex me, but I think there's more to it than "red state voters are idiots."

I think it has more to do with retail politics. Small states are more likely to be Republican, and in smaller states, retail politics matters so much more because, with fewer voters, it actually becomes feasible. I think the reason why Tester and Heitkamp and Manchin were able to win is because of that. In Maryland, or Cali, or other blue states, you're probably dealing with bigger populations, making charismatic, moderate-sounding, people from the other party less able to succeed with that tactic.

Of course, that still leaves Missouri...

Yeah, the only Democratic state that comes to mind where this isn't the case is Maine (Susan Collins). But then again, Maine is hardly a deep blue state (especially today), so it's not a good comparison.

And don't get me wrong, voters in Democratic states who are voting against moderate Republican Senate candidates are absolutely doing the right thing. There is no reason why someone like Mark Kirk should represent Illinois in the Senate, for example. If I were a Democrat or Democratic-leaning, I'd definitely vote against people like Susan Collins (heck, I probably would have voted for Bellows in 2014 anyway, in all honesty).

Maine might not be deep-blue anymore, but in 2008, Collins outperformed McCain in Maine by nearly 21 points, so Collins absolutely qualifies.

[RINO Tom]

@MTTreasurer

The question of why red states are more likely to support moderates from the other party than blue states does actually perplex me, but I think there's more to it than "red state voters are idiots."

I think it has more to do with retail politics. Small states are more likely to be Republican, and in smaller states, retail politics matters so much more because, with fewer voters, it actually becomes feasible. I think the reason why Tester and Heitkamp and Manchin were able to win is because of that. In Maryland, or Cali, or other blue states, you're probably dealing with bigger populations, making charismatic, moderate-sounding, people from the other party less able to succeed with that tactic.

Of course, that still leaves Missouri...

Yeah, the only Democratic state that comes to mind where this isn't the case is Maine (Susan Collins). But then again, Maine is hardly a deep blue state (especially today), so it's not a good comparison.

And don't get me wrong, voters in Democratic states who are voting against moderate Republican Senate candidates are absolutely doing the right thing. There is no reason why someone like Mark Kirk should represent Illinois in the Senate, for example. If I were a Democrat or Democratic-leaning, I'd definitely vote against people like Susan Collins (heck, I probably would have voted for Bellows in 2014 anyway, in all honesty).

Most ideological scorecards rate Manchin level with or to the right of Collins. Anyone who puts him to the right of Capito is delusional. Of course his populism is slightly manufactured - he was the CEO of a mining company and his daughter is the CEO of a pharmaceutical company - but he's not a totally fake moderate like McCaskill or Tester.

Manchin vs. Collins is very debatable (just ask RINO Tom ) but I agree with you on the rest. And like I said, I think he and Donnelly are the best Democratic Senators, not that it means much. 

Honestly, I take no issue with what Santender said, I just get sick of people taking that "fact" and suggesting either one switch parties.  Manchin fills a love-to-hate role in the Democratic caucus, similar to Collins' in the Republican one.  The "DINO/RINO" attacks they receive are exactly what they want; Susan Collins RAN as a moderate Republican from New England, and she's voted that way.  She is staying true to what she believes to be her state's Republican heritage.  Similarly, Joe Manchin ran as a Democrat in a historically Democratic state, and he is behaving like he probably believes the archetypal WV Democrat would behave; he knows he'll make some enemies on the Left Coast or whatever, but that doesn't make him a Tea Partier.  Both are right where they WANT to be in what I believe are perfectly natural positions in both coalitions, and that right there is enough reason for neither to want to switch parties.

[Bojack Horseman]

Lord, this sounds like how liberal blogs were celebrating in December 2014 after Mary Landrieu got blanched.

[Xing]

No, because I'll take a centrist who plays hard to get with his party over what would likely be a die-hard conservative. Still, I'd rather see him lose than McCaskill or Tester.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

@MTTreasurer

The question of why red states are more likely to support moderates from the other party than blue states does actually perplex me, but I think there's more to it than "red state voters are idiots."

I think it has more to do with retail politics. Small states are more likely to be Republican, and in smaller states, retail politics matters so much more because, with fewer voters, it actually becomes feasible. I think the reason why Tester and Heitkamp and Manchin were able to win is because of that. In Maryland, or Cali, or other blue states, you're probably dealing with bigger populations, making charismatic, moderate-sounding, people from the other party less able to succeed with that tactic.

Of course, that still leaves Missouri...

Yeah, the only Democratic state that comes to mind where this isn't the case is Maine (Susan Collins). But then again, Maine is hardly a deep blue state (especially today), so it's not a good comparison.

And don't get me wrong, voters in Democratic states who are voting against moderate Republican Senate candidates are absolutely doing the right thing. There is no reason why someone like Mark Kirk should represent Illinois in the Senate, for example. If I were a Democrat or Democratic-leaning, I'd definitely vote against people like Susan Collins (heck, I probably would have voted for Bellows in 2014 anyway, in all honesty).

Most ideological scorecards rate Manchin level with or to the right of Collins. Anyone who puts him to the right of Capito is delusional. Of course his populism is slightly manufactured - he was the CEO of a mining company and his daughter is the CEO of a pharmaceutical company - but he's not a totally fake moderate like McCaskill or Tester.

Manchin vs. Collins is very debatable (just ask RINO Tom ) but I agree with you on the rest. And like I said, I think he and Donnelly are the best Democratic Senators, not that it means much. 

Here's a comparison of Manchin's ratings to Collins's:

Manchin (R)

Hes's Prolife and Senator Collins is not.

If Joe Manchin were the Democratic nominee, it would be evidence that the Democrats were becoming a different kind of party then they have been becoming.

True, the accent of their nominee would be drastically different.

Uh.. if you're suggesting that Manchin's politics are even remotely similar to Hillary's, I have no idea how to even respond to that. Most ideological rankings actually place Collins to the left of Manchin, and sometimes even Donnelly, Heitkamp and/or Warner. Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito are moderate conservatives, Susan Collins is a centrist at best. Get over it.

I'll take the link for those rankings now.

And Manchin pays lip service to cultural conservative tribalism while towing the party line on the big votes, just like Collins the other way.  Their perceptions as DINOs/RINOs is all, well, perception.

Last year, Manchin had a 33% rating from the ACU, while Collins had a 21% score.  Manchin also "defeated" Collins on the Heritage Action scorecard.  Manchin also has a 75% from the National Right to Life, compared to Collins's 25%.  Joe Manchin has a 45% score from the Family Research Council, compared to Collins's 27%.

On the other hand, Collins gets a 59% score from Planned Parenthood, compared to Manchin's 35%.  And, even if you don't care about values at all, Collins only gets a 25% from the Club for Growth, virtually identical to Manchin's 23% score.  And, Manchin beats her with Americans for Prosperity, 80% to 50%.

I don't think there is any reasonable argument to have Collins to the right of Manchin.

[Figueira]

No (Democrat)

That said, he's not a "communitarian" or anything like that. He's solidly center-right on economic and social issues. That said, he can win elections for us in West Virginia (which is not Connecticut, haha) so I won't complain.