House Passes Landmark Voting Rights Expansion Bill, H.R. 1

[YE]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

[VAR]

This can’t be real. Joe Manchin is a moderate Democrat. He SUNK Neera Tanden’s nomination.

All “moderate” Republicans are fake moderates, but all “moderate” Democrats are true “moderates” who are working 24/7 to sink the progressive agenda. That’s just imo. I actually know that IndyRep & Co. are right, but they’re being smug and condescending and that hurts my feelings.

- a random light green/maroon/red avatar

[Badger]

It is a legitimate use of political power for district-drawing to be undertaken by state legislatures, regardless of whether or not the lines get gerrymandered.

This bill ought to die in the Senate unless the provision to have independent redistricting commissions gets scrubbed from the bill. If that so happens, I have no problem against its passage.

Why? That's probably the most important part of the bill. Gerrymandering is blatant rigging and must be abolished.

If that is THE point of the bill then I have no problem with it being killed by Manchin and Sinema.

What?
I’m so confused, what’s your logic?

I've already stated my logic.

So you are against redistricting commissions?

There are two parts to my position. One, I'm against redistricting commissions being forced upon states that have not mandated them. If a state wants to adopt a redistricting commission, then it's their call, not something that ought to be forced upon them by the federal government.
Two, it is a legitimate use of political power to gerrymander; in regards to line-drawing, it is perfectly legal to draw district lines to disadvantage a political party or incumbent, and to force the abolition of that mindset under the law on all 50 states is an utterly vile thing.

Congratulations on literally the most poorly thought-out and blockheaded hit Atlas since fuzzy took a hiatus.

EDIT: I spoke too soon. The rest of your post in this thread follow suit. To defend gerrymandering because we've had it around for a while is like defending the poll tax on much the same grounds. What an utterly inane and Ill expressed argument. Virginia simply being gobsmacked at your attempt to rationalize this summarizes every thinking person's response to this.

Virginia's post did not move my position one inch and neither will yours.

Oh, we're quite aware of this. There is nothing remotely close to logical reality in your position. Your foolishness is baked in.

[brucejoel99]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

[Frodo]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

[7,052,770]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

With 50 votes, Democrats can make up something new. If Manchin and Sinema can live with a "Schumer Rule" that says voting rights bills aren't subject to the filibuster (but otherwise the filibuster remains in place), they'll do that.

There was a time that budget bills could be filibustered and then that changed. Same for lower court judges and then Supreme Court justices.

[It’s so Joever]

If this passes and the gerrymandering tho no doesn’t get watered down at all, I will leave the server for a month. And I’m not chickening out like SirWoodbury.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If anyone is okay with giving Republicans carte blanche to make voting rules for the entire nation next time they get the Presidency, House & 50 Senate seats, I have to doubt whether they really believe the rhetoric about Republicans supporting "voter suppression."

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

If this passes and the gerrymandering tho no doesn’t get watered down at all, I will leave the server for a month. And I’m not chickening out like SirWoodbury.

K but why? I honestly have no idea why people do this chest-pounding to show how confident they are in their #analysis.

[It’s so Joever]

If anyone is okay with giving Republicans carte blanche to make voting rules for the entire nation next time they get the Presidency, House & 50 Senate seats, I have to doubt whether they really believe the rhetoric about Republicans supporting "voter suppression."

So the solution is to do nothing?

[Virginiá]

If anyone is okay with giving Republicans carte blanche to make voting rules for the entire nation next time they get the Presidency, House & 50 Senate seats, I have to doubt whether they really believe the rhetoric about Republicans supporting "voter suppression."

So the solution is to do nothing?

Yeah, I don't understand why one can't believe Republicans have long been engaged in leveraging their power in government to shrink the electorate or otherwise give themselves an edge, but also believe that the Senate needs to change to address these problems nationwide before they get worse. Particularly given that states have a lot of power to affect federal elections. GOP-run Lean states are currently in a frenzy to enact new restrictions on voting, as is usual, after losing an election.

It's not that Democrats aren't worried about Republicans wielding power too, but we see the status quo as equally unacceptable at this point.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic. 

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

This...isn't quite true. Nothing makes the GOP happier than electoral victory. And we have evidence in some sunbelt states of the GOP trying to appeal to minorities for sake of its long-term prospects against Democrats. Two examples: Texas and Florida.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

This bill has to be passed before the census releases its data in September. We are lucky there is a 6 month delay. If the bill were to get passed after the redistricting process has started it would be too late.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

The GOP has made it painfully clear that they would rather end our democracy than see anyone but themselves (patriarchal, white, pseudo-Christians) able to exercise political power. 

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

That didn’t happen after the VRA, though demographics are different now.

[Idaho Conservative]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

With 50 votes, Democrats can make up something new. If Manchin and Sinema can live with a "Schumer Rule" that says voting rights bills aren't subject to the filibuster (but otherwise the filibuster remains in place), they'll do that.

There was a time that budget bills could be filibustered and then that changed. Same for lower court judges and then Supreme Court justices.

Republicans can deny a quorum to prevent a rules change.

[7,052,770]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

With 50 votes, Democrats can make up something new. If Manchin and Sinema can live with a "Schumer Rule" that says voting rights bills aren't subject to the filibuster (but otherwise the filibuster remains in place), they'll do that.

There was a time that budget bills could be filibustered and then that changed. Same for lower court judges and then Supreme Court justices.

Republicans can deny a quorum to prevent a rules change.

As I understand it, there would have to be at least 1 Republican there to object over the lack of a quorum or else the Senate could just proceed under no objection. And if 1 Republican showed up to raise the objection, suddenly there's a quorum.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

Not sure where to put this but:

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/1368565533520629765?s=21

I watched the interview on MtP this morning, and Manchin sounded more willing to use a reconciliation-like process on HR 1 than I expected.  The overall gist of what he was saying was “we need to let everyone have their voice heard before we move to reconciliation”, not “I’m not willing to use reconciliation on this”.

The idea that Manchin is consistently thwarting the progressive agenda because he opposed Tanden is silly.  He didn’t oppose Tanden because she is progressive, he did it because she insulted his daughter.

What is a reconciliation-like process for something that isn't budget related?

With 50 votes, Democrats can make up something new. If Manchin and Sinema can live with a "Schumer Rule" that says voting rights bills aren't subject to the filibuster (but otherwise the filibuster remains in place), they'll do that.

There was a time that budget bills could be filibustered and then that changed. Same for lower court judges and then Supreme Court justices.

Republicans can deny a quorum to prevent a rules change.

They would need someone there to make a quorum call, and a single Republican+all Dems is 51.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

Not sure what you mean. Trump tried to gain with Black/Hispanic voters by reaching out to them, and it worked.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic. 

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

Not sure what you mean. Trump tried to gain with Black/Hispanic voters by reaching out to them, and it worked.

Clearly the poster in question forgot about this ad.

If this isn't "appealing to racial minorities and immigrants" I don't know what is.

[Badger]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic. 

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

Not sure what you mean. Trump tried to gain with Black/Hispanic voters by reaching out to them, and it worked.

Clearly the poster in question forgot about this ad.

If this isn't "appealing to racial minorities and immigrants" I don't know what is.

Seriously? Pandering happy smiley cotton candy ads ultimately don't mean get. What matters is policy and inclusiveness, which Republicans have been absolutely get on towards minorities for decades.

Yes Trump made serious inroads among rural Hispanics and even to a lesser degree among African Americans, but it wasn't because of happy smiley ad campaigns like these or any change in policies. Republicans run such " Outreach" ad campaigns aimed at blacks and Hispanics every presidential election for decades, right down to win Reagan while carrying 60% of the country overall got his clock cleaned among Hispanics and annihilated among African-American voters. It certainly wasn't about a change in policy either as Trump ran on the same issues as he did four years ago when he got demolished in places like Miami-Dade and the Rio Grande Valley.

I don't claim to understand why Trump made such inroads this time around compared to 2016. Good reporting on the subject has been few and far between. I suspect It's a combination of the individual draw Trump had towards Rural and male voters, plus it looks like technically speaking Democrats just screwed the pooch this year in terms of Latino Outreach in a near unprecedented level of campaign bungling. But let's not turn ourselves that a handful of happy smiley campaign ads in Spanish doesn't mean that 90% Trump voters wouldn't scratch their faces in disgust at people regularly speaking Spanish instead of English in a public setting, or otherwise want to see such people deported if possible

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ten years from now the GOP will (or should) be thanking the Democratic Party for forcing this bill through by eliminating the legislative filibuster, and making it (as well as the new Voting Rights Act) the law of the land.  It would force them to appeal beyond their base to minorities and immigrants, saving their future as a national party.  And who knows, they may turn away from authoritarianism too, to the benefit of our democracy, the Constitution, the free world, and the American republic.  

The GOP right now would much rather lose every election than be forced to try to appeal to racial minorities and immigrants.

Not sure what you mean. Trump tried to gain with Black/Hispanic voters by reaching out to them, and it worked.

Clearly the poster in question forgot about this ad.

If this isn't "appealing to racial minorities and immigrants" I don't know what is.

Seriously? Pandering happy smiley cotton candy ads ultimately don't mean get. What matters is policy and inclusiveness, which Republicans have been absolutely get on towards minorities for decades.

Yes Trump made serious inroads among rural Hispanics and even to a lesser degree among African Americans, but it wasn't because of happy smiley ad campaigns like these or any change in policies. Republicans run such " Outreach" ad campaigns aimed at blacks and Hispanics every presidential election for decades, right down to win Reagan while carrying 60% of the country overall got his clock cleaned among Hispanics and annihilated among African-American voters. It certainly wasn't about a change in policy either as Trump ran on the same issues as he did four years ago when he got demolished in places like Miami-Dade and the Rio Grande Valley.

I don't claim to understand why Trump made such inroads this time around compared to 2016. Good reporting on the subject has been few and far between. I suspect It's a combination of the individual draw Trump had towards Rural and male voters, plus it looks like technically speaking Democrats just screwed the pooch this year in terms of Latino Outreach in a near unprecedented level of campaign bungling. But let's not turn ourselves that a handful of happy smiley campaign ads in Spanish doesn't mean that 90% Trump voters wouldn't scratch their faces in disgust at people regularly speaking Spanish instead of English in a public setting, or otherwise want to see such people deported if possible

The only thing I see here is a bold claim about how Republicans have behaved in terms of electoral strategy, and three separate demolitions of it from two separate posters.