Biden infrastructure/tax increase megathread

[Mr.Phips]

Schumer and Yellen say agreement reached on paying for economic bill but it's unclear if moderates are on board

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday an agreement on revenues to pay for the Democrats' $3.5 trillion agenda, though they did not offer details and its unclear if key moderate Democrats are on board.

"The White House, the House and the Senate have reached an agreement on a framework that will pay for any final negotiated agreement," said Schumer, alongside Yellen and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at her weekly press conference Thursday. "So, the revenue side of this, we have an agreement on."

A senior Democratic aide says there's an agreement between House and Senate Democratic leaders, the chairs of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees, and White House officials are meeting with key House and Senate moderates today to talk about financing options.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/23/politics/democrats-agreement-yellen-revenue-economic-agenda/index.html

Apparently the funding "framework" is a big surprise to a lot of Dems, including ones that are not moderate, and including the second in command guy, Durbin.  It appears to be a string of words crafted to give the appearance that something is going on moving the ball forward, when in fact nothing is.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/573645-democrats-surprised-caught-off-guard-by-framework-deal

My wild guess is that infrastructure will pass next Monday, without reconciliation of course, and Manchin etc in "exchange" will say they are still happy to chat about reconciliation - at a deliberate pace, no rush. My guess is based on the surmise that Manchin has indicated that if infrastructure is held hostage, reconciliation is dead. The Dems, progressive or otherwise, and not going to go the nothing route. That is my surmise, and I suspect Manchin's. The Dems never had the cards on this one, so they were left with bluffs that are going to be called.

I tend to agree.  Dems are going to have to swallow the bipartisan infrastructure bill.  Pelosi obviously won’t whip against.

[Mr.Phips]

Everyone on the planet knows that passing the BIF is killing the rest of the infrastructure package.
We might as well swear in Kyrsten Sinema as president if we allow Republican donors to run the party like this and Pelosi not whipping as strongly against this as possible is political malpractice.

You expect Pelosi to whip against this?  She didn’t even whip against the deal to extend the Bush tax cuts in late 2010 when she should have.

[Mr.Phips]

Gut feeling now is that neither bill will pass. Zero evidence for days that Sinema is negotiating in good faith, and without that the progressives are whipping against the "bipartisan" bill. McCarthy couldn't bring his caucus behind helping the American people during a Democratic presidency if he wanted to.

I agree.  If it’s any consolation, it’s not like either of these bills would have helped Dems in 2022 anyway.  Nobody would feel any of the benefits by then.

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1449164352246931460?s=20

If that's the case, then both bills simply need to die, and Joe Manchin's political career with them. As far as I'm concerned, climate is non-negotiable. I suspect many of the liberal senators feel likewise. If Biden's presidency amounts to nothing more than destroying the last vestiges of the backstabbing corporate/conservative wing of the Democratic Party, so be it.

Letting both bills die would be incredibly stupid for Democrats.  This is very likely the last piece of significant legislation that they will be able to pass for the next ten years.

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1449164352246931460?s=20

If that's the case, then both bills simply need to die, and Joe Manchin's political career with them. As far as I'm concerned, climate is non-negotiable. I suspect many of the liberal senators feel likewise. If Biden's presidency amounts to nothing more than destroying the last vestiges of the backstabbing corporate/conservative wing of the Democratic Party, so be it.

Letting both bills die would be incredibly stupid for Democrats.  This is very likely the last piece of significant legislation that they will be able to pass for the next ten years.

Yes, exactly — the current status quo is incapable of safeguarding democracy, incapable of mitigating climate change. So it's absolutely worthless. Better to destroy SineManchin, and let them serve as examples to anyone who would attempt to sabotage the agenda of a future Democratic president.

By the time there is another Democratic President with a Democratic congress, most people won’t even remember Sinema and Manchin.

[Mr.Phips]

Apprently, Democrats are really close to a deal
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/20/dems-edge-closer-ditching-disarray-516312

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/10/20/breaking-down-bidens-latest-build-back-better-plan-494779?cid=hptb_primary_0

Obamacare subsidies, Medicaid expansion, universal pre-k, paid leave, Medicare benefits and child care are staying but trimmed down in the hope future governments will continue to fund them

Paid leave has been trimmed from 12 weeks to 4 weeks. Medicare benefits for vision, dental, hearing will start for the oldest and work there way down over the years. Childcare tax credit will only be funded for another year, with the assumption this is the most important for republicans to fund.

Free community college is out, but maybe double Pell? This is better since community college is already free for most Americans but double Pell grants would slash the amount of student loans needed. Had I had double my Pell grant, my tuition, housing, food, and books would have been covered. I graduated from a 4 year university last year.

SALT is probably out. Unknown about any climate or immigration provisions or the PRO act

If Sinema and Manchin can be brought on board, take it.  Immigration and significant climate change legislation isn’t passable with the current congressional lineup.

[Mr.Phips]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

You are RIGHT. Kinda

Yes, if Republicans had a trifecta with 55 senate seats, they would do a LOT of damage. And yes, Democrats have punched above their weight in several senate races and we got lucky

That said, Republicans are wary to lose elections. And they follow the cues of the business community. If these programs create the economic growth they are supposed to do, the CEO of Walmart and Amazon might not be happy if they are cut. They rather their slaves...eh I mean workers get Medicaid instead of company insurance.

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

[Mr.Phips]

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Republicans might not be able to maximize potential games in 2022 as well. We don't know what will happen.

Democrats don't have to lose in 2022

Republicans need to defend WI and PA

They will try to reclaim NV, NH, AZ, and GA

AZ and GA have very popular incumbents with monster fundraising. NV is stablish for Democrats.

NH is the big danger, but we could win easily in PA with the right person

If Dems can’t even win VA this year (quite possible) where Biden won by 10, they aren’t winning any of the above in 2022.

[Mr.Phips]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms.  

[Mr.Phips]

Doing bad in the off year is not a good sign for '22, but I still think it's pretty decoupled given that it's a year away. The economy could be roaring by then. Or maybe we will be in the throngs of the Nu variant, who knows. McAuliffe might also win by a lot. I actually think that's more likely than him losing.

The political environment almost never improves significantly for the President’s party from this point in the President’s first term until the midterms.  

     Also worth noting that the last four midterms have been bad for the President's party. 2002, with its single-digit gains in both chambers for the Bush GOP, was an anomalous event riding the coattails of Bush's 9/11 popularity spike (he still had 68% approval on election day).

Yes and Dems need to expect every midterm to be bad for them when they hold the White House.  I don’t know what certain House members from swing districts like Conor Lamb and Charlie Crist were thinking by leaving their seats open to run for Senate/governor races that they can’t win in a midterm of a Dem President.  Of course Dems always think “this time will be different”.  Well it never is won’t be different this time.

[Mr.Phips]

I think they lose seats, I'm just not convinced yet it will be a blowout like the last several midterms.

When Obama and Dems got crushed during their first midterm in 2010 the unemployment rate was at 9.6 percent and Republicans succeeded in turning the ameican people against Obama's agenda

Biden is currently not facing anything like that and his agenda is still very popular with the American people. If anything you can argue that the political environment for Dems is better under Biden and than it ever was under Obama

The current unemployment rate is at 4.8 and will continue to drop by the time we got to November 2022 and even the covid situation is getting better. plus if the dems can actually pass thier popular infrastructure bills that could also help them.

All of this leads me to agree with emailking that Dems may lose some seats but unless the economy gets as bad as it was in 2009-2010 I don't see a blowout happening

Remember that Dems had far more seats going in to the 2010 midterm (257) than 2022 (222).  Because of having far less to lose, 2010 type loss (R+7 popular vote) would mean a loss of around 25-30 seats for Dems.

[Mr.Phips]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

You are RIGHT. Kinda

Yes, if Republicans had a trifecta with 55 senate seats, they would do a LOT of damage. And yes, Democrats have punched above their weight in several senate races and we got lucky

That said, Republicans are wary to lose elections. And they follow the cues of the business community. If these programs create the economic growth they are supposed to do, the CEO of Walmart and Amazon might not be happy if they are cut. They rather their slaves...eh I mean workers get Medicaid instead of company insurance.

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Dems basically have to win 2024 at the presidential level or they lose the Senate for a generation.  The inevitable Class I Senate seat wipeout needs to be postponed long enough that they can compete throughout the South/Southern Plains by the time it happens.  

For the same reason, if Dems have to lose in 2024, they would probably be best off losing it to Trump.

Even if Dems win the Presidential election and lose four seats in 2022, they probably lose the senate until 2032 at least.  If they are at 46 after 2022, they still probably lose three seats in 2024 even if they win the Presidency in 2024, putting them at 43.  Then in 2026, they probably lose a couple of seats again (some combination of MI, GA, MN, NH), potentially bringing them down to 40.  Then in 2028, they very likely lose the Presidency (almost impossible to hold the Presidency for three consecutive terms), which again limits their gains to maybe a seat or two on that class that they keep getting screwed on (2004, 2010, 2016, and likely 2022), putting them around 42 seats.  Then in 2030, maybe they finally gain Texas, putting them at 43.  

They would have been better off letting Trump win in 2020 with 51 senators (Perdue would have avoided a runoff) and pick up WI, PA, and NC in 2022 (I don’t think they would have been able to win FL and OH in this situation even in a Trump midterm), getting Dems to 52.  In 2024, a Dem very likely would win the Presidency and potentially hold losses to just WV (the 2024 environment would be much better for Dems after eight years of Trump than four years of Biden) for 51 seats.  In 2026, Dems would probably have lost the senate but not by much (maybe down to 48-49 seats).  2028 would have been a wash with the Dem President probably getting re-elected.  2030 is when Dems would have faced a bad midterm with the class 1 wipeout in this case.

[Mr.Phips]

lmao, I would NOT count of the GOP to be bound to any sense of political caution not to slash social programs next time they have the trifecta. The only reason they didn't slash Obamacare was because of two "moderates" and one quixotic weirdo who had a grudge with the president. The quixotic weirdo is dead and the "moderates" are on their way out, and besides Republicans have a much easier path to winning 52+ Senate seats than Democrats. We've been saved from true conservative rule for the past 20 years or so by the fact that Democrats have consistently punched above their weight in Senate races, but eventually we're going to run out of luck, and when we do, we're in for a rude awakening. Republicans don't care that their socioeconomic agenda is unpopular, because their strategy is all about diverting attention away from socioeconomic grievances with culture war bullsh*t, and this strategy has almost always worked for them. The fact that they're seen as the "party of the working class" after 4 years of further oligarchic entrenchment says everything you need to know.

You are RIGHT. Kinda

Yes, if Republicans had a trifecta with 55 senate seats, they would do a LOT of damage. And yes, Democrats have punched above their weight in several senate races and we got lucky

That said, Republicans are wary to lose elections. And they follow the cues of the business community. If these programs create the economic growth they are supposed to do, the CEO of Walmart and Amazon might not be happy if they are cut. They rather their slaves...eh I mean workers get Medicaid instead of company insurance.

The problem is that the next Republican trifecta (will either be 2024 or 2028) is almost certain to have at least 55 Senate seats due to Dems not being able to maximize potential gains in 2020 and very likely 2022 when they lose seats again on a class that they continue to have bad luck (2004, 2010, 2014, and very likely 2022) on.

Dems basically have to win 2024 at the presidential level or they lose the Senate for a generation.  The inevitable Class I Senate seat wipeout needs to be postponed long enough that they can compete throughout the South/Southern Plains by the time it happens.  

For the same reason, if Dems have to lose in 2024, they would probably be best off losing it to Trump.

Even if Dems win the Presidential election and lose four seats in 2022, they probably lose the senate until 2032 at least.  If they are at 46 after 2022, they still probably lose three seats in 2024 even if they win the Presidency in 2024, putting them at 43.  Then in 2026, they probably lose a couple of seats again (some combination of MI, GA, MN, NH), potentially bringing them down to 40.  Then in 2028, they very likely lose the Presidency (almost impossible to hold the Presidency for three consecutive terms), which again limits their gains to maybe a seat or two on that class that they keep getting screwed on (2004, 2010, 2016, and likely 2022), putting them around 42 seats.  Then in 2030, maybe they finally gain Texas, putting them at 43.  

They would have been better off letting Trump win in 2020 with 51 senators (Perdue would have avoided a runoff) and pick up WI, PA, and NC in 2022 (I don’t think they would have been able to win FL and OH in this situation even in a Trump midterm), getting Dems to 52.  In 2024, a Dem very likely would win the Presidency and potentially hold losses to just WV (the 2024 environment would be much better for Dems after eight years of Trump than four years of Biden) for 51 seats.  In 2026, Dems would probably have lost the senate but not by much (maybe down to 48-49 seats).  2028 would have been a wash with the Dem President probably getting re-elected.  2030 is when Dems would have faced a bad midterm with the class 1 wipeout in this case.

If they can get past 2024 without a wipeout, they will be ready to contest enough of the South and Plains by 2028/32 that it will be a fair fight again even if they get wiped out of Class I 2030.  Class I is eventually going to be D's worst map no matter what.  Will be interesting to see if they ever get a favorable environment when Class III is up.

Dems really need a Republican to be elected President in 2028 (very likely if Biden wins in 2024).  That way they almost certainly stave off a 2030 wipeout on class 1 and have a very good chance of having trifectas in GA, MN,and PA (legislative lines will be quite favorable to Dems there throughout the decade due to the PA Supreme Court makeup) and having a governor/state house in Texas to block Republican gerrymanders there.  Dems really fail at playing the long game the way Republicans have.

[Mr.Phips]

I feel like the apparent failure to pass the Build Back Better plan is kind of similar to Trump's failure to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Both were more or less signature promises POTUS wanted to done in the 1st year, but a narrow senate majority prevents it from happening. Both cause severe outrage at the base and leaves POTUS with declining approval ratings.

Only difference is that Obamacare repeal failed due to the GOP's lack of a real alternative (something they have failed to come up with ever since the ACA was passed) while BBB only fails due to 2 stubborn senators with an out of time and out of touch mindset.

What are you talking about?

The Build Back Better plan is on track to pass by Halloween

It will be a 2 trillion dollar investment in the safety net, largest since the Great Society. Passing it will be a huge success, not failure.

Paid leave, Medicaid expansion, Obamacare subsidiese, pre-k, child care

These are all popular with the base unlike Obamacare repeal. Even Republicans were wary of fulling repealing it, knowing thousands of stupid republicans actually get health insurance through Obamacare

Can they pass it without paying for it?  Sounds like Sinema won’t agree to any personal or Corp income tax increases.

[Mr.Phips]

I feel like the apparent failure to pass the Build Back Better plan is kind of similar to Trump's failure to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Both were more or less signature promises POTUS wanted to done in the 1st year, but a narrow senate majority prevents it from happening. Both cause severe outrage at the base and leaves POTUS with declining approval ratings.

Only difference is that Obamacare repeal failed due to the GOP's lack of a real alternative (something they have failed to come up with ever since the ACA was passed) while BBB only fails due to 2 stubborn senators with an out of time and out of touch mindset.

What are you talking about?

The Build Back Better plan is on track to pass by Halloween

It will be a 2 trillion dollar investment in the safety net, largest since the Great Society. Passing it will be a huge success, not failure.

Paid leave, Medicaid expansion, Obamacare subsidiese, pre-k, child care

These are all popular with the base unlike Obamacare repeal. Even Republicans were wary of fulling repealing it, knowing thousands of stupid republicans actually get health insurance through Obamacare

Recent days more sounded like Manchin and Sinema don't care whether anything passes. I still consider it a disappointment to water everything down. 3.5 trillion was already a compromise and this proposals doesn't include more climate investments urgently needed.

Significant climate investments are not happening.  Accept that.

[Mr.Phips]

I feel like the apparent failure to pass the Build Back Better plan is kind of similar to Trump's failure to repeal Obamacare in 2017. Both were more or less signature promises POTUS wanted to done in the 1st year, but a narrow senate majority prevents it from happening. Both cause severe outrage at the base and leaves POTUS with declining approval ratings.

Only difference is that Obamacare repeal failed due to the GOP's lack of a real alternative (something they have failed to come up with ever since the ACA was passed) while BBB only fails due to 2 stubborn senators with an out of time and out of touch mindset.

What are you talking about?

The Build Back Better plan is on track to pass by Halloween

It will be a 2 trillion dollar investment in the safety net, largest since the Great Society. Passing it will be a huge success, not failure.

Paid leave, Medicaid expansion, Obamacare subsidiese, pre-k, child care

These are all popular with the base unlike Obamacare repeal. Even Republicans were wary of fulling repealing it, knowing thousands of stupid republicans actually get health insurance through Obamacare

Recent days more sounded like Manchin and Sinema don't care whether anything passes. I still consider it a disappointment to water everything down. 3.5 trillion was already a compromise and this proposals doesn't include more climate investments urgently needed.

Significant climate investments are not happening.  Accept that.

Yup, it will for sure come back to haunt us. At this stage Europe and the PRC will compete for the world's global green power of the 21st century and America is pretty much out of the race. Hopefully states and the private sector can get more done.

With states, you pretty much have to rely on the West coast, New York, and New England (except ME and NH) for any climate change legislation.  Those are the only states where Dems are guaranteed to have the ability to pass this type of legislation.

[Mr.Phips]

That's a reasonable point overall but climate change really is a crisis that demands urgent action. If it can't get passed the other good stuff should should least be passed but not taking climate action will have dire consequences for the world.

Yeah, time to wrap this up and move on to an all-out blitz on voting rights and statehood. Get all those injustices fixed and hopefully make another shot at climate later in the term.

Any climate change stuff is going to have to be done via executive order at this point.

[Mr.Phips]

https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1452299568318754833
Honestly, these results just show how increasingly disconnected a lot of people are from reality

70 percent think we are on the wrong track at a time when Covid has massively declined around the county and unemployment is currently at 4.8 percent and dropping.

In no way, shape or form are things even close to being as bad as they were in 2009/2010 yet you would not know that looking at those wrong track numbers. Biden theory is that he thinks passing popular bills will help the Dems in 2022 and maybe something like that would have been true 20 years ago but now I'm not so sure I buy it

I think even if Biden had the greatest economy of all time Facebook and social media would still convince a lot of people that things are worse than they have ever been

I think Biden was always going to struggle with approval ratings after his honeymoon period because Americans never fell in love with him. He was just the only Democrat acceptable to 51% of Americans.

It also doesn’t help that he doesn’t have the unshakable base support (among African Americans) that Obama had.

[Mr.Phips]

So Manchin is just trying kill reconciliation at this point, but doesn’t want the professional blow back so he’s just going to make increasingly ridiculous demands until someone else walks.

Just waiting to hear GeneralMacArthur tell us how this is Bernie Sanders fault.

Sanders should just kill the whole thing, let the rest of party make examples out of Manchin and Sinema. This is what corporate bloodsuckers look like, this is what a failed presidency looks like. Biden will be the last moderate I ever support in a Democratic primary. Thanks for nothing, scumbags.

Again, how is this Biden's fault? He's on the progressive side on this bill and has refused lots of opportunities to defect to the moderate side. He can't control things like FL, ME, and NC (etc.) voters unable to see the big picture or 2 senators refusing to enact his agenda for god knows why reasons.

He could have done more to help defeat Collins in ME in 2020.  Just appearing in some ads for Gideon may have pushed Collins under 50%.

[Mr.Phips]

So Manchin is just trying kill reconciliation at this point, but doesn’t want the professional blow back so he’s just going to make increasingly ridiculous demands until someone else walks.

Just waiting to hear GeneralMacArthur tell us how this is Bernie Sanders fault.

Sanders should just kill the whole thing, let the rest of party make examples out of Manchin and Sinema. This is what corporate bloodsuckers look like, this is what a failed presidency looks like. Biden will be the last moderate I ever support in a Democratic primary. Thanks for nothing, scumbags.

You didn’t see this coming with Biden?  Nominating and electing these moderate Democrats for President has done nothing but destroy the party.  Just look at the Dem numbers in Congress and state legislatures in 1992 and compare them to the likely numbers after 2022.   The Dem strategy of the last thirty years had not worked.

[Mr.Phips]

So Manchin is just trying kill reconciliation at this point, but doesn’t want the professional blow back so he’s just going to make increasingly ridiculous demands until someone else walks.

Just waiting to hear GeneralMacArthur tell us how this is Bernie Sanders fault.

Sanders should just kill the whole thing, let the rest of party make examples out of Manchin and Sinema. This is what corporate bloodsuckers look like, this is what a failed presidency looks like. Biden will be the last moderate I ever support in a Democratic primary. Thanks for nothing, scumbags.

You didn’t see this coming with Biden?  Nominating and electing these moderate Democrats for President has done nothing but destroy the party.  Just look at the Dem numbers in Congress and state legislatures in 1992 and compare them to the likely numbers after 2022.   The Dem strategy of the last thirty years had not worked.

Well, I also supported Obama in the '08 primary, and I don't think his presidency was completely inconsequential. Overall, I was pretty satisfied. But now, given the circumstances, Biden has to do more. Specifically, on the issues of electoral reform and climate change. In terms of the number of Democrats in Congress and state legislatures, I think you have to accept that no amount of progressive legislation would've prevented a number of Southern/rural whites from defecting to the GOP. Medicare dental benefits and universal pre-K aren't things that are actually swaying their electoral decisions. They should be, but they aren't.  

Dems hold very few southern/rural white districts at the congressional and state legislative level at this point.  The fact that they are still likely to lose ground even from this low base shows that there are other problems at work.

[Mr.Phips]

What is in the bill that the average American voter is going to feel?

The biggest is obviously hard infrastructure, plus general economic growth. To that end, BIF is more useful. And even then, it doesn't matter how it plays in 2022 because we have the trifecta right now. Just shove through the entire agenda now and don't lose the presidency until the 2030s. Holding the house in 2023 isn't all that important.

Great, but if its not going to phase out oil/gas plants its not going to do its job.

It will. Learn more about how this works.

If Dems win the Presidency in 2028, they likely get stuck with a bad redistricting cycle again in the 2030s due to the 2030 midterm results in governorships and state legislatures.

[Mr.Phips]

Senator Coons says that Manchin and Sinema support the bill.

https://politicalwire.com/2021/10/28/coons-says-manchin-and-sinema-back-bidens-plan/

Then let’s get it done.

[Mr.Phips]

First thing Dems should do after they lose the senate in 2022 is kick Manchin and Sinema right out of the caucus. 

[Mr.Phips]

If Justice Dem self-promoters want to vote against what will undoubtedly be an incredibly popular and influential bill, I say go for it.  Voting NO on the main thing Dems are gonna run on in the 2022 midterms doesn't seem like an ace political move to me, but what do I know, my tweets don't get 168K likes.

I seem to recall throughout 2015-2020 "progressives" justifying their outlandish, unworkable, fantasy-land demands by saying "you have to demand more than you want so you meet in the middle to get what you actually want."  Or some variant of that thinking.  So in this negotiation, Biden started by demanding the most progressive spending plan imaginable, and then the furthest-right members of the caucus pared it down to something that's still pretty good.  But now apparently that "meet in the middle" strategy goes out the window, and if you don't agree to the original demand, we're not going to vote for it.  OK, so the entire thing was in bad faith?  Like these people are just children.  Folks, please stop electing idiot children to Congress -- they don't know how to govern, they don't know how to legislate, they don't know how to negotiate, and all they do is humiliate the party day after day after day.

The squad is the most damaging group in American politics today. They don’t care about progress they just want to make Biden look bad so they can say “see I told you so! The establishment sucks!”

To be honest,  Biden being a failed President would demonstrate that Dems need to stop nominating these candidates that promise impossible “bipartisanship”.