Joe Manchin votes with Pres. Biden 100% of the time
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/This is why I ignore the weekly "Manchin won't vote for x" news and social media hysteria.
Manchin votes with Biden. Period. End of story.
If he wants to grandstand, make demands, get media attention, and then vote with Biden 100% of the time - have at it Senator.
My guess is a) he likes the attention, and b) it helps to appease the MAGAts who make up a large percentage of his constituency.
No other Democrat could be elected to the Senate from West Virginia at this time.
BTW, Sen. Sinema votes with Biden 100% of the time too - although I cannot figure her out.
= new reply since forum marked as read
That's not what Manchin's making most of us unhappy about as he insists on a smaller pork barrel, though. 
From your previous post.
A certain congresswoman who likes to legislate via Tweet votes with Biden only 91% of the time. 
Did you even look at the different legislative votes at that link or did you just guess because you saw the word "nomination" a bunch of times and just hand-waved the rest?
COUNT
"Non-nominations" = 14
"Nominations" = 21
TOTAL = 35
Not quite "almost all". It's 40% that weren't "nominations". Procedural votes are also important because without one, the bill is DOA based on Senate rules. Many a bill didn't advance because of that.
I am not a Manchin fan and I don't like how he and Sinema like to grandstand and showboat their way through Congress. But they sadly join a long list of Senators who have done the same in the past, and after all the performance art, they have generally come through to provide votes.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/white-house-pulls-nomination-embattled-budget-chief-pick-neera-tanden-n1258738
Tanden ran into trouble after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., came out against her, citing overtly partisan statements that he said would have a toxic and detrimental impact on the working relationship between Congress and the influential budget office.
Also, the whingeing over Sanders above (the lowest Biden score in the Dem caucus! OMG OMG) is over TWO votes, and both passed anyway.
Yes, you read right, the difference between 100% and 'dead last' is 2 votes.
It was TWO votes total he voted against the Biden stance, and his opposition was meaningless to the outcome, as both passed anyway.
The 14 other Senators that had 97.1% had ONE vote where they voted against the Biden stances. You could say they all are second from dead last. Many voted No on Lloyd Austin to become Secretary of Defense, due to wanting to keep the top governmental control of the military completely in civilian hands and not an ex General. Sanders btw, voted Yes.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00004#position
Here are the votes for Sanders:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/bernard-sanders/
One Sanders NO vote was nomination of Tom Vilsack to be secretary of agriculture, a nomination opposed by many different Democratic-affiliate groups, especially black farmers. It passed 92-7.
Black farmers, civil rights advocates seething over Vilsack pick
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/black-farmers-tom-vilsack-agriculture-usda-biden-cabinet-444077
The other No vote was against the Endless Frontier Act (it passed 68-32) because it contained a 10 billion dollar pay-out to Jeff Bezos that was added in very late as an amendment. He also wanted more oversight over the $53b spent on semi-conductors.
Bernie Sanders wants to stop NASA funding for Blue Origin
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/05/bernie-sanders-seeks-to-eliminate-the-bezos-bailout-in-space/
That posters are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and NOT for the first time, they tried the EXACT same thing back in July.
Again, Manchin is actually blocking things, plus he helped strip out over $2 TRILLION in new spending and tax incentives to fight global climate change from the bi-partisan infrastructure bill. An almost 80% reduction.
$2.05 trillion was already stripped out of Biden's proposal. The total new infrastructure spending in the bi-partisan bill is now only $550 billion (the other $650 billion is just renewal of old already-passed spending programmes under Trump and Moscow McTurtle).
The Infrastructure Plan: What’s In and What’s Out (it's brutal)
Biden's original plan:
What was left after they took a 2 trillion USD hatchet to it
They already chopped almost EIGHTY percent of actual new spending out of the hard infrastructure bill
and now Manchin wants to chop another almost 60 to 70% out of the even bigger bill, one that needs ZERO Rethugs votes to pass
The total new spending on Biden's original 2 bill proposals (hard and human) was $6.1 trillion.
IF Manchin and Sinema stick to their guns and chop out $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion of of the reconciliation bill, then you are looking at a total new spend for both bills of only $1.55 trillion to $2.05 trillion instead of $6.1 trillion.
That is a truly massive 2/3rds to 3/4ers total reduction in new spending, and the vast majority will be from the parts the largest single Democratic caucus in the House (the 96 person-strong Progressive Caucus) all desperately wanted, especially things to address climate change and to help working class Americans. Pete DeFazio, the Chair of the House Transportation Committee has been very, very unhappy for ages about what the bi-partisan Senators did.
I can see many of the 96 members of the Progressive Caucus (far beyond just The Squad) going bonkers if Manchin and Sinema (as the major Dem players in the 2 guttings) succeed in stripping out 4 to 4.5 trillion USD between the 2 bills. It may put both bills at risk, and then all hell will break loose between the 2 sides (96 House progs versus Manchin and Sinema in the Senate, plus the 10 renegade conservadem Problems Solver types in the House).
There is a way, IF Pelosi can pare down the dissenting progs to say 10, 20, maybe even 30 and THEN enough frontline 'psuedo-moderate' Rethugs vote for the bi-partisan bill only, in order to pass it. There is a problem (of course there is, lol) with that as well, as the House Rethugs (plus the fuckstick Trump) are going full bore to try and threaten any and all House Rethugs who may vote for the bi-partisan bill:
GOP pressure to block bipartisan infrastructure bill builds in the House
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/07/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-republican-support/index.html
Speaker Pelosi is DEFFO trying to make 10,000 angels dance on the head of a pin. She is probably the only person on the planet (zero hyperbole) who can get both bills passed in the House.
like Biden's replacement in the Senate, the "Junior Senator from Delaware" who took Biden's seat after a special election when Biden became VP (and a temp had been appointed but didn't run for the special election).
Opinion by Greg Sargent
Columnist
June 23, 2021 at 11:06 a.m. EDT
As a Democrat from Joe Biden’s longtime home state of Delaware, Sen. Christopher A. Coons is widely perceived to have a direct line to the president, so his views on what’s next after the failure of voting reform deserve careful attention. In an interview with NPR on Wednesday, Coons struck a careful balance. On one hand, he kinda sorta hinted that if GOP obstruction continues, Democrats just might have to reluctantly end the filibuster. On the other, he echoed some of the worst arguments for keeping it.
This ambivalence captures an essential problem among Democrats: They appear to believe the only defensible or safe way they can end or even modify the filibuster is if they are perceived to be getting pushed into it by Republican obstruction, against their will. But this cedes the argument up front. Democrats are still far too reluctant to give serious consideration to filibuster reform as the right thing to do on the merits, let alone to the idea that making a confident, affirmative case for it might be better politics than their oft-relied-upon theater of reluctance.
Every single GOP senator voted Tuesday against allowing any debate on the Democrats’ voting rights legislation. This didn’t merely block debate on the very ambitious For the People Act. It also nixed debate on the more modest compromise offered by Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), which includes some voting protections progressives want, but also national voter ID. On NPR, Coons alluded to this and issued a warning shot. Coons pointed to bipartisan negotiations over other issues — infrastructure, immigration, police reform — and suggested that if action failed to materialize, Democrats might act.
“If all of these come to the same end as the efforts around voting rights, where it’s blocked 50-50, that’ll sharpen the focus on the filibuster,” Coons said. That sure sounds like Democrats might be prepared to reform or end the filibuster. And yet, later in the interview, Coons echoed a bad argument in favor of keeping it. “If we do get rid of the legislative filibuster,” Coons said, “the next time Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House, they can quickly move through bills that would fundamentally alter a wide range of things.” He cited the environment, abortion and labor rights.
(snip)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/23/chris-coons-filibuster-warning-npr/
Some other "equivocators" per this (outside of your mention of Feinstein) - https://apnews.com/article/senators-to-watch-as-democrats-debate-changing-filibuster-a4b3b1a7611a715f85dc904e5bab7d3e
SEN. TOM CARPER, D-DEL.
SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I.
SEN. MARK KELLY, D-ARIZ.
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN, D-N.H.
SEN. ANGUS KING, I-MAINE
I think there is still "equivocating" by most of them as an "excuse" because some of them were or still are part of and/or are loosely associated with that "Problem Solvers Caucus" that is mainly House members. For some of the bills that were submitted, that Caucus linked up with some of the above-named Senators in an attempt to be "bipartisan" (e.g., they had a version of the COVID Relief Plan that ended up being superseded later and they also came together to push passage of the "Infrastructure" bill that was recently passed). The House members had initially been silent on support of the reconciliation piece, then started ruffling feathers, and Pelosi seemed to tamp them down.
And per the above AP link (dated June 28, 2021), it mentioned Manchin's "talking filibuster" -
Still, he has not completely ruled out changes. Earlier this year, he suggested he might be open to the “talking filibuster,” requiring senators to slow a bill by holding the floor, but then grants a simple majority vote if they give up. It’s unclear if other senators would be open to that option, and enacting it could prove complicated.
(snip)
And Sinema mentioned what could become "wild swings" of policy -
She said removing the filibuster could increase “the likelihood of repeated radical reversals in federal policy, cementing uncertainty, deepening divisions and further eroding Americans’ confidence in our government.”
(snip)
IMHO there needs to be a carve-out but I too am concerned that if the GOP does take over during some point like the last admin, when they controlled all branches, then they could just outright ban abortion at the drop of a hat.
I know when Harry Reid implemented the "Nuclear Option" but left confirmations for the SCOTUS at requiring 60 votes, as soon as Turtle took over, he had that changed to simple majority and slapped 3 RW loons onto that court.
exception over voter protection/voter rights. That is the only issue I have that much optimism on, but at least it is the most important.
Manchin by the way, shot down a talking filibuster, which he had said he was open to on MTP. I have not seen his walk what is talked about in the article back. In fact, when asked over the past few months, he was said 'hell no' or other variations of that theme.
Joe Manchin just took an important filibuster reform off the table
Manchin just closed the door on a promising idea that could have made the Senate much more functional.
https://www.vox.com/2021/3/17/22336181/joe-manchin-filibuster-reform-41-votes-talking-jeff-merkley-senate-rules
Sen. Joe Manchin, the most conservative member of the Senate Democratic caucus, has spent the past couple of weeks doling out cryptic hints that he might be open to changing filibuster rules that currently allow the Republican minority to block most legislation unless a bill is supported by at least 60 senators. On Wednesday, however, he appeared to shut the door on several ideas floated by proponents of filibuster reform within the Senate. Manchin’s latest move does not mean that filibuster reform is dead, but it does suggest that Democrats who wish to make it easier to enact legislation may struggle to come up with a strong package of reforms that will win Manchin’s support.
Earlier this month, Manchin told Meet the Press’s Chuck Todd that he’s open to making the filibuster “a little bit more painful” for the minority, and that he might be willing to make senators “stand there and talk” if they wish to maintain a filibuster. The West Virginia senator, in other words, appeared open to a so-called “talking filibuster,” where senators who wish to block legislation must speak continuously on the Senate floor in order to maintain a filibuster. President Joe Biden endorsed changing the Senate’s rules to require talking filibusters on Tuesday evening. In addition to offering tepid support for a talking filibuster, Manchin had also hinted that he’d be open to a completely different reform. Under the Senate’s current rules, the majority must produce 60 affirmative votes in order to break a filibuster. That could be changed to require the minority to produce 41 negative votes in order to maintain a filibuster, thus shifting the burden onto the minority. Manchin appeared open to shifting this burden in a recent interview with Politico’s Burgess Everett. But his support for this idea, such as it was, appears to have ebbed:
Link to tweet
In a 50-50 Senate, every vote matters. Though Democrats can effectively change Senate rules with only a simple majority vote, they almost certainly need every single member of their caucus to back any significant change to the filibuster rule. So if Manchin — or other reform skeptics like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) — take potential reforms off the table, that’s a serious blow to the broader project of trying to weaken the filibuster. And Manchin’s newly stated opposition to burden shifting — that is, moving to requiring 41 senators to sustain a filibuster instead of requiring 60 senators to break one — is a particularly significant blow to reform efforts. Burden shifting, combined with other reforms such as a talking filibuster, could have imposed very potent limits on the minority’s power to obstruct legislation.
Why Manchin’s latest statement is such a significant blow to filibuster reform
The broad idea behind a talking filibuster, which Manchin still may support, is that a filibuster ends unless at least one senator continues to speak on the Senate floor in support of that filibuster. On its own, however, a talking filibuster requirement is unlikely to do much to limit the minority’s power to block legislation. If only one senator can maintain a filibuster, and if senators are allowed to tag-team — swapping in a new senator to maintain a filibuster when the previous senator is unable to keep talking — then the 50 members of the Republican caucus can probably take turns maintaining a filibuster for as long as they want.
Recently, however, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) proposed imposing a much more significant burden on filibustering senators. Under this proposal, senators in the minority would need to keep 41 senators who support a filibuster on the floor at all times in order to maintain that filibuster. If Merkley’s proposal were written into the Senate’s rules, it would be a significant limit on the minority’s power to block legislation. Such a rule would potentially allow the majority leader to hold the Senate in session 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If Republicans wanted to maintain a filibuster under this proposed rule, they might have had to keep over 80 percent of their caucus on the floor into the wee hours of every morning. But Merkley’s proposal now appears dead, because Manchin won’t support it.
snip
A month alter he wrote this Op-Ed (which was widely ripped to shreds by so many on our side, in a myriad numbers of ways):
Opinion: Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html
Think about the recent history. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) led the charge to change Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster for Cabinet-level nominees and federal judges. I was one of only three Democratic senators to vote against this rule change. In 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) proposed to lower the threshold to end debate on Supreme Court nominees to a simple majority. I voted against that change, too. Despite my votes, both rules changes were enacted and the filibuster was weakened, allowing the majority to more easily enact its agenda with little to no input from the minority. Every time the Senate voted to weaken the filibuster in the past decade, the political dysfunction and gridlock have grown more severe. The political games playing out in the halls of Congress only fuel the hateful rhetoric and violence we see across our country right now. The truth is, my Democratic friends do not have all the answers and my Republican friends do not, either. This has always been the case. Generations of senators who came before us put their heads down and their pride aside to solve the complex issues facing our country. We must do the same. The issues facing our democracy today are not insurmountable if we choose to tackle them together.
Unfortunately, our leaders in the Senate fail to realize what goes around comes around. We should all be alarmed at how the budget reconciliation process is being used by both parties to stifle debate around the major issues facing our country today. Legislating was never supposed to be easy. It is hard work to address the needs of both rural and urban communities in a single piece of legislation, but it is the work we were elected to do. I simply do not believe budget reconciliation should replace regular order in the Senate. How is that good for the future of this nation? Senate Democrats must avoid the temptation to abandon our Republican colleagues on important national issues. Republicans, however, have a responsibility to stop saying no, and participate in finding real compromise with Democrats. Working legislation through regular order in the Senate prevents drastic swings in federal policymaking. Voting rights reforms, instituting health-care protections and changes to the federal tax code and business regulations take time to implement on the state and local levels. If the filibuster is eliminated or budget reconciliation becomes the norm, a new and dangerous precedent will be set to pass sweeping, partisan legislation that changes the direction of our nation every time there is a change in political control. The consequences will be profound — our nation may never see stable governing again.
Senators introduce bipartisan bills that seek to invest in broadband infrastructure, tax incentives to spur manufacturing investments in rural communities, reform the Department of Veterans Affairs, protect our children from harm and more. There is also bipartisan support for voting reform and many of the initiatives outlined in the For the People Act. Our ultimate goal should be to restore bipartisan faith in our voting process by assuring all Americans that their votes will be counted, secured and protected. Efforts to expand voting hours and access, improve our election security and increase transparency in campaign finance and advertisement rules should and do have broad, bipartisan support and would quickly address the needs facing Americans today. Taking bipartisan action on voting reform would go a long way in restoring the American people’s faith in Congress and our ability to deliver results for them. We will not solve our nation’s problems in one Congress if we seek only partisan solutions. Instead of fixating on eliminating the filibuster or shortcutting the legislative process through budget reconciliation, it is time we do our jobs.
The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787
snip
Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate — or 60 votes — to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing — and able — to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all — and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.
Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 — or 30 percent — failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.
Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent — but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.
snip
That's why I purposely included the stuff that came out in June (the 23rd and the 28th). 
Here is what was set into motion last month (August) -
By Carl Hulse
Published June 4, 2021 Updated Aug. 5, 2021
WASHINGTON — When the Senate voted in January 2011 on what was then considered an outlandish proposal to allow a simple majority of senators to break filibusters, only a dozen Democrats backed the plan, which went down in a flamingly lopsided vote. A decade on, the vast majority of Senate Democrats have come around to the view that the filibuster rules — which require a supermajority of 60 votes to bring legislation to a final vote — are antiquated and unworkable, and have become the primary obstacle to meaningful policy changes that enjoy broad support.
(snip)
“Each vote will be building the case to convict the Republican Senate leadership of engaging in political gridlock for their advantage, rather than voting for the agenda the American people voted for in 2020,” Mr. Markey said. It is replicating a strategy that Harry Reid, then the Senate majority leader, employed in 2013 to persuade fellow Democrats to blow up the filibuster for judicial and executive branch nominees. He purposefully lined up a series of votes on highly regarded nominees to the influential United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When Republicans repeatedly blocked them, Mr. Reid gathered enough Democratic support to change the rules by a majority vote.
(snip)
Mr. Reid was working with a larger majority than Mr. Schumer — 55 compared with 50 Democrats today — and among those he failed to convince was Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, a prominent Democratic opponent of weakening the filibuster and one of three Democrats who balked at the changes in 2013. He is not the only holdout. Senator Kyrsten Sinema, Democrat of Arizona, doubled down on her opposition to changing the filibuster during an appearance back home this week as she stood beside Senator John Cornyn of Texas, one of the Republicans who had just blocked the Jan. 6 commission.
(snip)
Other Democrats, though more quietly, remain apprehensive about changing the filibuster rules. But colleagues and activists believe they can be convinced to do so when it becomes clear that the future of minority voting rights across the country is on the line and that the party’s aggressive agenda is going to be stymied almost single-handedly by Mr. McConnell. Mr. Reid used private party meetings to build momentum for a change, and Mr. Schumer is following the same path. Still, even some vocal proponents of gutting the filibuster are privately pessimistic about their prospects and fear that any gains made in June could quickly dissipate if the Senate spends July on infrastructure measures and then decamps, as scheduled, for the remainder of the summer. Democratic senators and key aides say they believe they have made progress nudging senators like Jon Tester of Montana and Angus King of Maine, who are wary of changing the rules, toward doing so for voting-related bills, if not permanently.
(snip)
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/us/democrats-filibuster-senate.html
So, as the old saying goes, they are still "softening the targets". As long as the others are in the background STILL equivocating, even as late as last month, then the show-boaters will feel "safe" doing the same.
but see this (just saw this in LBN) - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142799236
I posted this in this thread too as these are the 15 that we need to worry about (and Warner is just a few slots above Sinema and Manchin) -
But that also shows a shift of them (including the worst two) in "better direction" (at least so far this year).
IMHO - once you start getting "their buddies" to agree (with whatever "talking points" they can come up with for a justification) then it might go a long way to shifting their perspective.
We are in the midst of all the "sausage-making" and "negotiating in the press".
Last edited Sun Sep 12, 2021, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/For the 115th Congress
Sinema's (she was in the House) Cuellar and Sinema had by far the highest plus/minus ratings of ANY Dem, meaning they voted FAR more with Trump than their districts predicted. That is a true tell, as at least Manchin has the excuse that he is in an insanely Red state.
Ignore Brenda Jones, she was just a placeholder for less than 2 months and only voted on 3 final bills in 8 days in December.
...the 116th Congress because Manchin's score was about half that of the 115th?
And since you bring up the House and Henry Cuellar, let's look at the 116th rankings of House members.
Cuellar's rating in the 116th is lower (i.e., better) against trump than all four members of the "squad", and a plus/minus lower than each of them. In fact one of them has a rating 3X the "predicted score". They ranked 4th, 7th, 8th, and 12th among 235 Democrats, meaning that they voted with trump more than the other 223, 227, 228, and 231 Democrats.
Last edited Mon Sep 13, 2021, 02:49 AM - Edit history (2)
with Trump bills that actually had a high chance of passage. They literally are putting their stamp pf approval on things that actually became law. Also there was a tremendous amount of nominations (compared to later on) then from Trump as well, many of which Manchin voted for (more than any other Dem). He voted for both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Also, there are going to be far fewer Trump friendly bills even being brought to the floor under Pelosi. Almost all the votes that raised AOC and a couple other progs up in the 116th Trump Scoring were PROTEST votes as well. They were not at all going along with something they ideologically agreed with.
see this for a more detailed explanation
https://voteview.com/articles/ocasio_cortez
IF you remove the 2 partial term Dem House members who had few votes in the 116th and thus are artificially skewed upward (Kwanza Hall (who only had 4 votes then total) and then Kweisi Mfume, both who only voted with Trump on 2 bills, the Pandemic Aid Bill, and the $2000 Covid cheques bill) and then take out the artificially raising up of the Trump Score protest voters (The Squad), and finally Gabbard, who missed a TONNE (a full third of all votes) of votes (due to her futile crazy POTUS campaign) that raised her artificially up too.
you are left with:
Cuellar as the 6th most conservative Trump Score Dem
and the 2nd most conservative one left, as all but Golden lost
Certain people always like to dredge up The Squad and Sanders and other lefties' votes that had no bearing on the outcome and use those to attack them with. It would be the height of hypocrisy and double-standardness to now all of a sudden say that THOSE votes count as examples of some chicanery and yet Manchin's and Sinema's do not. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, especially when you look at the true ideological nature and rationales for the votes.
Plus Manchin actually has actually blocked a Biden nominee via publicly coming out against her (Tanden) and then joining with a couple other Dems to block Chipman, and forced them both to be withdrawn. He also helped to strip out $2.05 trillion of the $2.6 trillion of new spending and green energy tax credits in the bi-partisan infrastructure bill. He helped lower it by almost 80%, from 2.6 trillion to only $550 billion. The other $650 billion was simply renewals of already-in-place programmes. Also, he is now on course (so far) to rip out another $2 to 2.5 trillion from the reconciliation package. which IS Biden's agenda, same as that other £2.05 trillion stripped out on the bi-partisan bill.
see this for full detail:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15833203
here is Manchin's Trump Score for the entire Trump term
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
Ideology Score Senate Democrats
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2020/party-senate-democrat/ideology
plus Angus King
As for Cuellar, despite being in a sold Blue district seat that has never elected a Rethug, he is a forced birther, anti-immigrant at times, anti-LGBTQ at times, is pro big oil, anti many climate change initiatives, pro private prison, has endorsed and fund-raised for a racist, climate change denialist MAGA Republican House member (John Carter, TX-31), and is A rated by the NRA, etc etc. He doesn't believe in (and has voted that way) large chunks of our platform. We do not need a hard leftie there, just a run of the mill moderate that actually believes in our Party's platform, and surely one that doesn't fundraise for and help a Rethug MAGAt get elected. Imagine the howls if a prog did that!
2020 Ideological Scorecard
Now that Peterson lost in MN (and Brindisi lost, whom he was tied with), he now has the 2nd highest rightward ideological score in the House Dem Caucus as of the latest scoring (for the 116th Congress)
These statistics dissect the legislative records of Members of Congress during the 116th Congress (Jan 3, 2019-Jan 3, 2021), as of Jan 30, 2021.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2020/party-house-democrat/ideology
He is Pro-Life (votes that way), voted to ban abortion from all federal healthcare, voted to restrict minors going to an out of state abortion clinic, etc.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Henry_Cuellar_Abortion.htm
http://time.com/4782994/democrats-anti-abortion-men-congress/
https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/representative/henry-cuellar/
Rated A by the NRA
In Texas, a Lone House Democrat Has an ‘A’ Rating From the N.R.A. Can He Survive?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/us/politics/henry-cuellar-nra.html
Raised money and endorsed a Republican
MJ Hegar fires back at fellow Democrat Henry Cuellar for helping her GOP opponent fundraise
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/09/13/mj-hegar-fires-back-henry-cuellar-helping-her-gop-opponent-fundraise/
Private Prison Democrat Backs Private Prison Republican at Big Money Fundraiser
https://www.indivisiblehouston.org/private-prison-democrat-backs-private-prison-republican-at-big-money-fundraiser/
Private Prison Campaign Cash Still Welcomed by Some Democrats in the Trump Era
https://rewire.news/article/2018/09/14/private-prison-campaign-cash-still-welcomed-by-some-democrats-in-the-trump-era/
No congressional Democrat has received more financial backing from private prisons than Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who has taken $88,990 from GEO Group and CoreCivic America since 2012, according to Open Secrets. Cuellar, who has voted in line with the president 68.9 percent of the time, has received more campaign cash from GEO Group in 2018 than any congressional lawmaker but Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Almost all of Cuellar’s private prison campaign cash over the past six years has come from GEO Group, which has a history of in-custody deaths and other abuses. Cuellar’s office didn’t answer questions submitted by Rewire.News about the Democrat’s acceptance of private prison campaign money.
Company that runs immigration detention centers is top donor for three Texas congressmen
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2018/06/21/company-that-runs-immigration-detention-centers-is-top-donor-for-three-texas-congressmen/
Cuellar also is by far the biggest Democratic (and close to the top overall) recipient of the GEO Group, the for-profit prison firm with massive Rump and Rethug ties who are profiteering now off running those horrid immigrant detention camps. Almost ALL the rest of the top people were Rethugs.
"GEO GROUP GAVE GENEROUSLY TO TRUMP" to run lucrative detention centers
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212276389
GEO Group's top House recipients
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/geo-group/recipients?id=D000022003&t2-Chamber=House
He was the only Democrat to vote for a House bill that would have made it easier to deport unaccompanied minors from Central America.
https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Cuellar-From-migrant-family-to-growing-clout-in-5801927.php
“We have to send a signal,” he said.
Rated as low as 25% on LGBTQ Issues by the Human Rights Campaign in some years
https://www.hrc.org/resources/congressional-scorecard
Was against same-sex marriage
http://web.archive.org/web/20190723230827/http://qsanantonio.com/cuellar-gallego.html
Their Districts Are at Risk. But They Still Vote ‘No’ on Climate Action
High waters and toxic blooms haven’t scared these lawmakers
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/lawmakers-climate-action-threat-districts
Meet Texas' climate change deniers.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vvazdx/texas-climate-change-deniers
snip
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28)
Poor climate change voting record
Voted in support of S.J. Res. 24, a "resolution of disapproval" under the Congressional Review Act that would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan—the first nation-wide limit on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and key climate change policy.
[League of Conservation Voters]
snip
and the Rethug he fundraised and campaigned for against MJ Hegar (who then ran against Cornyn for Senate)
Rep. John Carter (R-TX-31)
Climate change denier
"Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.
We do face a global threat. But it is not global warming, it is global tyranny from this crowd of liars – the Warmers."
http://web.archive.org/web/20121021131931/http://carter.house.gov/op-eds/the-return-of-the-warmers/
snip
Big Oil’s favorite Democrat? Texas lawmaker’s votes reflect industry interests
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article150650492.html
U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, whose southern Texas congressional district sprawls across one of the nation’s largest potential sources of oil and natural gas, may be Big Oil’s favorite Democrat.
Four times this year, Cuellar has voted in favor of bills that environmental groups say would benefit the oil and gas industry while weakening regulations.
He also is the top Democratic recipient in Congress of oil and gas campaign contributions over the 2015-16 campaign cycle, receiving $165,305, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. Since he assumed office more than a decade ago, he’s received over triple the amount of money from the oil and gas industry that his fellow Texas Democrats in the House of Representatives have, on average.
Since 2006, in fact, the campaign donations Cuellar has received from the oil and gas industry inversely track his environmental voting record, according to a McClatchy analysis of his votes and his donations. Now, in the first few months of the Trump administration, Cuellar could become a key vote from the other side of the aisle for the GOP’s energy agenda.
snip
EDF Action Names San Antonio Congressman Henry Cuellar To List of Politicians Who Have Failed to Keep Commitments on Pollution & Climate Change
https://www.edfaction.org/media/edf-action-names-san-antonio-congressman-henry-cuellar-list-politicians
Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar happily takes Koch money. It's time for him to stop.
https://act.credoaction.com/sign/cuellar-koch
Conservative Democrat Continues to Take Koch Cash
Rep. Henry Cuellar of oil-rich Texas got another campaign donation from the PAC of GOP megadonor Charles Koch’s fossil fuel conglomerate, Koch Industries.
https://readsludge.com/2019/05/20/conservative-democrat-continues-to-take-koch-cash/
One of Congress’ most conservative Democrats will face a primary challenge in 2020 from progressives who say he’s too far to the right to be part of the Democratic Party. But that hasn’t stopped him from accepting campaign donations from the corporation headed by one of the Republican Party’s biggest benefactors.
The PAC of Koch Industries, a huge oil, chemicals, and paper product conglomerate led by centibillionaire Charles Koch, gave $1,000 to Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas on April 30, according to a new campaign finance report published today by the Federal Election Commission (FEC).
KochPAC has consistently donated to Cuellar since the 2004 election; in the 2018 cycle, the PAC donated $7,500 to his campaign. In 2008, in addition to giving thousands of dollars to Cuellar’s campaign, KochPAC gave $5,000 to his leadership PAC, Texas First PAC. KochPAC has contributed $39,000 to Cuellar’s election campaigns since its first donation in 2004, according to records from the FEC.
Excerpt from KochPAC’s April campaign finance report.
Texas is the biggest oil-producing state in the union, and Cuellar has benefited from hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of campaign donations from PACs and individuals in the industry over his nearly 20-year career. In the 2018 election cycle alone, Cuellar’s campaign took in more than $140,000 from oil and gas PACs.
snip
NRA too
The NRA Spends a Lot of Money on the Texas Congressional Delegation
The majority of members also received high grades for their voting record on gun issues.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/texas-nra-campaign-donations/
Nine members of the Texas delegation—all Republicans—received A+ ratings from the NRA. These include senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn. Another 18 members—all Republicans except for U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo—received an A grade. Seven Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke—who is hoping to unseat Cruz in the Senate this fall—received an F rating. Only two Texas Democrats—U.S. Rep. Gene Green, from Houston, and Cuellar—accepted any money from the NRA.
except they aren't all showing up on the Sunday talk shows.
These are "bottom 15". But what is instructive, at least so far this year, is their "progressive score" so far this year (for both "overall" votes and "crucial" votes) - https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate
