Everyone loves a tale of two individuals working together for a goal. Especially in politics. Whether it is in the past where Tip O’Neill and Eddie Boland of Massachusetts tried to turn the State House a deep shade of blue, or even today where Massachusetts Congressman Jake Auchincloss and New York Congressman Ritchie Torres both went to Newton to just meet and greet people as buddies.
Yes, there’s nothing more catching to the eye when one political personality not only strikes controversy or excitement but gets another person to join in and form an alliance.
One of the big dynamic duos that everyone in Washington and the political media ecosystem has shown the most interest in is of course Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.
Both are moderate Democrats, and both of them have shared similar policies and viewpoints that make passing desired legislation by Democrats in control of congress rather sluggish.
Both oppose the abolition of the filibuster, both voted down an increase for a $15 minimum wage hike, both have expressed concern about spending, and currently, both are in the center of negotiations of finding a compromise for President Biden’s “Build Back Better” reconciliation package.
Because of their vocal opposition to most of the plans laid out by the White House and other Democrats in Congress, the two have been labeled by some as the dynamic duo that has caused progress in the country to slow to a snails crawl, and that if they would simply get in line, they would not be a problem. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said as much, saying on Twitter: “2 senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want. We must stand with the working families of our country. We must combat climate change. We must delay passing the Infrastructure Bill until we pass a strong Reconciliation Bill.”
And yet…what if that’s not necessarily the case? Not that Senators Manchin and Sinema aren’t the two focal points of Washington; they are. But what if this dynamic duo isn’t so…well, dynamic?
The United States Senate, for all intents and purposes, is a chamber with a ton of individuality in each of its 100 members, and with a 50–50 split, every vote counts more. For reconciliation, all 50 members who either caucus with or are Democrats need to be satisfied, and each of them all have a different stake and opinion on the reconciliation bill.
For example, Manchin recently said today in a media scrum that he was not on board with a carbon tax, despite how reporting from the New York Times suggested that it could have been an option. Naturally, because Manchin is the star of negotiations right now, he will get the most attention from his opposition on television and social media.
But you know who else has spoken out against a carbon tax? Democratic Senator of Montana Jon Tester, who said to reporters today: “I’m not a big fan of the carbon tax. I just do not think it works as it was explained to me.”
This might come as a surprise to some, but despite his optimism and love of profanity, Tester still represents a rather right-leaning state. Montana is the 6th largest producer of coal in the United States, and while Manchin is incredibly vocal about his skepticism in the clean energy programs being provided in the bill, it wouldn’t surprise individuals if Tester might have the tiniest reservations about carbon pricing as well.
What about Krysten Sinema? The Arizona Senator has long been not keen on the House of Representatives’ drug pricing provision that would allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Many have pointed to Sinema’s donations from those in the pharmaceutical world as the driving force behind this and put the onus on her since she is the center of negotiations right now.
Today, however, another Senator announced his opposition to the drug pricing plan: One Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who flatly said to Sahil Kapur of NBC that he was, at the current moment, a no on the plan. “I’d like to finally see something that tells me what they want to do.”
To be fair, there has been an argument that Menendez would be on board right away if both Manchin and Sinema were ok with the pricing proposal, as Menendez would not want to be the senate vote to immediately break with the pharmaceutical connections he has made over the years.
At the same time, however, it could very well be that he had doubts even before the Manchin-Sinema tango, although we cannot dive into Menendez’s head.
The point here is that despite Manchin and Sinema being the two most vocal opposition to the plans being proposed, it isn’t that they are the only ones in the Senate who feel this way.
Mark Warner, who comes from Virginia, a state that is rapidly moving more and more to the left as the suburbs become friendly towards Democrats due to educational polarization, still is not in lockstep with all of President Biden’s plans. He even said that he wanted the bipartisan infrastructure bill to have a senate vote first before reconciliation, which is a phrase usually tied to Sinema.
In some cases, some Senators have formed their own power couples that could potentially cause traffic ahead. Senators Jeff Merkley of Oregon and Ed Markey of Massachusetts formed a duo that claimed: “No climate, no deal” when the infrastructure bill was being drafted. Markey is still very concerned about any climate being slashed in the reconciliation, as he has been posting stats and polls about climate on his Twitter feed more and more recently following a New York Times report that Manchin wanted the clean energy plan off the table.
What is most striking, that was pointed out by Dan Kennedy, professor at Northeastern University, was that the negotiations between Manchin and Sinema aren’t even paired.
In fact, you could say that they are….well, a two-track process.
President Biden has been meeting with the two Senators separately rather than a package, and as a whole, the two have completely different viewpoints of the bill.
Manchin is concerned about spending and the climate costs, but is in favor of the drug pricing provisions as well as rolling back the tax cuts of the Trump Administration in order to pay for the bill.
Sinema on the other hand is reportedly not for rolling back the tax cuts and is more concerned about pay-fors.
While it is unlikely to happen; there very well could be a butting of heads between the two over how the senate bill is constructed, thus breaking up the supposed dynamic duo.
The interest in these two Senators as a pair comes from their outspokenness, which is fair, but there are many Senators who are just as outspoken as they are. Even in the House of Representatives there are those who agree with the two and don’t get nearly as much coverage due to the chamber being bigger and there being a bit more wiggle room for Democrats (albeit not a lot either, but there is something more dramatic in storytelling when it is 50–50).
At the end of the day, this power couple is not really anything special. They are important, as Democrats do need 50 votes to pass their bill via reconciliation, but, as a wise person once said: “In a 50–50 Senate, anyone can be a Sinema or a Manchin.”
This piece first appeared on the author’s Medium page
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont said as much, saying on Twitter: “2 senators cannot be allowed to defeat what 48 senators and 210 House members want.
Not the point of the post, I know, but even relative to the low, low bar which Sanders has set by his past behavior, this is a breathtakingly stupid talking point. There are in fact 52 Senators who are blocking what 48 Senators want. This isn’t even a filibuster situation. He’s complaining that he can’t pass a law without a simple majority.Report
I was about to make the same point.
Everyone is fixated on the two, but there are 50 other Senators who are blocking this.
In any healthy functioning democracy there will always be outliers and cranks, so Manchin and Sinema are actually within the norm.
What needs to be said is that the Republican Party is united against these bills, in any way shape or form.Report
You’d think that, in a healthy democracy, the 52 would get in line with the 48.Report
Or that a majority of Senators might reflect the majority of voters.Report
Are we saying “majority” when we mean “plurality”?Report
No.Report
There was a bipartisan infrastructure bill that passed 69-30. The idea you’ve been pushing that Republicans are just automatically voting no on everything because Biden is in the White House has no basis in fact. Republicans are all voting no on this bill because it’s loaded up with Democratic spending priorities, most notably a large increase in redistributive spending. All the stuff they could get bipartisan sign-off for was in the bipartisan bill.Report
I’m just pointing out that the Republicans represent a minority of voters and yet have an effective veto on the minority.Report
In this case, it’s also the Republicans plus a couple of Democrats effectively vetoing the plurality.Report
Nope.
Even with the 2 Dems, its a minority blocking a majority.Report
52 is greater than 48, Chip.Report
The 52 Senators represent a minority of voters.Report
By this math, 210 House Democrats represent a minority of voters. House Democrats received 50.8% of votes in 2021, and if they lose five votes, they represent less than 50.0% of votes. Sanders counted them as losing 12.Report
There are currently 220 Democrats and 212 Republicans in the House.Report
The 50 Senate democrats represent 41 million more Americans. Sinema and Manchin shrink that gap but do not eliminate it.Report
So, like, Biden got 11,000,000ish votes in 2020, Trump got 6,000,000ish votes, and California has almost 40,000,000 people.
Are you counting California’s Democratic representation as 11,000,000, 17,000,000, or almost 40,000,000?Report
I think I wrote about this once on here, but Manchin is absolutely a stand in at time for many other Senators. He acts as a lightning rod and gives cover.Report
I was wondering about this — I figure there must be Dem senators who aren’t thrilled with the bill but who can’t safely oppose it, so maybe that’s why it’s been so hard to convince two senators. Anyone who’s up for reelection in 2022 who’s not in a solid blue state has to at least be nervous about voting for it.Report
As a liberal Democrat, Manchin is fine. Yes, he’s annoying and has some dumb ideas about means testing, but he actually wants to get something done. Sinema’s more proof why you never elect anybody who thought the Green Party was a good idea.Report
Agreed. I may not love what Manchin is up to but it’s understandable and, one could argue, not out of alignment with his ruby red state. Sinema appears to be either entirely bought or entirely deranged. In four years she’s also eminently replaceable.Report
The best way to look at is WAR for the state. Machin’s WAR is through the roof because his only plausible replacement is a Republican. Sinema’s WAR on the other hand is negative.Report
And of course I see North beat me to it!Report
It’s either thinking alike or seldom differing. I choose to think it’s the former.Report
WAR, what is it good for? AZ has a +3 R PVI. Sinema won the state with 49.96% of the vote. I admit a big difference w/ Manchin, but the most probable successful primary challenge is the Democrats losing the seat with someone too far to the left of the state. This is the kind of strategy that Daily Kos tried to stir up to poor results.Report
Kelly won the same percentage point spread against McSally. Why can he be a bog standard Democrat and Sinema cannot?Report
How does DiFi keep winning in California despite being one of the 10 most conservative Dems in the Senate?
The good news is that AZ voters continue to move left, as measured by my standard of what initiatives are being passed over the objections of the state’s Republican Party. Higher minimum wage. Paid sick time off. Recreational marijuana.
The bad news, at least if one believes the commentariat at LG&M, is that time’s run out and the Republicans have won forever.Report
Maybe Ds will get lucky and they will get to run against McSally again.Report
Disagree. You don’t need a left wing challenger to whup Sinema. If the reconciliation bill goes down over her antics she can be challenged from the middle or center left over party/voter loyalty grounds and not lose an inch of ground in the general. If the infrastructure bill fails as well; she will be the easiest Senator to primary in the country.Report
Need? She will be challenged regardless. The person the national media is looking towards and where the money is probably already flowing is Rep. Ruben Gallego, who represents a +24 D district. He is not a replacement level Democrat, he’s a Democrat who can beat Democrats in Democratic districts.Report
If they succesfully primary her with someone who can’t win state wide then yes, that would be pointless. They should obviously try hard not to do that. But seeing as how these omnibus bills are the only things on the table as far as accomplishments go, and assuming Manchin can be placated, what’s the justification for defending her if she scuttles the whole thing? You try to replace her with someone who will at least advance the agenda but if you fail it’s not much of a loss since you couldn’t do anything with her anyway.Report
2024 is far off so there’s no telling for sure who it’ll be. The big danger is that there’s a vast host of challengers and they cannibalize each other letting Sinema slither through with incumbents advantage.
That said, even if we’re looking at a worst case scenario and Sinema gets primaried out by a lefty and the Senate seat is put in jeopardy I am feeling like it might be a necessary evil. Like IMDB said if Sinema keeps up this loon (or crook) act and keeps torpedoing stuff for the lulz then we might be better off with her severed head serving as a warning for other wannabe loons (or crooks).Report
Aren’t we forgetting that in 2018, Kyrsten Sinema was the leftiest lefty who ever leftied?
Former Green Party, bisexual, in favor of progressive taxation, and all that.
And yet, she won statewide.
If the 2018 version of Kyrsten SInema shows up to primary 2024 Kyrsten Sinema, the Before Times Kyrsten will kick ass.Report
Not at all, I’m just observing that even in the worst case scenario, granting all possible doom saying, making an example of Sinema may be worth it even then.
I don’t think we’re anywhere near that worst case scenario. I agree that Sinema is way out over her skiis vs the way she campaigned and was elected and I agree that you could unseat her with a bog standard Az Democrat campaigning against her on party and voter loyalty issues.
If primarying Sinema put the seat in severe risk I think it’d be painful but worth it. Under current conditions I think it’s a fishing slam dunk that she needs to be primaried and removed. Her only hope is to pull her head out of her posterior and get with the program or at minimum get publicly fishing specific about what she actually wants.Report
Moderate needs to be stricken as a political descriptor as being void for vagueness and overboard. There is nothing moderate about Sinema’s ideological positions or her actions. She is now actively opposing things she campaigned on in 2018 and refuses to state what she wants in terms of negotiation except maybe to be the center of attention. Manchin is just a conservative relic from a different time.Report
I’m a moderate and I don’t want her. Sinema ain’t a moderate- she’s either a loon or she’s corrupt.Report
She’s not the hero we need, but she’s the hero we deserve.Report