July 28: Some Basic Realities For Democrats on Voting Rights
Watching an intra-Democratic argument on voting rights strategy intensify in Washington, I offered some advice to both sides at New York:
There has been an underlying disagreement within the mostly Democratic coalition favoring voting rights that was nicely captured in this New York Times report on Friday:
“A quiet divide between President Biden and the leaders of the voting rights movement burst into the open on Thursday, as 150 organizations urged him to use his political mettle to push for two expansive federal voting rights bills that would combat a Republican wave of balloting restrictions … In private calls with voting rights groups and civil rights leaders, White House officials and close allies of the president have expressed confidence that it is possible to ‘out-organize voter suppression,’ according to multiple people familiar with the conversations.”
Both sides in this argument are partly wrong. Those who expect Joe Biden to force the For the People Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Act through the Senate via some major revision in the ability to filibuster are probably expecting the impossible. Yes, perhaps if Biden personally and insistently and abrasively lobbied Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema to abandon her very consistent defense of the filibuster, up to and including encouragement of a primary challenge to her when she is up for reelection in 2024, she might decide her current and very insistent independent-maverick “branding” isn’t going to keep working for her. But Joe Manchin? He would be thrilled to get attacked by a Democratic president or Democratic advocacy groups for insisting that he won’t support voting-rights measures unless at least some Republicans support them. His state is so very red that the threat of a primary challenge to the sole remaining successful West Virginia Democrat is a laugher.
Short of a nuclear attack on West Virginia, it’s hard to identify anything Biden might do to Manchin that wouldn’t run a high risk of backfiring. And he does need Manchin on the reconciliation bills Democrats are using to get around the filibuster to enact Biden’s social and economic agenda. It’s just too bad voting-rights bills don’t qualify for reconciliation.
Yes, it is intensely frustrating that Biden cannot bring himself to come out forthrightly for filibuster reform, but it probably doesn’t matter since it is not happening unless the Democratic Senate Conference gets bigger, making senators like Manchin and Sinema irrelevant on the subject. So at some point voting-rights advocates need to focus on that goal.
At the same time, White House claims that Democrats can “out-organize voter suppression” are partially wrong as well. Yes, restrictive provisions like voter-ID requirements, limits on voting by mail, and even voter-roll purges can be countered and perhaps overcome by intensive efforts to educate and energize the voters Republicans are trying to keep from the polls. But you cannot out-organize a partisan gerrymander, or a law that lets election officials or state legislators overturn the outcome of an election after votes are cast.
Voting-rights advocates will eventually have to play the cards dealt to them by the system as it currently exists. That means refraining from too much anger aimed at Democratic pols who have little choice but to concede defeat on some legislation and concentrate on legislation (i.e., those reconciliation bills with many items vital to the people whose voting rights are also under attack) they can enact with no margin for error in the Senate and little in the House. At the same time, Biden and his staff and Democratic “pragmatists” in Congress should never for a moment be cavalier about the legislative obstacles they face in defending democracy itself. They may have to accept a tactical defeat on voting rights in this Congress. But they should never, ever, give up on making it happen later if not sooner.
Yes, Allan, character matters. That’s why it’s so galling to have this moral midget in the White House. This silly frat boy has not earned ONE thing on his own in his life. Oh, maybe his cheerleading slot, but I doubt that. He has had every string pulled for him to get him out of military service, to allow him to make money by running businesses into the ground, to gain the presidency by having his brother rig Florida and his Daddy’s buddies on the Supreme Court write him in on the most poorly reasoned SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott. He lies. He cheats. He steals from the poor to give to the rich. He wraps himself in the flag and Jesus in order to further the interests of his corporate cronies. PATHETIC! People like you are duped. Even more PATHETIC!
Worst. President. Ever.
Allan, Nick is right. Even if Bush wins reelection he’s a self-limiting disease. Democrats will take over the White House and Congress again, and we’ll once again have budget surpluses and start to pay down the national debt instead of doubling it like the village idiot we have in office now. And once again we’ll have someone in office who isn’t so obsessed with a country that was no threat to anyone outside of the Middle East (and as long as Iran was there to soak up Hussein’s attention he wasn’t much of a threat there either) that he’ll abandon our true enemy right before catching him to go off on a wild goose chase.
Maybe we’ll have a president who listens to people who actually know what they’re talking about instead of just people who tell him what he wants to hear. We sure as hell don’t have that now.
Allan: The difference has always seemed to me that conservatives equate ‘character’ with sex; liberals equate it with ‘public character,’ for lack of a better term. Yeah Clinton lied about sex … but that was between him and Hillary, in my view. Bush lied about war, the most solemn and seriious responsibility a President has. Big difference. And as far as the polls go, survey 5-10 percent more Republicans, you get a Republican lead. Survey numbers more indicative of actual turnout — 4-8 percent more Dems in the last three Presidential elections — and you’ll get the Democrat in the lead.
Your making my argument for me Nick. What your saying is what all democrats were saying back then, character doasn’t matter. There are more things in life then money Nick. Clinton did next to nothing about terrorism even though all the signs we blaring back in his terms. Good debate though.
Hey Allan — But during Clinton’s time, you could comfort yourself with the knowledge of huge budget surpluses, a growing economy, no disastrous war and the fact Administration knew Al-Qaeda was the major threat…
Jim, at least we live in a country where we can have these kind of debates. Now you know how most Republicans felt for eight years when Bubba was in office. It doesn’t feel good does it? Oh and by the way, there’s a new NY Times/CBS poll out that shows Bush up nine.
Oh, the previous data was courtesy of mydd.com, who obtained it from theleftcoaster.com who got it from Gallup.
Get people to the polls, and President Kerry will happen.
Guess what that nasty Gallup poll shows:
“Kerry leads Bush by ten points among independents who are registered to vote, 51-41.”
Stunning.
I’ll take more bad news like that.
And I like my jazz rough.
Nearly 50% of PA voters say that Bush’s moral values are closely aligned with theirs. I think I’m gonna move to another state.
It’s so frustrating to read that people think W is tougher on terror than Kerry. As I recall…now, maybe I’m wrong…but I believe 9/11 occurred during the Bush administration.
Leadership? Well, if you consider lying to people to persuade them to be leadership, then I guess Bush is your man. Bush had led 1,000 Americans to their deaths.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I inhabit the same country (and state) with so many nitwits. How anyone…ANYONE…can vote for W is completely beyond me. Grrrrr!