The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Sheilbh]

I don't think it's about playing dirty - I think in the US (and UK) the right is better at politics and the left is worse. The left should try to be better at politics.

I think Biden's quite good at it and they could do worse than listen to him.

[DGuller]

I don't think it's about playing dirty - I think in the US (and UK) the right is better at politics and the left is worse. The left should try to be better at politics.

I think Biden's quite good at it and they could do worse than listen to him.

I agree that the left should be much better at being pragmatic and practical in the art of politics, and politics can sometimes be a rough sport (there is a vice grip out there that really needs to embrace Joe Manchin's testicles).  I think that's different from embracing the concept of big lies, because evidently truth doesn't matter.

[alfred russel]

I don't think it's about playing dirty - I think in the US (and UK) the right is better at politics and the left is worse. The left should try to be better at politics.

I think Biden's quite good at it and they could do worse than listen to him.

I don't get it on this issue. The Senate right now is 50-50. Health care is a great message to hammer home because that plays well everywhere--it is a straight up winning issue for Democrats.

Gun control is probably a losing or at least neutral issue in Montana and West Virginia. But you need those states (or states like those) to be viable in the senate. You could of course say fuck those states, and focus on flipping a state like Florida to make up for the loss of those seats, but will you really win by spending time talking about guns vs. health care?

[Sheilbh]

I agree that the left should be much better at being pragmatic and practical in the art of politics, and politics can sometimes be a rough sport (there is a vice grip out there that really needs to embrace Joe Manchin's testicles).  I think that's different from embracing the concept of big lies, because evidently truth doesn't matter.

I agree in general - though personally I think the Democrats need Manchin far more than he needs them.

But I think there is a fear of "the lie" or the "untruth" on the left partly in reaction to Trump. They've sort of panicked themselves into politics by fact-checkers - which persuades no-one who wasn't already on your side. Facts are great, but they're not enough - you need a story. You can use facts to embellish and decorate a story - Bill Clinton is still unmatched in his ability to do this - but if your rebuttal or your agenda is just facts then while it may provide a perverse thrill for think tankers, it's useless for political purposes. I think in the US especially the Democrats have always had a weakness for facts and policy wonkishness at the expense of story and narrative and emotion which is what moves people to vote.

[Admiral Yi]

(there is a vice grip out there that really needs to embrace Joe Manchin's testicles)

Disagree.  Manchin is only a Democrat because he wants to be.  He would have an easier time winning his seat as a Republican.  The Democratic leadership has essentially zero leverage on the guy.

[alfred russel]

(there is a vice grip out there that really needs to embrace Joe Manchin's testicles)

How and why? I mean, you do that and he flips parties and he probably could actually win reelection.

Trump won West Virginia by almost 40 points. There is a pretty good argument that Joe Manchin is toast in 2024 no matter how moderate he votes, because the democratic brand is dead in West Virginia at this point. So get all the votes you can out of him right now because he is a dead man walking. But you have to convince him of that, and if tomorrow he decides to be a republican, McConnell would probably give him whatever committee chairmanships he wants. Leverage is really limited, and he is probably the only option to make that seat a democratic one.

[DGuller]

I agree in general - though personally I think the Democrats need Manchin far more than he needs them.

Right now, yes.  However, the problem with holding people by their balls is that if situation ever changes, your own pitch may change as a result.  At some point the Democrats will have either more than 50 or less than 50, and Joe might suffer from some extreme lack of good will within his party then.

[Admiral Yi]

How and why? I mean, you do that and he flips parties and he probably could actually win reelection.

Trump won West Virginia by almost 40 points. There is a pretty good argument that Joe Manchin is toast in 2024 no matter how moderate he votes, because the democratic brand is dead in West Virginia at this point. So get all the votes you can out of him right now because he is a dead man walking. But you have to convince him of that, and if tomorrow he decides to be a republican, McConnell would probably give him whatever committee chairmanships he wants. Leverage is really limited, and he is probably the only option to make that seat a democratic one.

Too late.

[Sheilbh]

I don't get it on this issue. The Senate right now is 50-50. Health care is a great message to hammer home because that plays well everywhere--it is a straight up winning issue for Democrats.

Gun control is probably a losing or at least neutral issue in Montana and West Virginia. But you need those states (or states like those) to be viable in the senate. You could of course say fuck those states, and focus on flipping a state like Florida to make up for the loss of those seats, but will you really win by spending time talking about guns vs. health care?

My point is simpler. I think Republicans are better at having a story, at message discipline and at not having their debates/fights aired in the public based on the mistaken opinion that anyone cares about relatively small policy differences.

I'm not sure if gun control or police violence is a good, election-winning issue. My instinct is you're right that healthcare is probably better - and, if the US economy is booming, in 2022 I'd just be running on that and getting in behind Joe.

Also I could be wrong but surely gun control is a pointless issue to fight before youv'e changed the complexion of the Supreme Court?

[Sheilbh]

Right now, yes.  However, the problem with holding people by their balls is that if situation ever changes, your own pitch may change as a result.  At some point the Democrats will have either more than 50 or less than 50, and Joe might suffer from some extreme lack of good will within his party then.

I don't really get this.

How would he suffer? It's not going to hurt him with re-election. If there's a point where he has less leverage because the Democrats have over 50 or under 50 - how much leverage would he have otherwise?

I just don't see an upside in being tough with the guy you need to pass anything.

[DGuller]

Right now, yes.  However, the problem with holding people by their balls is that if situation ever changes, your own pitch may change as a result.  At some point the Democrats will have either more than 50 or less than 50, and Joe might suffer from some extreme lack of good will within his party then.

I don't really get this.

How would he suffer? It's not going to hurt him with re-election. If there's a point where he has less leverage because the Democrats have over 50 or under 50 - how much leverage would he have otherwise?

I just don't see an upside in being tough with the guy you need to pass anything.

He might lose out on committee assignments, he might lose out on getting things done for his constituents.  It may not be done simply out of spite, but you have a limited amount of anything, so someone is going to be left happier than someone else after everything is doled out.  The guy who played kingmaker too much is probably not going to be left happy after his stint as kingmaker is over.

[Jacob]

Conversely, if there's a better margin in the senate for the Democrats Manchin will be able to vote against more stuff to maintain his "centrist" credentials. So it's not all bad from his perspective.

[Sheilbh]

Conversely, if there's a better margin in the senate for the Democrats Manchin will be able to vote against more stuff to maintain his "centrist" credentials. So it's not all bad from his perspective.

Yeah - and he's going to lose the good stuff if the Democrats lose anyway (not least because I think while the Democrats are bad at politics and would probably try to reward some moderate Republicans, Republicans are good at politics and would try to pick Manchin off).

[Berkut]

Yeah, I don't really know how Manchin ought to play this.

On the one hand, he should be telling his voters "Look, I am a guy who is really a Republican who is getting all these goodies because the Dems think I am one of them!". That means he has to have goodies to deliver.

I think both the Dems and Manchin have to navigate pretty carefully.

[DGuller]

I think there has to be a negotiated settlement between Democrats and Manchin.  Some things, like election protection laws, should be non-negotiable:  if you're against it or play dumb ("let's get 10 Republicans on board"), then fuck you.  On the other hand, with other things which will play very badly in WV, allow him to publicly kill some of them.  Democrats are better off with Manchin than with a Republican, but only if Manchin actually remembers he's a Democrat at least some of the time.