Manchin

[AnBr]

Manchin's political worldview was put to the test (and it lost)

As Senate Republicans prepared to kill the bipartisan plan for a Jan. 6 commission, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was seen on the chamber floor having a tense conversation with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It was obvious to those who saw the discussion that the conservative Democrat was not pleased.

That was understandable. This fight, more than any other in recent memory, put Manchin's entire political worldview to the test -- and it lost.

After the vote, the West Virginian expressed his disappointment to reporters.

"Mitch McConnell makes it extremely difficult," Manchin said. "The commission is something this country needs. There's no excuse. It's just pure raw politics. And that's just so, so disheartening. It really, really is disheartening. I never thought I'd see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. And I'm going to fight to save this country."

The senator never explicitly acknowledged the dynamic, but for Manchin, the debate over the commission was not simply a legislative fight; it was a case study for a style of governing.

I am a registered independent. In the past I have voted for different parties. Now, however, I have been forced to voting straight Dem as I found that defeating the Republicans has become the single, most important thing. It is time for Manchin to put on his big boy pants and realize that disempowering Republicans is the only sane course a rational American can take.

"That's the problem with being implacable foes - no one has any incentive to treat you as anything more than an obstacle to be overcome."

[Deleted]

Manchin's political worldview is self-preservation in the state of West Virgina. He has managed it successfully thus far by playing this game of thumbing his nose at the Democratic party, wearing the blue-dog mantle. The Democrats benefit from his presence in the Senate as it increases their number, which is paramount to maintain their majority. Whether he survives in 2024 is unknown but he's doing his best not to upset the applecart.

Manchin's (and to some extent Sinema's) declaration that under no circumstances he would eliminate or weaken the filibuster takes away the threat from McConnell. Now McConnell can without fear of consequence play his dirty game. Those who stand for keeping filibuster alive are cementing, no in fact fostering, the lack of legislative compromise.

[LFC]

Perhaps Manchin isn't just going to be a lump in the way. He put out his own version of the voter rights bill that certainly goes way beyond what any Republican would remotely consider.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D) has indicated what changes he’d like to see to both the sprawling democracy overhaul bill the Senate is slated to vote on next week and a measure to restore the Voting Rights Act that has yet to be formally introduced.

Manchin is seeking to strip several major ballot access provisions from the For the People Act, the bill currently before the Senate, which is also known as S.1. He also wants to scale back the reach of the Voting Right Act’s preclearance regime, weakening what’s in previous versions of the VRA restoration legislation, known as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Preclearance is the requirement that certain states with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices get federal approval for election policy changes. It was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013, and Republicans refused to revive it when they controlled Congress.

According to a proposal document made public Wednesday, Manchin also opposes S.1’s requirement that states offer no-excuse absentee voting. He also wants changes to its voter ID language. Currently, S.1 would require that states allow non-ID holders an affidavit option to confirm their identity; Manchin’s proposal vaguely alludes to letting voters show utility bills or other forms of identification that some photo ID states do not now allow.

Manchin, according to the document, favors S.1’s mandates for early in person voting, automatic voter registration, and notifications to voters when their precinct locations change. He also wants to ban partisan gerrymandering and has proposed, in his compromise offer, making Election Day a federal holiday (a proposal that has mixed support in the voting rights community because of unintended consequences that could make voting harder for some.)

Manchin is also proposing certain changes to other aspects of the bill that deal with campaign finance and government ethics, though he is also backing major elements of those provisions.

It’s unclear whether such changes could be incorporated in S.1 before the floor vote that is planned for next week. Several of the proposals are ambiguously written and will undoubtably get pushback from other Democrats and outside advocates who have resisted narrowing S.1 so far.

Still others have acknowledged that without making some changes to the bill, it will not become law. And other Democrats are floating the idea of narrowing the legislation’s focus, perhaps just to its ballot access and gerrymandering provisions, if that’s what it takes to make S.1 law.

“If there was only one bill that this Congress can pass in this session, the one and most important one is dealing with those issues: political gerrymandering voter suppression,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (R-TX) said a press conference Tuesday.

[jackd]

Yes, but would he waive the filibuster to pass his preferred bill? I didn't think so.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 16, 2021 21:40:19 GMT LFC said:

Perhaps Manchin isn't just going to be a lump in the way. He put out his own version of the voter rights bill that certainly goes way beyond what any Republican would remotely consider.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D) has indicated what changes he’d like to see to both the sprawling democracy overhaul bill the Senate is slated to vote on next week and a measure to restore the Voting Rights Act that has yet to be formally introduced.

Manchin is seeking to strip several major ballot access provisions from the For the People Act, the bill currently before the Senate, which is also known as S.1. He also wants to scale back the reach of the Voting Right Act’s preclearance regime, weakening what’s in previous versions of the VRA restoration legislation, known as the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Preclearance is the requirement that certain states with a history of racially discriminatory voting practices get federal approval for election policy changes. It was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013, and Republicans refused to revive it when they controlled Congress.

According to a proposal document made public Wednesday, Manchin also opposes S.1’s requirement that states offer no-excuse absentee voting. He also wants changes to its voter ID language. Currently, S.1 would require that states allow non-ID holders an affidavit option to confirm their identity; Manchin’s proposal vaguely alludes to letting voters show utility bills or other forms of identification that some photo ID states do not now allow.

Manchin, according to the document, favors S.1’s mandates for early in person voting, automatic voter registration, and notifications to voters when their precinct locations change. He also wants to ban partisan gerrymandering and has proposed, in his compromise offer, making Election Day a federal holiday (a proposal that has mixed support in the voting rights community because of unintended consequences that could make voting harder for some.)

Manchin is also proposing certain changes to other aspects of the bill that deal with campaign finance and government ethics, though he is also backing major elements of those provisions.

It’s unclear whether such changes could be incorporated in S.1 before the floor vote that is planned for next week. Several of the proposals are ambiguously written and will undoubtably get pushback from other Democrats and outside advocates who have resisted narrowing S.1 so far.

Still others have acknowledged that without making some changes to the bill, it will not become law. And other Democrats are floating the idea of narrowing the legislation’s focus, perhaps just to its ballot access and gerrymandering provisions, if that’s what it takes to make S.1 law.

“If there was only one bill that this Congress can pass in this session, the one and most important one is dealing with those issues: political gerrymandering voter suppression,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett (R-TX) said a press conference Tuesday.

I wonder how different this is from the original version as amended during the Rules Committee hearing that then was not voted out of the committee. 

Election Day holiday is only an advantage for someone in an office job somewhere.  The essential jobs holders will not get the day off. Far better to have multiple days to vote.  



And what's with the "must have excuse" to vote absentee?  Western states including CA have had no excuse vote by mail...no issues with fraud.  Citizens have the right to vote.  Why put barriers in their way that reduces their practical ability to do so?

[LFC]

Josh Marshall on Manchin's voter rights proposal.

But there is one detail which immediately caught my eye.

From his overview it seems like he is on board with the parts of H1/S1 that ban partisan gerrymandering. Yes, devil’s in the details and how much H1/S1 ban it is itself sort of an open question. I know many people don’t agree with me on this. But to me, the ban on partisan gerrymandering is the most important thing about the whole effort. The voting protections are very important too. Some more critical than others. In any case, I’m not trying to litigate that. A lot of it is important. But if Manchin is for a bill that hits gerrymandering, a lot of the voter protection stuff if not all and makes some progress on restoring the Voting Rights Act, I’d say take it.

The key here of course is what’s he going to do to pass it? If this is just what he supports along with 10 Republican unicorns, who cares? But to me this is significant. And various things I’ve heard in the last couple days make me think that the filibuster reform question is not as closed as it looks.

Late Update: I just noticed that Stacey Abrams seems to agree.

[jackd]

Mconnell's comments in opposition to Manchin's compromise suggestions have put the question, I think. We'll see what Manchin is willing to do as opposed to what he's willing to talk about. Realism suggests that one can be hopeful without being optimistic.. I haven't seen any cause for optimism.

[goldenvalley]

Jun 17, 2021 21:29:31 GMT jackd said:

Mconnell's comments in opposition to Manchin's compromise suggestions have put the question, I think. We'll see what Manchin is willing to do as opposed to what he's willing to talk about. Realism suggests that one can be hopeful without being optimistic.. I haven't seen any cause for optimism.

There is no way 10 Republicans would vote for this Manchin bill, especially now that Stacey Abrams said it might be a good thing.  It's filibuster reform or nothing Senator Manchin.

[LFC]

We have a look behind the scenes at Manchin's thinking from a leaked call when he spoke to a wealthy donor group. I suspect he's going to shift little bit by little bit for two years at which point there's a high probability he will have single-handedly sacrificed much of the forward momentum of solving our nation's problems. The gains Republicans made in assaulting voting rights, ruling as a minority, and making sure their tax cuts mostly went to the wealthy will remain mostly intact. Thanks, Joe.

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, in a private call on Monday with a group of major donors, provided a revealing look at his political approach to some of the thorniest issues confronting lawmakers.

The remarks were given on a Zoom teleconference session that was obtained by The Intercept.

The meeting was hosted by the group No Labels, a big money operation co-founded by former Sen. Joe Lieberman that funnels high-net-worth donor money to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans. Among the gathering’s newsworthy revelations: Manchin described an openness to filibuster reform at odds with his most recent position that will buoy some Democrats’ hopes for enacting their agenda.

The call included several billionaire investors and corporate executives, among them Louis Bacon, chief executive of Moore Capital Management; Kenneth D. Tuchman, founder of global outsourcing company TeleTech; and Howard Marks, the head of Oaktree Capital, one of the largest private equity firms in the country. The Zoom participant log included a dial-in from Tudor Investment Corporation, the hedge fund founded by billionaire Paul Tudor Jones. Also present was a roster of heavy-hitting political influencers, including Republican consultant Ron Christie and Lieberman, who serves as a representative of No Labels and now advises corporate interests.

The meeting was led by Nancy Jacobson, the co-founder of No Labels.

The wide-ranging conversation went into depth on the fate of the filibuster, infrastructure negotiations, and the failed effort to create a bipartisan commission to explore the January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol, and offers a frank glimpse into the thinking of the conservative Democrat who holds the party’s fate in his hands.

Manchin told the assembled donors that he needed help flipping a handful of Republicans from no to yes on the January 6 commission in order to strip the “far left” of their best argument against the filibuster. The filibuster is a critical priority for the donors on the call, as it bottles up progressive legislation that would hit their bottom lines.

When it came to Sen. Roy Blunt, a moderate Missouri Republican who voted no on the commission, Manchin offered a creative solution. “Roy Blunt is a great, just a good friend of mine, a great guy,” Manchin said. “Roy is retiring. If some of you all who might be working with Roy in his next life could tell him, that’d be nice and it’d help our country. That would be very good to get him to change his vote. And we’re going to have another vote on this thing. That’ll give me one more shot at it.”

Regarding Blunt, Manchin appears to be suggesting — without, perhaps, quite explicitly saying so — that the wealthy executives on the call could dangle future financial opportunities in front of the outgoing senator while lobbying him to change his vote. Senate ethics rules forbid future job negotiations if they create a conflict of interest or present even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Manchin, notably, doesn’t suggest that the donors discuss a job, but rather says that people who Blunt may later be working with would be likely to have significant influence, reflective of the way future job prospects can shape the legislative process even when unspoken.

The commission, Manchin tells No Labels, is important in its own right, necessary to determine how security failed and what former President Donald Trump’s role was in the riot, if any. But it’s also critical to maintaining support for the filibuster. The January 6 commission got 56 votes, four short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster — a thorough embarrassment for those like Manchin who claim bipartisanship is still possible in the divided Senate chamber.

In June, he told CNN, when asked if he was committed to maintaining the 60-vote threshold, that he wanted to “make the Senate work,” a sentiment he repeated each time he was pressed. Once again, he followed it up with an op-ed, this time in the local Charleston Gazette-Mail, saying that he had no intention of weakening the filibuster.

Manchin’s openness for filibuster reform on the call is notable given it flew in the face of many attendees’ hopes. Asked about a proposal to lower the threshold to beat back a filibuster to 55 votes, he said that it was something he was considering, but then quickly referred back to his earlier idea of forcing the minority to show up on the Senate floor in large enough numbers to maintain a filibuster.

“That’s that’s one of many good, good suggestions I’ve had,” he said of lowering the cloture total from 60 to 55. Manchin went on to discuss the last time the cloture threshold was lowered, in the 1970s.

“I looked back … when it went from 67 votes to 60 votes, and also what was happening, what made them think that it needed to change. So I’m open to looking at it, I’m just not open to getting rid of the filibuster, that’s all,” he said.

Manchin acknowledged that publicly he had drawn a line at 60, but said that he was open to other ideas. “Right now, 60 is where I planted my flag, but as long as they know that I’m going to protect this filibuster, we’re looking at good solutions,” he said. “I think, basically, it should be [that] 41 people have to force the issue versus the 60 that we need in the affirmative. So find 41 in the negative. … I think one little change that could be made right now is basically anyone who wants to filibuster ought to be required to go to the floor and basically state your objection and why you’re filibustering and also state what you think needs to change that’d fix it, so you would support it. To me, that’s pretty constructive.”

[Traveler]

I am all for 41 votes that way. Not that it would make that much difference.

[goldenvalley]

All I see is that Manchin fails to recognize that the Republicans in the Senate are dedicated to the destruction and obstruction of anything suggested by Democrats. Those Senators aren't going to be moved by some vague suggestion that they'd get more money if they bent a little, probably because they know that the money for reelection will come from those billionaires anyway to keep taxes low and prevent further regulation.

[pnwguy]

Jun 23, 2021 15:55:31 GMT goldenvalley said:

All I see is that Manchin fails to recognize that the Republicans in the Senate are dedicated to the destruction and obstruction of anything suggested by Democrats. Those Senators aren't going to be moved by some vague suggestion that they'd get more money if they bent a little, probably because they know that the money for reelection will come from those billionaires anyway to keep taxes low and prevent further regulation.

From the standpoint of billionaires, isn't that the only thing politicians are good for?  Oh yeah, there is the occasional crony payout needed, like getting politicians to fund your stadiums or other business needs.

[LFC]

Do I really still loathe this guy all that much? (Checks latest headlines.) Yep, actually even more.

In the early hours of Friday morning, the news broke that Manchin told Democratic leaders Thursday that he would not support climate provisions in President Biden’s Build Back Better Act. (He also nixed his support for increased taxes on the wealthy, because he is leaning into being a cartoon villain.)

This is the culmination of months of cat-and-mouse behavior from Manchin, whose “maybe” vote has dragged out the passage of this package thanks to his deciding presence in a split Senate. In increasing fits of desperation, Democrats kept lowering their standards for Manchin’s preferences, gutting and slashing climate provisions left and right based on his whims—kind of like how you really want some guy to like you, so accept him coming over at weird hours, or not introducing you to his friends, or leaving you on read for days.

This dude is paid by fossil fuel interests that do not want to see meaningful climate action. A coal waste resale company owned by Manchin that feeds one (troubled) dirty plant has raked in $5 million in profits for the senator and his wife since 2010. Powerful electric utilities, several of which were opposed to certain renewable energy provisions in the Build Back Better Act, are also Manchin’s buddies, and have paid him handsomely for his service. In an exposé of Exxon’s lobbying practices aired last summer, a lobbyist for the company referred to Manchin as a “kingmaker” and said he spoke with his office every week; Exxon and trade groups it’s a part of have been powerful forces lobbying against Build Back Better. You can tell a lot about a guy by his friends, and if they’re all assholes who live large on dirty money, chances are he’s the same.

[goldenvalley]

Jul 15, 2022 18:40:56 GMT LFC said:

Do I really still loathe this guy all that much? (Checks latest headlines.) Yep, actually even more.

In the early hours of Friday morning, the news broke that Manchin told Democratic leaders Thursday that he would not support climate provisions in President Biden’s Build Back Better Act. (He also nixed his support for increased taxes on the wealthy, because he is leaning into being a cartoon villain.)

This is the culmination of months of cat-and-mouse behavior from Manchin, whose “maybe” vote has dragged out the passage of this package thanks to his deciding presence in a split Senate. In increasing fits of desperation, Democrats kept lowering their standards for Manchin’s preferences, gutting and slashing climate provisions left and right based on his whims—kind of like how you really want some guy to like you, so accept him coming over at weird hours, or not introducing you to his friends, or leaving you on read for days.

This dude is paid by fossil fuel interests that do not want to see meaningful climate action. A coal waste resale company owned by Manchin that feeds one (troubled) dirty plant has raked in $5 million in profits for the senator and his wife since 2010. Powerful electric utilities, several of which were opposed to certain renewable energy provisions in the Build Back Better Act, are also Manchin’s buddies, and have paid him handsomely for his service. In an exposé of Exxon’s lobbying practices aired last summer, a lobbyist for the company referred to Manchin as a “kingmaker” and said he spoke with his office every week; Exxon and trade groups it’s a part of have been powerful forces lobbying against Build Back Better. You can tell a lot about a guy by his friends, and if they’re all assholes who live large on dirty money, chances are he’s the same.

LGM always uses a picture of Manchin standing on his yacht when the post is about him.  Sums up the man...wealthy, self satisfied, completely self interested who loves to be a bomb thrower.  

[pnwguy]

Jul 15, 2022 18:45:09 GMT goldenvalley said:

Jul 15, 2022 18:40:56 GMT LFC said:

Do I really still loathe this guy all that much? (Checks latest headlines.) Yep, actually even more.

LGM always uses a picture of Manchin standing on his yacht when the post is about him.  Sums up the man...wealthy, self satisfied, completely self interested who loves to be a bomb thrower.  

LGM should alter the photo to make the ship name the SS Oxycontin, in honor of West Virginia

[LFC]

Jul 15, 2022 19:09:49 GMT pnwguy said:

Jul 15, 2022 18:45:09 GMT goldenvalley said:

LGM always uses a picture of Manchin standing on his yacht when the post is about him.  Sums up the man...wealthy, self satisfied, completely self interested who loves to be a bomb thrower.  

LGM should alter the photo to make the ship name the SS Oxycontin, in honor of West Virginia

They could also show it "rolling coal" since that's what he owns and what owns him.

[pnwguy]

Jul 15, 2022 19:44:52 GMT LFC said:

Jul 15, 2022 19:09:49 GMT pnwguy said:

LGM should alter the photo to make the ship name the SS Oxycontin, in honor of West Virginia

They could also show it "rolling coal" since that's what he owns and what owns him.

For all we know, the boat is steam powered and there's a man shoveling coal into the firebox down in the hold.  

[LFC]

Sanders is pissed at Manchin. I saw one headline that said something like "Manchin Torpedoes the Deal He Wanted." He's as slippery and fundamentally dishonest as he is corrupt.

Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) latest torpedoing of a deal carefully negotiated within the Democratic caucus provoked Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) very candid anger over the weekend.

Sanders appeared unable to contain his ire Sunday, cutting across ABC host Martha Raddatz as she characterized Manchin as “abruptly” pulling out of negotiations over a few pieces of the long-dead Build Back Better reconciliation bill.

“He didn’t abruptly do anything,” Sanders said. “He has sabotaged the President’s agenda.”

“If you check the record, six months ago, I made it clear that you have people like Manchin — Sinema, to a lesser degree — who are intentionally sabotaging the President’s agenda, what the American people want, what a majority of us in the Democratic caucus want. Nothing new about this,” Sanders continued. “And the problem was that we continued to talk to Manchin like he was serious. He was not.”

Sanders pointed out that Manchin is a “major recipient” of fossil fuel money, and that he’s received plentiful campaign donations from “Republican billionaires.”

The senator dismissed Manchin’s inflation concerns — the excuse Manchin provided for ending talks, though inflation had been high throughout months of negotiations — as “the same nonsense Manchin has been talking about for a year.”

“In my humble opinion, Manchin represents the very wealthiest people in this country, not working families in West Virginia or America,” Sanders added.

[LFC]

Manchin the conservationist, as long as its in his own back yard and keeps his real estate value up.

After refusing to support a stripped-down version of the reconciliation package to invest billions of dollars in federal funds to combat climate change and obstructing other federal efforts to protect the environment, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and his wife, Gayle Manchin, have directed millions of federal dollars to a region in West Virginia where the couple owns a condo, The Intercept reports.

"Hundreds of miles north of the coal communities decimated by the mountaintop removal mining that Manchin fostered in the state, the Manchins’ Canaan Valley residence sits in an unadulterated watershed, surrounded by the Dolly Sods Wilderness, the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, and Blackwater Falls State Park," The Intercept's Daniel Boguslaw writes.

According to Boguslaw, Manchin "used his spot on the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee" to secure $7 million in funds to rebuild the visitor center at the refuge, which is less than a mile from his condo. But despite his continued efforts to preserve the region, Boguslaw says that the West Virginia Senator has been "holding federal climate legislation hostage."

Gayle Manchin, who was appointed by Biden to head the Appalachian Regional Commission last year, recently secured another $25,000 in funding for source water analysis in the valley and a $1.2 million “POWER” grant to connect and improve trails in the area.

[LFC]

Oh, Joe. You're such a tool. Remember that these are the kinds of people you said the Dems should deal with in good faith. Welcome to reality.

Manchin Can’t Believe GOPers Are Acting In Bad Faith

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on Tuesday accused Republican senators of playing “revenge politics” with his permitting reform proposal aimed at speeding up the construction of energy projects–reforms that Republicans wanted until Manchin helped his fellow Democrats pass the climate bill.

[AnBr]

Minutes before he would have crashed and burned, Joe Manchin found an escape hatch

After 20 months as the focal point of the 50-50 Senate, the West Virginia Democrat found himself with only one good option as Republicans were set to defeat his signature energy permitting legislation: yank it from government funding legislation. The move kept alive Manchin’s top priority of speeding approval for energy projects, yet he has no guarantee that it will find a more welcome reception later this year.

Manchin’s permitting bill began as a coda to his outsized leverage in a Congress that found him playing decisive roles in everything from a bipartisan infrastructure law to post-Jan. 6 presidential certification reform to two massive Democratic-only bills. The centrist hatched a two-part deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer this summer: First Manchin would help pass a party-line climate, health care and tax bill, then Schumer would take up a plan to expedite big energy projects including West Virginia’s own Mountain Valley Pipeline.

But Manchin’s final major priority after a stretch in which everything broke his way needed the support of Republicans. And there were simply too many problems for him to solve in too short a time after releasing his legislation just last week. His home-state GOP colleague Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has her own permitting bill, and Republicans who want to defeat Manchin in 2024 largely have no desire to help him out of a jam.

[goldenvalley]

Sept 29, 2022 4:00:30 GMT AnBr said:

Minutes before he would have crashed and burned, Joe Manchin found an escape hatch

After 20 months as the focal point of the 50-50 Senate, the West Virginia Democrat found himself with only one good option as Republicans were set to defeat his signature energy permitting legislation: yank it from government funding legislation. The move kept alive Manchin’s top priority of speeding approval for energy projects, yet he has no guarantee that it will find a more welcome reception later this year.

Manchin’s permitting bill began as a coda to his outsized leverage in a Congress that found him playing decisive roles in everything from a bipartisan infrastructure law to post-Jan. 6 presidential certification reform to two massive Democratic-only bills. The centrist hatched a two-part deal with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer this summer: First Manchin would help pass a party-line climate, health care and tax bill, then Schumer would take up a plan to expedite big energy projects including West Virginia’s own Mountain Valley Pipeline.

But Manchin’s final major priority after a stretch in which everything broke his way needed the support of Republicans. And there were simply too many problems for him to solve in too short a time after releasing his legislation just last week. His home-state GOP colleague Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has her own permitting bill, and Republicans who want to defeat Manchin in 2024 largely have no desire to help him out of a jam.

You'd think he and Capito could work out a deal between them...they have the same constituency but perhaps not the same donors.

[AnBr]

Sept 29, 2022 14:07:19 GMT goldenvalley said:

You'd think he and Capito could work out a deal between them...they have the same constituency but perhaps not the same donors.

But perhaps many of the same. Don't forget that Manchin is deeply intertwined with fossil fuels.

[LFC]

Sept 29, 2022 14:07:19 GMT goldenvalley said:

You'd think he and Capito could work out a deal between them...they have the same constituency but perhaps not the same donors.

Finding a pro fossil fuel Republican to run against and potentially replace Manchin in West Virginia is not exactly a heavy lift. Better to wait until after his next election.