Joe Manchin says he wont vote for Sanders against Trump in 2020

Mar 2012
59,991
41,456
New Hampshire
Not really surprising.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he would not back Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a 2020 presidential match-up against President Trump.

Manchin told Fox News he would “absolutely not” support Sanders’ agenda, calling it “not practical where I come from.”

Manchin represents a state that Trump won in the 2016 race for the White House by 40 percentage points.

Manchin is critical of the "Medicare for All" plan championed by Sanders. “Bernie keeps saying ‘Medicare for All,’” he said. “I said, 'Bernie we can’t even pay for Medicare for some.'” Manchin's response comes after Sanders said in an interview with CNBC that he was confident Manchin, along with Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), would support his agenda.

 
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
Not really surprising.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said he would not back Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in a 2020 presidential match-up against President Trump.

Manchin told Fox News he would “absolutely not” support Sanders’ agenda, calling it “not practical where I come from.”

Manchin represents a state that Trump won in the 2016 race for the White House by 40 percentage points.

Manchin is critical of the "Medicare for All" plan championed by Sanders. “Bernie keeps saying ‘Medicare for All,’” he said. “I said, 'Bernie we can’t even pay for Medicare for some.'” Manchin's response comes after Sanders said in an interview with CNBC that he was confident Manchin, along with Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), would support his agenda.

It's not. Though to be honest, I believe it would be healthy for the Democratic Party to shed those conservative democrats who oppose a nationalized healthcare system. They're more of an impediment than an asset to their party in my view - and are really just political opportunists who enjoy playing at the edges to court partisans for their votes in exchange for favors in their districts to help them secure more local power for themselves. I've long believed Sanders would be the strongest candidate for the party and of whom has the best shot at defeating Trump. The further the Democratic Party runs from the corporate wing of its power structure the better off it will be, especially in the long tern. The Clinton/Manchin model is not strategy for success. And if the democrats continue to placate their liberal base with this ridiculous "electability" nonsense it will eventually bite them in the ass.

In short: the democrats need to stand for something. You can't win elections by just hating Trump and calling people racist. And that something the Democrats need to stand for is a nationalized healthcare service that all Americans have access to. That's what liberals have been after for basically my entire life. It's also the issue that put the Democrats back in charge of the House. It's as well something Obama said he supported when he ran for President (even though he caved to the Insurance Companies once elected). But putting that aside, he was still elected to the presidency even though he was on the record as supporting a single-payer nationalized healthcare system. So this partisan nonsense coming out of the DNC that democrats can't get elected if they support medicare for all is complete and utter BS. They're just in bed with corporate America, and their big donors don't want it. So It's time for democrats to decide who runs their party. Them or the corporations.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,566
4,501
California
It's not. Though to be honest, I believe it would be healthy for the Democratic Party to shed those conservative democrats who oppose a nationalized healthcare system. They're more of an impediment than an asset to their party in my view - and are really just political opportunists who enjoy playing at the edges to court partisans for their votes in exchange for favors in their districts to help them secure more local power for themselves. I've long believed Sanders would be the strongest candidate for the party and of whom has the best shot at defeating Trump. The further the Democratic Party runs from the corporate wing of its power structure the better off it will be, especially in the long tern. The Clinton/Manchin model is not strategy for success. And if the democrats continue to placate their liberal base with this ridiculous "electability" nonsense it will eventually bite them in the ass.

In short: the democrats need to stand for something. You can't win elections by just hating Trump and calling people racist. And that something the Democrats need to stand for is a nationalized healthcare service that all Americans have access to. That's what liberals have been after for basically my entire life. It's also the issue that put the Democrats back in charge of the House. It's as well something Obama said he supported when he ran for President (even though he caved to the Insurance Companies once elected). But putting that aside, he was still elected to the presidency even though he was on the record as supporting a single-payer nationalized healthcare system. So this partisan nonsense coming out of the DNC that democrats can't get elected if they support medicare for all is complete and utter BS. They're just in bed with corporate America, and their big donors don't want it. So It's time for democrats to decide who runs their party. Them or the corporations.
Right now ,the whackadoos run their party. Nut cases like AOC. Manchin won in a heavy Repub state because he can actually do what his STATE wants. Not his PARTY.
 
Jun 2014
51,588
53,399
United States
Moral of the story: A politician shouldn't presume to claim endorsements that haven't been offered.
 
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
Right now ,the whackadoos run their party. Nut cases like AOC. Manchin won in a heavy Repub state because he can actually do what his STATE wants. Not his PARTY.
That's true in a round about way. Manchin won in his state because he has fostered a lot of good will there. One of the reasons he is so effective at doing that is because he plays both sides of the political aisle which gives him a lot of leverage to get goodies for his State.
 

HayJenn

Former Staff
Jul 2014
72,651
63,975
CA
This may not be all that surprising, given that by most measures, Manchin is the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. In fact, he’s just about the only Democrat who could win statewide in West Virginia, which Donald Trump won in 2016 by 42 points. Nevertheless, the appropriate thing for even a Democrat from West Virginia to say is not “It wouldn’t be Bernie” but “It wouldn’t be Trump.”

By the way, West Virginia is the poorest state in the country, so you could argue that Manchin’s constituents would benefit more than anyone else from Democratic agenda items such as universal health coverage, universal pre-K, enhanced workers’ rights and a higher minimum wage. How much is he really going to stand in the way of all that?

The answer is: probably quite a bit. Manchin’s entire political identity is built on being the guy who tells Democrats they’re being a bunch of dastardly libruls, and he has to pull the party to the right for its own good. Not only that, if he really holds the balance of power — if the Senate is 50-50, or if it’s 51-to-49 Democratic and he can join with another conservative Democrat (for instance, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, an unpredictable centrist who opposes getting rid of the filibuster), Manchin will have every incentive to throw sand in the gears of the party’s agenda.

That’s because if Manchin supports everything a President Sanders or a President Warren or a President Biden wants to do, he loses his power. He’d just be one vote out of 50 or so. If, on the other hand, he refuses to go along with health-care reform or whatever other bill is being debated, he immediately becomes the most powerful person in Congress. Democrats will have no choice but to give in and tailor their bills to Manchin’s liking if they don’t want the agenda to fail completely. And if he simply wants some part of that agenda to fail, he can make it happen.

 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,566
4,501
California
That's true in a round about way. Manchin won in his state because he has fostered a lot of good will there. One of the reasons he is so effective at doing that is because he plays both sides of the political aisle which gives him a lot of leverage to get goodies for his State.
Hmmmm… So ,as a Senator for his STATE ,he is actually getting "Goodies" for that selfsame State? Isn't that his JOB?
 
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
Hmmmm… So ,as a Senator for his STATE ,he is actually getting "Goodies" for that selfsame State? Isn't that his JOB?
I'm sure he would say so, along with nearly every other politician in congress.

My point was Machin plays both sides of the political aisle - which gives him far more power than he would otherwise have as a single senator from West Virginia. You can debate whether that's a calculated move on his part or not (I believe it is). He's one of those politicians who benefit from the aberration of partisan politics.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
12,566
4,501
California
I'm sure he would say so, along with nearly every other politician in congress.

My point was Machin plays both sides of the political aisle - which gives him far more power than he would otherwise have as a single senator from West Virginia. You can debate whether that's a calculated move on his part or not (I believe it is).
Perhaps if ALL of 'em did that something could be accomplished?
 
Nov 2014
32,118
6,291
North Carolina
Perhaps if ALL of 'em did that something could be accomplished?
I suppose that depends on what you want to see accomplished.

If you are a wanting to thwart a national healthcare service then Manchin could certainly help do that. But if you are wanting to pursue a national healthcare service then Manchin would be an impediment.

My point was I believe the democratic party would be better served politically to cast aside their conservative democrats because they do little more than water down their proposals in exchange for local investments.